McElhanney Victoria Road Traffic Plan

City of Revelstoke
Council Report
File No.: 5460-05/ENG 2015-04
To:
His Worship Mayor McKee and Members of City Council
From:
Mike Thomas P.Eng. ENV SP Director of Engineering and Development
Date:
18 April 2016
Subject:
Victoria / Mutas Intersection Conceptual Design
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT City staff be directed to proceed to preliminary design of the concept proposed in
Appendix A of McElhanneys Victoria/Mutas Intersection Improvement Conceptual
Design Brief.
CAO Comments:
Approved for Council consideration. AC
Background:
The City engaged McElhanney Consulting Services to provide engineering services on two
intersections in Revelstoke. The first project involves the Victoria/Mutas intersection, adjacent to
the Trans Canada Highway and several busy highway commercial businesses. The initial
concept, developed through many years of previous engineering reports, revised with input from
City staff and Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure staff, was modified and presented to
Council and the public in early March 2016, with an excellent level of community involvement.
Following these meetings, stakeholder and public feedback was gathered and reviewed by the
consulting team. The results of the review are presented in the attached Conceptual Design
Brief.
Options / discussion:
Public Questions
McElhanney responded to questions asked through this process, found in sections 3 to 5 of the
report:
-
Items Unclear to the Public

Comments with Significant Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI)
Involvement
Comments without Significant MoTI Involvement
Snow Removal
City of Revelstoke
Council Report
These sections provide answers to many of the issues heard at the public and stakeholder
events. The snow removal issue for a roundabout was often cited by the public as a reason that
the design would not work, McElhanney contacted over a dozen road authorities that have
roundabouts in snowbelt areas. The quotes from these authorities, provided on pages 9-11 of
the report, many from communities with comparable annual snowfalls to Revelstoke, speak to
the ability to provide a high level of service and safety at these intersections through proper
design and maintenance practices.
Many verbal comments were received at the open house stating that they supported the
concept.
Traffic Modelling
McElhanney completed traffic modelling for the existing and proposed intersection
configurations. Generally, the existing level of service during the peak hour is classed as E,
modelling indicated that with the proposed upgrades, this would improve to a Level of Service
B at the Victoria/Mutas Intersection.
Sustainability
One of the requirements of the City was to review the design from a sustainability lens. The
Engineering Department has adopted the Envision Rating System for evaluation of
infrastructure projects across a range of performance objectives. McElhanney has provided in
Appendix E of the report a brief review of the potential score of this project, noting that the
proposed design scores quite highly in Envision due to:
Reducing congestion
Increased pedestrian and cyclist safety
Improved stormwater management
Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Community and Stakeholder engagement processes
Preserving and improving the local character
Recommended Design
Taking the input received from stakeholders and the public, McElhanney made several changes
to the design presented to the public in early March. These proposed changes are shown in the
attached design sketch and include:
Improved pedestrian access to Tim Hortons, Shell and Super 8 with a sidewalk and
crosswalk.
Improved access to the frontage road for Tim Hortons, Shell and Super 8, particularly for
larger vehicles.
Installation of concrete median restricting turning movements near the Canadian Pacific
(CP) underpass.
Inclusion of a modest large vehicle parking area on the frontage road.
Removal of the future roundabout at Fraser Drive from the design plans.
City of Revelstoke
Council Report
Unresolved in the proposed design are the concerns of the businesses on the east side of
Victoria that are currently accessed off the highway by a left turn off Victoria to the Frontage
Road. The report suggests that these issues could be mitigated with a coordinated signage plan
from MoTI and the City assisting travelers in both directions on the highway to access these
businesses at the HWY 23N intersection, or if they have already turned onto Victoria, to take the
third exit at the roundabout ahead.
The proposed design offers the best solution, given the numerous site constraints and
competing stakeholder demands. It reflects many years of concept designs, community input,
and work with consulting engineers, MoTI staff and stakeholders. The primary objectives of
reducing congestion and improving safety are met with this design, with mitigation measures for
the businesses most impacted by the proposed changes.
Next Steps
City staff and McElhanney recommend that the design progress to the preliminary design phase
to ensure that improvements can be started in the fall of 2016. The preliminary design phase will
include close consultation with MoTI and the Insurance Corporation of BC on ensuring traffic
safety objectives are being met, and discussing potential funding opportunities. The City will
endeavour to ensure safe, legal access to all properties is provided and further stakeholder
engagement will take place to ensure issues raised are being mitigated or reduced through the
design process where possible.
Upon approval to proceed, City staff and McElhanney will produce a timeline of design phases,
tender period, and construction, with the aim that a portion of the work would be completed in
the Fall of this year, with the remainder in the Spring of 2017. As a preliminary plan, the
roundabout at Victoria and Wright Street would be completed in 2016, while the remainder of
the work on the west side of the railway underpass would be completed in 2017.
McElhanney and staff are working on an interim signage and line marking plan with some minor
road works to reduce the congestion around the properties on the West side of Victoria Road.
City staff are planning to arrange traffic control for the summer long weekends in 2016 as has
been provided in previous years.
Financial / Risk Implications:
Currently, McElhanneys Class D cost estimate for the work is $2.1M, which is based only on
previous projects of similar scope. This estimate is significantly higher than staffs pre-project
estimates, which were used to develop the capital budget. If Council is prepared to proceed with
this design but is cautious about the high cost estimate, it is recommended that decision making
on approval of the design, timing of construction and sources of funding be made when a class
B estimate can be produced, based on design drawings that will allow for unit price costs to be
estimated, this should be available prior to June 2016.
The 2016 capital plan has $1.2M allocated for this project, funded from DCCs and specific
contributions from neighbouring developments. The City had submitted a grant application
under the Gas Tax Strategic Priorities Fund for $1.2M which was unsuccessful. City staff will
City of Revelstoke
Council Report
continue to investigate funding opportunities, including MoTI and ICBC, while finalizing the
design and construction cost estimate.
The consulting and design project budget for the intersection and current status is as follows.
Note also that the due dates and budget costs may change if Council provides direction other
than the recommendation provided.
Task
Background Review
Feasibility Study/ Conceptualization
Preliminary Design
Detailed Design
Tender
Construction/Post Constr.
Due Date
Feb-16
Mar-16
May-16
Jun-16
Jul-16
Dec-16
Budget
Spent
%
$20,954
$18,995
$23,846
$21,932
$55,541
$18,773
$6,602
$123,791
-
91%
92%
-
Completion of the Preliminary Design will fill in many of the details required to adequately firm
up the cost estimate, allowing Council to adjust budgets or timeframes as required prior to
construction. Project phasing can also be considered to spread the costs out over several years.
Attachments:
Victoria/Mutas Intersection Improvement Conceptual Design Brief - McElhanney
Respectfully submitted,
Mike Thomas P.Eng. ENV SP Director of Engineering and Development
April 2016 Rev1
Victoria/Mutas Intersection Improvement

Conceptual Design Brief
Prepared for
Mr. Mike Thomas, P.Eng.
Director of Engineering and Development Services
City of Revelstoke
Photo from Columbia Shushwap Regional District
Prepared by
McElhanney Consulting Services

710 Laval Crescent
Kamloops BC V2C 5P3
2431-4780100
Contact: Elisa Becker, P.Eng., PMP

Tel: 250-434-9526
Email:ebecker@mcelhanney.com

Table of Contents
1. Background .......................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Stakeholder Engagement Strategy .................................................................................................. 4
3. Items Unclear to the Public ............................................................................................................... 4
4. Comments with Significant MOTI Involvement .............................................................................. 5
5. Comments without Significant MOTI Involvement ......................................................................... 7
6. Snow Removal .................................................................................................................................... 9
7. Traffic Modelling Analysis ............................................................................................................... 11
8. Sustainability Envision Rating ........................................................................................................ 12
9. Recommendations for Design........................................................................................................ 13
10. Next Steps......................................................................................................................................... 15
Appendices
A
B
C
D
E
F
Proposed Improvement Configuration

Traffic Modelling
Public Comments Original Documents
Public Comments Typed Summary
Sustainability Envision Rating
Phase 1 Construction
Page | 2

1. Background
The intersection of Victoria Rd/Bend Rd/Mutas Lp is routinely congested in the summer, confusing to
visitors, and is a safety concern. The congestion at the Victoria/Mutas intersection has previously been
studied extensively by both the City of Revelstoke (City) and the Ministry of Transportation and
Infrastructure (MOTI).
Previous studies and analyses include Revelstoke Comprehensive
Transportation Master Plan (2012), Traffic Contributions for Victoria/Mutas Memo (2012), Revelstoke
Crossing Traffic Review (2010), Mutas-Victoria Improvement Cost Estimate (2010), Mutas and Victoria
Draft Concept Sketches (2015), Mutas Service Road Traffic Study (2005), and Revelstoke Access
Management and Mobility Study (2011). These previous studies and analyses conclude that the root
cause of the congestion at this intersection, is due to allowing full movements at an intersection too
close to the highway. Full movements refers to allowing left turns, right turns, and through movements
at Mutas and Victoria. Traffic modelling has clearly indicated that the left turns and through
movements, at this intersection are the primary cause of the congestion. This congestion creates
extensive delays for the highway commercial business traffic and leads to backed-up traffic on the
highway, causing safety concerns for MOTI.
McElhanney was retained by the City of Revelstoke to confirm the feasibility of a preferred option that
had been previously selected, and move forward with design work.
This concept had a concrete median running the length of Victoria in between the Trans-Canada
Highway (TCH) and the CP crossing to eliminate the left turns and crossing traffic. This scenario
required two roundabouts located at the intersections of Victoria/Wright St and Laforme/Fraser, to
allow access to all businesses. Although this would be very effective in removing the problem
movements, it would require people from downtown Revelstoke that frequent these businesses to have
to cross the TCH, use the roundabout to turn around, and then go back through TCH signal to get back
to town. Similarly, highway traffic would have awkward movements. For example, a skier coming from
the east who intended to stop at Subway/Tim Hortons/Shell/Super 8, would turn left off the highway,
then have to go through the TCH light twice more before continuing to Revelstoke Mountain Resort.
To address these issues, McElhanney modified the concept to allow left turns out of Frontage/Bend
Rd, and into Mutas. This results in virtually unchanged access for Revelstoke residents, improved
service for Revelstoke-bound tourists and business travel. Highway traffic would find much smoother
access to the highway commercial businesses. This also eliminates the integrated need for the second
roundabout at Laforme/Fraser, making this an optional feature only.
For larger vehicles, accessing Bend Road is difficult, and once the median were built, impossible
due to the substandard geometry for these vehicles, which constantly damage the signs and other
roadside features. The City indicated the desire to disconnect and shorten Bend Rd due to steep
grades, difficulty maintaining the road, accident history, and that the sani dump may be relocated as
part of a separate project. McElhanney was able to take advantage of this closure by improving the
access concept to the east side businesses.
This input and feedback from MOTI were used to adapt the initial design and create the improvement
configuration presented at the stakeholder engagement meetings held in early March.
Page | 3

2. Stakeholder Engagement Strategy

The City released conceptual improvement configuration drawings to media outlets several days prior
to hosting two stakeholder meetings on March 2, 2016. The first meeting held was with the Mayor,
Council, and business owners located at Victoria/Mutas and included a presentation outlining the
design approach, timing, and conceptual level cost estimates. The second meeting was open to the
Revelstoke community and included display boards and a FAQ, with City staff and McElhanney
engineers available to explain the proposed improvements and answer questions. The City collected
written comments from the community and forwarded them to McElhanney. The written public
comments received are located in Appendix C. For easier review, the comments are typed into a list,
located in Appendix D for reference.
Due to the highly technical nature of the traffic operational analysis, a knowledge of specialized
technical methodologies, traffic standards, laws, and engineering practices is needed. Along with
valuable feedback on the concept presented, it is common to receive design suggestions that do not
meet the technical requirements or transportation planning objectives. McElhanney and the City were
very pleased at the level of community engagement for this project and the amount of feedback
received. McElhanney thoroughly analyzed each of the comments and incorporated as much of the
feedback gathered during the stakeholder engagement process as possible to optimize the intersection
improvement configuration
McElhanney feels it important to respond to as much of the feedback as possible, and has grouped
the most commonly suggested ideas into themes to manage this information. The comments below
are intended to explain the related traffic management issues. We note that many verbal comments
received at the open house simply stated support for the concept presented. We also noted that
several people expressed concern that the City must not allow a few influential stakeholders to have
disproportionate influence in determining the best interests of the Community as a whole.
3. Items Unclear to the Public

Upon review of the public comments, McElhanney found recurring issues that were unclear to the
public during the stakeholder engagement process. Using the feedback to determine items that were
unclear to the public is very valuable because it allows the City to understand public perception and
identify areas where the City can focus educational efforts. These are summarized as follows:
1. Many years of work have been completed on this intersection, including causes and solutions
analysis. This is valuable work and forms the basis for the current work.
2. McElhanneys role is to move one preferred concept forward to design and construction within
the boundaries of sound engineering, not to analyze many new and previously-analyzed
options.
3. The intersection congestion is caused primarily by left turns into Frontage/Bend Rd from
Victoria Rd, not by the highway intersection, so changes to the highway will not solve this
problem.
Page | 4

4. The highway intersection is operationally optimized; MOTI is not planning to make changes to
the physical intersection, or to the signal operation. The Ministrys interest in this project is for
the improved safety through eliminating backed-up traffic on the highway.
5. This project scope includes improvements to Victoria Road and related accesses and does
not include ideas outside the scope of this project, such as changes to the CP crossing, grade
concerns at the highway, etc.
6. Having an intersection too close to the TCH is not unique to Revelstoke, and the solutions in
other areas often involve locating traffic movements (conflict points) further from the highway
to improve stacking distances, which is key to successful improvements in this location.
7. The City was looking to relocate the sani dump independently from this project.
8. Bend Rd has experienced safety and maintenance problems so the City would like it removed
as part of this project.
4. Comments with Significant MOTI Involvement

