UBC Undergraduate Research

Chancellor Boulevard Redesign Albitar, Maria; Arqueza, Janz; Lee, James; Mok, Klassen; Ndina, Ruddy; Tse, Jeremy 2018-04-09

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


18861-Albitar_M_et_al_CIVL_445_Team_20_Corridor_Redesign_Report.pdf [ 8.48MB ]
JSON: 18861-1.0373880.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0373880-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0373880-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0373880-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0373880-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0373880-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0373880-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Sustainability Program Student Research Report Chancellor Boulevard Redesign - Team 20Maria Albitar, Janz Arqueza, James Lee, Klassen Mok, Ruddy Ndina, Jeremy Tse University of British ColumbiaCIVL 445Themes: Transportation, Community, LandApril 9, 2018Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS Sustainability Program provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as wellas their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student research project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore, readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Sustainability Program representative about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”.1 | P a g e1.0 Executive Summary J3MRK’s recommended roadway redesign extending from west of Acadia Road to west of Drummond Drive, seeks to provide a welcoming access to the Pacific Spirit Regional Park as well as an efficient route for passage through the University Endowment Lands from the City of Vancouver. The major aspects of the design may be summarized as follows: ● Multi-use underpass for pedestrians and cyclists at the intersection of Hamber and ChancellorBoulevard designed to provide a convenient and safe passageway across the boulevard for thecommunity.● A road diet rendering Chancellor Boulevard as a two-lane roadway with bicycle lanes and multi-use pathways on either side.● Traffic operations at Hamber Road and Acadia Road based on 2041 vehicular volume forecasts areanticipated to be satisfactory with no changes to the existing signal.● Following the removal of combined sewer overflows (CSOs), a new tunnel drainage system willbe incorporated to augment and optimize the drainage capacity of the existing system against a 1in 100 year storm event.● The provision of space for the purposes of stationing public bikeshare amenities, car-sharingvehicles, electric vehicle charging, as well as family parking spaces to ensure that parks areaccessible to the greater public.● The anticipated total project cost is $5.21 million.● The project has a design life of 25 years for lighting components, 50 years for roadwork and 100years for all other project infrastructure.2 | P a g eTable of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary 1 2.0 Introduction 4 2.1 Summary of Contributions 5 3.0 Design Specifications/Criteria 6 3.1 Regulations 6 3.2 Sustainability 8 3.3 Societal 9 3.4 Design Life 9 4.0 Technical Analysis 10 4.1 Transportation Planning 10 4.1.1. Growth Rate 10 4.1.2 Traffic Operations 11 Definitions 11 Results 12 4.1.3 Bicycle Operations 12 4.2 Underpass Structural Analysis 13 4.2.1 Design Loadings 13 Permanent Loads 14 Transitory Loads 14 Exceptional Loads 15 Load Combinations 15 4.2.2 One-Way Slab Design 15 Flexural Reinforcement 15 Shear Reinforcement 17 4.2.3 Basement Wall Design 17 Flexural Reinforcement 17 Shear Reinforcement 18 4.2.4 Strip Footing Design 18 Footing Dimensions and Shear Reinforcement 18 Flexural Reinforcement 19 Longitudinal Reinforcement 19 4.3 Geotechnical Analysis 19 4.3.1 Soil Profile 20 4.3.2 Footing Settlement 21 3 | P a g e4.3.3 Recommended Ground Improvement 22 Underpass 22 Roadway 22 5.0 Design Components 23 5.1 Geometric Design of Road 23 5.1.1 Overview of Corridor 23 5.1.2 Road Design 23 5.1.3 Active Transportation Facilities 23 5.1.4 Hamber Intersection 24 5.2 Underpass 24 5.3 Utilities 26 5.3.1 Lighting 26 Roadway Lighting 26 Power Connections 27 Structural Lighting Components 27 5.3.2 Drainage 27 6.0 Construction Planning 30 6.0.1 Pre-Construction Phase 30 6.0.2 Mobilization of Equipment on Site 31 6.0.3 Tunnel Construction 31 6.0.4 Road Works 35 6.1 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) 36 6.2 Project Schedule 37 7.0 Cost Estimate 38 8.0 Maintenance Plan 39 9.0 References 40 Appendix A: Stakeholder Engagement 1 Appendix B: Transportation Analysis & Synchro Results 3 Appendix C: Geometric Road Design 10 Appendix D: Underpass Calculations 11 Appendix E: Drainage 25 Appendix F: Construction Planning 31 Appendix G: Cost Estimate 34 Appendix H: Maintenance Plan 35 Appendix I: Design Drawing Package 36 4 | P a g e2.0 Introduction Chancellor Boulevard is one of the roads connecting the University Endowment Lands to the City of Vancouver.  Figure 1 - Project Extents Currently, there are several points of improvement for the corridor. From west of Acadia Road to the west of Drummond Drive, the current environment could be shifted from a motor vehicle dominated environment to one that encourages active transportation. While the corridor is currently serviced by the 44 and the 84 bus, walking and cycling transport modes should be supported as well. The existing poorly maintained multi-use pathway was constructed to support these modes, but have fallen into disrepair. For pedestrian crossings, there is only an intersection at Hamber to service the nearby University Hill Elementary School and another motor vehicle prioritized crossing for the park trails. Additionally, the 85th percentile of the speed is above the posted speed limits. J3MRK has been selected by the University of British Columbia’s Campus and Community Planning (C+CP) office to complete a design for the Chancellor Boulevard Redesign Project. The design we propose aims to install traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle speeds, an underpass at Hamber to more safely let school and bus users to cross the corridor safely, and generally update the corridor to more modern 5 | P a g estandards such as streetlights. To this point, J3MRK has completed site survey and investigations, stakeholder consultations, and permit applications. The overall goal of this report is to accurately convey design plans and the due diligence behind proposed construction methods. Using the following software, the design team has checked to ensure the safety and security for all those who use Chancellor Boulevard: Design Software Design Component AutoCAD Drafting SAP Structural SkyCiv Structural Synchro 6 Traffic Analysis Table 1 - Design Software 2.1 Summary of Contributions Tasks Primary Secondary QA/QC Executive Summary Jeremy Tse Janz Arqueza Maria Albitar Introduction Janz Arqueza Jeremy Tse James Lee Design Specifications Maria Albitar Klassen Mok James Lee Transportation Planning Maria Albitar Klassen Mok Jeremy Tse Geotechnical Analysis Maria Albitar James Lee Ruddy Ndina Geometric Design on Road Klassen Mok Janz Arqueza Jeremy Tse Underpass James Lee Jeremy Tse Maria Albitar Lighting Maria Albitar N/A Janz Arqueza Utilities Ruddy Ndina Klassen Mok Jeremy Tse Computer Modelling Synchro: Maria Sketchup: James AutoCAD: Janz / Klassen N/A Synchro: Klassen SketchUp: Ruddy AutoCAD: Maria Construction Planning Ruddy Ndina James Lee Maria Albitar Project Schedule Ruddy Ndina Klassen Mok James Lee Maintenance Plan Jeremy Tse Maria Albitar Ruddy Rdina Cost Estimate James Lee Klassen Mok Jeremy Tse Table 2 - Summary of Contributions 6 | P a g e3.0 Design Specifications/Criteria 3.1 Regulations Given the heavy impact of this project as well as its geographical location, the redesign of Chancellor Boulevard will require adherence to various sets of standards and regulations relating to each aspect of the design, and can be summarized as follows: Section Subsection Regulation Reference Drainage Storm Design Flows TAC standards (1999) Chapter 1000 Hydraulics Fisheries & Oceans Canada Stormwater Guidelines Surrey MMCD Surrey Design Criteria 2016 ● Surrey Design Criteria 2016Sections 5.3 & 5.4● MMCD 2009 DWG SSD -D.8, SSD - D.12, S-8, S-11,S-12Stormwater Management Metro Vancouver Best Management Practices Guide for Stormwater 1999 Stormwater Source Control Design Guidelines 2012 ● SSCDG Sections 5, 7, & 8● Surrey Design CriteriaSections 5.3 & 5.4Geotechnical Engineering Bearing Capacity Bridge Standards and Procedures Manual (2016) for concrete structures Transportation Engineering Roadway Road Design ● TAC 1.2● See Note 1.Road Geometry ● TAC 1.2, 2.1, 2.3Signage ● BC Manual of StandardTraffic Signs & PavementMarkings Sections 1-6Pavement Markings ● BC Manual of StandardTraffic Signs & PavementMarkings Section 7Bicycle Facility Bicycle Facility Design ● TAC 3.4Bicycle Facility Geometry ● See Note 2.● TAC 2.1 and 3.4● MassDOT Separated BikeLane Planning & DesignGuide (3.3.3 and 4.3.2)Pedestrian Facility Pedestrian Facility Sidewalk and Grading ● See Note 3.7 | P a g eStructural Engineering Design Loads (CSA S6.14) Load Factors and Load Combinations Section 3.5   Table 3.1 Live Loads Section 3.8 Dead Loads Section 3.6 Other Loads Section 3 One-Way Slab Design (CSA A23.3) Reinforcement Ratio Cl.10.5.2 Minimum Reinforcement Area ● Cl.