Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

Corridor Redesign of Chancellor Boulevard : Final Design Report Lubberding, Mackenzie; McPherson, Tamara; Stewart, Andy; Leung, Max; Hill, George 2018-04-08

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

Download

Media
18861-Hill_G_et_al_CIVL_445_Team_18_Corridor_Redesign_Report.pdf [ 14.58MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0374276.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0374276-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0374276-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0374276-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0374276-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0374276-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0374276-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0374276-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0374276.ris

Full Text

UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Sustainability Program Student Research Report Corridor Redesign of Chancellor Boulevard - Team 18George Hill, Max Leung, Mackenzie Lubberding, Tamara McPherson, Andy Stewart University of British Columbia CIVL 445 Themes: Transportation, Community, Land April 9, 2018 Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS Sustainability Program provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as 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”.Mackenzie Lubberding, Tamara McPherson, Andy Stewart, Max Leung, George Hill PRODUCED BY: E18 4/8/2018 CORRIDOR REDESIGN OF CHANCELLOR BOULEVARD Final Design Report i Date: April 8th, 2018 University of British Columbia Campus and Community Planning  UBC SEEDS (Social Ecological Economic Development Studies) Sustainability Program Attention: Krista Falkner, David Gill Subject: Corridor Redesign of Chancellor Boulevard Dear Ms. Falkner and Mr. Gill, We are very excited to submit 3-Way Engineering Ltd.’s Final Design for the Corridor Redesign of the Chancellor Boulevard at UBC. With extensive experience in transportation engineering that has seen us complete numerous high-profile transportation projects in the Metro Vancouver and the Pacific Northwest of the United States.  Our firm’s experience will be seen in the quality and original thought behind the following design.  This corridor redesign presented unique challenges in its demand for new, innovative methods being required to calm traffic and increase the pedestrian use and safety along the corridor. The opportunity to design a cohesive design between the University of British Columbia’s sustainability ideals and the needs of the British Columbia’s Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure presents an exciting opportunity for our company.   Our team has worked to ensure that the attached design is effective and efficient, both in cost and function. We look forward to the opportunity to discuss the design with you further. Sincerely, Three-Way Engineering Ltd. ii Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES iv LIST OF TABLES iv Executive Summary 1 1.0 Introduction 2 1.1 Project Background 2 1.2 Project Objectives 3 1.3 Summary Table and Contributions 3 2.0 KEY ISSUES 5 3.0 METHODOLOGY 6 3.1 Major Constraints 6 3.2 Design Criteria 6 3.3 Standards and Software 6 3.4 Design Steps 7 4.0 FINAL DESIGN 7 4.1 Design Overview 7 4.1.1 Multi-Use Pathway 7 4.1.2 Vehicle Roadway 8 4.1.3 Underpass 8 4.1.4 Intersections 8 4.1.4.1Hamber Road 8 4.1.4.2 Drummond Drive 10 4.1.4.3Acadia Road 10 4.1.4.4 Trail Crossings 10 4.2 Multi-Use Pathway 10 4.3 Traffic Circle 11 4.3.1 roundabout Geometric Elements 12 4.3.2 roundbout Signage And Road Markings 14 4.1.2 Safety Considerations 14 4.4 Underpass 15 4.1.3 Geotechnical Considerations 17 4.5 Retaining Structures 17 4.6 Bicycle Intersection 19 4.7 Pedestrian Crosswalks 20 4.7 Underground Utilities 22 4.7.1 Stormwater Flow Generation 23 4.7.2 Storm Sewer Design 24 4.7.2.1 Pipe Sizing 24 iii 4.7.2.2 Pipe & Manhole Locations 25 4.7.2.3 Pipe Depths & Grading 25 4.7.2.4 Pipe Velocities 27 4.7.3 Catch Basins 28 4.7.4 Ditch 28 4.7.5 Storm Outfalls 29 4.7.6 Sanitary Sewers 29 4.7.7 Water Mains 29 5.0 ADDITIONAL DESIGN ASPECTS 30 5.1 Lighting and Signalization 30 5.2 Road and Pathway Painting 31 5.4 Roadway Signage 32 5.5 Tie-in to Existing Infrastructure 32 6.0 DESIGN ANALYSIS 35 6.1 Synchro Modelling 35 6.1.1 Input Parameters 35 6.1.2 Assumptions 36 6.1.3 Results and Analysis 36 6.2 Retaining Structures 37 7.0 SCHEDULING 39 7.1 Construction Schedule 39 8.0 COST ESTIMATE 40 9.0 REPORT SUMMARY 42 REFERENCES 43 APPENDIX A – Timber Bridge Structural Calculations 44 APPENDIX B – Retaining Wall Design Calculations 51 APPENDIX C – Roundabout Figures 58 APPENDIX D – Storm Network Drawings 60 APPENDIX E – Sanitary and Water Main Drawings 65 APPENDIX F – Storm Network Loading Calculations and Formulas 67 APPENDIX G – Project Schedule 70 APPENDIX H – Cost Estimate 71 APPENDIX I – Detailed Design Drawings 73 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Chancellor Boulevard Existing Conditions ............................................................................................... 3 Figure 2: Bicycle Intersection Plan View ............................................................................................................... 11 Figure 3: Geometric Elements of a Typical Roundabout (BC Supplement to TAC Geometric Design Guidelines) 13 Figure 4: Dimensions for the Proposed Roundabout Design................................................................................ 13 Figure 5: MSE Retaining Wall - Type B .................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 6: Bike Intersection .................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 7: Raised Crosswalk Cross-Section ............................................................................................................. 22 Figure 8: Example pedestrian crossing utilizing RRFB signals ............................................................................... 30 Figure 9: Example Bike Intersection Signaling (Not Pictured: Red Traffic Signal) ................................................. 31 Figure 10: Synchro Model ..................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 11: Roundabout Design with Signage & Pavement Markings ................................................................... 58 Figure 12: Roundabout Lane Configuration.......................................................................................................... 59 Figure 13: Zoom-In View of Roundabout Design with Signage & Pavement Markings ........................................ 59 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Project Team Contributions ...................................................................................................................... 4 Table 2: Recommended Speed Humps for Bus Routes ........................................................................................ 21 Table 3: IDF Curve Data ........................................................................................................................................ 23 Table 4: Runoff Coefficients ................................................................................................................................. 23 Table 5: Weighted Runoff Coefficient .................................................................................................................. 24 Table 6: Time of Concentration Constraints ......................................................................................................... 24 Table 7: Minimum Pipe Sizes ................................................................................................................................ 24 Table 8: Pipe Product Sizes ................................................................................................................................... 25 Table 9: Manhole Road Elevations, Inverts, and Depths ...................................................................................... 25 Table 10: Pipe Lengths, Road Grades & Pipe Grades............................................................................................ 26 Table 11: Pipe Flow and Velocities at Peak Flow and Capacity ............................................................................ 27 Table 12: Budhu 2011 - Table 15.2 ....................................................................................................................... 38 Table 13: Project Cost Estimate (Summary) ......................................................................................................... 40 1  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The transportation infrastructure that currently exists in the Chancellor Boulevard Corridor is either in a state of disrepair or it is not meeting the safety and functional needs of its users.  The problem with upgrading this corridor is that as it is owned by the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure; UBC SEEDS must have a design that is able to prioritize safety, pedestrians and alternate transportation in the most cost effective manner possible in order to receive cost sharing. According to our modelling and research, a mix of modifications and upgrades to the corridor will significantly increase the safety, usage and efficiency of the corridor in a cost effective way. To address the problems outlined above, Three-Way Engineering proposes the following: 1. Reduction of Traffic Speeds: Through the reduction in the number of lanes for motorized vehicles, there will no longer be vehicles travelling at higher speeds as they attempt to pass others.  