April 15, 2014 MOTI Access Design File #2112-04960

Focus File No.: 061500050

District of Peachland 5806 Beach Avenue Peachland, BC V0H 1X7 Dear: Ms. Elsie Lemke Chief Administrative Officer RE: SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS DISTRICT OF PEACHLAND & MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE NEW MONACO ENTERPRISE CORPORATION

We thank the District of Peachland and Staff for your support and assistance in determining the optimal access locations to service the proposed New Monaco Community. Since our last meeting, and as discussed with your team, we present this Summary of Transportation Access Recommendations for your consideration as our preferred transportation servicing solution for this site. We believe that the appropriate procedure is for the District to be the applicant to MOTI for these works, so if you are in agreement with the recommendations contained herein, we would ask that you forward this to Ms. Robyn Clifford, District Development Technician, MOTI, and request their comments at their earliest convenience. They are aware of these upcoming recommendations and are awaiting the submission from your office. Since our last meetings with the stakeholders, New Monaco engaged Focus Corporation and Boulevard Transportation Group, to critically assess the functionality and impacts of the various access alternatives outlined within the Area Sector Plan of April 2011. We built upon the TIS work previously completed but evaluated the trigger points and capacities of the various options and explored new ones. The stakeholders involved have identified various areas to be identified and reviewed so that an optimal series of recommendations can be brought forward. Ultimately the priority for safety, appropriate levels of service and efficient flow of traffic have guided the following items for review and recommendations:

Highway 97C Access: Determine the safest and most effective solution for all stakeholders. The ultimate tube underpass under Highway 97C.

Highway 97C Egress: Review potential access to Highway 97C from New Monaco and the overall safety and volume control benefits.

Western Accesses: Discussion and review of future accesses from the central and western neighbourhoods outlining their future impacts. This includes a future emergency access through Morrison Ridge, as well as potential additional accesses to Highway 97 and 97C.

Further, as we work with the stakeholders to finalize the agreement on these issues, we will need to resolve the following items:

Infrastructure: Review of infrastructure requirements, locations and the corresponding impact to the stakeholders.

Location: Discussion on the location and interaction of property lines and the impact to each stakeholder.

Timing & Triggers: Discussion on the approval schedule and corresponding key trigger points as it relates to the process.

Looking forward, if we can reach consensus on the transportation access options, it is our intent to proceed with completion of the final Traffic Impact Study that reflects the recommendations enclosed, and analyzes/assesses/demonstrates that the access recommendations are ideal to maintain the safety and movement of existing Highway traffic while providing the optimal access to the New Monaco development. Upon completion of the Traffic Impact Study we will submit the review to the stakeholders and at that time move forward to the next level of consensus and approval. Appreciating the complexity of the series of reviews and approvals relative to the access options, we would ask for everyone’s help and commitment to advancing these approvals in a timely manner. We appreciate your consideration of these recommendations and are more than happy to discuss these recommendations in more detail, however in the essence of time, we ask that if you are in agreement with the concepts that you forward them to MOTI as soon as possible. Please feel free to contact me anytime should you wish to discuss these items further. Sincerely,

Mark Holland Vice President of Development New Monaco LP mark.holland@newmonaco.ca (250) 713-9789 www.newmonaco.ca

Highway 97C Access

Deceleration Lane

Project Design Criteria

ELEMENT DESIGN CRITERIA NOTES

Classification Interchange: Grade Separated Ramp; Freeway to Collector/Arterial

Posted Speed 50 km/h, Stop Condition Ahead (a)

Design Speed 90 km/h to Stop Condition

Basic Lanes 1 (b)

Minimum Radius none (c)

Equivalent Min. K Factor - Sag - Crest

N/A 24

(d)

Maximum Grade 4.69% (e)

Maximum Superelevation N/A

Stopping Sight Distance 138.25m (f)

Lane Width 3.7m (g)

Shoulder Width - Outside - Inside

0.5m 0.5m

Clear Zone 2.5 m w/ 1.5:1 slope or 0.5m to wall (h)

Median Width N/A

Design Vehicle WB-20

Notes:

(a) Ramp design Freeway/Arterial for motorist speeds of 90km/hr upgrade.

(b) Minimum roadway way width of 3.7m to facilitate 1 way traffic.

(c) Minimum horizontal curve radius of >500m @ Stat 9+000 at taper.

(d) From Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, TAC, 1999. (TAC Table 2.1.3.2) and based on the assumed operating speed of 70-80km/hr after 90m of tangential deceleration length at an upgrade of 4.7%.

(e) Maximum grade for initial deceleration segment is 4.69% upgrade. Grade factor applied to segment 2 is 0.9 (TAC Table 2.4.6.3) 3-5% up for all design speeds.

(f) Recommended sight stopping distance as per Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads , TAC, 1999 (TAC Table 2.1.3.2) is 112.8-139.4m based on the assumed operating speed of 70-80km/hr after 90m of tangential deceleration length at an upgrade of 4.7%.

(g) Paved width does not include taper section, width with shoulder design to 4.7m wide.