There were many public comments received that involve modifications to the highway. Although these
modifications are not in MOTIs plans at this time, it was valuable feedback to gauge public perception
and to discuss MOTIs future plans for the TCH. MOTI was present during the stakeholder meetings
on March 2, 2016 and heard many of the comments and questions firsthand. McElhanney met with
MOTI staff subsequent to receiving the written comments from the public and reviewed those
pertaining to MOTI. The following are comments with significant MOTI involvement and MOTI initial
feedback:
1. Construct a roundabout, overpass, underpass, bypass, and additional/alter signal phases on
the highway.
The highway intersection operation is optimized from MOTIs standpoint and functions as it
should based on actual traffic counts and highway design standards. The problem is not on
the highway, but on the municipal intersections adjacent to the highway. The existing highway
volumes do not warrant a highway overpass, underpass, or bypass at this time, and these are
not MOTIs plan at this time. Additionally, roundabouts do not give priority to certain legs of
the roundabout which is not acceptable to MOTI as the TCH must receive priority. Therefore,
the highway modifications suggested by the public will not be pursued as they do not solve the
cause of Revelstokes congestion and are outside the Citys jurisdiction.
2. Alter the highway signals or use sensors on Victoria to control traffic flow onto Victoria.
The highway intersection is optimized. Shortening or lengthening the SB left onto Victoria will
not alter the unrestricted traffic flow SB right from the highway. The same volume of cars will
enter Victoria, and the same volume of cars will be congested at the Mutas intersection as
long as all movements are allowed.
3. Signalize Mutas intersection.
This would create backup onto the highway during red conditions on SB Victoria, and so is
rejected in principle.
4. Determine plans to move TCH in the future.
Page | 5

MOTI does not have plans to move the highway in the location of TCH and Victoria. Historic
drawings showing the TCH moved from its current location at the Victoria Rd intersection are
not up-to-date nor part of MOTIs current plan.
5. Roundabout at Mutas intersection.
A roundabout located at the Victoria/Mutas intersection would be substandard in several ways.
It would be too close to the highway and would provide insufficient stacking distance, resulting
in similar issues (although eased somewhat) to the current situation. Specifically, a red signal
for Victoria NB at the highway would cause backups into the roundabout which could quickly
back up all the way around and into the SB lanes similar to the current problem. A multi-lane
roundabout would partially resolve this issue, but the increase in size from one to two-lane
roundabouts is substantial and this would not fit in the space available.
A signal at Mutas would have a similar outcome, and is rejected in principle since it would
create forced traffic stacking back onto the TCH.
6. Traffic signal for NB Victoria only.
The purpose of this suggestion is to stop traffic from travelling NB on Victoria before it reaches
Mutas, somewhere north of the CP underpass, to make gaps in NB traffic for the left turns into
the eastside businesses, and thereby allow the SB backups to clear.
For a traffic signal to be visible past the CP underpass, it would be located near Mutas. With
a red signal stopping NB Victoria traffic, there would be nothing to indicate to SB Victoria
drivers that they have protected turning movements. All they would see is opposing traffic
stopped with no indication of why they are stopped or when they would begin driving again.
For this reason, a second light facing SB Victoria traffic would be required to indicate a green
light allowing the left turn onto Frontage/Bend Rd. This second light would also require a
yellow and red phase to allow NB Victoria traffic to travel into or past the Mutas intersection.
This creates a red light condition for SB Victoria traffic, which is rejected in principle by MOTI.
Not only is this rejected by MOTI, but it is not sound engineering and creates additional
problems instead of solving the root cause of the congestion.
It may be suggested to signalize only the left turn from SB Victoria to Frontage/Bend Rd to
account for this, but leave a constant green through signal for SB traffic. However, this would
require a physical separation of the two lanes which would be confusing if it were feasible to
build, which it is not due to the distance constraints. Further, this retains the left turns stacking
back toward the highway.
Another suggestion may be to signalize the Victoria/Wright St intersection, in order to create
the desired traffic gaps in NB Victoria traffic. This also does not solve the problem, as it does
not affect the cause of the problems, which is traffic that would not be found at this intersection
NB traffic from town is not a high volume, it just backs up at peak times due to the gridlock
at the Mutas intersection.
Coordinating the signal timings is also problematic because the highway, being the primary
route has much longer green time than the side street Victoria. The left turn off the highway
(long green phase) would require equally long red time for NB Victoria, which would also have
Page | 6

to apply to the Mutas loop and left turns to access SB Victoria. In other words, the left turn into
the eastside businesses would receive priority at the same level as the highway green time,
to the exclusion of all other movements, which would exacerbate things for all other traffic.
Furthermore, the signals at the TCH/Victoria and TCH/Hwy 23 intersections are already
coordinated, so adding an additional signal would require a more sophisticated, costly system
with central management.
5. Comments without Significant MOTI Involvement

We received many valuable comments and incorporated as much feedback as possible to optimize
the recommended intersection improvement configuration. A full list of comments are included in
Appendix D, but the following section represents prevalent comments received that do not significantly
involve MOTI and are not addressed the previous section.
Remove all or most access from Victoria Rd to Frontage/Bend Rd and direct all traffic bound
for those businesses through Hwy 23 exit.
This was a common suggestion received in one form or another. The purpose is to distribute
traffic more evenly between the TCH intersections of Victoria and Hwy 23. Basically, to access
Subway/Tim Hortons/Shell/Super 8, vehicles would only use Hwy 23 and the Frontage Rd.
There would be no access from Victoria. In principle, this could be supported by MOTI and
traffic engineering principles as it would reduce congestion at Mutas due solely to volume
reduction from TCH to Victoria Rd. Traffic would be directed with signage indicating access
to those businesses is by the Hwy 23 intersection only. Although this may help to reduce
confusion, if drivers miss the exit, they would be unlikely to turn around and come back up the
hill to the Hwy 23 exit to access the businesses. It is unlikely that this would be acceptable to
the businesses. Further evaluation of this option is not included in McElhanneys scope at this
time.
One or two left turning lanes on SB Victoria turning into Frontage/Bend Rd.
There is insufficient weaving length for traffic to weave/merge from TCH to Mutas. This does
not meet transportation design standards and will not be pursued.
Create one large loop connecting Woodenhead to Bend and Frontage.
This option presents a number of challenges, in addition to creating an unconventional
entrance to the town. Convenient customer accesses is important to the businesses and
directing all traffic around one large loop would introduce additional confusion for example
all traffic would pass by McDonalds driveway before ever catching sight of the Tim Hortons.
This creates a longer travel path than the proposed configuration for business customers. The
loop would comprise significant elevation differences to the east, complicating its operation.
Depending on the final configuration and new access points, stacking for the red light phase
at the TCH could affect access operations. This suggestion will not be pursued under the
current scope of work.
Page | 7

Need pedestrian accommodation from TCH to Tim Hortons; consider pedestrian and cyclist
safety.
This is included in the updated configuration.
Regarding the roundabout, Revelstoke receives a lot of snow.
This was a frequent comment and is addressed in a separate section below.
Drivers ignore signs.
This was a frequent comment related to one way, do not enter and roundabout signs. One
way and do not enter signs are in widespread use in Canada; Revelstoke will not be unique
with these signs and thus this shouldnt be a concern. Furthermore, for traffic unfamiliar with
a roundabout ahead sign, it is irrelevant as traffic will have to move toward the roundabout.
So, whether or not they ignore the sign, they will have to drive through the roundabout to return
to the TCH.
Drivers cant see the roundabout so they will choose to stop at the businesses on the west
side of Victoria instead of the east side.
The CP rail underpass blocks immediate view of the proposed Wright Street roundabout.
When drivers enter Victoria Rd and see they cant turn left to enter the eastside businesses,
given the tight configuration they will have no time to change their minds and turn right into the
businesses on the west side. Customers desiring the east side businesses will have to
proceed to the roundabout to return to the highway, and will find their planned stop easily
accessible on the right.
A positive outcome of the roundabout located beyond the CP rail crossing is it creates a new,
significant opportunity for visitors to see Revelstoke beyond the businesses on the highway.
Grades are too steep at Wright St for a roundabout.
The roundabout grades can be designed within acceptable design standards at this location.
Improve existing blind corners.
The detailed design will incorporate this.
The CP crossing clearance is low.
The CP crossing is 4.42m on Victoria Rd. East of Revelstoke on the TCH the clearance is
4.3m. Logging trucks are known to exceed the 4.42m CP crossing height occasionally, striking
the bridge and losing loads. For this reason, the City is evaluating a traffic bylaw to restrict
over height loads.
We understand that highway trucks are routed onto Victoria and through this location in the
event of highway closures due to avalanches, collisions, etc.
Large vehicles and mill pole trucks need to drive through the roundabout.
Page | 8

The intersection improvements, including the roundabout, are designed to accommodate a

WB-20 vehicle. We have contacted the mill to determine their largest vehicle, which is a 60
Canadian Super B Flat Deck. The WB-20 is the governing vehicle in this case the WB-20
requires a larger area to maneuver than the mills largest vehicle; therefore, the current
improvement configuration accommodates mill truck traffic.
6. Snow Removal
One of the items the public commented on both in writing and verbally during the open house, was the
ability for the Citys road maintenance crews to effectively remove snow in roundabouts. McElhanney
included in the FAQ a statement that many snowy areas in Canada and America have roundabouts
and are able to maintain them during the winter. It appeared during the stakeholder engagement
process that the public wanted more specific information in order to be confident in the snow removal
process.
McElhanney contacted over a dozen municipalities and provincial/state transportation officials in
Canada and America that have roundabouts and are located in snowy areas. We asked them two
simple questions, Are you able to effectively remove the snow in the roundabouts located at __? and,
Any other comments on snow removal in roundabouts? We were surprised at the overwhelming
number of responses received from our inquiries. The majority of responses confirmed roundabout
snow removal is as easy as or easier than a traditional intersection. America has more examples of
roundabouts in snowy areas, so many of the responses are from American transportation and public
works officials. However, we contacted as many officials from roundabouts located in comparable
snowy areas in Canada as were known and available. For comparison, Revelstoke receives an
average annual snowfall of 355cm based on 13 years of data available on the Citys site.
The following are direct quotes from the officials we contacted:
We have had similar concerns over roundabouts since we began to implement them through
Jefferson County about a decade ago. Our plow drivers were convinced that concrete curbs
and islands would routinely be destroyed by plowing efforts. Drivers were also concerned
about the intersection being clogged with snow and the difficulty of clearing snow from the
roundabouts. In all actuality, my drivers spend far less time with a roundabout than a
conventional intersection. After years of service, we have not lost any significant concrete due
to plowing efforts. Our engineers have done a great job in designing our roundabouts to calm
traffic while still allowing larger vehicles to navigate around them. Andy Rohwer, Senior
Supervisor Jefferson County Colorado Road and Bridge District 3, Evergreen, Colorado
(annual snowfall 346 cm).
The Michigan Department of Transportation's Superior Region has one modern roundabout
on the state trunkline in Marquette, constructed in 2010, and another planned to begin
construction this spring in nearby Ishpeming. Both of these sites are in the Lake Superior's
lake effect snow belt and get plenty of precipitation every winter -- the average snowfall in
Marquette County is around 4.5 meters. A testimonial from Marquette's Director of Planning
and Community Development, Dennis Stachewicz Jr., probably sums up best how the winter
plowing concerns raised by an initially skeptical public have not been borne out in an article
for "The Bridge" magazine http://michiganltap.org/sites/ltap/files/publications/bridge/Bridge27Page | 9

4.pdf Stachewicz said there have been no problems with snow removal. In fact it might be
better than before. The snow plow guys are pretty happy. According to the Frequently Asked
Questions on our MDOT website, there is some initial adjustment in procedures for snowplow
crews, but roundabouts generally present no major problems for snow removal. In Wisconsin,
for example, one truck will start on the truck apron and plow around the roundabout to the
outside, while another truck will plow each entry and exit, pushing the snow to the outside.
Roundabouts make it easier to turn snowplows as well. Daniel Weingarten,
Communications Representative, Ishpemig, Michigan (roundabout location annual snowfall
450 cm).
Typically the roundabouts are easier to plow then arterial intersections with turn lanes, since
the plow operator can traverse it multiple times until cleared. Intersections with turn lanes
often involve backtracking to plow. We have had issues with the splitter islands being hit by
snowplows, requiring expensive repairs. These minor issues with deicing and snow removal
are more than made up for by the efficiency and safety of our roundabouts. Weve had a
combined 30 years of experience with our 3 roundabouts and have yet to have an injury
accident. Alex Ariniello, Public Works and Utilities Director, Superior, Colorado (annual
snowfall 165 cm).
We have not one bit of problem clearing the snow, even with larger snowfalls. The roundabout
has never been closed due to snow. Casey Coleman, Public Works, Park City, Utah (annual
snowfall 1,044 cm).
For snow removal we take it out of the centre and move out and use a big blower for large,
quick snowfall events. In 6 years we have had no issues once we got our technique down.
Victor Anello, Public Works, Northbay, Ontario (annual snowfall 300 cm).
The City of Batavia has one single lane roundabout that was constructed in 2009 at the
intersection of NYS Rt. 33 and NYS Rt. 98. I am sure we heard similar concerns as you are
currently fielding from both the public and staff. Plowing was one of those concerns. We
have not had any issues when it comes to plowing. The expected learning curve was pretty
much non-existent. The drivers picked up the plowing of a circle right the first time through.
We did not have to get any special equipment and used the equipment we currently had in
stock, we did not have to make a special assignment for the roundabout either. We really
appreciate the roundabout. It moves more traffic and reduces congestion. It has eliminated
all T-Bone accidents where this was considered a dangerous intersection prior to the
roundabouts installation. It will take the public sometime to get used to it but most catch on
quick. Raymond Tourt, Superintendent of Maintenance, Batavia, New York (annual snowfall
360 cm).
The City of Steamboat Springs currently has two roundabouts. We do not remove any snow
from the center islands as they are landscaped. All of the snow is plowed away from the center
to the outsides. To answer your question, we are able to effectively plow these. The biggest
issue we have is drainage. Our roundabouts shed the water across the drive lanes which
causes icing issues and premature asphalt failure. David Van Winkle, Street
Superintendent, Steamboat Springs, Colorado (annual snowfall 413 cm).
Page | 10

We have been snow clearing this roundabout for 2-3 years now with no issues. However it
should be noted that the center island has concrete curb and gutter around the entire
circumference which is mountable style that allows our snow clearing equipment to go onto
the island while removing snow from the street. Jason Phillips, Manager of Roads Division,
St. Johns, Newfoundland (annual snowfall 322 cm).
Snowplowing was an initial concern with plowing crews when roundabouts were first
constructed. However, plowing snow at a roundabout has generally been a non-issue for
Wisconsin snow removal crews. I have included testimonial in the video found from WisDOTs
website.
Look
for
the
11:10
video
at
juncture
7:42
to
8:05
http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/safety/safety-eng/roundabouts/works.aspx Paul Vraney,
Roadway Design Standards Engineer, Madison, Wisconsin (annual snowfall up to 425 cm).
Snow removal is really not an issue. We had a couple complaints the first year as we learned
what frequency was needed. Dan Werner, Public Works, Middlebury, Vermont (roundabout
location annual snowfall 295 cm).
Il ny a aucun problme enlever la neige. Lquipement utilis est ass large pour dneiger
le rond-point en un passage. De plus, lutilisation du sel de voirie fait en sorte que la neige
fond trs rapidement. Je vous recommande fortement lutilisation des ronds-points afin de
faciliter la circulation automobile. Translation: There is no problem to remove snow. The
equipment used is large enough to plow the roundabout in one pass. In addition, the use of
road salt causes the snow to melt very quickly. I strongly recommend the use of roundabouts
to facilitate traffic. Steeve Seguin, Chef de division voirie et signalization [Head of Highways
and signaling division], Saguenay, Quebec (annual snowfall 342 cm).
We are confident the information on snow removal contained in this memo is sufficient to educate and
reassure the public that effective snow removal in roundabouts is occurring in snowy areas in North
America; and that the City of Revelstokes road maintenance crew will be as effective as any of the
crews mentioned above.
7. Traffic Modelling Analysis