A posted speed limit of 50km/h is also planned to reduce overall speeds.  2. Increased Safety/Priority of Pedestrians, Cyclists and Buses: The conversion of the north set of lanes through the corridor into a pedestrian and cyclist pathway will separate the vehicle traffic and cyclists, making the corridor significantly safer and more desirable for the cyclists travelling to the University. By constructing bus stop pull-outs we are able to give buses the space they require without disrupting flow. 3. Increased Efficiency (Less stop-and-go): The removal of the signals at Hamber Road and the construction of a large raised traffic circle means that traffic will flow without stoppage, and at “rush hour” periods there will be less overall congestion due to signals. 4. Future Demand: Every aspect of the modifications and upgrades in the corridor have been designed with the future expected usage of the corridor in mind. The final product will be able to handle the next 10 years of traffic with minor needs for typical roadway repairs. In order to successfully complete this project with minimal disruptions to traffic and produce a final product that will have the ability to meet current and future demands, a budget of approximately $6,600,000 is required.  2 1.0 INTRODUCTION The project that Three-Way Engineering (TWE) has been tasked with is the redesign of the existing Chancellor Boulevard. This is an extension of West 4th Avenue and serves as one of five access roads to the University of British Columbia (UBC) campus. The corridor is subject to a variety of transportation modes including, cars, trucks, construction vehicles, and bikes, as well as pedestrians using the beautiful Pacific Spirit Park which surrounds the road. It has been suggested that this project will need to have the potential to increase safety, better manage future traffic demands, as well as increase recreation opportunities around the area. The design which has been produced by TWE addresses all of these criteria while providing new opportunities for recreational activities in and through the corridor. 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND UBC has identified this corridor as an outdated, inefficient and unsafe. The corridor is currently owned and operated by the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, and consists of two lanes travelling in each direction. The main issue with this is that the roadway does not currently encourage transportation by bike or by foot. The boulevard is bordered by Pacific Spirit Park on the north side, which consists of many different trails that are used by both locals of the area, as well as tourists. With the current design of the roadway, most users are averaging a speed well over the posted limit, creating an unsafe variance in travel speeds as well as a hazard to cyclists on the roadway. The only pathway currently designated for pedestrians is located on the north and south sides of the corridor, and has very poor ground conditions for cyclists as it is not properly paved. Most cyclists who use the corridor travel in the shoulder which is very unsafe due to the high travel speeds of the roadway’s users. Included in the design for this project will be a pedestrian and cyclist underpass, located at a point along the corridor. There is currently no easy and safe way for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the road, as there is only one set of lights located at Hamber Road. Below is an aerial view of the existing corridor, showing both the Acadia and Hamber intersections. The project boundaries for this redesign are from just west of Drummond Drive to just west of Acadia Road.   3  Figure 1: Chancellor Boulevard Existing Conditions 1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The main objective of this redesign project is to accommodate for future travel demands that will prioritize cyclists and pedestrians, as well as busses. A significant increase in safety for the users of the corridor will also be of utmost importance to the design of this project. Although the budget is not a huge constraint to this project, TWE intends to minimize the cost of construction.   Another important aspect of the project is contributing to UBC’s sustainability initiatives and sustainable design standards in every way possible. TWE will be getting involved with other UBC faculties, including Arts and Forestry. Having these faculties help with a few of the non-technical aspects of the design will support community engagement and add creativity to the design.   The boulevard is located within the University Endowment Lands boundaries, which means that various consultations must be made before the beginning of construction to ensure the satisfaction of all stakeholders. TWE will be engaging early in the design process with everyone involved and impacted by the redesign, including the First Nations.  1.3 SUMMARY TABLE AND CONTRIBUTIONS The following table indicates each team member’s contributions to the development of this report.  4 Table 1: Project Team Contributions Project Aspect Contributing Member(s) Overall Design All Underpass George Hill Utilities Tamara McPherson Traffic Circle / Traffic Modelling Max Leung Retaining Structures Andy Stewart Pedestrian Pathway Max Leung/Mackenzie Lubberding Pedestrian Crossings Mackenzie Lubberding Bicycle Intersection Andy Stewart/Mackenzie Lubberding Corridor Model (3D) George Hill Scheduling Mackenzie Lubberding Cost Estimate Max Leung (et. al.) Report Section  Contributing Member(s) – Written By Executive Summary Andy Stewart Introduction Andy Stewart Key Issues Mackenzie Lubberding Methodology Mackenzie Lubberding Final Design: Design Overview Mackenzie Lubberding Final Design: Multi-Use Pathway Mackenzie Lubberding Final Design: Traffic Circle Max Leung Final Design: Underpass Mackenzie Lubberding Final Design: Retaining Structures Andy Stewart Final Design: Bicycle Intersection Andy Stewart/Mackenzie Lubberding Final Design: Underground Utilities Tamara McPherson Lighting and Signalization Max Leung Road and Pathway Painting Max Leung Roadway Signage Max Leung Tie-In to Existing Infrastructure George Hill Design Analysis: Synchro Modelling Max Leung Design Analysis: Retaining Structures Andy Stewart Scheduling Mackenzie Lubberding Cost Estimate Max Leung (Tamara McPherson provided data) Report Summary Mackenzie Lubberding Appendix A George Hill Appendix B Andy Stewart Appendix C Max Leung Appendix D Tamara McPherson Appendix E Tamara McPherson Appendix F Tamara McPherson Appendix G Mackenzie Lubberding Appendix H Max Leung Appendix I DWGS 001 – 00Y 001 – 003 George Hill 004 – 006 Andy Stewart 007 – 00X Max Leung 00X – 00Y Tamara McPherson  Final Formatting has been completed by Andy Stewart. 5 2.0 KEY ISSUES The biggest challenge in the redesign of this roadway is to minimally affect the surrounding environment. Pacific Spirit Park is very well used and TWE wants to assure that all trails will be able to be used both during and after the completion of construction. It is very important that none of the existing natural environment becomes altered, as this would affect recreationalists in the area and would also have an impact on the wildlife.   Having a minimal disruption to stakeholder traffic is extremely important to TWE. The entire construction schedule will be designed to prevent a major disruption in traffic along the boulevard. It will be proposed for the construction to be completed during the spring and summer months, when UBC students are not in classes and there is less congestion in the area. Having to use a detour route the whole time the corridor is under construction would be very frustrating for road users, and therefore TWE plans to have the road closed to public for only one and a half months.     6 3.0 METHODOLOGY 3.1 MAJOR CONSTRAINTS Chancellor Boulevard leads through the beautiful Pacific Spirit Park, which is used as a recreational area for many people. This results in a huge project constraint, as it is critical that the existing natural environment remains untouched and is not harmed during construction. The project was designed with this in mind and it will be made sure that the construction crews are made aware of the importance of this.  Another constraint for this project is the fact that this corridor serves as a major entrance to the UBC campus and sees high volumes of traffic on a daily basis. This creates the need to complete construction as quickly as possible, so that major traffic reroutes are not needed for long periods of time.  3.2 DESIGN CRITERIA  There are a few key design criteria that were kept in mind throughout the design process, as the success of the project is based off of these goals being achieved. These design criteria are as follows:  Corridor should be designed to accommodate all future traffic demands   Drainage improvements should be considered and included in the design  Design should give priority to buses, cyclists and pedestrians  Safety should be maximized, and costs should be minimized The design is required to address engineering issues related to all disciplines including transportation, structural, geotechnical, materials as well as environmental considerations. Another important criterion was the contribution to promoting sustainable transportation options at UBC.   3.3 STANDARDS AND SOFTWARE A number of standards, by-laws, guidelines, best practices and software packages assist engineers with the design and implementation of projects. The following list outlines the major standards and software packages which were utilized by TWE during the design of this project.   