● Cl. Requirement Cl.8.1.3 Cracking Control Cl.10.6.1 Shrinkage and Temperature Reinforcement ● Cl.7.8.1● Cl.7.8.3Basement Wall Design (CSA A23.3) Wall Thickness Cl. Tension Reinforcement Equation 5.4 Shear Reinforcement ● Cl.● Cl.● Cl.● Cl. Design (CSA A23.3) Concrete Shear Strength Cl.11.3.3 Cl. Cl.11.3.4 Flexural Reinforcement Cl.15.4.2 Cl.15.4.3 Design Checks Minimum Reinforcement area Reinforcement Ratio Bar Spacing ● Cl.7.8.1● Cl.10.5.2● Cl.● Cl.13.10.4Accessible Structures Ramps Dimensions and Slope NBCC 2010 Division B Section 9.8 8 | P a g eEnvironmental Fisheries and In-Stream Works Regulations under Fisheries and Oceans Canada given that Pacific Spirit Regional Park contains salmon-bearing streams British Columbia Ministry of Environment’s standards and best practices for in-stream works ● Fisheries Act Section 6● BC Ministry ofEnvironment Standards andBest Practices for in-streamworks Sections 1-10Roadwork Road Sustainability Criteria INVEST ver. 1.2 System Planning for Regions (SPR) Project Development (PD) Operations and Maintenance (OM) Lighting Roadway Lighting Luminaire type: cobra glass head Luminosity calculations BC Electrical Engineering Guidelines Section 304.3.9 Materials Ministry’s recognized products list with 150 W HPS BC Electrical Engineering Guidelines Section 308.3.2 Underpass Lighting Pedestrian and cyclist amenities BC Electrical Engineering Guidelines Section 304.2.3 Construction Construction Planning Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) 2000 Edition ● Section 3.3.1● Section 6.3.1● Section 12.1Table 3 - Design Specifications Note 1: For AutoTURN simulations of turning movements, a 5 km/h turning speed shall be used. Note 2: City of Vancouver Wiki states: “When designing on-street separated bike lanes please consider that in order to use the standard street sweeper a minimum 2.5m width is required.” Note 3: The recommended minimum transverse gradient for bikeways and sidewalk is 1%. Where surface drainage is provided by adequate longitudinal and lateral slope of the ground away from the bikeway and sidewalk, the minimum grade may be reduced to 0.5%. 3.2 Sustainability Sustainability is a core value in the team’s design philosophy. This project has applied eco-friendly and sustainable design practices for the entire design process. In alignment with UBC’s sustainability goals, innovative initiatives have been incorporated for the design. This includes the implementation of strategies to promote sustainable modes of transportation over automotive vehicles. Design considerations include prioritized bicycle lanes to promote the safety of cyclists, an underpass for pedestrians and cyclists to safely cross Chancellor Boulevard and a maintained pathway for both pedestrian and cyclist use for travel along the corridor. In order to assess the sustainability of the road, INVEST will be the road rating system used. Despite Greenroads having 3rd party certification available and a well-established rating system, projects that are not rated under the Greenroads road rating system cannot be compared (Abdul, 2012).  INVEST 9 | P a g ecan also be used in the planning, operation, and maintenance stages as well with refined criteria for small scale projects such as the redesign of Chancellor Boulevard.  3.3 Societal Although the project is expected to produce beneficial outcomes to those who use the area, there may be negative impacts on those in and surrounding the area. For example, a road closure would affect people's access to different places. As such, the design team has identified the following major stakeholders who may be impacted through phases of the project, which can be found in Appendix A. For this project, a stakeholder engagement plan was implemented. This multifaceted plan aimed to both inform and to obtain stakeholders’ opinions in a structured and timely way, running from November 2017 to April 2018. The stakeholder engagement plan follows strategies from UBC’s Campus + Community Planning engagement principles (University of British Columbia Campus + Community Planning, n.d.). These strategies include stakeholder engagement in the form of informing, consulting, joint problem solving, collaborating and partnering. Firstly, stakeholders were identified and reached out to. Secondly, public notice such as fliers and town halls were given in order to more accurately gauge opinions during the design phase. Feedback was sought from the conceptual stage in order to reduce the amount of design change iterations. Finally, formalized consultations were held with major stakeholders as part of the permitting process and design progress was relayed on a timely basis. A copy of the town hall flyer used for the stakeholder engagement plan can be found in Appendix A.  3.4 Design Life Due to different standards’ requirements and practical maintenance schedule afterwards, different components of the project have different design lives. These are: Design Aspect Design Life Underpass Design Life 100 years Roadwork 50 years Lighting 25 years Table 4 - Design Life Components 10 | P a g e4.0 Technical Analysis A variety of software has been used in determining the specifications of our final results as detailed in the subsequent sections. 4.1 Transportation Planning Existing 2017 volumes were obtained from a site visit on October 10, 2017; where flows along Chancellor Boulevard in addition to turning movements through the intersections at Acadia Road and Hamber Road were also noted. The existing traffic counts are summarized as shown in the figure below. No pedestrian crossings were observed at Acadia Rd., while 30 pedestrian crossings were observed crossing Chancellor Boulevard at Hamber, arriving in groups of 3 or more. Figure 2 - Present Traffic Counts 4.1.1. Growth Rate In order to forecast the horizon year of 2041, data on student enrollment growth in addition to on-campus housing supply was analyzed. It was determined that student enrollment growth had been relatively steady at 2.5%; meanwhile, on-campus housing supply is anticipated to grow more rapidly as part of the UBC Vancouver Campus Plan.  The current modal split for non-singly occupied vehicles entering and exiting UBC is 63%. Given the Mayor’s 10-Year Vision in addition to TransLink’s plans of extending the Millennium Line to Arbutus as part of phase 1 of the MLBE and to UBC as part of phase 2, it is likely that vehicular trip patterns will not    11 | P a g e   significantly increase from 2017 levels. Additionally, pedestrian and cyclist provisions as part of the corridor redesign are anticipated to encourage the utilization of these modes. Nevertheless, a conservative growth rate of 1.25% (half the student enrollment growth rate) was used to observe potential adverse effects on the system, with volumes summarized in the figure below.  Figure 3 - Projected Traffic Volumes 4.1.2 Traffic Operations Definitions Operational results are based on the Highway Capacity Manual of 2000, which translates the average delay per vehicle into a level of service describing the flow conditions as summarized in Table 5 below  Level of Service (LOS)  Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection A Free Flow ≤10 ≤10 B Stable Flow (slight delays) 10 - 20 10 - 15 C Stable flow (acceptable delays) 20 - 35 15 - 25 D Approaching unstable flow  35 - 55 25 - 35 E Unstable flow (intolerable delay) 55 - 80 35 - 50 F Forced flow (jammed)  >80 >50 Table 5 - Level of Service Average Delay 12 | P a g e4.1.2.2 Results Synchro 6 software was used to determine operations along the Boulevard as well as at the intersections of Hamber and Acadia Roads. The analysis results are summarized in Table 6 below, with Synchro outputs provided in Appendix B. Existing (2018) Future (2041) Overall LOS V/C Ratio Worst Movement Worst Mov. av (s) Overall LOS V/C Ratio Worst Movement Worst Mov. av (s) Chancellor Blvd @ Acadia Rd N/A N/A SBR 29 N/A N/A SBR 490 Chancellor Blvd @ Hamber Rd N/A N/A N/A N/A A 0.75 SBL 36 Table 6 - Traffic Analysis Results It is anticipated that at the peak hour (spanning 8:00-9:00 AM), southbound vehicles turning left from Acadia Rd onto Chancellor Blvd will experience the greatest delay, with that movement having an LOS of F. However, it is important to note that the model assumes that westbound vehicles along ChancellorBoulevard will be arriving at uniform distribution and that none will intentionally provide exit vehicles with sufficient gaps. In reality, it is likely that gaps will be provided and that westbound vehicles arrive in platoons due to the signal at Hamber Rd. Additionally, traffic will be most congested during the peak 15 minutes during which most pick-up-drop-off activity occurs at University Hill Elementary School along Hamber Rd. 4.1.3 Bicycle Operations For the purposes of studying the operations of our study area in a multimodal fashion, we have considered the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 formula for calculating the Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS). Based on the methodology as shown in Appendix B and the recommended geometric design of the road, the final score is calculated to be 3.45 while the current score is at 5.05, representing LOS C and F, respectively. It can therefore be concluded that the recommended design will be more conducive to cycling. 