Traffic modelling was completed for two scenarios using Vissim software to calculate the expected
queue lengths and Level of Service (LOS). For the existing Mutas intersection, traffic modelling (and
local experience) indicates traffic is backed up from Mutas to the highway during the peak hour on the
peak day. The traffic model for the proposed improvement configuration indicates there will be no
traffic stacking at Mutas, which makes sense as all traffic is either making a right turn or is going
straight, and there is no opposing traffic to wait for. For the proposed Frontage Rd design, traffic
modelling indicates an average stacking of 2 cars during on the peak day, peak hour, with a very short
time period stacking of 13 cars maximum. The Mutas/Woodenhead Lp is also improved with the
proposed design. Currently during the peak hours of the peak day, the queue backs up more than half
the loop with over 20 vehicles on average queued, and the loop completely overwhelmed as a
maximum. The traffic modelling for the proposed design shows the average queue is reduced by 17
vehicles to 3 cars. Maximum stacking could reach 17 vehicles.
Page | 11

The LOS for the existing Victoria/Mutas intersection according to traffic modelling is an E during the
peak hour, peak day. The traffic modelling for the proposed design indicates a significant improvement
to a LOS of B.
It should be noted that until drivers become accustomed to the new traffic pattern and roundabout,
queues longer than those modeled can occur, but even if minor stacking occurs initially, the proposed
design will significantly reduce congestion and traffic queues at Victoria/Mutas.
The traffic modelling results are in Appendix B.
8. Sustainability Envision Rating

McElhanney reviewed the Envision Rating system as required for the project and rated this proposed
improvement configuration, focusing on the Quality of Life section. While the City doesnt intend to
seek certified Envision Rating for this project, we will refer to the ranking system for relevant
performance objectives to support decisions throughout the design and construction phases of work,
contributing to triple-bottom-line sustainability. The Quality of Life Envision Rating Table is shown
below and the full points table is included in Appendix E along with a discussion of performance
objectives.
The proposed improvement configuration achieves high rating on the Envision Rating Table,
particularly with regard to the following:
Reduces congestion and increases traffic mobility.
Increases pedestrian and cycling safety.
Reduces greenhouse gas emissions since roundabout are documented to reduce GHGs by
33% compared to traditional intersections.
Converting a traditional intersection into a roundabout has been proven to reduce the severity
of collisions, and will therefore enhance public safety.
Includes community stakeholder involvement.
Improves stormwater management and climate change adaption by converting unnecessary
impervious road segments to permeable landscaped areas.
Preserves local character through landscape features and drawing visitors further into town.
The full Envision Rating discussion, including additional Envision areas are included in Appendix E.
Page | 12

9. Recommendations for Design

The recommended improvement configuration is shown in Appendix A. McElhanney incorporated the
valuable feedback gathered during the stakeholder engagement process to optimize the intersection
improvement configuration, including improved connectivity with the Frontage Rd, accommodation for
large trucks and RVs to turn out of Frontage Rd, a sidewalk for pedestrians crossing from TCH to the
eastside businesses, concrete median restricting turning movements near the CP rail crossing, small
area of large vehicle parking on the Frontage Rd similar to Woodenhead Lp, and deferral of the
potential future roundabout at Fraser Dr. Truck turning templates are located in Appendix A also,
showing the turning movements of a large fuel truck and WB-20 able to make similar movements they
make currently.
We understand the businesses located on the eastside of Victoria are concerned about business
impacts. A mitigation measure may be to work with MOTI to add signage on the highway east of the
Hwy 23 intersection. The signage could have the businesses listed (Shell, Tim Hortons, Subway, and
Super 8) directing traffic to take the next left at the Hwy 23 intersection. This would serve two
purposes: mitigate potential impacts to the businesses and reduce vehicular volume at the Victoria Rd
intersection. The recommended improvements would retain their access from Victoria regardless.
Regarding accesses, the Super 8 Motel presently uses Tim Hortons/Shells driveway for access. The
recommended improvement configuration maintains the access in the same location. It is assumed
Super 8 has an access agreement with Tim Hortons/Shell to use the driveway located on Tim
Hortons/Shells property. Should an access within Super 8s property boundary be necessary in the
future, an access can be added from Bend Rd at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac.
Pedestrian accommodation from TCH to the Tim Hortons/Shell parking lot is shown on the
recommended improvement configuration. There were a number of constraints that guided the
pedestrian crossing to its location shown, primarily related to the location of the current TCH crosswalk
and the location of the parking lot driveway. The existing TCH crossing aligns with the middle of the
driveway, so currently pedestrians are directed toward the middle of the driveway, with multiple
directions of traffic to consider. Grades become a challenge further away from both sides of the
driveway, so the pedestrian crossing needs to be very close to the driveway. Although nonperpendicular crossings are generally avoided in transportation engineering, this is a case of trying to
direct pedestrians to the safest crossing location. When snow covers the zebra line painting, the
physical barriers will direct pedestrians to cross in the proposed location. The type of physical barrier
that allows for snow clearing, and fine tuning of details will occur in the next phase of design.
This proposed configuration incorporates years of previous work on this intersection as well as current
stakeholder feedback, and meets the City of Revelstokes primary objectives of reducing congestion
and improving safety. For these reasons, McElhanney recommends proceeding with the current
improvement configuration.
Page | 13

10. Construction Sequencing

For sequencing, the roundabout must be complete first, since it is necessary once the medians are in
place on Victoria. Based on the expected timing of Council approval for the proposed improvement
configuration, we recommend the construction be done in two phases in order for the full intersection
improvements to be complete in time for summer 2017. Phase 1 construction includes the roundabout
and temporary lane changes on Woodenhead proposed by the City. The temporary lane changes are
shown on the sketch located in Appendix F, and comprise exchanging existing parking with temporary
additional lanes. The purpose is to ease traffic flow and provide additional vehicle storage on
Woodenhead until the full intersection improvement configuration is constructed. The temporary lane
changes will help mitigate impacts from the additional Petro-Canada and Starbucks traffic. Phase 2
construction includes the remaining Victoria, Woodenhead Lp, Bend Rd, and Frontage Rd
construction. Phase 1 construction (roundabout and interim lane changes) is planned to be completed
by October 31, 2016. Phase 2 construction is planned for early in the 2017 construction season, so
the full improvements will be in place prior to heavier summertime traffic volumes. Due to construction
timeframes and avoiding construction at Victoria/Mutas during peak summer times, unless the
roundabout is constructed in 2016, it is unlikely the full intersection improvements will be complete until
end of the construction season in 2017, causing congestion and safety issues to remain for the next
two summers.
We have assessed the risk for only completing part of the roundabout construction before the winter
snowfall ends the construction season. The risk is directly related to schedule, so we have created a
fast-tracked Phase 1 schedule with 3-4 weeks of float during design and construction as a contingency
measure. Obtaining approval by May 2 is critical to completing Phase 1 construction this year. The
following schedule is intended to mitigate the risk associated with completing only a portion of the
roundabout.
City approval for roundabout
May 2
Roundabout tender ready
June 20
Tender start
July 4
Tender close
July 25
Commence construction
August 1
Construction complete
October 31
There are a number of advantages with completing the roundabout this year. It allows drivers to
become accustomed to the roundabout prior to the medians being installed. The Victoria/Wright St
intersection has comparatively low volumes, so construction can take place in late summer, and there
is sufficient room for detours around the construction site.
Page | 14

11. Next Steps

McElhanney recommends information from the contents of this memo be circulated to the public in
response to the stakeholder feedback received. In addition, much work has been done already in
areas with roundabouts to educate the public. Of the many videos and online tutorials on roundabout
usage we recommend the following video http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/safety/safetyeng/roundabouts/works.aspx provided by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, due to its
comprehensive coverage on roundabout safety, design, large truck traffic, snow plowing, and public
perception.
The intersection improvement configuration has not changed significantly since the previous Class D
cost estimate was in the range of $2.1M. Once the proposed configuration is approved, McElhanney
will prepare a detailed Class B cost estimate during preliminary design to assist in meeting funding
requirements.
McElhanney recommends the proposed intersection improvement configuration be approved by
Council and that preliminary design commences. To meet the Citys goal to begin construction on the
improvements this year will require prompt forward movement by all parties involved in this project.
Page | 15

Appendix A
Proposed Improvement Configuration
Page | 16

Appendix B
Traffic Modelling
Page | 17
Vissim Intersection Level of Service Report
Mutas Intersection Design - Revelstoke, BC

Intersection #:
Hwy 1 / Laforme Blvd-Victoria Rd

Demand
Volume
128
795
329
1,252
380
134
221
735
125
925
220
1,270
130
206
43
379
3,636
Direction
Movement
Right
Hwy 1
Through
( B)
Left
B Subtotal
Right
Through
Victoria Rd
Left
( B)
B Subtotal
Right
Through
Hwy 1
Left
( B)
B Subtotal
Right
Laforme Blvd Through
Left
( B)
B Subtotal
Total Intersection
TYPE:
Intersection #:
Signal
Volume Served
Average
%
89
69.5%
551
69.3%
225
68.4%
865
69.1%
367
96.6%
129
96.3%
207
93.7%
703
95.6%
122
97.6%
920
99.5%
216
98.2%
1,258
99.1%
128
98.5%
207
100.5%
43
100.0%
378
99.7%
3,204
88.1%
Standard Deviation
Total Delay (sec/veh)

Average
LOS
70.1
110.7
348.8
168.4
F
5.2
35.0
35.1
19.5
B
5.2
19.7
45.3
22.7
C
6.6
48.8
36.0
33.0
C
62.6
E
GEH
11.9
1.2
0.3
0.1
7.4
3.9
Bend Rd-Mutas Loop / Victoria Rd
Direction
Movement
Right
Bend Rd
Through
( B)
Left
B Subtotal
Right
Through
Victoria Rd
Left
( B)
B Subtotal
Right
Through
Mutas Loop
Left
( B)
B Subtotal
Right
Through
Victoria Rd
Left
( B)
B Subtotal
Total Intersection
TYPE:
Existing Peak Summer
SSSC
Demand
Volume
153
11
24
188
65
402
38
505
57
21
180
258
176
318
166
660
1,611
Volume Served
Average
%
152
99.3%
12
109.1%
22
91.7%
186
98.9%
65
100.0%
396
98.5%
39
102.6%
500
99.0%
51
89.5%
18
85.7%
155
86.1%
224
86.8%
146
83.0%
268
84.3%
143
86.1%
557
84.4%
1,467
91.1%
Standard Deviation

Average
LOS
2.4
4.7
13.8
3.9
A
1.2
2.8
3.2
2.6
A
192.9
195.8
261.7
240.7
F
0.7
2.3
5.9
2.8
A
39.2
E
GEH
0.1
0.2
2.2
4.2
3.7
6.4
3/18/2016

Intersection #:
Wright St / Victoria Rd
Demand
Volume
Direction
Movement
Right
Through
Left
SB Subtotal
Right
Through
Victoria Rd
Left
( B)
B Subtotal
Right
Through
Wright St
Left
( B)
B Subtotal
Right
Through
Victoria Rd
Left
( B)
Subtotal
Total Intersection
TYPE:
Intersection #:

Average
LOS
448
69
517
44
98.5%
111.3%
100.0%
95.7%
0.2
1.5
0.3
1.9
50
96
40
359
51
95
35
306
102.0%
99.0%
87.5%
85.2%
4.1
3.1
0.5
0.1
341
85.5%
953
94.2%
Standard Deviation
0.2
0.6
SSSC
Volume Served
Average
%
455
62
517
46
399
1,012
GEH
0.0
0.1
A
A
3.0
1.9
0.1
Mutas Loop / Frontage Rd-Bend Rd
Direction
Movement
Right
Through
Left
SB Subtotal
Right
Through
Bend Rd
Left
( B)
B Subtotal
Right
Through
Mutas Loop
Left
( B)
B Subtotal
Right
Frontage Rd Through
Left
( B)
B Subtotal
Total Intersection
TYPE:
SSSC
Demand
Volume
Volume Served
Average
%

Average
LOS
GEH
19
19
126
19
19
113
100.0%
100.0%
89.7%
23.7
23.7
-0.2
0.0
126
252
169
114
227
168
90.5%
90.1%
99.4%
0.1
0.0
10.2
1.6
10.2
5.2
B
A
0.1
1.3
169
440
168
99.4%
414
94.1%
Standard Deviation
1.5
3/18/2016

Intersection #:
Route 23N-Bend Rd / Hwy 1
Direction
Movement
Right
Route 23N
Through
(SB)
Left
SB Subtotal
Right
Through
Hwy 1
Left
(WB)
WB Subtotal
Right
Through
Bend Rd
Left
(NB)
NB Subtotal
Right
Through
Hwy 1
Left
(EB)
EB Subtotal
Total Intersection
TYPE:
Signal
Demand
Volume
213
34
62
309
66
999
33
1,098
269
55
40
364
36
1,193
119
1,348
3,119
Volume Served
Average
%
82
38.5%
14
41.2%
24
38.7%
120
38.8%
55
83.3%
763
76.4%
27
81.8%
845
77.0%
272
101.1%
55
100.0%
40
100.0%
367
100.8%
124
344.4%
1,056
88.5%
152
127.7%
1,332
98.8%
2,664
85.4%
Standard Deviation

Average
LOS
514.1
270.0
251.2
433.0
F
73.0
228.9
70.8
213.7
F
5.7
36.6
156.3
26.8
C
2.4
7.8
27.2
9.5
A
95.8
F
GEH
12.9
8.1
0.2
0.4
8.5
16.7
3/18/2016