AutoCAD  RoadEng Civil  Synchro Studio  Microsoft Excel (utilities analysis) 7  Minnesota Bikeway Design Manual   Seattle Pavement Markings  Towards a Canadian Standard for the Geometric Design of Speed Humps (Phillip A. Weber, P. Eng.)  Soil Mechanics and Foundations – 3E (Budhu)  3.4 DESIGN STEPS TWE began by analyzing the current state of the roadway and identifying major flaws and areas that are needed to be improved. Preliminary traffic counts were performed to gain an idea on what sort of traffic volumes will be using the corridor during peak hours. This data was then put into Synchro to model the traffic flows and calculate demands.  Three design options were originally created. Each of the three options shared certain commonalities as well as various differences. The three design options were analyzed based on their cost, environmental impact, safety and overall ability to accommodate all travel demands. After carefully considering each option a final design option was chosen. Further detail and design was put into the chosen option and CAD drawings were created for each key design component. This report presents the completed final design. 4.0 FINAL DESIGN 4.1 DESIGN OVERVIEW The following section gives a high level overview of the corridor redesign. Following the overview of the aspects of design, the next section will outline the key components of the final design, followed by a look at the engineering analysis which has gone into the design of various components. 4.1.1 MULTI-USE PATHWAY The multi-use pathway exists on the north side of the corridor and includes both cyclist and pedestrian paths. The main goal kept in mind when designing this pathway was the increase in safety for its users. The current corridor is a dangerous road for cyclists, as most people drive well over the posted speed limit, and there is no designated bicycle lane. With the pathway being completely separated from vehicle lanes, users should feel a lot more comfortable and safe and this should promote a higher usage of the area.  8 4.1.2 VEHICLE ROADWAY One of the key objectives of this re-design project was to increase the safety throughout the corridor, which will come with a reduction in vehicle speed. For that reason, the vehicle lanes will be reduced from two lanes in each direction to one lane and will both be located on the south side of the corridor. This will greatly reduce the average travel speed throughout the corridor because users will no longer be able to pass one another. Vehicle drivers will be much more aware of their travel speed when driving on a two-way road, and will also be forced to be more cautious. 4.1.3 UNDERPASS The underpass was designed with three key goals: Safety, Usage, and Community Value. Users should feel safe using the underpass and therefore the underpass meets Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Guidelines (CPTED). Usage is important because otherwise pedestrians and bikes will decide to jaywalk. Increased usage is a benefit as well for increasing the natural surveillance of the area in line with CPTED guidelines. Community Value is important because the community needs to feel as though the infrastructure integrates with the community and encompasses community values. Encouraging non-vehicular transportation modes and allow for local artwork and living gardens are both ways that the underpass contributes to the Community and provides Community Value.  4.1.4 INTERSECTIONS This section gives a brief overview of the key components at each intersection throughout the corridor.   4.1.4.1HAMBER ROAD The intersection at Hamber Road features a few key components. These components can be seen in Figure 2.  Roundabout for vehicular traffic   Underpass for bike and pedestrian traffic  New bus pads  New multi-use pathway access to the school  9  Figure 2: Hamber Road Intersection The roundabout was chosen to encourage traffic flow through the intersection even with high volumes occurring in the morning and evening rushes tied to the elementary school. The roundabout additionally serves as a speed control device. Currently vehicles have no motivation to reduce to the 50 km/h speed limit when travelling westbound on the corridor as traffic is very typically free-flow with the intersection at Hamber maintaining a flashing green light for the majority of its daily operation. The roundabout adds a horizontal alignment change that forces drivers to slow down and if the driver is to exceed the speed limit after they exit the roundabout, they will need to purposely accelerate to that speed. This is in contrast to the current conditions where a driver can maintain a high speed into the residential area. New bus pads are provided with the new design such that they will tie into the new pedestrian pathways. The new multi-use pathway lies immediately beside the school field and increases safety by reducing the interactions of pedestrians and vehicles on Hamber Road. It additionally benefits school users as it reduces the distance from the intersection to the school.   10 4.1.4.2 DRUMMOND DRIVE Drummond Drive is located on the east end of the project boundaries and acts as the border between Chancellor Boulevard and West 4th Avenue. This is where the project will tie in to the existing road network, with no improvements designed for this intersection.  4.1.4.3ACADIA ROAD Acadia Road marks the west end boundary for the scope of this project, but TWE has proposed that the new design be extended all the way through to East Mall. At this intersection, both cyclists and pedestrians will be travelling across Acadia Road on the south side of Chancellor. Drivers will be required to come to a complete stop, as stop signs will be installed on both the north and south sides of the multi-use pathway. These stop signs will have flashing lights that will notify drivers in advance that they are coming up to a pedestrian and cyclist crossing.   4.1.4.4 TRAIL CROSSINGS There are three trail crossings within the project boundaries: Salish trail crossing and both Spanish trail crossings. There are currently no existing crosswalks and it can be seen that a lot of illegal crossing takes place at these trail crossings. TWE has decided to install pedestrian crosswalks at each of these trail crossings that will be flasher controlled as to only disrupt traffic flow when there is a pedestrian crossing. These crosswalks will also be raised above road level, with the intention of slowing vehicular traffic down coming into the pedestrian crossings. A detailed description will be presented in section 4.7. 4.2 MULTI-USE PATHWAY As previously mentioned, the multi-use pathway will be located on the north side of the corridor. It will begin just west of Drummond Drive, and extend through all the way to East Mall. There will be two bike lanes of 2m width and one pedestrian pathway of 2m width. The current roadway is 8m wide, so this efficiently uses the space and will leave room for a small separation between lanes. The existing gravel pathway on the south side of the corridor will remain in place but will be re-surfaced with new asphalt. Once the underpass at Hamber Road is reached, the multi-use pathway will cross the corridor using the underpass and will continue along the south side of the corridor. This serves as a benefit to all users who are traveling to UBC, as it allows for a safe 11 and easy access of the campus. The design is shown in the figure presented below. The cyclist lanes are drawn in green and the pedestrian paths are drawn in yellow.   Figure 3: Bicycle Intersection Plan View The painting of this multi-use pathway will follow the Transportation Design Guidelines of Vancouver.   4.3 TRAFFIC CIRCLE  The roundabout at Chancellor Boulevard and Hamber Road has been designed to allow free flowing while preventing the possibility of collision between vehicles. As noted, pedestrians and cyclists will not access the roundabout at grade as they will utilize the underpass that has been specifically designed for their usage. Thus, there are no crosswalks or any infrastructure to assist cyclists and pedestrians. Through Three-Way Engineering’s technical traffic analysis using Synchro 6 software, a one lane minimum roundabout shall suffice. However, it was understood from the analysis that during peak school travel times in the morning and afternoon, a significant number of vehicles access Hamber Rd from Chancellor Blvd to University Hill Elementary School. Therefore, the entrance at the westbound approach has been split to two lanes (3.2 meters in width) to allow the left to access the roundabout to the westbound exit and the right lane to momentarily enter the roundabout before exiting onto Hamber Rd. The entrance at the Hamber Rd approach will merge onto the roundabout and after travelling approximately 15 meters, drivers can select inner lane to 12 continue around the roundabout or take the outer lane to exit onto Chancellor Blvd towards the westbound direction. Similarly, the entrance at eastbound Chancellor Blvd will merge on to the roundabout and select the inner lane to exit onto Hamber Rd or make a U-turn back onto Chancellor Blvd towards the westbound direction. Alternatively, vehicles can take the outer lane to exit onto Chancellor heading in the eastbound direction on Chancellor Blvd.  