This site is in beta — data may be incomplete and features are still being added.
Council Meeting/Documents/Christie Point TIA Review - Opus International Consultants
Correspondence

Christie Point TIA Review - Opus International Consultants

June 6, 2017Pages 35–362 sections

External review letter from Opus International regarding the Transportation Impact Assessment for Christie Point.

Date: May 25, 2017Recommends minimum 1.2m width bike lanesSupports installation of a traffic signal at Shoreline Drive & Island Highway

May 25, 2017

John Rosenberg Town of View Royal 45 View Royal Avenue Victoria, BC

Ref: 12407.00

Page 35–36

Christie Point TIA Review

In response to your request, Opus International Consultants (Canada) Limited (Opus) has conducted a review of the final comments from Bunt& Associates. Bunt Comments and Opus responses are summarized below:

  1. We recommend the completion of a sidewalk connection along Shoreline Drive from Christie Point to Island Highway. We suggest the continuation of the sidewalk on Shoreline’s west edge. We do not believe a second sidewalk on Shoreline’s east edge will lead to an advantage in terms of potential for further increased walking mode split and also feel the drawbacks of land requirements outweighs the potential benefits of a sidewalk along the east edge.

A sidewalk along the west side is adequate for this development. The pedestrian volumes are not expected to require sidewalks on both sides for this development and the additional sidewalk will not increase mode split.

  1. We recommend painted bike lanes be put on both sides of Shoreline Drive, each should be a minimum of 1.2m width, if additional space is available a painted buffer between the vehicle and bicycle travel lanes could be implemented. Space for the bike lanes could be assisted with the narrowing of the vehicle travel lanes to 3.2m, the narrowing of the travel lanes can support lowered vehicle speeds on Shoreline Drive. However if Shoreline Drive width constraints are encountered we also note that shared bike lane/ travel lanes are consistent with best practice for roads with Shoreline’s anticipated vehicle volumes and travel speeds. If Shoreline Drive road width constraints are encountered we would recommend the northbound (uphill) bike lane be prioritized over the southbound (downhill) bike lane due to anticipated speed differentials.

The bike lane is currently set along the west side of the road along the school side. Bike lanes should be accommodated along both sides of the road due to the increased vehicle volumes and encouragement of alternative transportation modes. Bike lane width of 1.5 metres (asphalt width) is preferred at the minimum.

  1. We recommend the sidewalk along Shoreline be supported with Town standard lighting.

Agreed and street lighting spacing to be determined at the detailed design stage.

  1. We recommend a traffic signal be introduced at the Shoreline Drive & Island Highway intersection. The signal should also have an advanced warning light for westbound travel. We recommend the signal include a pedestrian crossing of Island Highway on the intersections west leg, this will align with Shoreline’s sidewalk. We believe this pedestrian crossing will lead to more pedestrian route options, increased area walkability, will reduce pedestrian volumes at the busy Admirals intersection and will not significantly add delay to Island Highway vehicles.

The pedestrian crosswalk on the west side is adequate and will allow for simultaneous crossing of pedestrians and left turn vehicle movements from Shoreline Drive to Island Highway without causing delays to left turning vehicles movements. The signal will provide pedestrian crossing options along Island Highway and distribute some of the pedestrian traffic away from Island Highway at the Admirals Way/Craigflower Road Intersection. Advanced warning is required for eastbound travel (Opus assumes this is what Bunt intended in comment above). The sign would be in the form of an advanced signal warning sign appropriately timed with the signal such as the one shown below.

  1. We recommend the extension of Island Highway westbound two lane profile from its current termination at Shoreline Drive to a point 120m (plus appropriate taper length) west of Shoreline Drive.

Opus agrees with the lane length. TAC guidelines should be used during detailed design for determining taper lengths.

  1. We recommend the improvement of the trail located along the Inlet behind Shoreline Middle School, we believe this trail can lead to increased transportation options for Shoreline residents and in particular cyclists accessing the E&N regional trail.

Agreed.

  1. Regarding the location of bus stops along Island Highway, at this time we have not been able to get a response from BC Transit regarding the potential for the bus stops along Island Highway to be moved closer to Christie Point by either having a bus route enter Shoreline Drive or the bus stops be moved eastward closer to Shoreline Drive. We also note the availability of bus pull-outs at the current location and the potential constraints of introducing bus-pull outs closer to Shoreline. The distance of the current bus stops from Christie Point using the Inlet trail is approximately 500m which is considered an appropriate distance and a distance that can support strong transit use. Moving the bus stops to the east closer to Shoreline Drive would shorten the distance by approximately 60 – 100m but would lengthen the distance for other area transit users. We do not believe relocating the bus stops on Island Highway should be considered a priority.

A westbound bus pullout closer to Shoreline Drive will hinder the ability to maximize the lane length along Island Highway. It is likely the required taper for the merge lane will require the bus stop to move further west. The eastbound bus stop will not require relocation.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact Christine Benedek at 250-868-4925 ext. 214.

Regards

Christine Benedek Senior Transportation Engineer

Jesse Arsenault Transportation Engineer

Page 35–36
Extracted from: 2017 06 06 Council Agenda - Agenda - Pdf