Intersection #:
Direction
Movement
Right
Hwy 1
Through
( B)
Left
B Subtotal
Right
Through
Victoria Rd
Left
( B)
B Subtotal
Right
Through
Hwy 1
Left
( B)
B Subtotal
Right
Laforme Blvd Through
Left
( B)
B Subtotal
Total Intersection
TYPE:
Intersection #:
Demand
Volume
128
795
329
1,252
380
134
221
735
125
925
220
1,270
130
206
43
379
3,636
Signal
Volume Served
Average
%
90
70.3%
569
71.6%
226
68.7%
885
70.7%
379
99.7%
137
102.2%
217
98.2%
733
99.7%
126
100.8%
918
99.2%
217
98.6%
1,261
99.3%
132
101.5%
205
99.5%
42
97.7%
379
100.0%
3,258
89.6%
Standard Deviation

Average
LOS
69.8
110.4
353.3
168.3
F
5.8
34.3
34.9
19.7
B
6.5
21.4
50.8
25.0
C
7.1
46.8
35.4
31.7
C
63.5
E
GEH
11.2
0.1
0.3
0.0
6.4
5.3
Rd-Mutas Loop / Victoria Rd
Direction
Movement
Right
Rd Through
( B)
Left
B Subtotal
Right
Through
Victoria Rd
Left
( B)
B Subtotal
Right
Through
Mutas Loop
Left
( B)
B Subtotal
Right
Through
Victoria Rd
Left
( B)
B Subtotal
Total Intersection
TYPE:
Preferred Plan Peak Summer
SSSC
Demand
Volume
153
Volume Served
Average
%
155
101.3%

Average
LOS
28.1
35
188
252
582
49
883
258
32
187
223
577
50
850
259
91.4%
99.5%
88.5%
99.1%
102.0%
96.3%
100.4%
42.7
30.6
0.7
4.2
4.7
3.3
29.0
258
176
484
259
145
415
100.4%
82.4%
85.7%
560
84.8%
1,856
93.3%
Standard Deviation
660
1,989
GEH
0.1
1.1
29.0
0.6
7.3
0.1
5.5
10.3
A
B
4.0
3.0
4.0
3/21/2016

Intersection #:
Direction
Victoria Rd
( B)
Wright St
( B)
Victoria Rd
( B)
Demand
Volume
Movement
Right
Through
Left
SB Subtotal
Right
Through
Left
B Subtotal
Right
Through
Left
B Subtotal
Right
Through
455
62
517
46
50
96
40
359
378
777
1,390
B Subtotal
Total Intersection
TYPE:
Intersection #:
Roundabout
Volume Served
Average
%
447
68
515
46

Average
LOS
98.2%
109.7%
99.6%
100.0%
21.6
22.1
21.7
5.8
49
98.0%
95
99.0%
34
85.0%
320
89.1%
353
93.4%
707
91.0%
1,317
94.7%
Standard Deviation
5.9
5.8
17.4
16.9
16.9
16.9
18.0
GEH
0.1
0.1
C
C
2.6
2.0
3.1
Direction
Movement
Right
Route 23N
Through
(SB)
Left
SB Subtotal
Right
Through
Hwy 1
Left
(WB)
WB Subtotal
Right
Through
Bend Rd
Left
(NB)
NB Subtotal
Right
Through
Hwy 1
Left
(EB)
EB Subtotal
Total Intersection
TYPE:
Signal
Demand
Volume
213
34
62
309
66
999
33
1,098
269
55
40
364
36
1,193
119
1,348
3,119
Volume Served
Average
%
87
40.8%
14
41.2%
25
40.3%
126
40.8%
55
83.3%
774
77.5%
25
75.8%
854
77.8%
269
100.0%
56
101.8%
40
100.0%
365
100.3%
128
355.6%
1,062
89.0%
155
130.3%
1,345
99.8%
2,690
86.2%
Standard Deviation

Average
LOS
491.5
232.3
259.3
416.6
F
79.6
233.5
73.2
218.9
F
6.0
36.2
157.3
27.2
C
2.1
7.4
26.8
9.1
A
97.2
F
GEH
12.4
7.8
0.1
0.1
8.0
11.7
3/21/2016
Vissim Intersection Queue Length Report
Intersection #:
Direction
Hwy 1
( B)
Victoria Rd
( B)
Hwy 1
( B)
Laforme Blvd
( B)
Intersection #:
Direction
Bend Rd
( B)
Victoria Rd
( B)
Mutas Loop
( B)
Victoria Rd
( B)
Movement
Right
Through
Left
Right
Through
Left
Right
Through
Left
Right
Through
Left

Queue
Storage
90
400
105
55
55
55
100
350
100
50
125
45
Average
0
170
410
5
20
20
0
15
20
0
20
5
Movement
Right
Through
Left
Right
Through
Left
Right
Through
Left
Right
Through
Left
Queue Length (m)

StDev
Max
0
30
142
415
14
450
1
95
2
115
2
115
2
40
1
120
6
140
0
25
5
105
0
30
StDev
9
98
0
13
13
13
98
81
114
9
22
10
Bend Rd-Mutas Loop / Victoria Rd

Queue Length (m)
StDev
Max
Queue
Storage
Average
20
0
25
140
160
55
200
StDev
35
43
25
200
205
3
3
326
350
404
3/18/2016
Intersection #:
Direction
Victoria Rd
( B)
Wright St
( B)
Victoria Rd
( B)
Intersection #:
Direction
Bend Rd
( B)
Mutas Loop
( B)
Frontage Rd
( B)
Movement
Right
Through
Left
Right
Through
Left
Right
Through
Left
Right
Through
Left
Average
20
10
80
75
0
0
0
0
20
5
4
5
StDev
Mutas Loop / Frontage Rd-Bend Rd
Movement
Right
Through
Left
Right
Through
Left
Right
Through
Left
Right
Through
Left
Queue Length (m)

StDev
Max
Queue
Storage
Queue Length (m)

StDev
Max
Queue
Storage
Average
115
15
75
65
15
StDev
3/18/2016
Intersection #:
Direction
Route 23N
(SB)
Hwy 1
(WB)
Bend Rd
(NB)
Hwy 1
(EB)
Movement
Right
Through
Left
Right
Through
Left
Right
Through
Left
Right
Through
Left

Queue Length (m)
StDev
Max
9
135
33
120
Queue
Storage
50
125
Average
110
60
75
380
85
45
100
0
255
0
0
5
0
33
0
0
1
25
410
20
50
70
9
3
8
10
19
35
400
65
0
5
5
0
2
2
15
130
50
9
28
16
StDev
5
29
3/18/2016
Intersection #:
Direction
Hwy 1
( B)
Victoria Rd
( B)
Hwy 1
( B)
Laforme Blvd
( B)
Intersection #:
Direction
Movement
Right
Through
Left
Right
Through
Left
Right
Through
Left
Right
Through
Left

Queue
Storage
90
400
105
55
55
55
100
350
100
50
125
45
Average
0
160
410
5
20
20
5
15
25
0
20
5
Queue Length (m)

StDev
Max
0
30
118
425
11
450
1
120
3
140
3
140
8
140
1
110
13
245
0
25
5
100
0
30
Movement
Right
Rd
Through
( B)
Left
Right
Victoria Rd
Through
( B)
Left
Right
Mutas Loop
Through
( B)
Left
Right
Victoria Rd
Through
( B)
Left
StDev
11
98
2
36
28
28
163
17
205
7
23
7
Rd-Mutas Loop / Victoria Rd

Queue Length (m)
StDev
Max
Queue
Storage
Average
95
15
100
10
20
200
0
15
0
10
0
135
2
47
StDev
3/21/2016
Intersection #:
Direction
Victoria Rd
( B)
Wright St
( B)
Victoria Rd
( B)
Intersection #:
Direction
Route 23N
(SB)
Hwy 1
(WB)
Bend Rd
(NB)
Hwy 1
(EB)
Movement
Right
Through
Left
Right
Through
Left
Right
Through
Left
Right
Through
Left
Average
200
25
170
33
65
25
155
45
20
245
33
Movement
Right
Through
Left
Right
Through
Left
Right
Through
Left
Right
Through
Left
Queue Length (m)

StDev
Max
Queue
Storage
StDev

Queue Length (m)
StDev
Max
8
135
37
120
Queue
Storage
50
125
Average
110
50
75
380
85
45
100
0
265
0
0
5
0
23
0
1
1
20
410
20
55
75
7
3
7
18
19
35
400
65
0
5
5
0
2
2
15
130
55
9
24
15
StDev
4
30
3/21/2016

Appendix C
Public Comments Original Documents
Page | 18
City of Revelstoke
P.O. Box 170, Revelstoke, British Columbia VOE 2SO
revels toke. ca
Mutas Intersection and Corridor Meeting

Preliminary Design Review
March2,2016
COMMENTS:
-\- a
("r\.o \ e
' s0-b\e .
-\-o
\-\- \ s
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
PUBLIC WORKS
(250) 837-3637
(250) 837-2001
works@revelstoke.ca
development@revelstoke.ca
-\-a
be
uer
FINANCE
(250) 837-2161
finance@revelstoke.ca
FIRE RESCUE
SERVICES
& CULTURE
PARKS, RECREATION
(250) 837-2884
fire@revelstoke.ca
(250) 837-9351
prc@revelstoke.ca
CORPORATE
ADMINISTRATION
(250) 837-2911
admin@revelstoke.ca
COMMUNITY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
(250) 837-5345
ced@revelstoke.ca
"""
5!J
$).
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

City of Revelstoke Victoria I Mutas Intersection Improvements
1. Q: What problems are we trying to solve? A: Traffic backup on the highway, congestion, accident potential,
unsafe pedestrian movements, and needing traffic control people in the summer.
2. Q: Is the roundabout at Wright St necessary? A: Yes, with the left turn into Tim Hortons/Shell/Super 8
removed, it allows traffic coming from the highway to access Tim Hortons/Shell/Super 8 safely.
3. Q: Who is providing input into the intersection improvements? A: City of Revelstoke, Ministry of
Transportation and Infrastructure, business owners, and the general public. McElhanney is the transportation
engineering consultant.
"
4. Q: Will this project be solely based on traffic engineering? A: Traffic engineering is important to the
improvement of the intersections; however, there are opportunities for attractive streetscaping, improving the
community entrance experience, branding Revelstoke, and inviting people further into Revelstoke by way of
the Wright St roundabout.
5. Q: Will this actually relieve congestion at Victoria/Bend Rd/Woodenhead? A: Yes, it significantly reduces
congestion (caused by left turns) as proven by detailed and reliable traffic modelling.
6. Q: Is the roundabout at Fraser/Laforme necessary? A: It is not required for the Victoria/Bend/ Woodenhead
access improvements, but it would improve safety and traffic flow north of the highway.
7. Q: Does the general public like roundabouts? A: Sometimes not at first, but there are many successful
examples of the public appreciating roundabouts after they get used to them, such as in Clearwater.
8. Q: Why not put a roundabout on the highway (like Clearwater)? A: The highway intersection is not causing the
problems - the primary cause is left turns at Victoria/Bend/Woodenhead, so putting a roundabout on the highway
would not solve the problems.
9. Q: Can a large semi truck get around the roundabouts? A: Yes, the roundabouts are designed to allow a 20
meter long truck to U-turn around the roundabout.
10. Q: Are the Revelstoke bears going to still be part of the entrance? A: The bears are shown in the 30
rendering; final configuration will be discussed as concepts are developed with further public input.
11. Q: What will the roundabout look like? A: Many communities use the centre of roundabouts to showcase
local character and artistry.
12. Q: Why close off Bend Rd? A: Closing this section of Bend Rd removes unnecessary traffic conflict points
and simplifies intersections.
13. Q: What will happen to the sani dump? A: The City has been evaluating sani dump relocation separately
from this project, but no decisions have been made.
14. Q: Why not have a big roundabout at Victoria/Bend Rd/Woodenhead? A: It would be too close to the
highway to meet current standards and would create additional problems on the highway.
15. Q: Are roundabouts appropriate for places with snow? A: Yes, there are many roundabouts in the snowy
regions of BC, Alberta, and the northern US, and maintenance crews effectively maintain them during winter.
16. Q: Are we just moving the problem down the road? A: No, removing left turns and creating additional spaces
between accesses eases the problem. Also, by relocating the majority of turning movements further away from
the highway, it provides more length of road for traffic to smooth out. It's a proven transportation design
principle and is the reason why the Ministry has minimum distances between highways and intersections.
City of Revelstoke
revelstoke .ca
Mutas Intersection and Corridor Preliminary

Design Review - Open House
March2,2016
COMMENTS:
----\
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
PUBLIC WORKS
FINANCE
FIRE RESCUE
SERVICES
PARKS, RECREATION
& CULTURE
CORPORATE
ADMINISTRATION
COMMUNITY
(250) 837-3637
(250) 837-2001
(250) 837-2161
(250) 837-2884
(250) 837-9351
(250) 837-2911
(250) 837-5345
works@revelstoke.ca
fire@revelstoke.ca
prc@revelstoke.ca
admin@revelstoke.ca
ced@revelstoke.ca
City of Revelstoke
P.O. Box 170, Revelstoke, British Columbia VOE 250
revelstoke.ca

March 2, 2016
COMMENTS:
FINANCE
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
FIRE RESCUE
SERVICES
PARKS, RECREATION
& CULTURE
CORPORATE
ADMINISTRATION
COMMUNITY
(250) 837-3637
(250) 837-2001
(250) 837-2161
(250) 837-2884
(250) 837-9351
(250) 837-2911
(250) 837-5345
works@revelstoke.ca
fire@revelstoke.ca
prc@revelstoke.ca
admin@revelstoke.ca
ced@revelstoke.ca
City of Revelstoke
revels toke. ca

March 2, 2016
COMMENTS:
WILL
-#I
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
PUBLIC WORKS
FINANCE
FIRE RESCUE
SERVICES
PARKS, RECREATION
& CULTURE
CORPORATE
ADMINISTRATION
COMMUNITY
(250) 837-3637
(250) 837-2001
(250) 837-2161
(250) 837-2884
(250) 837-9351
(250) 837-2911
(250) 837-5345
works@revelstoke.ca
fire@revelstoke.ca
prc@revelstoke.ca
admin@revelstoke.ca
ced@revelstoke.ca
COMMENTS cont'd
City of Revelstoke
revelstoke .ca

March 2, 2016
COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS
FINANCE
FIRE RESCUE
SERVICES
(250) 837-3637
(250) 837-2001
(250) 837-2161
(250) 837-2884
(250) 837-9351
(250) 837-2911
(250) 837-5345
works@revelstoke.ca
fire@revelstoke.ca
prc@revelstoke.ca
admin@revelstoke.ca
ced@revelstoke.ca
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
PARKS, RECREATION
& CULTURE
CORPORATE
ADMINISTRATION
COMMUNITY
\\
\\
\'
\
\
.f r-''
I
I
I
;
'
'1> "
\
\
I
/
\
I
1'J
:i
>
--- s:__
....___
c7\}
............_
..._c:_
'
vv
C'.
)'
i
$
"-""
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