(h) Clear Zone foreslope along side opposing highway

Acceleration Lane

Project Design Criteria

ELEMENT DESIGN CRITERIA NOTES

Classification Interchange: Grade Separated Ramp; Freeway to Collector/Arterial

Posted Speed 50 km/h at STA 0+020,

100km/hr at STA 0+215

(i)

Design Speed 60 km/h to STA 0+272

100km/hr STA 0+272-0+655

Basic Lanes 1 (j)

Minimum Radius 260m (k)

Equivalent Min. K Factor - Sag - Crest

N/A 24

(l)

Maximum Grade 6% (m)

Maximum Superelevation N/A

Stopping Sight Distance 265m (n)

Lane Width 3.7m (o)

Shoulder Width - Outside - Inside

0.5m 0.5m

Clear Zone 2.5 m w/ 1.5:1 slope or 0.5 to wall

Median Width N/A

Design Vehicle WB-20

Notes:

(i) Ramp design for motorist speeds of 100km/hr downgrade.

(j) Minimum roadway way width of 3.7m to facilitate 1 way cycle traffic.

(k) Maximum horizontal curve radius of 260mm @ Stat 0+207 as per District of Peachland Subdivision, Development and Servicing Bylaw No.1956 (Table 10.2) at 60 km/hr, beginning the acceleration lane.

(l) From Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, TAC, 1999. (TAC Table 3.4.5.5) and based on the equation K=V2/390.

(m) Maximum grade for Segment 1 (30-60km/hr) is 10.0% as per District of Peachland Subdivision, Development and Servicing Bylaw No.1956 (Table 10.2). Maximum grade for Segment 2 (60-100km/hr) is 6.0% upgrade and 3.31% downgrade. Grade factor applied to segment 2 is 0.6 (TAC Table 2.4.6.3) 3-5% down for >90km/hr design speeds.

(n) Minimum sight stopping distance Calculated from Figure 2.4.6.4 and recommended SSD is 152-205m as per 100km/hr design speed from Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads , TAC, 1999 (TAC Table 2.1.3.2).

(o) Paved width does not include taper section, width with shoulder design to 4.7m wide.

Deceleration Lane General Length Requirements

The recommended taper length (Lt ) is 80m at a Design speed of 90km/hr. The recommended Length of Deceleration Lane (Ld) is 150-195m based on Design of 90km/hr to Stop Condition. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads , TAC, 1999 (TAC Table 2.4.6.2), totaling 230-275m.

In addition to an 80m taper lane, a 200m Deceleration lane has been provided before the stop condition.

The first 120m is at an upgrade of over 4.4% and a 0.9 grade factor can be applied.

The following 130m range in grades from 2% to -1% and no grade factor is applied.

The remaining 30m to the stop condition is a downgrade of 6% and a factor of 1.4 is applied.

Grade factors are from the Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, TAC, 1999 (TAC Table 2.4.6.3).

The total equivalent deceleration length is 280m, 5m longer that the highest recommendation and more than 132m of factored ramp length is at highway grade including an 88m factored taper length.

Vehicles from Kelowna (anticipated >70% of traffic) pull directly off the highway from a dedicated lane.

Vehicle traffic from Peachland (anticipated<30% of traffic) have over 200m of length to change lanes and access the beginning of the taper.

Acceleration Lane General Requirements

The recommended taper length (Lt ) is 85m at a Design speed of 100km/hr. The recommended Length of Deceleration Lane (Ld) is 140-325m based on Design of 60km/hr to 100km/hr. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads , TAC, 1999 (TAC Table 2.4.6.2), totaling 225-410m.

In addition to an 85m taper lane, a 655m Acceleration lane has been provided before the end of the taper.

The first 215m is at an upgrade of over 6%, is not included in the 60km/hr-100km/hr acceleration section, and serves the purpose of allowing vehicles to accelerate from 30km/hr to 60km/hr.

The following 70m section has a grade of 6% and a grade factor is of 2.2 applied.

The following 115m section varies in grade from 6% to -3.3% and grade factors balance and none are applied.

The final section 232m section has a grade of -3.31% and a factor of 0.6 is applied.

Grade factors are from the Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, TAC, 1999 (TAC Table 2.4.6.3).

The total equivalent acceleration length is 425.8m, 15m longer that the highest recommendation and more than 224m of factored ramp length is at highway grade including a 112m factored taper length.

Vehicles leaving the site merge into Highway 97C and have a 202m length where no interaction occurs on the highway between the end of the taper and the beginning of the next interaction taper (ramp down connecting HWY 97C and HWY 97).

Additional Factors

The points at which both ramps are introduced are in recognized heavy trucking routes. In the case of traffic accessing the deceleration ramp, this is seen as a benefit as vehicles of all kinds are moving more slowly at grades of >4% up. In the case of the acceleration lane, this is also seen as a benefit as trucks are gearing down on a highway down slope in preparation for a 30km/hr posted speed ramp that connects to HWY 97.

*Reference Drawings: 00050-FIG.2, 00050-FIG.3, 0050-FIG.4, 00050-FIG.5

__________________________ Design Technologist Date: ____________________

Name and Title

__________________________ Project Manager Date: ____________________

Name and Title

CONCEPTUAL 2014-03-14

CONCEPTUAL 2013-08-21

CONCEPTUAL 2013-08-21