13 | P a g e4.2 Underpass Structural Analysis To ensure the safety of the users of the underpass, an in-depth structural analysis was carried out to design the underpass structures. All design components will follow the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) A23.3 codes for the design of concrete structures. For the underpass, it has been proposed to utilize cast-in-place concrete using a cut and fill construction method. The concrete structure will consist of two strip footings, two retaining walls designed as basement walls, and a one-way reinforced concrete slab serving as a bridge for the east and west ends of Chancellor Boulevard. The following section will present the analysis methodology for each type of concrete structure. Results, such as dimensions and rebar placements, will be illustrated in the detailed design drawings found in Appendix I as well as in Section 5.2. The given parameters for design are listed below: Parameter Value Unit Concrete Strength 25 MPa Steel Strength 400 MPa Concrete Resistance Reduction Factor 0.65 Steel Resistance Reduction Factor 0.85 Average Soil Weight 19 kN/m3 Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure 0.5 Maximum Soil Bearing Pressure 100 kPa Table 7 - Design Parameters 4.2.1 Design Loadings Before analyzing each structure, a design load must be determined as the maximum factored load for which the underpass must have the structural capacity for. Design loads will be calculated using the CSA S6-14 Section 3 Table 3.1. More specifically, loads will be calculated as indicated within the section and factored using the load combinations table.  14 | P a g e4.2.1.1 Permanent Loads The only permanent load considered will be the dead load since hydrostatic pressure is assumed to be non-existent due to proper drainage and secondary prestress effects are negligible. The dead load was calculated as the self-weight of the reinforced concrete slab as well as the road and its bases.  The self-weight will be calculated using 24.0 kN/m3 across the area of the slab giving a distributed load of 14.4 kN/m. Transitory Loads The main transitory load will be contributed by the live load. Strain effects and settlement effects will be considered negligible using extra reinforcement as well as proper compaction. Wind loads will be ignored as the structure will be buried underground. The live load was determined as the greater of a CL-625 truck or a factored CL-625 truck with a uniform load of 9kN/m. This is illustrated in Figure 4 and Figure 5. Figure 4 - CL-625 kN Truck Loading Case Figure 5 - Factored Truck Load with Distributed Loading Axle and wheel loads were moved along the span of the slab to obtain a maximum bending moment and shear to be used as the live design load. This analysis was done with SkyCiv. 15 | P a g e4.2.1.3 Exceptional Loads Exceptional loads include earthquake, stream pressures, ice accretion loads, and collision loads. As these loads require extensive analysis, they will be ignored in the following analysis by using a factor of safety beyond the load factors. Load Combinations As mentioned previously, various load combinations were used to analyze the required design load. It was found that loading case Ultimate Limit State (ULS) Combination 1 governs. Furthermore, the governing axle and wheel locations for live loads were obtained using a pure CL-625 truck with its first axle and wheel at 0.1m from the left of the span. These iterations can be found in Appendix D. The final load combination yielded a total shear of 120 kN and total moment of 350 kNm. These values will be used to determine the reinforced concrete dimensions and reinforcements. 4.2.2 One-Way Slab Design Flexural Reinforcement Due to the restricted dimensions of the underpass, the slab on top will be proposed as a one-way slab. This means that the shear and moment analysis will only be considered in one direction and ignored for the other. This is a conservative conclusion as it is obvious the pedestrian underpass will be longer in one direction than the other. Following A23.3 Cl., the slab thickness was estimated to be the unsupported length of the slab divided by a factor of 20. The estimated slab thickness will also be the proposed slab thickness of 600mm. The required tension reinforcement was calculated using the following equation: 𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠 = 0.0015𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐′𝑏𝑏(𝑑𝑑 − �𝑑𝑑2 − 3.85𝑀𝑀𝑟𝑟𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐′𝑏𝑏 ) The calculated required area required was 1975 mm2/m of slab length. Using 25M rebar (25mm in diameter and 500mm2 in area), the required spacing was 250mm. This yields a total reinforcement area of 2000mm2/m which is greater than the required. To ensure this design is appropriate, the following checks were performed according to the CSA: 16 | P a g e1. Reinforcement RatioDesigning for a steel-controlled failure, where the rebar will fail before the concrete is ideal. This is due to the yielding of steel providing evacuation time and warning instead of the brittle failure of the crushing of concrete. The CSA A23.3 Cl.10.5.2 states that the reinforcement ratio of the design must be less than the balanced reinforcement ratio for the specified type of concrete. The designed reinforcement ratio is 0.0037 which is well below the required 0.022 balanced ratio. 2. Minimum Required ReinforcementThe CSA A23.3 Cl.7.8.1 specified a minimum amount of steel reinforcement according to the gross area of the concrete slab. This was calculated to be 0.002 of the gross area of concrete which was 538,000mm2. This yields a minimum of 1076 mm2 which is satisfied. 3. Maximum Bar SpacingThe CSA A23.3 Cl.7.8.1 specified a maximum bar spacing allowed in reinforced concrete slab design. This is calculated as the following: 𝑠𝑠𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 � 3ℎ500 It was calculated that the maximum bar spacing was 500mm which is satisfied. 4. Strength RequirementThe strength requirement is simply a check of the factored loads against the designed resistance. Our flexural design load of 350 kNm is satisfied. 5. Crack Control ParameterStated in A23.3 Cl.10.6.1, the crack control parameter must be satisfied to minimize cracking. This limit for exterior exposures is set at 25000 N/mm. This was initially not satisfied and caused a change in the spacing of rebar from 250 mm to 150 mm. The above checks were rechecked, and all conditions were satisfied if not better than before. The last required design for the one-way slab is the shrinkage and temperature reinforcement as discussed in A23.3 Cl.7.8.1 and 7.8.3. Using the minimum required reinforcement stated above, and a spacing of    17 | P a g e   250 mm, the shrinkage and temperature reinforcement is designed to be 20M rebar (20 mm in diameter and 300 mm2 in area.) Shear Reinforcement It is good practice to ensure that the shear resistance of the concrete slab be sufficient enough to satisfy the factored shear design load. In the proposed design, this was satisfied using a concrete shear resistance of 244 kN while the factored shear design load is 120 kN. Therefore, no steel shear resistance is required. 4.2.3 Basement Wall Design The underpass walls will be designed as a reinforced concrete basement wall since it is subjected to both an axial load from the dead and live design loads as well as lateral loads from the soil pressure. The design first requires an estimated wall thickness. According to A23.3 Cl., this is estimated to be: 𝑡𝑡 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 �𝑈𝑈𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑡𝑡𝑈𝑈𝑑𝑑 𝑤𝑤𝑚𝑚𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 ℎ𝑈𝑈𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑒ℎ𝑡𝑡/25190  190 mm governs; however, the wall was designed with a thickness of 200 mm as good practice. The basement wall must be reinforced for both flexural loads and shear loads which will be in the vertical and horizontal directions respectively. Flexural Reinforcement The flexural reinforcement for the underpass walls will be to resist the lateral soil earth pressures calculated to be 20.3 kNm/m of wall. Using the same equation for the one-way slab, a required reinforcement area of 405 mm2/m will be used with a spacing of 500 mm. Similar to one-way slab design, the following checks will be performed to ensure the design is appropriate. 1. Maximum Bar Spacing According to A23.3 Cl., the maximum rebar spacing is defined as: 𝑆𝑆𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 𝑀𝑀𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 � 3𝑡𝑡500 500 mm governs; therefore, the condition is satisfied. 2. Reinforcement Ratio 18 | P a g eSimilar to above, the reinforcement ratio for the basement wall is 0.0027 which is below 0.022. 