City of Revelstoke Victoria I Mutas Intersection Improvements
1. Q: What problems are we trying to solve? A: Traffic backup on the highway, congestion, accident potential,
unsafe pedestrian movements, and needing traffic control people in the summer.
2. Q: Is the roundabout at Wright St necessary? A: Yes, with the left turn into Tim Hortons/Shell/Super 8
removed, it allows traffic coming from the highway to access Tim Hortons/Shell/Super 8 safely.
3. Q: Who is providing input into the intersection improvements? A: City of Revelstoke, Ministry of
Transportation and Infrastructure, business owners, and the general public. McElhanney is the transportation
engineering consultant.
4. Q: Will this project be solely based on traffic engineering? A: Traffic engineering is important to the
improvement of the intersections; however, there are opportunities for attractive streetscaping, improving the
community entrance experience, branding Revelstoke, and inviting people further into Revelstoke by way of
the Wright St roundabout.
5. Q: Will this actually relieve congestion at Victoria/Bend Rd/Woodenhead? A: Yes, it significantly reduces
congestion (caused by left turns) as proven by detailed and reliable traffic modelling.
6. Q: Is the roundabout at Fraser/Laforme necessary? A: It is not required for the Victoria/Bend/ Woodenhead
access improvements, but it would improve safety and traffic flow north of the highway.
7. Q: Does the general public like roundabouts? A: Sometimes not at first, but there are many successful
examples of the public appreciating roundabouts after they get used to them, such as in Clearwater.
8. Q: Why not put a roundabout on the highway (like Clearwater)? A: The highway intersection is not causing the
problems - the primary cause is left turns at Victoria/Bend/Woodenhead, so putting a roundabout on the highway
would not solve the problems.
9. Q: Can a large semi truck get around the roundabouts? A: Yes, the roundabouts are designed to allow a 20
meter long truck to U-turn around the roundabout.
10. Q: Are the Revelstoke bears going to still be part of the entrance? A: The bears are shown in the 30
rendering; final configuration will be discussed as concepts are developed with further public input.
11. Q: What will the roundabout look like? A: Many communities use the centre of roundabouts to showcase
local character and
12. Q: Why close off Bend Rd? A: Closing this section of Bend Rd removes unnecessary traffic conflict points
and simplifies intersections.
13. Q: What will happen to the sani dump? A: The City has been evaluating sani dump relocation separately
from this project, but no decisions have been made.
14. Q: Why not have a big roundabout at Victoria/Bend Rd/Woodenhead? A: It would be too close to the
highway to meet current standards and would create additional problems on the highway.
15. Q: Are roundabouts appropriate for places with snow? A: Yes, there are many roundabouts in the snowy
regions of BC, Alberta, and the northern US, and maintenance crews effectively maintain them during winter.
16. Q: Are we just moving the problem down the road? A: No, removing left turns and creating additional spaces
between accesses eases the problem. Also, by relocating the majority of turning movements further away from
the highway, it provides more length of road for traffic to smooth out. It's a proven transportation design
principle and is the reason why the Ministry has minimum distances between highways and intersections.
City of Revelstoke
revelstoke. ca

March2,2016
COMMENTS:
PARKS, RECREATION
& CULTURE
CORPORATE
ADMINISTRATION
COMMUNITY
PUBLIC WORKS
FINANCE
FIRE RESCUE
SERVICES
(250) 837-3637
(250) 837-2001
(250) 837-2161
(250) 837-2884
(250) 837-9351
(250) 837-2911
(250) 837-5345
works@revelstoke.ca
fire@revelstoke.ca
prc@revelstoke.ca
admin@revelstoke.ca
ced@revelstoke.ca
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
COMMENTS cont'd
City of Revelstoke
revelstoke .ca

March 2, 2016
COMMENTS:
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
PUBLIC WORKS
FINANCE
FIRE RESCUE
SERVICES
PARKS, RECREATION
& CULTURE
(250) 837-3637
(250) 837-2001
works@revelstoke.ca
(250) 837-2161
(250) 837-2884
fire@revelstoke.ca
{250) 837-9351
prc@revelstoke.ca
CORPORATE
ADMINISTRATION
{250) 837-2911
admin@revelstoke.ca
COMMUNITY
(250) 837-5345
ced@revelstoke.ca
City of Revelstoke
revels toke. ca

March 2, 2016
COMMENTS:
1..s
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
dest
PUBLIC WORKS
FINANCE
FIRE RESCUE
SERVICES
PARKS, RECREATION
& CULTURE
CORPORATE
ADMINISTRATION
COMMUNITY
(250) 837-3637
(250) 837-2001
(250) 837-2161
(250) 837-2884
(250) 837-9351
(250) 837-2911
(250) 837-5345
works@revelstoke.ca
fire @revelstoke.ca
prc@revelstoke.ca
admin@revelstoke.ca
ced@revel stoke.ca
City of Revelstoke
revelstoke.ca

March 2, 2016
COMMENTS:
A.\\ovv
fu.
OF
PUBLIC WORKS
FINANCE
(250) 837-3637
(250) 837-2001
(250) 837-2161
(250) 837-2884
(250) 837-9351
(250) 837-2911
(250) 837-5345
works@revelstoke.ca
fire@revelstoke.ca
prc@revelstoke.ca
admin@revelstoke.ca
ced@revelstoke.ca
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
FIRE RESCUE
SERVICES
PARKS, RECREATION
& CULTURE
CORPORATE
ADMINISTRATION
COMMUNITY
City of Revelstoke
revels toke. ca

March 2, 2016
COMMENTS:
PARKS, RECREATION
& CULTURE
CORPORATE
ADMINISTRATION
COMMUNITY
PUBLIC WORKS
FINANCE
FIRE RESCUE
SERVICES
(250) 837-3637
(250) 837-2001
(250) 837-2161
(250) 837-2884
(250) 837-9351
(250) 837-2911
(250) 837-5345
works@revelstoke.ca
fire@revelstoke.ca
prc@revelstoke.ca
admin@revelstoke.ca
ced@revelstoke.ca
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
City of Revelstoke
revelstoke. ca

March 2, 2016
COMMENTS:
I
{/I
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
PUBLIC WORKS
FINANCE
FIRE RESCUE
SERVICES
PARKS, RECREATION
& CULTURE
CORPORATE
ADMINISTRATION
COMMUNITY
(250) 837-3637
(250) 837-2001
(250) 837-2161
(250) 837-2884
(250) 837-9351
(250) 837-2911
(250) 837-5345
works@revelstoke.ca
fire@revelstoke.ca
prc@revelstoke.ca
admin@revelstoke.ca
ced@revelstoke.ca
City of Revelstoke
revelstoke.ca

March 2, 2016
COMMENTS:
.r f
/{
Th'l'
h "'
;I
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
PUBLIC WORKS
FINANCE
FIRE RESCUE
SERVICES
(250) 837-3637
(250) 837-2001
(250) 837-2161
(250) 837-2884
(250) 837-9351
(250) 837-2911
(250) 837-5345
works@revelstoke.ca
fire@revelstoke.ca
prc@revelstoke.ca
admin@revelstoke.ca
ced@revelstoke.ca
PARKS, RECREATION
& CULTURE
CORPORATE
ADMINISTRATION
COMMUNITY
City of Revelstoke
revelstoke.ca

March 2, 2016
COMMENTS:
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
PUBLIC WORKS
FINANCE
FIRE RESCUE
SERVICES
PARKS, RECREATION
& CULTURE
(250) 837-3637
development@reveistoke.ca
(250) 837-2001
works@revelstoke.ca
(250) 837-2161
(250) 837-2884 .
fire@revelstoke.ca
(250) 837-9351
prc@revelstoke.ca
CORPORATE
ADMINISTRATION
(250) 837-2911
admin@revelstoke.ca
COMMUNITY
(250) 837-5345
ced@revelstoke.ca
City of Revelstoke
revelstoke.ca

March 2, 2016
COMMENTS:
?-
DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC WORKS
FINANCE
FIRE RESCUE
SERVICES
PARKS, RECREATION
& CULTURE
SERVICES
Lav
CORPORATE
ADMINISTRATION
COMMUNITY
(250) 837-3637
(250) 837-2001
(250) 837-2161
(250) 837-2884
(250) 837-9351
(250) 837-2911
(250) 837-5345
works@revelstoke.ca
fire@revelstoke.ca
prc@revelstoke.ca
admin@revelstoke.ca
ced@revelstoke.ca
City of Revelst
March2,2016
Is there a possibility of creating a large traffic circle that includes the TCH?
Its centre would have to be off-set towards the downtown. The loop around A&W, McDonald's,
etc could even be reversed with a stop sign for exiting traffic before crossing traffic entering .
from the circle.
..
Helen Shuttleworth,
250-837-5901
shuttleworth@telus.net
.,
I .
- I
. i .
' -.__:,
' ,
\. t
'
'. ;
'
1-
I'
.,
.. :
- '
-- i .. ; . .
'
; : .I : .
. .... . .. .'. i ; i \
:..
.l . ;-
' 1
: ... . .. l ..
City of Revelstok
revelstoke.ca
VELSTOKE

March 2, 2016
COMMENTS:
Firstly, I'm glad to see a competent engineering firm has been hired rather than trying to solve
the problem in house. My comments follow.
How much consideration has been given to the future of the Trans Canada Highway? The
engineer I asked about this seemed to think it is of no concern - the TCH presently has four lanes
through the intersection and nothing will change. Don't be so sure. There will have to be a
second bridge over the Columbia and how will that affect alignment of the highway at the
intersection? I and others also recall a past proposal to relocate the Columbia crossing north of
the Columbia Park district. Surely, the Ministry of Transportation has some at least tentative
plans available.
Looking at the plan presented and talking to the presenters, I saw no evidence of any original or
"out of the box" thinking. The plan only.massages the current problem. Was there any
brainstorming of "off the wall" ideas? Could the railroad be relocated? Could the restaurants be
relocated? How about the suggestion in the Revelstoke Current a few months ago about entering
Revelstoke at the 23North intersection with a bridge over the railroad discharging traffic onto
Victoria Road? And at the open house, I talked to a young chap who proposed blocking Victoria
Road at Mutas Road and directing traffic in a loop that would encircle everything between the
railroad and the TCH - in effect, a huge traffic circle.
Now, presuming there will be no real change from the current proposal, we have to ensure it will
not be a total disaster, especially in winter. The engineers say traffic circles work well in Prince
George, Carunore and Calgary. They also work in other places. However, these places either
have no snow or very dry snow. We know that is not the case in Revelstoke and that our snow is
heavy, packs firmly and Is much more slippery and difficult .to drive on then that found in colder
locals. The round-about must be flat so that in snowy conditions, freight trucks that have had to
wait to enter wi11 be able to get moving forward again. Also, on that theme, try to ease the grade
on Victoria Road as it approaches the TCH. I understand trucks commonly have difficulty
getting underway to enter or cross the highway if they've been stopped there'.
We can't afford that much
Bill Shuttleworth,
250-837-5901,
shuttleworth@telus.net
Page 1 of I
.R
"bft!
,,_. .;
01-..y;,n
2-_
--9]
?3?
\ '.
/(_-577('4
!l<Jf
http://media.bclocalnews.com/images/61703revelstokePagesfromOPENHOUSE-l .jpg
3/3/2016
'-' /
Nikki Ball
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Nikki Ball
March-01-16 10:19 AM
'maryanne.krestinsky@gmail.com'
RE: Draft: Mutas road drawings
Thank you for your comments Maryanne. They will be forwarded. The City is considering a relocation of the
sani dump.
Have a great week!
Nikki Ball
City of Revelstoke
Engineering & Development Services Clerk
250 837 2922
Box 170, Revelstoke BC
V0E 2S0 revelstoke.ca
Please note that this email is subject to the
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
From: Maryanne Krestinsky [mailto:maryanne.krestinsky@gmail.com]

Sent: February-29-16 5:11 PM
To: Nikki Ball
Subject: Re: Draft: Mutas road drawings
Roundabouts are wonderful once people figure them out!

The Sani-station access appears very limited. We currently have a beautiful pull in, dump, drive out, get back
into traffic system. The new plan appears to have a tight turn around area. People regularly line up to use the
station and I can't visualize a line up being accommodated.
Please forward my comment as I have a commitment Wednesday pm.
Thank you.
Sincerely
Maryanne Krestinsky
On Monday, February 29, 2016, Nikki Ball <nball@revelstoke.ca> wrote:
Hi Mary Anne,
Please find attached a couple of draft preliminary Drawings from the designer regarding the Mutas
intersection change!
Cheers,
Nikki Ball
City of Revelstoke
Engineering & Development Services Clerk
250 837 2922
Box 170, Revelstoke BC
V0E 2S0 revelstoke.ca
Please note that this email is subject to the

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
-Sent from Gmail Mobile
Nikki Ball
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Gary Johal <mailgaryjohal@gmail.com>

March-02-16 4:45 PM
Nikki Ball
Dean Strachan; Gail Ferguson; Chris Selvig; Faruq Patel; Mark McKee
March 2/ 2016
I have attended Stakeholder Meeting for Mutas Intersection and agree with current proposal.
Regards,
Gary Johal
250 300 6949
The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be privileged and is intended for the
exclusive use of the above named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are expressly
prohibited from copying, distributing, disseminating, or in any other way using any information contained
within this communication. If you have received this communication in error please contact the sender by
telephone or by response via mail. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software
viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachment to this message. We cannot
accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses.
Nikki Ball
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Janis Borden <janisborden@yahoo.com>

March-04-16 10:19 AM
development
Highway Plan
Thank you for the informative presentation at the rec centre on Wednesday night. It is a challenging
intersection for sure. I believe, given our budget, that this is the best possible solution for all
concerned. I heard many different plans from residents there but I really believe this plan takes in to
consideration the traveler, the resident and the businesses in the area.
Best regards,
Janis Borden
Nikki Ball
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Richard Halldorson <krazzycanuck@yahoo.ca>

March-03-16 6:03 PM
development
for the roundabout idea
to womb it may concern

I lived in Revelstoke for over 40 years and would like to
give an idea for the design of the roundabout to be able to handle
transport trucks if you have not already got the idea.
there is 2 roundabouts in Kamloops that i know of right now
1 being down at the sandman center and third avenue and they had issues
with
transport truck but dealt with the issue by having a very small curb on the
inside
of the roundabout with an inner paver or brick area where transport trucks
can ride up on
to be able to navigate the round about. there is also a roundabout up on the
way to Costco
and the new casino.
you could have a look at these to get an idea how they would work?
just an idea for you
Richard
Nikki Ball
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Gary Johal <mailgaryjohal@gmail.com>