As depicted in Appendix C, the proposed roundabout design is a mixture of a single lane and double lanes roundabout that intends to allow seamless connection and avoid collisions at entrances and exits.  4.3.1 ROUNDABOUT GEOMETRIC ELEMENTS The roundabout at Hamber Rd and Chancellor Blvd has an inscribed circle diameter (ICD) of 44 meters with a raised central island that is 26 meters in diameter. The outer edge of the circulatory roadway and central island is constructed with the combined curb and gutter in accordance with the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Standard Specifications for Highway Construction. The central island has a maximum height of 0.5 meters at the center and a slope of 2% towards the apron. Landscaping such as grass and flowers are placed at the central island to provide aesthetic benefits. The low profile apron surrounding the raised central island is 1 meter in width, which meets the minimum 1 meter clearance identified in the BC Supplement to Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) Geometric Design Guide. The slope of the apron is approximately 2% away from the central island. Mountable curb and gutter is utilized for the apron and the curb height is 50 millimeters. The apron is constructed with stamped concrete cobblestone patterns to improve visibility during both day and night conditions. The circulatory roadway width is 9 meters with certain areas of the roundabout split into two lanes that are 4.5 meters in width. The total width of the roadway and apron is 10 meters, which satisfies the minimum necessary width of 10 meters for the WB-20 design vehicle according to TAC standards. While the roundabout has been designed to accommodate the largest frequent design vehicle side by side with a passenger car, it is not expected that there will be many trucks will access the corridor as it will be mainly utilized by buses and passenger vehicles. Conforming to the Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, the roundabout entry width is within the range of 4 meters to 8 meters. The raised splitter islands at the entrances and exits are designed to separate the entering and exiting vehicles and prevent vehicles from travelling the roundabout in a clockwise direction. The roundabout has been designed so that the entry angles of all entrances range from 20 to 60 degrees. The purpose of the splitter islands at the entrances and exits are 13 to deflect traffic and help reduce vehicle speeds at the approaches. The splitter island curbing is also designed to snowplow activity in the event of snowfall. The structure of the splitter islands and central island is constructed with concrete. Figure 4 depicts the geometric elements of the roundabout according to BC Supplement to TAC Geometric Design Guidelines. The dimensions for the roundabout design can be found in Figure 5.  Figure 4: Geometric Elements of a Typical Roundabout (BC Supplement to TAC Geometric Design Guidelines)  Figure 5: Dimensions for the Proposed Roundabout Design 14 4.3.2 ROUNDBOUT SIGNAGE AND ROAD MARKINGS To warn drivers that they are approaching a roundabout, W-17 roundabout signs are installed at all approaching legs approximately 60 meters from the yield lines. According to the Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, the designed roundabout is categorized as large roundabout in an urban setting; therefore, the recommended entry speed is 40km/hr. Thus, Three-Way Engineering has lowered the speed limit at the roundabout to 40 km/hr. W-22 posted speed limit signs with a speed of 40 km/hr are placed directly below the roundabout signs. Incoming traffic at the entrances must yield to traffic inside the roundabout. R-2 Yield signs are placed on the left at the splitter islands and on the right of the entry. They are placed approximately 0.5 meters to 1 meter from the edge of the road. At the approach end of the splitter islands, R-14 R Keep Right signs are installed to alert drivers to keep right in advance of the splitter islands. R6-4 counterclockwise direction signs are installed at the central island in the line of vision of incoming vehicles for all roundabout entrances. Lane configuration signs are installed in the roundabout and at the westbound Chancellor Blvd approach. The design of the lane configuration sign along with the locations or which they are installed can be found in c All the pavement markings within the roundabout and at the approaches are designed according to the BC MOTI Manual of Standard Traffic Signs & Pavement markings. The solid white lines within the roundabout, which are 100 mm in width, denote that lane changes are prohibited. The broken white lines (100 mm width) are guiding lines that allow lane changes. The straight, right, left, and straight and right arrows in the roundabout and at the approaches are designed according to standards. The approach entrance yield lines are designed to help prevent the collisions as incoming vehicles shall be behind the line and only access the roundabout when deemed safe. The roundabout design with signage and pavement markings can be found in Appendix C. 4.1.2 SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS When designing the roundabout, the following safety aspects were considered: angle between legs, gradient and visibility of entering and exiting vehicles. For the high-flow entry points apparent at the westbound Chancellor Boulevard approach, a larger angle was designed from the nearest exit. The gradient was kept at 2% or less to ensure that the grade will not influence vehicle traffic at the roundabout. To improve visibility for all vehicles accessing the roundabout, there will be no vegetation or infrastructure extending above the 15 minimum line of vision from the vehicle at the splitter islands. The signage and vegetation and the center of the roundabout will also maintain a maximum height of 1 meter to avoid visually impairing drivers.  4.4 UNDERPASS The pedestrian underpass is located just east of the traffic roundabout at Hamber road. The main goal of this underpass is to increase safety for cyclists and pedestrians, as well as to improve the flow of traffic around the area at all hours of the day. The feature itself acts as an underpass as pedestrians and cyclists will cross under the road, but there will actually be a timber bridge structure installed on ground level to allow vehicles to drive over the underpass. TWE chose to design a timber bridge as oppose to a steel structure as it fits the existing surrounding environment better. The bridge structure will be pre-fabricated before it is brought to site and installed.  The timber bridge spans a length of 30m and is 10m in width. It consists of 8, 24F-E D.FIR-L 315x1330x30000 GLT girders that are supported by concrete strip footings. The girders are held together by 4, 50x50L steel diaphrams. On top of the girders sits a No.2 D-FIR.L 86x1000x10000 GLT deck. Underneath the deck and above the steel diaphrams are 37x100 typ. gauge beams that are installed parallel to the road surface. A small layer of concrete primer, wire mesh and waterproof membrane lays on top of the timber deck to prevent damage from wet conditions. The road surface itself is the final layer of this design and is fabricated from 40-90mm plant- mix asphalt. There is a drainage pipe installed on each side of the bridge structure which will serve as direct drainage to a catch basin below.  The timber bridge structure is shown in Figure 6. The underpass itself consists of 2 cyclist lanes and 1 pedestrian lane, all of which are 2m wide with a 1m gap between each. The lanes will flow smoothly from the north side of the corridor under the timber bridge and continue on the south side of the corridor. The complete dimensions can be seen in Figure 7, and all structural calculations for this design can be found in Appendix A.   16  Figure 6: Bridge Cross-Section  Figure 7: Bridge Dimensions 17 4.1.3 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS The current design around Hamber Road will require cuts for the underpass and fills for the roundabout. These cuts and fills are balanced such that all material cut excluding stripping will be used as fill materials. Cross Sections in Appendix C show the cut and fill area for the roundabout, the bike and pedestrian paths and the underpass. Fills will be required to be constructed in compacted lifts as per the engineering drawings to be produced at the detailed design stage. Materials used for the road fill will be required to meet a specific gradation range and will additionally be as per the detailed designs. Ballast Walls for the underpass will be designed such that they will withstand the design pressures. 