3. Minimum Required ReinforcementAccording to A23.3 Cl., the minimum required reinforcement is defined as 0.0015 of the gross area of concrete. This yields a require reinforcement of 300mm2 which is satisfied. Shear Reinforcement In the analysis of the underpass walls, shear reinforcement was not required since the concrete shear resistance was greater than the shear design load. However, it is good practice to include the minimum horizontal reinforcement for shear. The minimum shear reinforcement will be designed using the minimum reinforcement area of 400mm2/m and a spacing of 500mm. A detailed hand-calculation of this process can be found in Appendix D. 4.2.4 Strip Footing Design To carry the design loads into the ground, footings are designed to ensure the design loads are probably transferred into the ground without exceeding the soil bearing capacity. The following analysis will be carried out according to CSA A23.3. Footing Dimensions and Shear Reinforcement The axial load per unit length on the footing will be the reaction on the foundation due to the dead and live design loads. The total factored axial load is 130 kN. The footing width will be calculated using the below equation: 𝑤𝑤 =  𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑏𝑏 ∗ 𝑞𝑞𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎= 1.0 𝑚𝑚 With the factored axial load and area of the footing, the factored soil pressure is obtained with a value of 130 kPa.  Next, the footing thickness is estimated as 250 mm to test for the concrete shear resistance and compare it to the critical section for 1-way shear. A concrete resistance of 123 kN/m was calculated which satisfied the condition indicated in A23.3 Cl. since the factored shear load is only 28.6 kN/m.    19 | P a g e Flexural Reinforcement The required moment resistance was set equal to the factored moment from the soil bearing pressure. This was calculated as: 𝑀𝑀𝑓𝑓 = 𝑞𝑞𝑓𝑓 �𝑤𝑤 − 𝑡𝑡2 � �𝑤𝑤 − 𝑡𝑡4 � 𝑏𝑏 = 10.4 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑚𝑚/𝑚𝑚 Using the same equation as before, a required reinforcement area of 169 mm2/m was calculated with a spacing of 400 mm. Once again, checks are performed to ensure the design is appropriate. 1. Minimum Reinforcement Area Stated in A23.3 Cl.7.8.1, a minimum reinforcement area of 500 mm2/m was calculated which is not satisfied. Therefore, this condition governs, and our designed reinforcement area will be 500 mm2/m. 2. Maximum Bar Spacing Stated in A23.3 Cl. and Cl.13.10.4, the maximum permitted bar spacing is equal to the lesser of 3h and 500 mm. This condition is satisfied. Longitudinal Reinforcement Since the footings are designed using one-way conditions, the minimum reinforcement is provided for the longitudinal direction. This was calculated using the above stated clauses and yields a design of 600 mm2 reinforcement area with a spacing of 500 mm. The above analysis is the basis of our proposed underpass design. Once again, a complete description of the proposed underpass will be outlined in Section 5.2 with detailed design drawings for construction provided in Appendix I. 4.3 Geotechnical Analysis A geotechnical analysis has been conducted along the roadway to determine the reliability of the roadway itself in settlement as well as the integrity of the underpass in terms of ground modification requirements as well as liquefaction and settlement.    20 | P a g e   4.3.1 Soil Profile Borehole data from two locations, indicated in Figure 6 below, were made available to J3MRK Consulting from UBC Campus and Community Planning.   Figure 6 - Borehole Locations The soil profile was therefore interpolated between the two boreholes (located at stations 0+310m and 1+470m respectively), spanning 1215 metres as shown below.  Figure 7 - Soil Profile 21 | P a g e4.3.2 Footing Settlement WB-20 → Design Vehicle. Based on the pedestrian underpass footings being placed on the sand layer near borehole #1 as shown in Figure 8 below, settlement calculations in sand and silt using the Schmertmann Strain Factor Method. Figure 8 - Footing Settlement A dead load of 14.4 kN/m was used based on the underpass dimensions and roadway assembly. A live load of 80 kN/m was calculated based on foot and vehicular traffic, assuming that traffic consists of 5% WB-20 trucks. Based on the NBCC 2010 load combinations, the maximum design load was calculated to be 138 kN/m. The assumptions made are the following: ● The soil strata beneath the footings is uniform with uniform parameters● Water table is located 24.5 metres beneath the ground surface● Elastic modulus of the soil is 15,000 kPa with a soil unit density of 19 kN/m3● No organics are present in the soilUsing the ultimate limit state approach, 𝐿𝐿𝑈𝑈𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑 < 𝑅𝑅𝑈𝑈𝑑𝑑𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅𝑡𝑡𝑚𝑚𝑈𝑈𝑚𝑚 𝐹𝐹𝑚𝑚𝑅𝑅𝑡𝑡𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 × 𝐶𝐶𝑚𝑚𝑈𝑈𝑚𝑚𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑡𝑡𝐶𝐶, whereby a reduction factor of 0.5 is used and the soil ultimate bearing capacity is 200 kPa, the factor of safety for bearing capacity if 1.45. Based on the strip footing design with a depth of 4.85 metres beneath ground surface, it is anticipated that the footings will settle relatively uniformly with a maximum differential settlement of 9 mm over a course of 5 years. This is well below the allowable general and differential settlement. 22 | P a g e4.3.3 Recommended Ground Improvement Ground improvement improves soil characteristics by increasing strength, decreasing permeability, reducing settlement, and increasing slope stability. Underpass In order to ensure that settlement is limited for the underpass footings, mechanical compaction of soil is recommended as a preventative measure. Roadway Given that the existing roadway is currently in use, no additional ground improvement is required when rebuilding sections which are already part of the utilized lane segments. For reconstructed segments of the road which will be built on loose sand or previously unloaded soil, roller compaction is recommended to limit the potential for pavement cracking and damage. The use of a mechanical vibratory roller is at the discretion of the City Engineer and is to be agreed upon with the BCMOTI.    23 | P a g e   5.0 Design Components 5.1 Geometric Design of Road 5.1.1 Overview of Corridor Chancellor Boulevard is a 4-lane arterial bus route with posted speeds of 50 km/h to 60 km/h. Chancellor Boulevard serves as one of the main vehicle, bus and truck accesses into the Hamber Elementary and University of British Columbia.  5.1.2 Road Design In the corridor’s current conditions, excessive vehicle speeds are a significant safety concern due poor geometric road design. To counteract the excessive speeds along the corridor, various traffic calming measures are incorporated to increase safety throughout the corridor. Per Synchro analysis discussed in the previous section, one travel lane in each direction is sufficient for the traffic volume along Chancellor Boulevard; therefore, travel lanes have been reduced from two per direction to one per direction. Travel lanes have been designed to be 3.3m wide to discourage excessive speeding and to be in accordance to City of Vancouver standard widths for arterial bus routes. Speed limits will also be reduced to 50 km/h throughout the entire corridor. 5.1.3 Active Transportation Facilities To encourage active transportation for users of all ages and abilities, 2.2m bike lanes have been incorporated into the road design in both directions of travel. In order to increase safety for cyclists travelling along the bike lane, 2.5m parking lanes and 1.0m buffers have been designed between the travel and bike lanes. This allows cyclists to be separated from the vehicles on the roadway, allowing less confident riders to be able to use the bike lane. A total of 280 parking spots have been added along the section of the corridor between Hamber Boulevard and Drummond Drive. To increase access to the numerous trails located along the corridor, a 2.0m wide sidewalk will be constructed on the north side of Chancellor Blvd between Hamber Rd and Drummond Dr. A pedestrian crossing will also be installed at the Spanish Trail entrances, located 450m west of Drummond Dr. 24 | P a g e5.1.4 Hamber Intersection Many significant changes have been made the the intersection of Chancellor Blvd and Hamber Rd to accommodate the addition of the proposed underpass. Specifics about the underpass design will be discussed in the next section. To encourage active transportation users to use the underpass rather than cross, the north-south pedestrian crosswalk on the west leg spanning Chancellor Blvd will be removed and a new east-west pedestrian crosswalk spanning Hamber Rd will be added to provide access to the proposed sidewalk. To account for heavy AM peak turning movements into Hamber Rd, the eastbound left turn lane has been maintained and a new westbound right turn lane has been added to avoid queueing after the road diet. In light of pedestrian and cyclist safety being such an important theme in the design, a concrete barrier physically separating the right-turning vehicles and cyclists in the bike lane has been added. Additionally, the westbound stop bar has been set back 3m to increase visibility of cyclists and pedestrians crossing the intersection. 