March-03-16 9:03 AM
Nikki Ball
Dean Strachan; Mike Thomas; Gail Ferguson; Chris Selvig; Faruq Patel; Mark McKee
Illegal left turn
I would like to make sure that everyone is aware of illegal entrance to Frontage road from Victoria road. It was
brought to our attention during meeting that Frontage road is a ring road and Shell, Tim Horton have legal
access from ring road only but there is no legal access to Frontage road from Victoria road. I brought this to
everyone s attention because during meeting we were told that #1 concern is left turn to Frontage road which
is illegal and closing that illegal left turn would have been cheapest fix instead of building all other
roundabouts and making that access legal now. I am still ok with current proposal but this is another option
available without spending $2M+ taxpayers and DCC money.
Regards,
Gary Johal
250 300 6949
The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be privileged and is intended for the
exclusive use of the above named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are expressly
prohibited from copying, distributing, disseminating, or in any other way using any information contained
within this communication. If you have received this communication in error please contact the sender by
telephone or by response via mail. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software
viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachment to this message. We cannot
accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses.
Nikki Ball
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
wayne martin <waymar99@gmail.com>

March-03-16 2:33 PM
Nikki Ball
Intersection Improvements
Hi - Just some thoughts after last nights town hall meeting regarding the Victoria /Mutas problem area.
Has thought been given to putting the traffic roundabout in the area of the bears rather than driving up the road
and back again? There seems to be as much room at that site as there will be across from the Nomad and less
confusing as the driver can see where they are going or trying to get to rather than driving away from say Tim
Horton"s and not knowing where they might end up. Everything could be done from one main circle. Move the
exits just a bit east toward the overpass and use the Bend Rd area as well as anything required from the area on
the other side of Victoria Rd to ensure that the roundabout will accommodate all traffic including transports.
Also, as far as safety is concerned, why is there not going to be a left hand turning light for traffic wanting to
drive into Revelstoke when travelling west? It is much like playing Russian Roulette trying to cross the TCH
with the present arrangement, especially in the summer. The bottleneck is the Woodenhead/ Tim Horton's
intersection but the safety concern is is the main transCanada intersection with two lanes converging into one
just prior to the bridge plus traffic entering from Laforme at the same spot as the convergence begins. Very
dangerous as anyone who observes the traffic floe around that intersection would see. We also have a speed
problem through there as traffic coming down the hill are often going too fast for an intersection and the same
applies for traffic going up the hill to the East as the transports don't want to lose their speed and go through
way too fast for that section of road.
I hope that some pressure can be brought on the Province to get involved in this cleanup and that the City will
give careful thought as to the most efficient as well as safest manner of correcting this mess on our doorstep.
Thanks
Wayne Martin
Nikki Ball
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jackie Morris <jackie.morris@telus.net>

March-04-16 12:35 PM
Nikki Ball
My comments after intersection open house
Comments from open house about intersection improvements

Jackie Morris
64 Jordan Drive, Revelstoke
Jackie.morris@telus.net
I like the clarification the problem is caused by the Woodenhead Loop / Bend Road intersection. It is not a
problem caused by the highway, although it can affect the highway.
I like the name Woodenhead Loop better than Mutas Road. The idea of a loop is appropriate. A road should
go somewhere and Mutas Road didnt go anywhere. I see that Google Maps already uses Woodenhead Loop.
I understand there will be an appropriate array of stop and yield signs, etc. There will also need to be LARGE and
COLOURFUL signs (maybe flashing digital signs?) directing people to the traffic circle. The traffic circle is not
visible to the people who need it because of the railway overpass.
Could we please have commitment for the lines and arrows painted on the pavement be refreshed regularly? If
they are worn off, the turning pockets etc. are not going to work. With winter snow and grit on them they are
very difficult to see... paint needs to be refreshed before winter to make them visible all winter.
I like the suggested new way to enter and exit Woodenhead Loop.
Pedestrians If you are a pedestrian trying to get to Tim Hortons, you are out of luck. There is a crosswalk
across the TCH and across the access onto/off of the TCH but then there is no sidewalk not into Tim Hortons,
and not into Laforme Boulevard. Please consider where the pedestrians should cross to get to Tim Hortons and
what sidewalks they should use after they cross. Hint imagine you are crossing with your 5 year old kid.
Pedestrian routes need to be snowplowed, and piles of snow must not interfere with visibility.
As a person who walks to downtown, bikes to downtown, and sometimes walks with a dog, I am VERY HAPPY
that the city plows the river trail under the bridges and has installed lighting. I never go near the highway
intersection; its not a pleasant place for a pedestrian.
The traffic circle at Laforme/Fraser is not needed at present. But it is an excellent idea to identify this as a
possible future need, and ensure that there is space kept for it.
from Jackie Morris

64 Jordan Drive, Revelstoke
Box 1458, Revelstoke BC V0E 2S0
250 837 9354 (landline)
Jackie.morris@telus.net
1
Nikki Ball
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tanya Secord <tsecord@telus.net>

March-03-16 3:39 PM
Nikki Ball
Hwy "upgrade"
I want to start by saying that I appreciate that the issues presented by the current intersection on the hwy are not going to
be an easy fix. I also understand that no matter how hard everyone works on it there is never going to be a perfect plan
for the situation that needs to be addressed.
I have lived in Columbia Park for almost 10 years and cross the hwy up to 10 times a day. My initial reaction when I saw
the plan was the round about proposed for the Chevron side of the hwy would be a complete waste of tax payers money.
I have never encountered any issues on the Columbia Park side of the hwy. Mike then assured me that that was only for
future planning purposes if it ever did become a problem.
I feel, as do many from the sounds of it, that the proposed plan is not at all "user friendly" for this area. Even on paper I
don't see how this proposed plan will work, particularly with the amount of tourist vehicles that use this junction. Taking
everyone down to Nomads to either get back on the hwy or to get into Tim Hortons just doesn't seem a feasible choice.
Especially with the big rigs that we get. One issue, amoung many that comes to mind is.........you get a large dump of
snow that can't get cleared right away and I see major problems with the larger trucks getting around it.
My final concern lies with the extreme un-equality of our frontage businesses. Let me say that I hold no stakes
whatsoever in Tim Hortons, Subway or Super 8. Last night when I commented on this issue to the Engineer, his reply was
"this is a traffic problem not a business problem." As much as I understand that it is a traffic problem I feel that the
businesses do need to be taken into account. Alot of the hwy traffic stop here specificially for those businesses. The
current plan funnels traffic down to A&W, McDonalds and Starbucks and traffic wanting to get to Tim Hortons, Shell,
Subway and Super 8 have to go a around about way. As a tourist in many towns myself when driving this would be a
deterant for me. I quite often find the easier place to get to. We want to be the town that people pick to stop along their
travels, not the one that they avoid because of the traffic chaos. So, although yes, it is a traffic problem, there has to be
some equality for the businesses.
Again, I know this is a very challenging situation. I would suggest that perhaps having a session wherein people of the
community that drive the route on a daily basis have the opportunity to put forth suggestions. Between everyone's
suggestions, there may just be a better plan. I just feel this proposed plan is far too far off the mark for the amount it is
going to cost, to perhaps have to go back and change it yet again.
Thanks for allowing feedback.
Sincerely,
Tanya Secord
Nikki Ball
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
MARCO PERTICI <pertici99@hotmail.com>

March-04-16 11:40 AM
Nikki Ball
Trans-Can intersection with no lights correction
Hi Nikki!
(Correction on the drawing)
The proposal works and is the best solution for a quick fix. I am not sure people will be thrilled to go to the
Nomade round about to get to Tim Hortons or just to get back on the highway from McDonalds.
I understand that the Ministry of transport doesn't want to change the highway intersection but an overpass with
two round abouts would work great and be a lot more aesthetic. Also, I think that it would bring more people
into town than making them do the detour all the way to the Nomade round about. Notice as well no need for
traffic lights anymore.
Good work and have a great day!
Marco
Nikki Ball
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sharon Shook <sharonshookup@hotmail.com>

March-04-16 6:46 PM
development
Traffic Circle by the Nomad
City of Revelstoke,
I think that a traffic circle is a very good solution to the traffic flow. When I was over in England, I was very
impressed at how well they worked there with all their crazy angled intersections and a new little hamlet
every stones throw.
Ive found that a single lane traffic circle works the best... it looks like thats what we will have.
It also looks like the big semi trucks will have to turn right out of McDonalds etc. and go around the Traffic
Circle (round about) to get back on the TC. Ive heard truckers say that as long as its a smooth bump in the
middle and not too high then they can manoeuvre around them quite well.
Itll take us Canadians a little while to flow comfortably without stopping around the circle.... what with our
good manners and all..... but well figure it out.
The second traffic circle, as you say, is not needed at this time..... and perhaps never will be.
Thank you,
Sharon Shook
Nikki Ball
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brian Lecompte <revytims@gmail.com>

March-04-16 9:37 AM
dkneeshaw@mcelhanney.com; Andrew Peacock; Sean Yoon; Nikki Ball; Bruce Knudsen;
Glen Wilson; Carl Paddock, MOS RBI; Donna Lecompte; Mark McKee; Gary Sulz; Scott
Duke; brian_donna_lecompte@timzone.com
Revelstoke Intersection Changes
David and City of Revelstoke

Thank you for inviting us to your stakeholder presentation regarding the proposed intersection changes. I have a
few comments for your review.
1) we were disappointed there was only one solution presented to us, we expected to see several choices.
It would of been nice to see an illustration of a 2 lane round-about at the Victoria & Mutus location to see how
it would work. Many residents thought this was the #1 solution to traffic problems at this location. You can
argue that the Trans-Canada intersection is too close, and when the light is red the traffic circle will stop, but
with 2 lanes in the circle the outside lane would continue to flow into the Shell/Tim Hortons site, or past this
turn and eastward on the Trans-Canada.
An illustration of this would of been nice to see as a comparison to the only solution presented to us.
2) the solution presented does not allow for left turns when heading south on Victoria Drive and will adversely
affect businesses on the east side of Victoria Drive, namely Tim Hortons, Shell Canada, Super 8, and Subway.
70% of our traffic comes off the highway and when customers can't turn left they my just turn right into our
competition.
3) in other cities where left turns are eliminated you can see the round-about ahead and know you can make the
turn back to your destination. In our situation you cannot see the round-about and not wanting to continue under
the railway bridge the customer may chose to turn right instead.
If there is a measurable loss to our business who will compensate us for this?
4) with the illustration presented to us it shows the service road coming down from subway ending in our
parking lot and not continuing around the Super 8 as it currently does.
We highly recommend the service road not ending as larger vehicles (semi's, 5th wheels) cannot easily turn
around and will be trapped and going against the flow at the pumps and the drive-thru, and will cause severe
disruption during busy traffic volumes.
5) additional parking should be designed for larger vehicles towing trailers near the shell site. Perhaps from the
new entrance near the Super 8 and toward the current sani-dump, and along the service road behind the super 8
which could be one-way exiting our site. Also prior to entering our site (from Subway) there will be room for
some large vehicle designated parking and room for 2 way traffic. Large Vehicle parking needs to be similar to
the Mutus & Wooden Head road parking.
6) entering our site from Victoria needs at least 2 lanes, one for Super 8 & Tim Hortons Drive-Thru, and the
other for Shell. Traffic will back up at this location and extend out onto Victoria Drive.
7) if this one and only solution goes ahead, we need to see what the signs will look like directing customers to
our location, and where these signs will be located, and be able to make necessary changes & additions to
ensure customers know their options.
8) if these changes complicate the process in the customers mind, they will ultimately elect to not turn off at
Revelstoke and just continue on to the next town.
We have not received any PDF's of the proposals, please forward a set to us with your comments.
Brian & Donna Lecompte
Tim Hortons
Revelstoke, BC
cell: 250-837-8525
Nikki Ball
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ken Talbot <kmtalbot@rctvonline.net>

