Attachment 6: 339 Island Island Highway, TIA Report - Review Letter

March 29, 2023

Bunt File #: 04-23-0032

Ivan Leung Director of Engineering Town of View Royal 45 View Royal Ave. Victoria, BC V9B 1A6

VIA E-MAIL: ILeung@viewroyal.ca

Dear Ivan:

Re: 339 Island Island Highway, TIA Report - Review Letter

As requested, Bunt & Associates have conducted a review of Watt Consulting Group’s November 28, 2022 339 / 341 / 345 Island Highway Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) report (attached as Appendix A). The report was prepared for a proposed 260 residential unit development at 339 -345 Island Highway in View Royal, BC.

Based on our review of the report, we offer the following comments:

1. Study area, periods of analysis, base vehicle volume assumptions, vehicle trip generation estimates and applied growth rates are consistent with current best practice.
2. The report should indicate the tenure of the residential units as this is shown to impact parking demand and vehicle trip generation.
3. The Prince Robert & Island Highway intersection currently functions as a 4-leg intersection. The report’s analysis evaluates the intersection as a three-leg intersection. Prince Robert Drive’s north leg, into the adjacent residential area, is slightly offset from Prince Robert’s south leg, however it functions like a 4 -leg intersection and should be examined as such in the Synchro model analysis and signal warrants. Adding this leg of the intersection to the analysis may result in exacerbated operational constraints as additional minor leg turn movements are added.
4. The proposed development introduces a significant volume of vehicles to the Prince Robert & Island Highway intersection. The Synchro model outputs indicate operations are anticipated to deteriorate beyond thresholds for mitigation with the introduction of the proposed development. The proposed development results in a high percentage of the future forecasted volumes on Price Robert Drive’s south leg. While proposing a westbound to southbound (Island Highway to Price Robert Drive) left turn lane mitigates issues for certain intersection movements it does not mitigate the problematic delays for vehicles turning from Prince Robert Drive onto Island Highway and may in fact exacerbate these delays by obstructing sightlines from Prince Robert Drive exiting vehicles to Island Highway westbound through vehicles.
5. Minor leg minimum volume thresholds offered by MOTI and TAC Signal Timing Warrants appear to be met with the forecasted volumes. The report does not provide rationale for why the development’s volumes may be lower than forecasted through the applied ITE rates. Not removing existing site trips does not impact the critical Prince Robert Drive & Island Highway intersection as existing access is from Island Highway not Prince Robert Drive. The report should provide referenced MOTI and TAC Signal Timing warrants as a report appendix. It is also noted that signal warrants are only guides which should be used in analysis but not considered definitive. Mitigation of the intersection should also be considered from a pedestrian crossing perspective.
6. Considering the forecasted Synchro model outputs and in particular the minor leg Prince Robert delays and sightlines limitations, it is our view that the introduction of a traffic signal should be considered at the Prince Robert Drive & Island Highway intersection in coordination with the proposed development. The intersection may also best be fitted with left turn lanes for both westbound and eastbound Island Highway approaches. Review of this potential mitigation should include both half and full signalization.
7. The TIA report should include a description of the proposed vehicle parking supply relative to Bylaw requirements, including the proposed supply for residents and residential visitors.
8. The development’s proposed bicycle parking supply and Bylaw requirements should be included in the TIA report.
9. The report should include Transportation Demand Management (TDM) initiatives that may help minimize the development’s vehicle driver mode share. The breadth of TDM should relate to degree of parking variance required. If a substantial parking variance is required, then substantive TDM measures such as transit subsidies or provisions that enable car-sharing may be considered.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on this report. Please contact the undersigned should you have any questions.

Best regards, Bunt & Associates

Jason Potter, M.Sc. PTP Senior Transportation Planner

Yulia Liem, P.Eng., PTOE Principal

APPENDIX A: WATT CONSULTING GROUP’S 339 / 341 / 345 ISLAND HIGHWAY TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT (TIA)