4.5 RETAINING STRUCTURES Due to the proximity of the lowered pathway around the new roundabout being installed at Hamber, there are a few locations where the combination of steep soil slopes as well as surcharges at the top of the slope require there to be retaining structures in place. The image below outlines the area where the three variations of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Retaining Walls will be installed.  Figure 8: Retaining Wall Locations The MSE retaining walls will utilize a geotextile membrane with a wide-width tensile strength of 60kPa. This geotextile will resist the lateral loading on the retaining wall through increased lateral friction resistance. A detailed calculation of the three variations of retaining wall designs can be found in Appendix B.  The simplest 18 retaining structure will be installed adjacent to the University Hill Elementary School’s soccer field, on the north-east side of the underpass pathway. The detailed design of this wall can be found in the image below.  Figure 9: MSE Retaining Wall - Type B The retaining wall drawings found in Appendix I, are designed for the most severe reinforcement scenario in its length, and the wall height will remain constant as the pathway and lower ground elevation rises to meet its height along the length of the pathway. It should be noted that geotextiles suffer a reduction of strength due to ultraviolet light exposure. As construction is taking place outside, special care must be taken not to expose the material to sunlight more than is absolutely necessary in order to maintain its high tensile strength.  A second design component to the retaining walls is the installation of a perforated drainage pipe and the bottom of the wall, lying beneath free draining backfill. This piping will convey water from behind the wall, away from where it can cause instability and into the stormwater network. Aesthetically, the retaining walls will have a living wall system installed on the outer face. This will allow for sustainable agriculture practices to take place in addition to providing test locations for studies by UBC on the implementation of plant life in underpasses to increase overall public perception of underpasses at twighlight and nightime hours. 19 4.6 BICYCLE INTERSECTION Located just west of the pioneer trail crossing is the bike crossing, which takes cyclists from the south side of the road to the north side, or vice versa. The goal of this feature is to have cyclists travelling on the same side of the road, to maximize use of the pedestrian underpass located just east of Hamber. Incorporated into the design of this bike crossing is a loop detection system, which allows cyclists to cross the corridor without having to come to a stop. Once a cyclist is detected by the system, the lights will change as to stop vehicle traffic and allow for the cyclist to safely cross the road.  There was a series of calculations performed to reach a proper phasing and timing cycle for this system. Firstly, the intergreen period for cars was found using the following formula: 𝐼 = 𝑡𝑟 +  𝑉2𝑓𝑔+  𝑊𝑐 + 𝐿𝑉 Where, tr: perception- reaction time (s) V: vehicle speed (m/s) f: pavement friction g: 9.81 m/s2  Wc: width of intersection (m) L: length of vehicle (m) The intergreen period was calculated as 5.3s, which was rounded up to 6s. This was then split into 4s of amber and 2s of all-red.  The minimum bicycle clearance time was calculated as the length of the bike crossing plus the length of a bike with a buggy, all divided by the average speed of a cyclist. The length of a bike with a buggy was taken as 3m, and the average cyclist speed used was 7.6 m/s. This resulted in a bicycle clearance time of 2.83s, which was rounded up to 3s as this is the minimum clearance as per the Seattle guidelines. The bike crossing is shown below in Figure 8. 20  Figure 10: Bike Intersection Stopping sight distance (SSD) for cyclists was calculated using the same formula that was used for vehicles, except the average cyclist speed was used as oppose to vehicle speed. The result of this was 16.5m, and the distance travelled during the yellow phase was added to achieve a distance of 47m. 4.7 PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS The final design incorporates three pedestrian crosswalks into the corridor, each of which is located at a trail crossing. When studying the current state of the corridor, it was noticed that there are a few areas along the corridor where pedestrians are constantly crossing the road illegally. These spots where located at each of the trail crossings: pioneer trail, and both of the Spanish trail crossings. The goal of the flashers is to increase safety for pedestrians, while causing a minimal disruption to traffic as they will only be activated when a pedestrian is present.  Calculations were performed for these crossings to find the stopping sight distance (SSD) for vehicles, as well as the pedestrian clearance time. The SSD was found using the following formula: SSD = vtr + v2/2fxg Where, tr: reaction time taken as 1s v: design speed taken as 50 km/hr  21 fx: coefficient of friction taken as 0.5 g: 9.81 m/s2 The SSD was calculated to be 33.36m, which is the distance needed for a car to come to a complete stop once they realize that they need to stop. The pedestrian clearance time is simply calculated as the distance the pedestrian has to travel, divided by the velocity of the pedestrian. The total travelling distance is 26.25ft and the average velocity of a pedestrian was taken as 4 ft/s, which results in a pedestrian clearance time of approximately 7 seconds. With an included factor of safety in the design, the pedestrian flashers will run for a minimum of 10 seconds.  Table 2: Recommended Speed Humps for Bus Routes  Another feature of these crosswalks is that they will actually be raised above road surface. The reference used for the design of the raised crosswalks was a thesis paper from Carleton University. As seen in Table2, they were designed as a trapezoidal speed hump with a desired speed of 30 km/hr. Due to the Chancellor corridor being a bus route, the bus route dimensions were used for the design. This is intended to slow down traffic within the corridor even when pedestrians are not present, as it causes an awareness of travel speed. A cross section of the crosswalks is shown below in Figure 11.  22  Figure 11: Raised Crosswalk Cross-Section 4.7 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES In conjunction of the Chancellor Boulevard Corridor redesign, TWE has developed a master drainage plan and have sized a minor storm sewer network for the proposed design that will adequately convey up to the 1:5-year return period storm under free flow conditions. The objective of this task is to minimize inconvenience and maximize the safety by eliminating frequent surface runoff on the roadway and pedestrian/cyclist pathway. The deliverables include the following: 1. A figure showing the storm sewers, manholes, catch basins and service connections required to convey the 5-year design storm; 2. A table showing the design flow calculations for each pipe, selected pipe size, and resulting capacity 3. A table showing the proposed inverts, ground elevation, depth from road, and street/pipe slopes 4. Overland surface flow measures for the 1:100-year return period storm event From corridor drainage perspective and capacity evaluation, the stormwater drainage system for the catchment area in subject was analyzed using the methodology described in Section 5.2.3: Methodology of Analysis from the Surrey Design Criteria. All storm drains that have a calculated peak flow in excess of the flow at pipe capacity will be classified as overcapacity and require an increased pipe size, increased slope, or both. Starting every pipe diameter at the existing pipe size, the pipes that had a flow capacity over 100% were upsized until the design criteria was met. The design loadings table of each storm network can be found in Appendix F. Seeing how the proposed corridor redesign utilizes the existing roadway where possible, most of the existing storm network could be reused. Only 2 pipe upgrades were required for the proposed corridor parking lot, from manholes ESMH5 to ESMH7, increasing from 300mm to 375mm in diameter. Additionally, a new storm network system was designed to successfully drain runoff for the underpass/roundabout at Hamber Rd and 23 the existing storm utilities are to be demolished. The existing storm utility networks to the west of the proposed roundabout and east of Spanish trail could be reused. The plan view drawings of the entire corridor can be found in Appendix D, as well as a profile of the storm network system at the roundabout from PSMH2 to PSMH5. 