March-05-16 4:17 PM
development
Feedback - Mutas Intersection and Corridor Preliminary Design Review
I live in Columbia Park and I cross the TCH back and forth between Laforme and Victoria many times every
day. I have been doing this for well over thirty years, and I have experienced many close calls from transport
trucks and others blowing through red lights.
More recently, I have experienced first hand the traffic congestion and resulting frustrations at the Tim
Horton s/Macdonalds access point. As time has gone on and traffic volumes have increased, it has become
abundantly clear to me that the access from Victoria into or out of the Tim Horton s/Shell/Super Eight complex
must be blocked, and all traffic to these businesses and the Subway must be routed to the second traffic light.
There is simply too much happening in this pinch point. There are too many things to be looking out for, too
many conflicting vehicle movements, too many things that can go wrong, and too many chances for a
confused visitor or local resident to make a potentially catastrophic mistake. With Starbucks and PetroCan
opening in the near future, this situation will get worse if nothing is done Something needs to be done
immediately.
As you drive the TCH just about anywhere else but here, you see standard signage advising you which exit
coming up will get you in to which businesses. If you want to go to Tim Horton s, you watch for their sign
and use the appropriate exit. When done, you get back on the highway the way you came off and continue,
on your way or to the next exit which has other services you are looking for, maybe gas stations or hotels, or
the downtown core.
We have two well designed exits from the TCH which are capable of handling a significant volume of traffic.
But, for some reason, the most recent proposals for this trouble spot seem hell bent on keeping all of the traffic
volume passing through a single access point, and leaving the other virtually unused. Something as simple as
installing proper signage directing Tim Horton s, Shell, Super Eight, and Subway traffic to the second light
would immediately lessen the congestion on Victoria road, even without any other measures.
The proposal presented on Wednesday clearly has significant flaws. It has failed to take into account
something as common as one to three (or more) transport trucks at a time finding their way to the Tim
Horton s side and stopping to make a purchase. With the current proposal, this will cause a total blockage,
turning that area into a dead end trap. A 26 metre long B train transport truck will not be able to wiggle
around or back up to get out of the way. Get one coming in from each side and nobody will be going
anywhere fast. When I asked about this at the meeting, the rep on site said something to the effect that they
still had to do some fine tuning on this!
A fundamental design consideration like this is not fine tuning.
If the loop around the Tim Horton s/Shell complex was kept as a one way loop with clock wise circulation,
there would be ample space to hold multiple parked transport trucks, or recreational vehicles, or pick up
trucks towing trailers full of snowmobiles, etc all outside of the heavily congested parking lot itself. Keeping
1
a clockwise circulation lessens the problem with the grade at the top of the loop, as it would be downhill
traffic, and uphill traction in snowy conditions would no longer be a factor. This area could still benefit from
some realignment work where the road starts to descend, but this could be done with no impact to traffic.
With access from Victoria into Tim Horton s/Shell blocked, there would be s lots of room to install a proper left
turn lane for traffic coming from town and heading for the PetroCan/Starbucks/Macdonalds/A&W area.
Through traffic heading to the TCH intersection would be unimpeded. Similarly, with the large Tim s volume
traffic diverted, the current one way counter clockwise loop around Macdonalds, etc should be able to handle
traffic, even with an increase due to opening of Starbucks and PetroCan. Should the left turn out from this
loop become an issue, that traffic could still be forced under the underpass to the proposed roundabout in
front of the Nomad.
Once proper highway signage is installed, and all access to Tim Horton s/Shell is directed to the second light,
the roundabout in front of the Nomad is no longer needed as part of the Tim s congestion solution.
However, this installation would still be a good idea to deal with regular traffic loads, particularly the Big
Eddy traffic spikes in the morning, mid day, and afternoon. This issue has been building for a number of
years, and it is exacerbated in the winter by the rush coming off of the ski hill each afternoon.
Finally, the roundabout proposed for Laforme on the Columbia Park side of the TCH is not needed at this
time. If and when development is proposed for the former Esso site, consideration could be given to
offloading some or all of that cost, depending on anticipated traffic loads, into the development cost charges
for the new venture.
Ken Talbot
74 Burke Drive
Nikki Ball
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
bettys@telus.net
March-08-16 4:01 PM
development
Mutas Intersection Draft Design Review Comments
Hello Sorry I missed the open house. To help understand this proposal in context, I am
wondering how the proposal aligns with the Provinces future twinning of the highway across
the Columbia River bridge? What are their design options? What are the time horizons and
how might this potential intersection change be impacted?
Also, were creative options of seasonal traffic management considered for the interim?
Creatively done, these could provide multiple benefits, marketing Revelstoke while
managing the issue on a cost-effective basis. It may even provide new funding options
(RAA). Fun theory provides a few examples
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbEKAwCoCKw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lXh2n0aPyw ; dancing traffic cops, etc. The new
council said it wanted to think outside the box. Heres an opportunity.
In terms of the actual proposal, Im having a hard time imagining this as a fix, given all the
traffic entering the Wooden-Head Road, would have to exit right to the proposed traffic
circle. At peak, will the combined loading from the Wooden-Head Road with the through
traffic from the highway and Columbia Park, be able to handle? Think transports, that all
traffic will have to slow to merge into the traffic circle, and that there is a grade increase
exiting the traffic circle and proceeding down Victoria Road. Have you considered testing
the approach before commiting to construction?
Yours respectfully
Betty Sloan 7-5548
Nikki Ball
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: TCH Intersection

TCH Intersection.pdf; TCH Intersection - Ray's Comments.pdf
From: Tony Morabito [mailto:amorab@telus.net]

Sent: March-07-16 6:03 PM
To: Mark McKee
Cc: Nikki Ball; Mike Speerbrecker; admin
Subject: FW: TCH Intersection
Hi Mark
We think what should happen here is first install the traffic light at Mutas intersection and sync it with the TCH light.
Install one way signs on frontage road (pink) and on old Big Bend road (blue). Try to do this before May 24th long
weekend and monitor traffic flows until September long weekend. This should give you a pretty good indication on how
well plan will work and final decision on options can be made at that time. The traffic circle should be made bigger with
one way entrance into First street west, additionally the grade should be lowered through the underpass as much as the
abutement footings will permit (even 30cm would help logging truck loads from hitting the underpass substructure.)
Water can be drained to storm drains at west side of underpass. If sani- dump is retained then drain would have to be
installed across road to accommodate disposal if road is made one way going east. Alternatively if moved best possibly
alternate site would be at RER as propane and camping supplies are readily available (sewage lagoon site is not very
convenient for visitors and would cause confusion. We think the more entrance and exit options for travellers the better
and these options would greatly ease congestion.
Thanks for your consideration
Tony Morabito
Ray Speerbrecker
From: Michael Fallaise [mailto:mfallaise@speersconstruction.com]
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2016 3:16 PM
To: amorab@telus.net
Subject: TCH Intersection
Markup of the TCH Intersection.
Michael Fallaise
SPEERS CONSTRUCTION INC.
IT'S ABOUT PERFORMANCE
Office:(250) 837-5171
Cell: (250) 814-8664
Fax:(250) 837-7173
mfallaise@speersconstruction.com
www.speersconstruction.com
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
{...a..
Traffic light with the same

timing as highway light
Stop Sign
Enlarge roundabout and construct using

concrete to withstand heavy traffic.
Motel Access (one way)
- One Way Return to TCH for

transport trucks and trailers
- Raise grade and widen to tie
into CNR and accommodate
transport trucks
Sani-dump or
additional parking
Lower grade under

overpass 1-2'
Stormdrains
Begin RT turn lane at

railway underpass
Stop Sign
Signage designating
that Tim Horton's is next
right 300m ahead
- One Way Traffic to Time Horton's (One Lane)

- Parking (One Lane)
Light vehicle entrace only - no

transport trucks or trailers
Signage designating that

Tim Horton's entrance is
at the 2nd light
f' I f i .:i
..
I
*'
"'
Jl
"'\
-........:_
...._
.,
\Ji
...........
;k,
;J
'\'.-
J'
""I.
V'
""<
\]'
t.
--v......
,,.
'
\JI
"
......_
....,,_
' -.. ..".

) .........
':)
...)
-:::,
0,
('Q
'V: A
-, f
CJ
";;--- If'
q:_
'3.
'.() ...........
...
\/\
Qi
""'Z
..
*
Nikki Ball
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jena Keenan <jena_keenan@hotmail.com>

March-07-16 8:23 PM
Nikki Ball
Mutas road intersection
FullSizeRender.jpg; ATT00001.txt
Hey Nikki,
That information session was really helpful; I m glad the city put that on.
I didn t hate the design, but I think cutting off the left hand turns (both to Tim Hortons from the highway and
leaving McDonald s) and forcing traffic to use the traffic circles is a little unrealistic. It is also unfair to Tim
Hortons to cut off the highway traffic. People specifically turn there for Tim Hortons, and I think other
options for that should be explored. I would love to see a modified design where there was a dedicated
through lane both directions. I believe there would be enough room for a dedicated left and right turning lane
as well as a straight lane.
Restricting semis and vehicles with trailers from turning left would be awesome, and maybe forcing them to
use the bend road, obviously with the necessary upgrades, as explained to me by the engineer. Semis are
professional drivers and should be able to navigate that road, despite the curve the grade could be an issue,
but again, they should be professional drivers with chains, as well as the city stepping up to maintain this road
better.
If using the bend road is totally unrealistic, perhaps the semi/ trailer traffic is the traffic that should be using
the roundabout. Or they should be at least forced to use ONLY the frontage road, at the very least. I always
see semis and people with sled trailers cutting off people on the left and right turns out of Tim Hortons and
left turns out of McDonald s. If there is a way to restrict that specific traffic, I think those intersections would
be a lot safer.
I m not convinced the roundabout by the nomad would actually improve the traffic flow, but it may. The
traffic circle by the chevron seems absolutely unnecessary and a waste of money.
I think McElhanney s proposed changes to the Tim Hortons exit was great, as well as adding the exit from
McDonald and entrance to Tim Hortons.
The blind corners also are an issue, I hope the intersection is designed with the bear statues in mind, and the
added exit and entrance I just mentioned may be part of the solution to that.
Also, the lights need to be corrected with advanced greens, both directions.
Thank you so much for your time, and I really hope everyone s input is valued with the engineers. It s a
terrible intersection and I nearly get hit every time I drive through there. I d like to think anything would be
an improvement, but I hope it s the going to be a perfect design for the future of the city of Revelstoke.
1
I ve attached a quick sketch of what I d love to see. Sorry it s messy, but I hope it gets the point across. Thanks
again, and good luck with this all!
..
Nl) $
{: \ c_
f'J)\ /
C(1\\J( Rl
-,L
Mk
P\ \l- R
( \
'-
TiM
.
5 \-\L
L-L-
--
..
..
1111

Appendix D
Public Comments Typed Summary
Page | 19
Comment Summary
1. Keep the Frontage Road/Bend Road as is.
2. Create one large, one-way loop by combining Woodenhead/Bend/Frontage and removing Victoria
from the highway to CP, e.g. to access Tim Hortons a driver would take a right turn at the loop and
drive around Woodenhead, up Bend Rd, and down the frontage road.
3. Have a solid median on Victoria from the highway to CP. Do not allow any left turns into or out of
frontage/Bend and Woodenhead.
4. Revelstoke snow is wet and heavy and difficult to plow on roadways.
5. There is no pedestrian accommodation within the Tim Hortons parking lot concern child will be
hit by trucker getting gas.
6. Large trucks cant maneuver roundabouts in winter or summer.
7. Visitors do not follow signs now and wont follow them in the future.
8. Visitors will ignore do not enter signs and drive against traffic flow.
9. There will need to be too many signs.
10. Signs will be ignored/not understood by visitors and those who do not read English.
11. Grades at Wright St are steep, possibly too steep for a roundabout.
12. Snow plows will plow snow on the roundabout but not all of it, so it will create snow berms on the
roadway, narrowing the roadway and trucks will not fit.
13. Roundabout needs to accommodate BTrain and 53 trailers.
14. Analysis should be done to see what traffic impacts are when highway is shut down.
15. Using a roundabout is confusing. Visitors will not understand they need to drive under the CP
railway and use a roundabout to access Tim Hortons.
16. Drivers will not want to turn right out of Woodenhead Loop to get to the highway.
17. Drivers do not read signs.
18. Add WB left turning lane on highway and use green/red arrow to control traffic before it enters
Victoria. This would use sensors on Victoria to tell the green arrow to turn red when stacking occurs
on Victoria.
19. Make Mutas intersection signalized.
20. Use traffic signals on the highway and new ones at Mutas to solve the problem.
21. Check to make sure pole lengths from Dowmie Timber can be accommodated in the roundabout.
22. Consider walking and cycling safety at roundabout.
23. Provide traffic modelling simulation of various scenarios and vehicle types to illustrate how the
design will work.
24. Install a large traffic circle at the highway with exits to the businesses, similar to Toronto and New
Jersey.
25. Make frontage and Bend Rd one way.
26. Add sidewalk to access future retail/hotel property.
27. Any change will be safer than what is there now.
28. Build an overpass highway to move traffic up over Victoria.
29. All traffic exiting from Tim Hortons to use frontage to east intersection.
30. Remove all access to Tim Hortons from Victoria all traffic to use the Hwy 23 intersection and
frontage/Bend Rd. And add left turn signal for traffic turning from Hwy 23 westbound on Hwy 1.
31. Traffic from the Zalas should go right not left onto Victoria.
32. Concern over how will possible future new bridge and new alignment of the TCH affect this
intersection and has that been take into account. MOT must have tentative plans available for this.
33. Determine if the railroad and/or businesses could be relocated.
34. Change the entrance to Revelstoke to the Hwy 23 intersection with an overpass leading to Victoria
Rd.
35. Roundabout must be flat for trucks to have grip in snow.
36. The sani dump isnt there anymore.
37. Agree with current proposal.
38. This is the best solution taking into account travelers and residents.
39. Use paver stones on inside and outside of roundabout to accommodate transport trucks.
40. The entrance from Victoria Rd to frontage road is illegal. Tim Hortons, Shell, and Super 8 have
legal access to the ring road [frontage/Bend Rd] but there is no legal access from the ring road to
Victoria. So, use this and remove the access from Victoria Rd to the ring road, and route all that
traffic to Hwy 23 intersection.
41. Ok with current proposal.
42. Put a roundabout where the bears are.
43. Add protected left turn arrow for TCH WB traffic turning left into Revelstoke.
44. Traffic drives too fast EB and WB on TCH near this intersection.
45. Road paint needs to be maintained more often.
46. Woodenhead Loop is more appropriate name and design than the name Mutas and the current
design.
47. Consider where pedestrians should cross from TCH to Tim Hortons. There is no sidewalk or
crossing from TCH to Tim Hortons and it is unclear what pedestrians are supposed to do,
specifically with children.
48. Pedestrian routes need to be snowplowed.
49. Piles of snow created by plowing should not interfere with visibility.
50. Appreciative the City plows the river trail under the bridges and has installed lighting please keep
plowing.
51. Ensure space is kept for future possible roundabout at Laforme/Fraser it is a good idea.
52. Designs need to keep people stopping at businesses at Mutas, not avoiding them.
53. Current proposal seems unfair to businesses on one side of the road; easier to get to businesses
on Woodenhead than frontage/Bend.
54. Proposal is best solution for a quick fix.
55. Make TCH an overpass over Victoria with exits that lead to roundabouts on either side of the TCH.
56. Single lane roundabouts work the best.
57. It will take some getting used to but is a very good solution to the traffic flow.
58. A two lane roundabout at Mutas will solve the problems.
59. Drivers cant see the roundabout beyond CP so may choose to go to a business on the west side
of Victoria instead of the east side of Victoria.
60. Dont end the frontage road at Tim Hortons.
61. Add designated parking for larger vehicles near the Shell site and along the frontage by Subway,
similar to parking on Woodenhead.
62. There should be 2 lanes to enter Tim Hortons from Victoria.
63. Block all access to Tim Hortons from Victoria Rd. Standard signage can direct traffic to stop at the
Hwy 23 exit to access these businesses.
64. Make frontage/Bend Rd a one way loop and have parking for trucks along it.
65. Block all access to Tim Hortons from Victoria Rd and use the extra road width to have a better left
turn lane from Victoria to Woodenhead.
66. Wait to see what development occurs at Laforme/Fraser and see if needs a roundabout and if some
costs can be paid by the developer/DCCs.
67. Consider how the twinning of the TCH and new alignment will affect this intersection in the future.
68. At peak times how will the Wright roundabout handle all the traffic.
69. Lower the underpass under CP to help logging trucks from hitting the structure.
70. More entrance and exit options for travelers the better.
71. Make the traffic circle bigger and add a one-way entrance into 1st St.
72. RER would be a good place to relocate the sani dump due to propane and camping supplies there.
The sewage lagoon site is not very convenient for visitors.
73. Traffic signal on Victoria at Mutas only for NB Victoria traffic; in sync with TCH light.
74. Have dedicated through lanes, left turn lanes and right turn lanes on Victoria.
75. Restrict large vehicle movements and have them use Bend Rd once it is upgraded.
76. Changes to the Tim Hortons exit and entrance, and McDonalds exit is great.
77. Intersection design to take into account bear statues and blind corners.
78. Change lights to be advanced greens in both directions.
79. Add new traffic light at Hwy 23 intersection to alleviate traffic at Mutas.
80. Add highway signage to direct all Tim Hortons traffic to Hwy 23 intersection.
81. Enlarge roundabout and construct using concrete.
82. One way traffic from Hwy 23 to Tim Hortons and parking lane.
83. Only small vehicle access to Tim Hortons from Victoria.