5.2 Underpass This section will be outline the final proposed underpass for the Hamber intersection both structurally as well as aesthetically. The structural analysis of the underpass was discussed in Section 4 and the detailed dimensions can be found in Appendix I. Other design components of the underpass are aimed to fulfill specific purposes which will be listed below: 1. Safety and the Sense of SecurityTo promote user’s sense of security while using the underpass, the use of natural lighting was utilized as well as a constant grade within the underpass such that all users will be able to see along the length of the underpass. Furthermore, an additional skylight will be provided in the midspan of the underpass to introduce natural lighting where it is commonly darkest. This is illustrated in Figure 9.    25 | P a g e    Figure 9 - Pedestrian Underpass Section View and Skylight  2. Convenience and Accessibility The main purpose of the underpass is to provide a safe and accessible route for all non-automobile users. As seen in Figure 10, the ramps were designed according to the client specifications as well as the NBCC 2010. These ramps provide an abundant amount of space for all types of the users of the underpass while minimizing its impact on the surrounding environment with its spiralling design parallel to the road.  Figure 10 - Pedestrian Underpass Ramps 26 | P a g e3. SustainabilityThe underpass will be made using recycled concrete aggregate along with minimized amounts of steel rebar to minimize the impact on the surrounding environment. Also, the proposed underpass is fully underground which will further minimize the impact on the existing wildlife. It will also be proposed to install solar panels atop the underpass to ensure the power to the underpass is fully self-sustaining. 5.3 Utilities 5.3.1 Lighting Lighting standards documented in the subsequent sections are based on the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s Electrical & Traffic Engineering Design Guidelines. The aim of these guidelines is to produce accurate and comfortable vision along roadways at night while minimizing the required light pollution and energy consumption. Roadway Lighting The current stretch of roadway contains no street lighting apart from scarce intersection lighting at Hamber Road and Acadia Road. Given that ensuring pedestrian and cyclist safety is a major project design goal, the increase of street lighting is crucial to ensuring that vulnerable road users are visible past sunset. By applying the TAC and BC MOTI road lighting guidelines, it is determined that Chancellor Boulevard, which operates as an arterial road, would require 9-metre high davit luminaire poles with flat glass cobra head luminaires spaced at least 83 metres apart on either side of the roadway, with a 2.5 metre clearance from the vehicular travelled way. Lamps of 150W at a minimum luminance 13 lux are required as summarized in the Figure 11. Figure 11 - Roadway Lighting 27 | P a g eBecause Chancellor Boulevard cuts through Pacific Spirit Regional Park, which is a highly- environmentally sensitive area, it is critical that these street lights only illuminate the road space but do not affect the surrounding park space. It is recommended that lighting fixtures that are shielded or provide cut-offs are used to limit the amount of light dispersed into the park. Additionally, lights of warmer colours (containing minimal colour within the blue wavelength spectrum) would prevent impact on migrating wildlife. Power Connections It is required that electrical conduits be extended along Chancellor Boulevard from Drummond Dr to Acadia Rd in order to provide lighting to the roadway. In accordance to municipal standards and for compatibility with the existing electrical conduits at Acadia Rd, it is required that they be 35mm rigid PVC conduits buried with a 1070mm cover beneath the roadway. Wiring should be stranded aluminum with RW90 insulation and colour coded per the Canadian Electrical Code (CEC). Structural Lighting Components Structural components of luminaires and lighting structures shall adhere to AASHTO’s LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals. 5.3.2 Drainage For drainage design, the Chancellor Blvd and Hamber Rd intersection was identified as the critical section and most vulnerable to flooding risk, especially with the proposed construction of the underpass at this intersection. Due to its subsurface location, the new tunnel will likely serve as a collection point during heavy storm events. Metro Vancouver Regional IDF Curves produced by BCG Engineering Inc. were used in order to sufficiently estimate flood volumes and overland flow for the proposed project area. Specifically, our team utilized the IDF Curve for Zone 3, which includes the UBC area, as illustrated in Figure 12 below and Appendix E. In addition to these IDF Curves, a hydro-geotechnical study conducted by GeoAdvice Engineering Inc. for stormwater management at Chancellor Boulevard & NW Marine Drive established an estimated overland flow volume of 1016𝑚𝑚3.   28 | P a g eThus, due to the close proximity (1.2km) and geophysical similarities between the intersections at Hamber Rd and NW Marine Dr, we assumed the same surface overflow volume for our drainage design in this report.  Figure 12 - IDF Curve for 100 year Storm Event in Zone 3 (BCG Engineering Inc., 2012) Consequently, the drainage system has been designed to sustain the 1016𝑚𝑚3 100-year flood event. As illustrated in the storm sewer drawings in Appendix E, the tunnel drainage infrastructure includes two french drains with 800mm diameter perforated pipes. These pipes are 55m long and will run underneath the tunnel, adjacent to the footings. The proposed interceptor drains will collect groundwater and runoff from the saturated zone, diverting them straight into the outfall located North of the tunnel.  Furthermore, the tunnel surface infrastructure will be enhanced to effectively convey overland flows from runoff entering the tunnel bike lane/ ramp. 29 | P a g eFigure 13 - Overland Flow Within Tunnel Drainage System As illustrated in the Figure 13 above, the tunnel drainage system includes bike lanes with a 1% crown slope. This gravity enhanced flow directs rainfall runoff entering the tunnel towards the side curb and gutter which then directs flow down the 5% longitudinal slope towards Pacific Spirit Park, North of the Hamber intersection. This runoff will then be collected into the lawn basins which will then convey stormwater towards the outfall illustrated on Figure E-5 in Appendix E. Other drainage design aspects include the use of porous asphalt and pervious concrete on proposed bike lanes and sidewalks to enhance infiltration capacity. Additionally, our design includes highly absorptive green infrastructure located in boulevards, road medians and surrounding vegetative areas. Runoff will percolate these infrastructure and will be conveyed into the perforated interceptor drains illustrated in Appendix E.  30 | P a g e6.0 Construction Planning This section of the report describes the proposed construction plan for the above mentioned project design. The plan involves the coordination of a multi-disciplinary set of resources, equipment, manpower, and specialized construction procedures. In addition to defining the required construction tasks, the sequence of each activity is also illustrated in the Project Schedule on Figure 15. 6.0.1 Pre-Construction Phase The pre-construction phase includes various tasks that need to be completed prior to commencing the actual construction process. These invaluable tasks are listed below: Phase Action Items Pre-Construction ● Apply for the permits (Ministry of Environment, MOTI, DFO)● Stakeholder Engagement/ Consultation Meetings● First Nations Consultation Meetings with Musqueam CommunitySite Surveys & Investigations ● Geotechnical Analyses○ Standard Penetration Tests (SPT)○ Cone Penetration Tests (CPT)○ Seismic CPT○ Vane Shear Tests○ Piezometric Pressures○ Hydraulic Conductivity○ Borehole sampling & Coring○ Geophysical mapping & Contour-lining○ Laboratory Tests:■ Consolidation Tests■ Permeability Tests■ Shear Tests○ Hydrogeologic Tests● Utility Pre-locates:○ BC One Call○ Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) pre-location ofexisting utilities○ Utility Crossings/ Conflicts● Traffic Analyses:○ Traffic Counts○ Synchro Analyses○ Detours○ Traffic Management Plans (TMPs)● Procurement:○ Construction Materials○ Supplies○ Equipment Rentals○ Temporary Structures & Construction Devices (TSCDs)Table 8 - Pre-Construction Phase    31 | P a g e   Assuming that the above-listed pre-construction activities and site investigations have already been completed, the following section outlines the main activities involved in executing the Tunnel and Road Construction Works as illustrated in the attached WBS and Project Schedule.  