4.7.1 STORMWATER FLOW GENERATION The Rational Method was used to calculate flows in the sub-catchments because the total catchment area was less than 20 hectares (Ha). Rainfall data from the Surrey Kwantlen Park’s rainfall gauges was used for the flow generation and the following data interpolated from the IDF curve was used in design calculations for the 1:5 and 1:100 year storm events. Table 3: IDF Curve Data  R-mean (mm/hr) A Coefficient B Coefficient 5 Yr 24.0 17.286 29.158 100 Yr 43.7 -0.520 -0.564 Rational formula below was used to calculate peak discharge from the drainage basin runoff and the formulas used in design can be found in Appendix F. The tributary drainage areas from each storm main were established using the 1-metre contours from the City of Vancouver’s online GIS database (VanMaps). The runoff coefficients for UEL’s zoning were determined from equivalent City of Surrey zoning using a worst-case scenario runoff coefficient of 0.3 for parks and 0.8 for Hamber Elementary School. Table 4: Runoff Coefficients shows the runoff coefficients used for 1:5 and 1:100 year storm events and their equivalent impervious ratio. Table 3: Weighted Runoff Coefficient can be seen following where it shows how the corridor runoff coefficient was calculated, as it varies in surface type. Table 4: Runoff Coefficients Zoning ID City of Surrey’s Equivalent Zoning % Imperviousness Runoff Coeff. (5yr Event) Runoff Coeff. (100 yr Event) RES2 Single Residential 50 0.45 0.54 POSNA Parks, Playgrounds, Cemeteries, Agricultural Land 20 0.25 0.30 CRUM1 Commercial 90 0.80 0.95 INST Institutional; School; Church 90 0.80 0.95 RES4 Multiple Residential (15) RM-15 65 0.60 0.72 RES5 Multiple Residential (30) RM-30 65 0.60 0.72 24 Table 5: Weighted Runoff Coefficient Corridor Section (Typical) Asphalt/Cement Grass Catchment Area (m^2) 2187 1073 Total Catchment Area (m^2) 3260 Runoff Coefficient (5yr) 0.9 0.3 Weighted Runoff Coefficient (5yr) 0.703 The Time of Concentration (Tc) is defined as the required time for stormwater runoff to travel the longest distance (meaning longest travel time) towards the point of interest and is used in determining the design rainfall intensity. The equation used to calculate Tc can be found in Appendix F. As per requested in the Surrey Design Criteria, the following maximum/minimum Time of Concentration’s were used for the developed basin in Deep Cove. Table 6: Time of Concentration Constraints Developed Area (m^2) Minimum Tc (mins) Maximum Tc (mins) Less than 2,000 10 15 2,000 to 4,000 15 20 More than 4,000 15 30 4.7.2 STORM SEWER DESIGN 4.7.2.1 PIPE SIZING As noted in the City of Surrey Design Criteria, the following minimum sewer sizes were met. Table 7: Minimum Pipe Sizes Pipe Description Min Pipe Size (mm) Catch basin leads 200mm All Storm sewers in zones and land-uses 250mm Where ditches discharge directly into storm sewer 375mm  Using the recommended pipe supplier of BestPipesBestPrice, storm sewer pipes were designed from the following pipe size product selection.  25 Table 8: Pipe Product Sizes Pipe Diameters $ / lineal metre 200mm $125 250mm $140 300mm $160 375mm $165 450mm $180 600mm $240 4.7.2.2 PIPE & MANHOLE LOCATIONS Where possible, storm sewers were located under the right or left hand side of the roadways to accommodate future construction of sanitary sewers, water mains, and outside utilities in the corridor.  Manhole locations in the proposed storm sewer design have met the following requirements outlined in the City of Surrey Design Criteria:  A maximum 150metres apart  At the top end of all terminal sewers  At every alignment change or change in grade  All sewer confluences and junctions (except those with interceptor sewers) 4.7.2.3 PIPE DEPTHS & GRADING On the following page is a table including the following information for each manhole in the proposed storm sewer system: Depth constraints outlined in the City of Surrey Design Criteria, manhole road elevations, invert elevations, pipe depth, and general comments on the design. Table 9: Manhole Road Elevations, Inverts, and Depths Depth Constraint Description Cover (m)  Min Ideal 1.5 Max: Ideal 3.0 Min: Not in Roadways/Driveways 1.0 Max: no service connections 4.5      MH# Road Elev. (m atm) Invert Elev. (m atm) Depth (m) Comments ESMH1 80.00 78.50 1.50 min ideal 26 ESMH2 77.25 75.75 1.50 min ideal ESMH3 75.00 73.50 1.50 min ideal ESMH4 73.75 72.25 1.50 min ideal ESMH5 73.25 71.75 1.50 min ideal ESMH6 73.25 70.25 3.00 max ideal ESMH7 73.75 69.25 4.50 no service connections ESMH8 74.10 72.60 1.50 min ideal ESMH9 75.20 73.70 1.50 min ideal ESMH10 77.00 75.50 1.50 min ideal ESMH11 78.50 77.00 1.50 min ideal ESMH12 74.40 72.90 1.50 min ideal ESMH13 75.00 73.50 1.50 min ideal PSMH1 75.80 74.30 1.50 min ideal PSMH2 71.00 70.00 1.00 not in roadway (under sidewalk) PSMH3 71.90 69.84 2.06 ideal PSMH4 73.60 69.64 3.96 no service connections PSMH5 73.20 69.35 3.85 no service connections PSMH6 74.80 71.80 3.00 max ideal The next table contains the pipe grading constraints used for the propsed system for various sewer sizes, following the pipe lenghts, road grades, and pipe grades for each piep in the proposed system. Table 10: Pipe Lengths, Road Grades & Pipe Grades Grade Sewer Size Min Slope Constraint Comments       CB leads (200&250) 1.00% min slope     300mm 0.22% min slope Consultant to confirm (if less than 0.4%)   375mm 0.15% min slope Consultant to confirm (if less than 0.4%)   450mm 0.12% min slope Consultant to confirm (if less than 0.4%)   525mm and larger 0.10% min slope Consultant to confirm (if less than 0.4%)   Most US sewer 0.40% min slope Unless approved by Engineer   Any Size <15% min slope Include anchoring system     `         Pipe Length (m) Road Elev. From Road Elev. To Road Grade (%) Invert From Invert To Pipe Grade (%) Comments ESMH1-ESMH2 84.2 80 77.25 3.3% 78.5 75.75 3.3% `Good ESMH2-ESMH3 90.9 77.25 75 2.5% 75.75 73.5 2.5%  Good ESMH3-ESMH4 90.9 75 73.75 1.4% 73.5 72.25 1.4%  Good ESMH4-ESMH5 90.0 73.75 73.25 0.6% 72.25 71.75 0.6%  600mm – Good ESMH5-ESMH6 46.9 73.25 73.25 0.0% 71.75 70.25 3.2%  Good ESMH6-ESMH7 9.6 73.25 73.75 -5.2% 70.25 69.25 10.4%  Good Outfall 2 ESMH11-ESMH10 87.0 78.50 77.00 1.7% 77.00 75.50 1.7%  Good ESMH10-ESMH9 87.30 77.00 75.20 2.1% 75.50 73.70 2.1%  Good ESMH9-ESMH8 86.9 75.20 74.10 1.3% 73.70 72.60 1.3%  Good ESMH8-ESMH7 31.4 74.10 73.75 1.1% 72.60 69.25 10.6%  Good Outfall 2 PSMH1-PSMH2 89.9 75.80 71.00 5.3% 74.30 70.00 4.8%   27 PSMH2-PSMH3 28.6 71.00 71.90 -3.1% 70.00 69.84 0.6% 450mm – Good - Profile Included PSMH3-PSMH4 31.8 71.90 73.60 -5.3% 69.83 69.64 0.6% 600mm – Good -Profile Included PSMH4-PSMH5 48.30 73.60 73.20 0.8% 69.64 69.35 0.6% 600mm – Good -Profile Included PSMH5-Outfall 3 21.00 73.20 - - 69.35 69.2 0.7%   Outfall 3 ESMH12-PSM6 54.9 74.40 74.80 -0.7% 72.90 71.80 2.0%  Good ESMH6-PSMH5 37.9 74.80 73.20 4.2% 71.80 69.35 6.5%  Good Outfall 3 ESM13-PSM6 39.4 75.00 74.80 0.5% 73.50 71.80 4.3%  Good Tie-In to PSMH6 4.7.2.4 PIPE VELOCITIES Due to the topography in the area, the required minimum pipe velocity of 1.0m/s was easily achieved for all storm sewers in the proposed system. Although, a few pipe velocities at capacity are greater than 3.0m/s: ESMH6-ESMH7, ESMH8-ESMH8, PSMH6-PSMH5, ESMH13-PSMH6. For these pipes an appropriate analysis was done to prevent sewer displacement and pipe durability concerns. Energy dissipation measures are to be done to prevent scour and control the flow velocity. The following is a table of each pipe flow and velocity at peak flow and at capacity. Table 11: Pipe Flow and Velocities at Peak Flow and Capacity Manhole Flow Sewer Design Q(5) Q(100) Pipe Slope Pipe Dia. Manning’s "n" Q Cap. V Cap. Pipe Length From To (L/s) (L/s) % (mm)  (L/s) (m/s) (m) ESMH1 ESMH2 23.84 38.10 3.3% 200 0.013 59.26 1.89 84.2 ESMH2 ESMH3 40.04 64.00 2.5% 200 0.013 51.59 1.64 90.9 ESMH3 ESMH4 58.25 93.10 1.4% 250 0.013 69.73 1.42 90.9 ESMH4 ESMH5 75.32 120.38 0.6% 375 0.013 130.68 1.18 90.0 ESMH5 ESMH6 80.50 126.70 3.2% 375 0.013 313.48 2.84 46.9 ESMH6 ESMH7 (OF2) 137.10 224.35 10.4% 750 0.013 3583.40 8.11 9.6           ESMH11 ESMH10 20.13 31.69 1.7% 250 0.013 78.08 1.59 87.00 ESMH10 ESMH9 41.40 66.17 2.1% 250 0.013 85.38 1.74 87.30 ESMH9 ESMH8 57.51 91.93 1.3% 250 0.013 66.90 1.36 86.90 ESMH8 ESMH7 (OT2) 79.47 127.02 10.6% 250 0.013 193.69 3.95 31.40           PSMH1 PSMH2 19.37 30.49 4.8% 250 0.013 129.98 2.65 89.90 PSMH2 PSMH3 70.22 111.76 0.56% 450 0.013 213.25 1.34 28.60 PSMH3 PSMH4 70.22 297.24 0.60% 600 0.013 474.61 1.68 31.80 PSMH4 PSMH5 223.14 360.58 0.60% 600 0.013 475.77 1.68 48.30 PSMH5 Outfall 3 223.14 360.58 0.7% 600 0.013 518.93 1.84 21.00           ESM12 PSM6 20.52 32.80 2.0% 250 0.013 84.17 1.71 54.90 28 PSM6 PSM5 79.18 124.62 6.5% 375 0.013 445.31 4.03 37.90           ESM13 PSM6 39.05 61.46 4.3% 375 0.013 364.02 3.30 39.40 4.7.3 CATCH BASINS Where possible, catch basins were provided at regular intervals along roadways, at the upstream end of the radius at intersections and at all low points on the roadways. Catch basins were spaced based on the hydraulic requirements to capture the 5-year peak flow with a maximum drainage area of 500 square metres for road slopes less than 3% and 350 square metres for road slopes greater. In general, most the road slopes were less than 3% and the following equation was used. # 𝐶𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ 𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑠 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝐶𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 (𝑚2)/500𝑚2 In order to ensure no flooding of the pedestrian/cyclist underpass, a few additional catch basins were added at the lowest contour of the underpass as well as just before the ramps, allowing redundancy of the system. A few additional catch basins and catch basin relocations were required in the corridor to unsure sufficient drainage of both the road pedestrian/cyclist pathways and all changes can be found in the plan view drawings located in Appendix D. 4.7.4 DITCH The existing ditch system located on the north and south sides of the corridor is currently used to convey storm runoff from Pacific Spirit Park to the existing outfalls. The ditch is also used as a corridor drainage capacity solution for when storm mains are full at the 1:100-year storm event and surface runoff can be drained to the ditch rather than ponding on the roadway. Most of the ditch located on the north side of the corridor was re-used excluding the required offset of 12.0m north at the parking lot located west of Pioneer Trail. The ditch on the south side of the corridor required an offset of 4.3m south to accommodate the pedestrian pathway. An additional ditch catch basin was added on the north side, east of the underpass, to catch all surface runoff and ensure soil near the structural components of the underpass and roundabout stay dry.  29 4.7.5 STORM OUTFALLS  Outfalls 1 and 2 located at Spanish Trail and west of Pioneer Trail, respectively, were re-used for the proposed corridor redesign. Outfall 3, located at Hamber Rd. was extended roughly 45m north of its existing outlet to accommodate the location of the roundabout and also achieve sufficient grading of the gravity drainage system.   