Appendix E
Sustainability Envision Rating
Page | 20
Appendix E. Sustainability Envision Rating

The Envision Points Table highlights targets for relevant sustainability criteria which are then discussed below.
This project has the potential to address various Envision criteria (credits) listed below along with Actions (by both
the City and McElhanney) that contribute to the Level of Achievement indicated in the right column.
Levels of Achievement: Improved (lowest rating)
Enhanced
Superior
Conserving
Restorative (highest rating, not available for all criteria)
QUALITY OF LIFE
QL1.1 Improve Community Quality of Life
Actions per Evaluation Criteria and Documentation
Review and integrate relevant background documents
Ensure alignment with community needs, goals
Hold meetings with stakeholders, community leaders, and
decision makers, summarize via minutes
Minimize or address impacts
Demonstrate design response to stakeholder input,
preferred options
Improve existing community conditions
Potential Level of Achievement

Restorative (25) Community renaissance.
Through rehabilitation of important community assets (e.g.,
upgraded and extended access, increased safety, improved
environmental quality, and additional infrastructure capacity)
the project substantially reinvigorates the host and nearby
communities. Working in genuine collaboration with
stakeholders and community decision makers, the project
owner and the project team scope the project in a way that
elevates community awareness and pride. Overall quality of
life in these communities is markedly elevated.
QL1.2 Stimulate Sustainable Growth and Development

Demonstrate how completed project expands capacity for
business, industry, or the public (reference backup
documents)
Document analyses showing how project will reduce
congestion and increase efficiency
Describe how project improves community attractiveness for
businesses as well as socio-economic conditions
Show how project rehabilitates infrastructure assets,
improves community prospects for sustainable growth and
development

Restorative (16) Developmental rebirth.
During early development stages, the project owner and
project team work with the community to identify existing
community assets in the natural or built environment that, if
restored, would improve the economic growth and
development capacity of the community. The completed
project improves attractiveness through restoration of existing
infrastructure, including physical, knowledge, and social
assets. It is adaptive to changing conditions.
QL2.1 Enhance Public Health and Safety

Assess exposures and risks created by application of new
and/or non-standard technologies/methodologies
Document assessment of exposures/risks to public health
and safety.
Document adaptation of project design to reduce risk to
public/worker health and safety to acceptable levels
Receive and document approval and sign-off by
environmental/public health and safety officials
Document institution of health and safety methodologies
and protocols, including through construction

Conserving (16) Excellence in all categories.
The project team puts in place health and safety plans and
programs that substantially exceed all applicable regulations.
Explicit and comprehensive consideration given to the
application of new technologies, materials, equipment, and
methodologies and the corresponding new health and safety
requirements and considerations.
QL2.4 Improve Community Mobility and Access

Assess effects of project on access and mobility
Document meetings with adjacent businesses re: access
Develop specifications of requirements and procedures to
reduce traffic disruption during construction, including
monitoring and corrective action by Contractor
Demonstrate access and mobility principles and
specifications in the design
Address long-term transportation infrastructure efficiency,
walkability, and livability in the design

Conserving (14) More livable communities.
The project team expands the range of discussion. The team
works with decision makers in adjacent facilities and also with
local community officials. Design considerations have moved
beyond access and flow issues and now address the reduction of
traffic congestion, improvements in walkability in the community,
and other key measures of mobility and access. The location of
the project has been chosen to utilize and improve the existing
transportation infrastructure. It incorporates a community
transportation strategy. Principles and specifications for reducing
negative construction impacts include strong programs for working
with the affected community.
QL2.5 Encourage Alternative Modes of Transportation

Show accessibility and connectivity for active transportation
modes (primarily cycling and walking)
Maximize convenience, quality, and safety of walkways,
trails, and networks connecting to site.
Enhanced. (3) Non-motorized or transit friendly.

The completed project creates or offers convenient access to
transit. The completed project is designed for convenience in
movement to transit facilities. Extended contiguous trails and
bicycle networks connect to the site and/or the completed project.
QL2.6 Improve Site Accessibility, Safety and Wayfinding

Consider physical safety and accessibility, traffic-calming,
barriers between sidewalks and traffic going faster than 65
km/h, and reduction of vehicle/bicycle conflicts
Minimize risk of crime and vandalism through visibility at
night, clear sight-lines, promotion of pedestrian use, and use
of clear signage and wayfinding signals
Ensure net benefit to public safety and security on site and
through integration with adjacent neighbourhood

Restorative (15) Restoring safe neighborhoods.
Beyond the accessibility, safety, and wayfinding aspects of
the project, the changes made to the site and general vicinity
of the completed project improve overall access and safety of
the adjacent neighborhoods, providing an increase from
previous levels.
QL3.1 Preserve Historic and Cultural Resources

Identify and document historic and cultural resources
Assess feasibility of preserving resources
Location, design drawings show mitigation of impacts or
plans to enhance or restore existing historic and cultural
resources

Superior (7) Stakeholder Consultation.
Potential stakeholders are consulted early in the projects
development. Opportunities to preserve and protect cultural
and heritage sites are taken based on feasibility. The project
team works with historic/cultural stakeholders to develop a
sensitive design approach.
QL3.2 Preserve Views and Local Character

Document relevant local character, views, landscape
features, materials palettes
Reference guidance documents in developing design
guidelines for the project
Document consultation with local officials, community
Design to preserve/enhance views, character
Construction documents to clearly show features to be
preserved as well as penalties for non-compliance

Restorative (14) Restoration of community and character.
Where appropriate, the owner seeks to improve the local
character of the natural landscape or urban fabric through
restorative action as part of the project. This may include
removing barriers, structures, or vegetation to restore views;
restoring lost or damaged natural landscape features; and
designing the project to restore lost character features within
the community.
QL3.3 Enhance Public Space

Describe and document how project will add to public space
and significantly enhance community livability
Document consultation with, and support by, public
agencies and other stakeholders
Drawings and memos to show scope and extent of
restoration of public space

Superior (6) Improvement and enhancement.
The project team identifies and implements meaningful
enhancement or the creation of new public space. The project
team works with stakeholders (users, regulatory agencies, and
the resource owner) to develop a sensitive design. Official with
jurisdiction over the resource must concur in writing with
impact assessment, both for temporary and permanent
impacts.
LEADERSHIP
LD1.4 Provide for Stakeholder Involvement
List stakeholder groups and rationale for identifying them as
key compared to total potential list
Document how stakeholder input on issues and concerns
has been solicited
Describe responses and decisions made through planning
and design

Superior (9) Open to a wider community.
Engagements expand to a wider community, including people
and relevant groups that are affected by, or have an interest in,
the project. There is frequent communication with the public
and stakeholders throughout significant project phases.
Feedback is obtained through solid, credible programs for
obtaining stakeholder and community feedback. Feedback is
assessed and applied to project decisions. Actions taken are
based on community/stakeholder feedback and are modified
by feasibility and practicality. Public and stakeholder groups
see sufficient and credible opportunities for involvement in
project decision making. The project team demonstrates to
stakeholders and the public that the public participation
process is transparent and that they have an opportunity to
provide meaningful input.
LD2.2 Improve Infrastructure Integration

Show improvements made to design to improve
sustainability performance through project-wide systems
integration
Document how the project explicitly interfaces with other
community infrastructure projects and design
Describe how design restores or enhances existing
community infrastructure

Restorative (16) High performance through restorative
actions.
Early in project development, the project owner and project
team work with the community to identify existing community
assets in the natural or built environment that, when restored,
would improve the economic growth and development capacity
of the community. The project incorporates restoration of those
assets as part of a comprehensive strategic sustainability plan.
The project takes into account other related community
infrastructure as well as sustaining and/or restoring community
assets to enhance overall community efficiencies and
effectiveness. There is integration with, and restoration of,
natural systems, resources, community knowledge, and social
capital assets.
NATURAL WORLD
NW2.1 Manage Stormwater
Determine percentage improvement in water storage,
infiltration, evaporation, and water harvesting using TR-55
Curve Numbers or other continuous simulations (proposed
March 2016 Revelstoke projects will see significant increase
in permeable landscaped areas and stormwater managed
on-site)

Superior (9) Extended storage capacity.
The target water storage capacity for greyfields is a 60%
improvement in water storage capacity. For brownfields, 40%
improvement. Greenfield site maintains 100%.
NW2.2 Reduce Pesticide and Fertilizer Impacts

Enforce current/updated policies to minimize use of
pesticides and fertilizers on public landscapes, reflect
principles of integrated pest management
If required, City to provide list of pesticides and fertilizers
with lowest possible toxicity, persistence, and bioavailability
Show on drawings how runoff will be managed on-site to
agreed-upon rainfall depth
Drawings to show predominantly native plant species that
require little/no pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers

Conserving (9) No pesticide, herbicide, or fertilizer use.
The project team designs landscaping to incorporate plant
species that require no pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.
Increased use of composting; integrated pest management is
practiced.
NW3.1 Preserve Species Biodiversity

Document potential impacts of existing and proposed
development on animal species movements
Site plan and memo showing how impacts can be mitigated
Creating new habitat for macrofauna NOT appropriate
Plants can be chosen to enhance biodiversity of native
species and to attract bird species and pollinators

Conserving (13) Improve habitat.
The project team works with state and local agencies to
identify existing habitats in or near the project site. During the
course of the project, efforts are made to not only protect
existing habitats, but also to upgrade them. Efforts are made to
plant appropriate vegetation, improve and expand wildlife
corridors, and link existing habitats. Projects can preserve
portions of the site, which are contiguous to natural areas
outside of the site, in an undisturbed condition; create new
connections between areas of important habitat; or remove
existing barriers to movement.
NW3.2 Control Invasive Species

List invasive species in region with map of any within 1 km
of sites (document sources/references)
Confirm that any plants to be preserved on sites are
noninvasive
Plant list and seed/sod mix to include native species,
supplemented by hardy, noninvasive cultivated species

Superior (5) Locally appropriate and noninvasive.
The project team works with state and local agencies and
other groups to identify and use only locally appropriate plants
on the site following completion of construction and
commencement of operations. Identify and avoid any noxious
plants by referring to lists provided in state noxious weeds
laws or federal noxious weeds laws.
CLIMATE & RISK

CR1.1 Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Document life-cycle carbon assessment or carbon footprint
analysis per accepted methods pre-construction condition
and design-related reductions
Roundabouts have been documented to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions by about 33% as a result of more efficient
traffic flow and less idling
Promotion of pedestrian and vehicular trips through new
crossings will also reduce GHGs to an extent
Enhanced landscaping will also improve air quality

Superior (13) At least 40% greenhouse gas reduction.
Using a completed life-cycle carbon assessment, the project
team works to design the project so that it reduces carbon
emissions by at least 40%.
CR2.3 Prepare for Long-term Adaptability

Identify specific measures to address long-term
consequences of climate change (e.g., increased frequency
and intensity of extreme weather events, extended
droughts, heat waves)
Design for resilience (e.g., increase in infiltration through
pervious surfaces, suitable native plant species requiring
less water than cultivated equivalents)

Conserving (16) Highly resilient and adaptive.
Plans and designs have been created and implemented to
prepare for long-term climate change, including the effects of
increased intensity and frequency of extreme weather events,
water scarcity, sea level rise, extended droughts and heat
waves, and increased ambient temperature.

Appendix F
Phase 1 Construction
Page | 21

McElhanney Victoria Road Traffic Plan

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

McElhanney Victoria Road Traffic Plan

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

City of Revelstoke

His Worship Mayor McKee and Members of City Council

Mike Thomas P.Eng. ENV SP Director of Engineering and Development

Victoria / Mutas Intersection Conceptual Design

Items Unclear to the Public

Mike Thomas P.Eng. ENV SP Director of Engineering and Development

April 2016 Rev1

Victoria/Mutas Intersection Improvement

Photo from Columbia Shushwap Regional District

McElhanney Consulting Services

Contact: Elisa Becker, P.Eng., PMP

Victoria/Mutas Intersection Improvement

Proposed Improvement Configuration

Victoria/Mutas Intersection Improvement

Victoria/Mutas Intersection Improvement

2. Stakeholder Engagement Strategy

3. Items Unclear to the Public

Victoria/Mutas Intersection Improvement

4. Comments with Significant MOTI Involvement

Victoria/Mutas Intersection Improvement

Victoria/Mutas Intersection Improvement

5. Comments without Significant MOTI Involvement

Victoria/Mutas Intersection Improvement

Victoria/Mutas Intersection Improvement

The intersection improvements, including the roundabout, are designed to accommodate a

Victoria/Mutas Intersection Improvement

Victoria/Mutas Intersection Improvement

7. Traffic Modelling Analysis

Victoria/Mutas Intersection Improvement

8. Sustainability Envision Rating

Victoria/Mutas Intersection Improvement

9. Recommendations for Design

Victoria/Mutas Intersection Improvement

10. Construction Sequencing

Roundabout tender ready

Victoria/Mutas Intersection Improvement

11. Next Steps

Victoria/Mutas Intersection Improvement

Victoria/Mutas Intersection Improvement

Vissim Intersection Level of Service Report

Mutas Intersection Design - Revelstoke, BC

Hwy 1 / Laforme Blvd-Victoria Rd

Total Delay (sec/veh)

Bend Rd-Mutas Loop / Victoria Rd

Existing Peak Summer

Total Delay (sec/veh)

Vissim Intersection Level of Service Report

Mutas Intersection Design - Revelstoke, BC

Total Delay (sec/veh)

Mutas Loop / Frontage Rd-Bend Rd

Existing Peak Summer

Total Delay (sec/veh)

Vissim Intersection Level of Service Report

Existing Peak Summer

Mutas Intersection Design - Revelstoke, BC

Route 23N-Bend Rd / Hwy 1

Total Delay (sec/veh)

Vissim Intersection Level of Service Report

Mutas Intersection Design - Revelstoke, BC

Hwy 1 / Laforme Blvd-Victoria Rd

Total Delay (sec/veh)

Rd-Mutas Loop / Victoria Rd

Preferred Plan Peak Summer