6.0.2 Mobilization of Equipment on Site  Project mobilization will take place on May 1st 2018. All project equipment, machinery, trucks, cranes, materials and personnel will be transported to the construction site. Road closures and night time mobilization will be required from 8pm (May 1st 2018) to 7am (May 2nd 2018) to facilitate the transportation of large machinery and equipment to the site.  6.0.3 Tunnel Construction The work methods and tasks involved in the tunnel construction are described below:  ● Site Preparation ○ Platform for site installations - this task involves setting up platforms that will facilitate necessary site installations including site offices, utilities, loading zones, crushing and processing stations, crew workstations, crane loading stations etc. These platforms must be installed in accordance to environmental regulations stipulated by the Ministry of Environment and Fisheries & Oceans Canada (DFO). ○ Site installations: ■ This task involves the re-routing of all overhead and underground utility lines/ conduits (existing water mains, power, electric, telecommunications, gas etc)  that may interfere with the construction operations. There are two utility crossings at the Hamber Rd intersection, a 300mm Asbestos Cement water pipe and a 150mm Cast Iron water pipe.  ■ As per the Surrey Design Criteria and Metro Vancouver (GVWD) minimum vertical clearance requirements, our crew will ensure that a minimum vertical clearance of 1m is maintained from the outer edge of the existing water mains to    32 | P a g e   the proposed tunnel roof. This is illustrated in the detailed utility crossing drawing in Appendix I. ○ Detours & Road Closures: ■ This task involves the re-routing of traffic, road closures and any other Traffic Management Plans (TMPs) that will minimize any disruptions to the construction process whilst also providing viable alternative travel routes for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. A temporary detour leading to U Hill Elementary School will be constructed for the entire duration of construction work. Additionally, Westbound traffic will be re-routed West on Blanca St and towards University Boulevard as illustrated in Figure F-2 of Appendix F.  ■ The Site Plan on Figure F-1, and the TMP on Figure F-2, illustrate the spatial orientation and traffic routing/ detour plans to ensure public safety and enhance the efficient execution of this project.  ○ Site clearance procedure and temporary fencing - this task involves preparing/ clearing the site by removing vegetation and demolishing structures that may impede the construction process. This also involves erecting temporary fencing on Right of Way boundaries to protect the public from falling objects, moving trucks and other construction hazards.  ● Excavation/ Earthworks  ○ Surface Stripping/ Cutting - The cut & cover procedure selected for this project entails that the current road structure be milled, cut and stripped, thus removing existing asphalt, concrete, base and subbase layers at the tunnel “roof” location for the designed tunnel alignment.  ○ Excavations - at this stage, heavy excavation equipment is used to remove all sand, gravel and rocks from the construction area. These excavated materials are stockpiled in heaps as suitable or unsuitable materials. The suitable material is kept on site for reuse during the backfilling stage, while the unsuitables are transported offsite.  33 | P a g e○ Temporary Structures & Construction Devices (TSCDs) - temporary constructionstructures such as scaffolding and shoring are erected to mechanically stabilize the “roof”and “walls” of the proposed tunnel area. This ensures the safe and efficient execution ofunderground construction work by workers and machinery. Emergency evacuation andother safety procedures are also established, with all workers trained accordingly.○ Backfill - this task involves refilling excavated zones with suitable rock and gravelmaterials. The backfill is subsequently compacted by rollers/ packers to ensure sufficientbackfill shear capacity. This happens at various stages of the construction project.● Dewatering - this task involves employing effective groundwater control measures to minimizewater seepage into the construction zone. This is done by installing a network of pipes that directground water away from the construction zone towards the Georgia Straight. This may also includethe erection of membranes/ walls that minimize water ingress to the construction zone.● Embankment & Retaining Wall Installation - this task focuses on mechanically stabilizing thetunnel “walls” and prevents unsupported soil from collapsing into the tunnel. The designed MSERetaining Walls are erected on both longitudinal sides of the tunnel. They are subsequentlybackfilled with suitable rock and gravel which are either trucked from an offsite quarry or reclaimedfrom previously excavated suitable stockpiles. The detailed Retaining Walls are illustrated inAppendix I.● Installation of Storm Drainage Infrastructure - this task involves installing the proposed stormwater, overland flow curb and gutter, and catch basins to effectively drain the project site. Specificdrainage details are described in Section 5.3.2 of this report.● Installation of Tunnel Foundation/ Footings - after the site has been levelled off, a reinforcedconcrete strip footing will be casted on both sides of the underpass. 20 cubic meters of concretewill be cast in place over a rigid network of reinforcing steel to build this strong and economicalfoundation.● Installation of Tunnel Roadworks:   34 | P a g e   ○ Base/ Sub-base/ Paving - this task involves the preparation of the tunnel “floor” by placing suitable rock and gravel in the base and subbase layers of the underpass roadway.  ○ Curb & Gutter - this task involves installing the required curb and gutter infrastructure for effective drainage. The curb and gutter assembly is further described in Section 5.3.2 of this report. ○ Guardrail Installation - this task involves the installation of 130m of steel guardrails within the tunnel as well as the access ramps. ○ Line painting & Signage - as a finishing step to constructing the underpass roadway, line painting and the erection of signage will follow the project schedule.. ● Concrete Pouring - to facilitate the above mentioned foundation pour, roadworks and other cast-in place requirements, various transit mix pump trucks will be scheduled to facilitate an efficient continuous pour.  ● Tower Crane Assembly - this task involves the erection of the tower crane used to lift the tunnel (precast) superstructure into place. This work is done onsite.  ● Installation of Modular Tunnel Superstructure  ○ The precast modular tunnel superstructure is crane-lifted to position, equipped with holes and slots for all required conduits and utilities.  ○ Shotcreting & Tunnel Waterproofing - this task involves spraying the inner tunnel surface with shotcrete. This solidifies the tunnel lining, providing sufficient rigidity and strength. The tunnel lining is also covered with a waterproofing membrane to seal the tunnel from unwanted water seepage. ○ Ventilation System - this task involves the installation of the ventilation chamber, ducts and other required mechanical systems. ○ Solar Panels - solar panels are also installed at both tunnel entrances to power the LED lights illuminating the tunnel. ○ Lighting System - the LED lighting system is installed by onsite electricians    35 | P a g e   ● Construction of North & South Ramps - this task involves the grading, backfilling, paving and line painting of the North & South access ramps to the tunnel. The detailed drawing is illustrated in Appendix I. ● Fence Installation - as part of the construction finishing process, this task involves erecting fences along the sides of the ramps to guide users along the tunnel crossing. The fence also prevents users from crossing the road above ground, thus minimizing the potential for accidents. ● Hydroseeding - as part of the construction finishing process, hydroseeding involves turfing/ vegetating the slopes/ backfill adjacent to the tunnel to minimize erosion. 6.0.4 Road Works The work methods and tasks involved in the road construction process are described below: ● Crossing Removal - this task involves removing the pedestrian crossing at the Hamber Road intersection. This includes eliminating all signage and crosswalk infrastructure. ● Boulevard Expansion - this task involves the general expansion of road medians or “boulevard” as per the geometric designs. The additional green spaces will improve the drainage and infiltration capacity of this corridor. This task also involves the placing of concrete to extend the existing East-West median at Hamber Road such that it covers the previous crosswalk location. This median will include median planters and a skylight as described below. See Appendix I for more detailed drawings. ● Skylight Installation - this involves the installation of the designed skylight on the tunnel roof. The fiberglass panels will be installed on the median directly above the tunnel cap. ● Road Milling & Paving - This task involves the milling of deteriorated asphalt and the re-surfacing / repaving of the existing roadway with asphalt. Bike lanes and sidewalks will be surfaced with porous asphalt and pervious concrete to enhance the infiltration and drainage capacity of the site. ● Bike Lanes - As mentioned in the design description, the two-lane roadway will be converted to a one-way motorist lane with a separated bike lane on both longitudinal stretches of Chancellor Boulevard. 