4.7.6 SANITARY SEWERS The only sanitary sewer in the project scope is currently running south to north across Chancellor Boulevard, running along Hamber Rd. to service the Hamber Elementary School and ties-in to a combined sewer downstream that “outfalls” on Marine Drive. Due to the proposed underpass location and traffic circle, a relocation of the 380mm sanitary main was required because its existing alignment currently runs through the underpass ramp. The proposed 380mm sanitary sewer alignment is to run along the roadway west of the traffic circle, follow the proposed roadway of Hamber Rd. and tie-in to the existing sanitary system just downstream. The abandoned sanitary sewers running across Chancellor Bld. and Hamber Dr. are to be removed to accommodate the underpass construction and abandoned sanitary sewers upstream of Chancellor Bld. in Pacific Spirit Park are to be capped and filled. No impact was done on the loading of the sanitary sewers so a detailed analysis was not required by TWE. All changes to the sanitary sewer system were design in accordance to the City of Surrey Guidelines, similar to the proposed storm network and the detailed drawings can be found in Appendix E. 4.7.7 WATER MAINS It is standard that water mains are to be located underneath the sidewalk to prevent traffic disruption when completing an upgrade or service connection installation. The proposed design utilizes the existing paved road on the south side of the corridor, east of the underpass, and the north side of the corridor, west of the underpass. Therefore, majority of the water mains in the project scope were to City of Surrey Design Criteria standard. The proposed underpass conflicts with the water main servicing Hamber Elementary School but a simple relocation solution to run along the proposed roadway in the area. No impact was done on the loading of the water main network and a detailed analysis was not required by TWE. A detailed drawing of the proposed changed can be found in the drawings in Appendix E. 30 5.0 ADDITIONAL DESIGN ASPECTS 5.1 LIGHTING AND SIGNALIZATION As per BC Hydro’s initiative to transition BC’s entire street lighting system to LED type lighting, all the lighting to be implemented in the project will use LED fixtures. This type of lighting will provide significant advantages over traditional lighting including but not limited to increased efficiency and reduced light pollution. The planned lighting and signal systems for the different sections of the corridor are broken down into their respective roles below: Pedestrian Path Lighting: Lighting along the pedestrian pathway in the main section of the corridor will be forgone in an effort to maintain the natural environment curated by Pacific Spirit Park through the reduction of light pollution. Pedestrian Crossing Lighting: At each of the three pedestrian crossings at pathway access points to Pacific Spirit Park there will be pedestrian operated flashers as well as lighting for improved safety at all crossing points. This will combine with the use of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) at the pedestrian crossings which will be lit to stop traffic only when required by pedestrians waiting to cross.  Figure 12: Example pedestrian crossing utilizing RRFB signals                  Cyclist Crossing Lighting: The cyclist intersection to be placed just West of Drummond Drive will use LED lighting as mentioned above. This will also be the location furthest East in the corridor that continuous lighting will be found as lighting will only be used at pedestrian crossings between the bike intersection and the traffic circle at Hamber Road. The signal system at the bike crossing will use traffic lights specific to bike traffic need 31 as determined by the loop detection system to be installed in the bike path on both the East and West approaches to the intersection.  Figure 13: Example Bike Intersection Signaling (Not Pictured: Red Traffic Signal) Street Lighting: Continuous LED street lighting will be utilized from the east most portion of the project until the bike intersection and then resumed just East of the multi-use underpass until the western end of the project boundary (including the traffic circle). Underpass Lighting: The underpass will be using bright white LED lighting to simulate day-time brightness throughout the day in order to reduce shadowing and throughout the night to discourage loitering in dimly lit areas. The lighting used throughout the tunnel will be continued for a number of meters past the mouth of the tunnel to provide a safe perimeter of lighting around the underpass. 5.2 ROAD AND PATHWAY PAINTING All the pavement markings along the corridor are designed according to the BC MOTI Manual of Standard Traffic Signs & Pavement markings. The solid white lines that are 100 mm in width, denotes that lane changes are prohibited. Crosswalk markings are located at the pedestrian crossing, which 3 meters in length and 0.6 meters in width according to MOTI standards. The broken white lines (100 mm width) designate that lane 32 changes are allowed. The solid yellow lines (100 mm width) are directional dividing lines. The bus pullouts will have bus restricted lane markings that are aligned with MOTI standards.  The specific road markings for the roundabout are presented in the detail in the roundabout section. 5.4 ROADWAY SIGNAGE In addition to the road signage near and at the roundabout, additional signs are needed along the corridor. All the road signage is in accordance with BC MOTI Manual of Standard Traffic Signs & Pavement Markings.  W-22 speed limit signs are located at the entrances of the corridor and will be installed approximately 300 meters apart along Chancellor Boulevard. The speed limit of the corridor has been set at 50 km/hr. Approximately 50 meters from the pedestrian crosswalk in each direction, SP-2 Pedestrian Crosswalk Ahead signs are installed for both pedestrian crosswalks at the trails.  Prior to the bike crossing near Drummond Rd, WC-7 Bike Crossing Ahead signs will be installed to notify drivers. At the ends of the corridor, G-125 Bike Lane Ends and G-124 Bike Lane Begins signs are installed to inform cyclists using the corridor. At the entrances of the bus pull out areas, a combination of the R-103 Except Buses (below) and R-9 Do Not Enter sign (above) is installed. 5.5 TIE-IN TO EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE A very key part of the design is that it must properly tie in with the already existing parts of the roadway on either end. This was something that was kept in mind and considered throughout the entire design process. On the east end of the corridor near Drummond Drive, there is a bike lane that already exists on both sides of the roadway. The re-designed bike lanes will be directly tied into the existing ones, with a bike crossing being located just west of Drummond Drive. Also already existing is a pedestrian walking path on both sides of the corridor, the issue being that they are very rough gravel paths. They will be properly paved and the tie in will occur just west of Drummond drive. This can be seen in Figure 12 below. 33  Figure 14: Drummond Drive Tie-In For the west tie in, it is important that the upgrades for this project be completed after the East Mall to Acadia Road section is completed. These works are herein described as Phase 1 with this project as Phase 2. Previous capstone years completed designs for Marine Dr. and East Mall intersections and the Chancellor Blvd and Wesbrook Mall intersections, however for the vision of this project, only the Marine Drive and East Mall work with the project. The modified Marine Drive and East Mall intersection as designed by Liang et al. al. in 2016 is shown below in Figure XXX. The Chancellor Boulevard and Wesbrook Mall intersection will required a re-design with the vision of this project in mind. One potential solution is shown below in Figure XXX.  Figure 15: Wesbrook Mall Conceptual Tie-In 34 The above west-tie in works With Phase 1 complete, the bike lanes and pedestrian pathway crossing to the south side of Chancellor Boulevard will seamlessly connect to the new Phase 1 bike and pedestrian pathways, also, on the south side of Chancellor Boulevard.   