36 | P a g e● Parking Spots - this task involves the installation of additional parking spots as described in thegeometric design section. See Appendix I● Line Painting - this task involves the painting of bike lanes, buffer zones, parking spots and otherstandard road markings on the newly paved road● Signage installation - this task involves the installation of new traffic signs for bike lanes, tunnel,and reinstated bus stop sign.● Catch Basin Installation - this task includes the installation of additional catch basins and lawndrains to improve the drainage capacity at the Hamber Rd intersection.● Lighting - this task involves the installation of new lighting infrastructure to better illuminate thearea around the tunnel.6.1 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) The construction tasks described in Section 6.0 are presented in the WBS below: Figure 14 - Work Breakdown Structure 37 | P a g e6.2 Project Schedule The Project Schedule below illustrates the sequence and duration of all proposed construction activities, starting from the procurement stage until project completion and demobilization off-site.  Figure 15 - Detailed Project Schedule    38 | P a g e   7.0 Cost Estimate The anticipated total project cost is $5.21 million. This cost estimate is comprised of project management, planning, design and construction costs. A general cost breakdown can be found in the figure below. The detailed cost breakdown can be found in Appendix G.  Figure 16 – General Cost Breakdown   $550,000$2,460,000$410,000$920,000$870,000Cost BreakdownGeneral Road Infrastructure Utilities Structural Infrastructure Contingency39 | P a g e8.0 Maintenance Plan Given that one of the main design issues that the redesign aims to solve is the disrepair of active transportation amenities, a maintenance plan is provided to ensure that the corridor will be kept at an optimal state. Using a year by year breakdown, expenses are allocated according to minor and major expenses. Minor expenses include tasks such as repainting light poles, which major expenses include tasks such as resurfacing the road. The total present worth cost of the maintenance until 2118 is expected to be $5,330,000, with an estimated rate of inflation of 2%. The maintenance plan can be found in Appendix H. 40 | P a g e9.0 References Abdul, K. (2012). Applicability of a Road Rating System to the City of Vancouver. Retrieved April 03, 2018 from https://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/sustain.ubc.ca/files/Lighter%20Footprint%20%28green%20operations%29%20-%20Kamal%20Abdul%20-%20Green%20Roads%20Rating%20System.pdf BGC Engineering Inc. Regional IDF Curves, Metro Vancouver Climate Stations: Phase 1. Metro Vancouver, 2009. http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/liquid-waste/LiquidWastePublications/RegionalIDFCurves2009.pdf Chaurand, N., & Delhomme, P. (2013). Cyclists and drivers in road interactions: A comparison of perceived crash risk. Accident; Analysis and Prevention, 50, 1176-1184. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2012.09.005 Musqueam. (n.d.). Musqueam. Retrieved April 04, 2018, from http://www.musqueam.bc.ca/ Rankavat, S., & Tiwari, G. (2016). Pedestrians perceptions for utilization of pedestrian facilities – delhi, india. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 42, 495-499. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2016.02.005 University of British Columbia Campus Community Planning. (n.d.). Consultations and Engagement. Retrieved April 03, 2018, from https://planning.ubc.ca/vancouver/projects-consultations/consultations-engagement 1 Appendix A: Stakeholder Engagement Stakeholder Method of Contact Concerns Relayed UBC SEEDS Sustainability Program Formalized Consultations, Town Hall Increasing sustainability of the environment Minimizing negative impacts on environment UBC Students, Faculty, and Staff Town Hall Minimizing road closures and maximizing access to outside of UBC Aesthetics of the corridor  Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Formalized Consultations Usability and safety of the road TransLink Formalized Consultations Roadwork effects on bus routing University Endowment Land Residents Formalized Consultations, Town Hall Minimizing road closures and maximizing access to outside of UBC Aesthetics of the corridor Walkability of the corridor University Neighbourhood Association Formalized Consultations, Town Hall Wanting to enhance livability of the space Chancellor Place Neighbourhood Town Hall Minimizing road closures Aesthetics Musqueam First Nations Musqueam Indian Band visit (Musqueam, n.d.), Formalized consultations Want to have their opinions heard and consulted Minimizing impacts to the environment Corridor should not negatively affect their way of life UBC Building Operations Town Hall Ease of maintenance is importance Access for official vehicles Table A - 1 – Project Stakeholders2 Figure A - 1 - Town Hall Meeting Poster3 Appendix B: Transportation Analysis & Synchro Results The Bicycle Level of Service was calculated by using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 formula at the link level which is given as follows: where the parameters can be calculated as follows: Where Wv= effective total width of outside through lane, bicycle lane, and shoulder as a function of traffic volume (ft), Wbl= bike lane width (ft), Wos= width of paved outside shoulder (ft), and Ppk= parking occupancy. Where Vma is the midsegment demand flow rate (veh/hr), and  Nth is the number of through lanes in the direction of travel Where SRa is vehicle running speed (Mi/hr), and PHVa is the proportion of heavy vehicles. Where Pc is the pavement condition rating between 1 and 5. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2017)4: Chancellor Blvd & 10/14/2017Existing (2017) 8:00 am 10/10/2017 Baseline Synchro 6 ReportMaria Albitar Page 1University of British ColumbiaMovement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBRLane ConfigurationsIdeal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s)Lane Util. FactorFrtFlt ProtectedSatd. Flow (prot)Flt PermittedSatd. Flow (perm)Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0Turn TypeProtected Phases 4 8Permitted PhasesActuated Green, G (s)Effective Green, g (s)Actuated g/C RatioClearance Time (s)Lane Grp Cap (vph)v/s Ratio Protv/s Ratio Permv/c RatioUniform Delay, d1Progression FactorIncremental Delay, d2Delay (s)Level of ServiceApproach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0Approach LOS A A AIntersection SummaryHCM Average Control Delay 0.0 HCM Level of Service AHCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.00Actuated Cycle Length (s) 20.0 Sum of lost time (s) 0.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15c    Critical Lane GroupHCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2017)100: Chancellor Blvd & Acadia Rd 10/14/2017Existing (2017) 8:00 am 10/10/2017 Baseline Synchro 6 ReportMaria Albitar Page 2University of British ColumbiaMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsSign Control Free Free Stop StopGrade 0% 0% 0% 0%Volume (veh/h) 14 268 2 0 892 22 0 0 0 0 0 6Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Hourly flow rate (vph) 15 291 2 0 970 24 0 0 0 0 0 7PedestriansLane Width (m)Walking Speed (m/s)Percent BlockageRight turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (m) 292pX, platoon unblocked 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59vC, conflicting volume 993 293 1299 1316 292 1292 1293 970vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 989 293 1504 1533 292 1493 1495 949tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3p0 queue free % 96 100 100 100 100 100 100 97cM capacity (veh/h) 414 1268 55 66 747 59 70 187Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 SB 1Volume Total 309 0 970 24 0 7Volume Left 15 0 0 0 0 0Volume Right 2 0 0 24 0 7cSH 414 1700 1700 1700 1700 187Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.00 0.57 0.01 0.00 0.03Queue Length 95th (m) 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8Control Delay (s) 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.9Lane LOS A A CApproach Delay (s) 1.3 0.0 0.0 24.9Approach LOS A CIntersection SummaryAverage Delay 0.4Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.9% ICU Level of Service BAnalysis Period (min) 15HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2017)200: Chancellor Blvd & Hamber Rd 10/14/2017Existing (2017) 8:00 am 10/10/2017 Baseline Synchro 6 ReportMaria Albitar Page 3University of British ColumbiaMovement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBRLane ConfigurationsIdeal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.90Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99Satd. Flow (prot) 1789 3579 3551 1677Flt Permitted 0.26 1.00 1.00 0.99Satd. Flow (perm) 499 3579 3551 1677Volume (vph) 50 226 874 48 16 40Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 54 246 950 52 17 43RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 10 0 25 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 54 246 992 0 35 0Turn Type PermProtected Phases 4 8 6Permitted Phases 4Actuated Green, G (s) 15.1 15.1 15.1 16.0Effective Green, g (s) 15.1 15.1 15.1 16.0Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.41Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 193 1382 1371 686v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.28 c0.02v/s Ratio Perm 0.11v/c Ratio 0.28 0.18 0.72 0.05Uniform Delay, d1 8.3 7.9 10.2 7.0Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.1 1.9 0.1Delay (s) 9.1 8.0 12.1 7.1Level of Service A A B AApproach Delay (s) 8.2 12.1 7.1Approach LOS A B AIntersection SummaryHCM Average Control Delay 11.0 HCM Level of Service BHCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38Actuated Cycle Length (s) 39.1 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.4% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15c    Critical Lane GroupHCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2017)300: Chancellor Blvd & Drummond Dr 10/14/2017Existing (2017) 8:00 am 10/10/2017 Baseline Synchro 6 ReportMaria Albitar Page 4University of British ColumbiaMovement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBRLane ConfigurationsSign Control Free Free StopGrade 0% 0% 0%Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0PedestriansLane Width (m)Walking Speed (m/s)Percent BlockageRight turn flare (veh)Median type NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (m) 115pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 0 0 0vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 0 0 0tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3p0 queue free % 100 100 100cM capacity (veh/h) 1623 1023 1085Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1Volume Total 0 0 0Volume Left 0 0 0Volume Right 0 0 0cSH 1700 1700 1700Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.0 0.0Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0Lane LOS AApproach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0Approach LOS AIntersection SummaryAverage Delay 0.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2041 AM Peak Hour Forecasted100: Chancellor Blvd & Acadia Rd 10/18/20172041 AM Peak Hour Forecasted 8:00 am 10/10/2017 Synchro 6 ReportMaria Albitar Page 1University of British ColumbiaMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsSign Control Free Free Stop StopGrade 0% 0% 0% 0%Volume (veh/h) 8 350 2 0 1164 29 0 0 5 0 0 8Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Hourly flow rate (vph) 9 380 2 0 1265 32 0 0 5 0 0 9PedestriansLane Width (m)Walking Speed (m/s)Percent BlockageRight turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (m) 292pX, platoon unblocked 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23vC, conflicting volume 1297 383 1689 1696 382 1685 1681 1281vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 2270 383 3947 3978 382 3933 3915 2203tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3p0 queue free % 83 100 100 100 99 100 100 34cM capacity (veh/h) 52 1176 0 1 666 0 1 13Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1Volume Total 391 1297 5 9Volume Left 9 0 0 0Volume Right 2 32 5 9cSH 52 1176 666 13Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.00 0.01 0.66Queue Length 95th (m) 4.1 0.0 0.2 11.8Control Delay (s) 20.1 0.0 10.5 496.6Lane LOS C B FApproach Delay (s) 20.1 0.0 10.5 496.6Approach LOS B FIntersection SummaryAverage Delay 7.2Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.0% ICU Level of Service DAnalysis Period (min) 15HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2041 AM Peak Hour Forecasted200: Chancellor Blvd & Hamber Rd 10/18/20172041 AM Peak Hour Forecasted 8:00 am 10/10/2017 Synchro 6 ReportMaria Albitar Page 2University of British ColumbiaMovement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBRLane ConfigurationsIdeal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.90Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99Satd. Flow (prot) 1789 1695 1883 1441 1678Flt Permitted 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99Satd. Flow (perm) 265 1695 1883 1441 1678Volume (vph) 65 290 1141 63 21 52Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.75 0.92 0.92 0.75 0.75 0.75Adj. Flow (vph) 87 315 1240 84 28 69RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 14 64 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 87 315 1240 70 33 0Parking  (#/hr) 0 0Turn Type Perm PermProtected Phases 4 8 6Permitted Phases 4 8Actuated Green, G (s) 66.3 66.3 66.3 66.3 6.2Effective Green, g (s) 66.3 66.3 66.3 66.3 6.2Actuated g/C Ratio 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.08Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 218 1396 1551 1187 129v/s Ratio Prot 0.19 c0.66 c0.02v/s Ratio Perm 0.33 0.05v/c Ratio 0.40 0.23 0.80 0.06 0.26Uniform Delay, d1 1.9 1.5 3.7 1.3 35.0Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 0.1 3.0 0.0 1.1Delay (s) 3.1 1.6 6.7 1.3 36.0Level of Service A A A A DApproach Delay (s) 1.9 6.3 36.0Approach LOS A A DIntersection SummaryHCM Average Control Delay 6.9 HCM Level of Service AHCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.5 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.1% ICU Level of Service CAnalysis Period (min) 15c    Critical Lane Group10 Appendix C: Geometric Road Design The following figures show the proposed typical geometric road design. The proposed parking lanes serve as a protective barrier for the bike lane. In addition, the location of the sidewalk and multi-use pathway is shown as well. Figure C - 1 - Typical Road Profile Figure C - 2 - Typical Road Plan 11 Appendix D: Underpass Calculations    25 Appendix E: Drainage  Figure E - 1 - Zone 3 IDF Curve for Metro Vancouver (BCG Engineering, 2012)   26  Figure E - 2 - Asphalt Aprons For Catch Basins (Supplementary Standard Drawings, 2016)    27  Figure E - 3 - Bike Friendly Catch Basin & Curb (Supplementary Standard Drawings, 2016)    28  Figure E - 4 - Top Inlet Catch Basin (MMCD, 2009)     29  Figure E - 5 - Lawn Drains Design (MMCD, 2009)    30  Figure E - 6 - Storm Sewer Service Connection (MMCD, 2009)     31 Appendix F: Construction Planning   Figure F - 1 - Construction Site Plan    32  Figure F - 2 - Traffic Management Plan     33   Figure F - 3 - Work Breakdown Structure     34 Appendix G: Cost Estimate  Figure G - 1 - Cost Estimate     35 Appendix H: Maintenance Plan Section Existing? Component Description Cost ($) Year to start Recurring every ? years Structural No Underpass Inspections 600 2020 2 Structural No Underpass Concrete Surfacing 30 2018 1 Structural No Underpass Asphalt Resealing 600 2031 1 Transportation Yes Roadway Resealing 20400 2031 1 Transportation Yes Multi-use pathway Repairs 5000 2031 1 Transportation No Boulevard and median Maintenance 5600 2018 1 Utilities No Lighting light bulbs 180000 2043 25 Utilities No Porous asphalt and pervious concrete for the bike lanes and the sidewalk Sweeping and Vacuuming 10000 2018 1 Utilities No Lighting Painting 32310 2023 5 Utilities No Drainage Mains inspections and cleaning 2000 2023 5 Utilities No Drainage French drain cleaning 800 2018 3    Total FW 18251539 FW     Total Pw 5330030 PW     Total Annuity 123671 Annuity  Figure H - 1 - Maintenance Plan     36 Appendix I: Design Drawing Package CHANCELLOR BOULEVARD REDESIGNUBCR-01ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTIONCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD REDESIGNUBCR-02ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTIONCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD REDESIGNUBCR-03ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTIONCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD REDESIGNUBCR-04ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTIONCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD REDESIGNUBCR-05ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTIONCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD REDESIGNUBCR-01ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTIONCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD REDESIGNUBCR-02ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTIONCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD REDESIGNUBCR-03ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTIONCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD REDESIGNUBCR-04ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTIONCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD REDESIGNUBCR-05ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTIONCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD REDESIGNUBCR-06ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTIONCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD REDESIGNUBCR-07ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTIONCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD REDESIGNUBCR-08ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTIONCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD REDESIGNUBCR-09ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTIONCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD REDESIGNUBCR-10ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTIONCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD REDESIGNUBCR-11ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTIONCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD REDESIGNUBCR-12ISSUED FORCONSTRUCTIONCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD REDESIGNUBCU-01CHANCELLOR BOULEVARD REDESIGNUBCU-02CHANCELLOR BOULEVARD REDESIGNUBCU-03CHANCELLOR BOULEVARD REDESIGNUBCU-04CHANCELLOR BOULEVARD REDESIGNUBCU-05CHANCELLOR BOULEVARD REDESIGNUBCU-06CHANCELLOR BOULEVARD REDESIGNUBCU-07


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items