Figure 16: Hamber Intersection The existing roadway on the west side of Hamber Road is narrowed due to a wide median and as part of Phase 1 will need to have the cross-section increased to accommodate two way traffic. The vehicular lanes of this project will connect to these lanes of Phase 1. It is recognized that Phase 1, was not within the project boundaries as initially set out by the client, however, without Phase 1 the main benefits of this project Phase 2, cannot be realized. For the tie in at Hamber Road, both bike lanes will cross the road using the underpass, as well as the pedestrian pathway that is located on the north side of the corridor. This pedestrian path will tie into the already existing sidewalk on the south side of the corridor. Since the existing roadway on the west side of Hamber Road is narrowed due to a much wider median, the bike lanes will be both be moved to the south side of the road adjacent to the sidewalk. Although this is not within the project boundaries, it is proposed that this will continue until East Mall. An AutoCAD sketch of these designs is presented in Figure XX. 35  Figure 17: East Mall Conceptual Tie-In 6.0 DESIGN ANALYSIS 6.1 SYNCHRO MODELLING Three-Way Engineering utilized the software application, Synchro 6, to analyze the traffic conditions based on present day traffic volume conditions for the proposed corridor design.  6.1.1 INPUT PARAMETERS The Synchro Model has been created to reflect the purposed design. The entire corridor is one lane in each direction with a channelized left turn at Westbrook Mall and Chancellor Boulevard in the westbound direction. For the proposed design, only the intersection at Drummond Dr. and Chancellor Blvd has traffic lights with a pre-timed signal. Pedestrian activated signals are located are Pioneer Trail and Spanish Trail. Hamber Rd and Chancellor Blvd have been configured as a roundabout. Acadia Rd, Allison St, Western Pkwy and Westbrook Mall are all configured to allow through traffic on Chancellor Blvd but stop signs are located at the intersections for vehicles turning onto Chancellor Blvd. The Synchro model simulates pedestrians and cyclists’ movements as the south side of Chancellor Blvd west of Hamber Rd will interfere with vehicles turning on Chancellor Blvd. The signal timings have been optimized using the optimization setting on the Synchro 6 software. The following are the key input parameters for the Synchro Model: 36  Motor vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists’ volumes are based on traffic volume counts conducted on November 7th, 2017 at 7:38 AM at Acadia Rd, November 8th, 2017 at 3:00PM at Hamber Rd and November 3rd at 10:15AM at Spanish Trail, Pioneer Trail and Drummond Dr.  The peak hour factor inputted was calculated based by TWE staff   Volume balancing was conducted for the corridor based on the traffic counts conducted by TWE staff 6.1.2 ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions are applied to the Synchro model: Lane Window - Lane widths are assumed to be 3.6 meters  - Right turning speed is 15 km/hr while left turning speed is 25 km/hr - Grade % along this corridor is minimal; therefore, it is assumed to be 0% Volume Window - Heavy Vehicle Percentage is assumed to be 2% - Assumed to have no bus blockages as the bus stoppages will be located at the bus bays - There are no parked vehicles adjacent to the corridor - An assumed growth factor of 1.4% annually has been applied to the model 6.1.3 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Based on the Synchro model results, all the unsignalized interesections (Westbrook Mall, Western Pkwy, Allison St, Acadia Rd, Hamber Rd, Pioneer Trail and Spanish Trail) have intersection level of service ratings of “A”, which denotes that there are no volume to capacity issues. The utilization rate of the aforementioned intersections ranges between 25% to 45%. This is particularly important for the roundabout at Hamber Rd, which experiences the most motor vehicle traffic along the corridor. The level of service at Hamber Rd proves that the roundabout allows free-flow traffic and positively influences motor vehicle progression. For the pre-timed signal at Drummond Dr and Chancellor Blvd, a configuration of 65 seconds cycle length produces a level of service rating of a “B” and a volume to capacity ratio of 0.67. As such, there are no volume to capcity or level of service issues for the proposed design with only one lane in each direction on Chancellor Blvd. It must 37 be noted that the Synchro software only analyzes the particular section for the proposed design and does not account for the efffects of the entire transportation network within the district or region.   Figure 18: Synchro Model 6.2 RETAINING STRUCTURES In order to calculate the required length and spacing of the geotextile reinforcement which gives the retaining wall its resistance to failure, a design process was established and followed for each loading scenario in the project’s retaining wall designs. The process by which the design dimensions were determined is outlined below following the process found in Budhu, 2011. The implementation of the process showing the calculated values for each wall scenario can be found in Appendix B. Design Steps: Step 1: Calculate allowable Tension force in Geotextile (given ultimate tensile strength). 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤 =  𝑇𝑈𝐿𝑇(1𝐹𝑆𝐼𝐷𝐹𝑆𝐶𝑅𝐹𝑆𝐶𝐷𝐹𝑆𝐵𝐷) Where the factors of safety are found in Table 15.2 (Budhu, 2011) 38 Table 12: Budhu 2011 - Table 15.2  Step 2: Calculate vertical spacing of Geotextile. 𝑆𝑧 =  𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝐾𝑎(𝜎𝑧′ + 𝑞𝑠)𝐹𝑆𝑠𝑝 Where the factor of safety for spacing is 1.5 Step 3: Calculate required Geotextile depth at base of wall. 𝐿𝑏 =  𝑃𝑎𝑥𝐹𝑆𝑇𝛾′𝐻𝑜 tan ∅′ Where the factor of safety for Tension is 1.5 Step 4: Calculation of Total Reinforcement Length at varying depths following step 3 spacing. 𝐿𝑒 =  𝐾𝑎𝑆𝑧𝑆𝑦𝐹𝑆2𝑤 tan ∅𝑖 𝐿𝑅 = (𝐻0 − 𝑧) tan(45° −∅𝑐′2) Where the factor of safety is 1.5, and Sy = w = 1 for a unit width analysis. Step 5: Check external stability for bearing capacity under ESA and TSA. 𝐹𝑆𝑏 > 3 39 7.0 SCHEDULING 7.1 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE  The final estimated construction schedule has been completed assuming a start date of May 1st, 2018, with the projected end date being one week into December of 2018. The schedule has been completed using conservative timelines and may be able to be tightened based on volume of construction workers on site throughout the summer months and the rate of work. The schedule includes all major elements that are critical to an on-time delivery of this project. The construction activities with the most allotted time are the paving of both the cyclist and pedestrian pathways, along with the re-surfacing of the vehicle lanes. A lot of the activities in the schedule are overlapped to create a more efficient use of time.  Not included in this schedule is the process of consulting with stakeholders and the timeline for project permit approvals. It is assumed that the Owner has undertaken the required steps to begin construction on May 1st. The majority of construction is to be performed in the spring and summer months, as this is when the traffic around UBC campus will be at a minimum. At the submittal of our preliminary design, the construction was planned to be completed before the students return to campus in September. Following the completion of our detailed design work, and the subsequent updates on the construction schedule, it has been determined that this is not a feasible goal. The construction of the project will run through into December, a total construction period of 7 months. Appropriate measures will be taken throughout construction to ensure a minimal impact on vehicular and pedestrian traffic around the area.  There are a few construction issues that are anticipated to arise, with the biggest one being surprises in geotechnical data. With very little geotechnical information known, it is anticipated that there will be a few areas where the soil layers are different from what was expected. This may affect the length of time it takes to perform excavations and could possibly lead to a delay in schedule. It is also anticipated for there to be weather delays throughout the construction process, seeing as how construction continues through the fall months. This was accounted for and built into the construction schedule so that it remains as conservative as possible.  The complete construction schedule can be found in Appendix G. 40 8.0 COST ESTIMATE A Class D cost estimate for the Redesign of Chancellor Boulevard project is developed, which has been categorized by design & planning costs and construction costs. Within design and planning costs, the category is broken down to design and planning fees, project management costs, and environmental costs. The components associated with construction costs are the utilities, underpass, roadway, roundabout and electrical aspects. The overall project including the design & planning costs and construction costs totaled to $6,598,690 with a 30% contingency included. This estimate excludes bonding, insurance and taxes associated with the project. The components with the highest contribution in amount are the roadway features and the roundabout. Although the roadway features consume a large majority of the costs, it includes the resurfacing current road surface in a multi-use pathway for cyclists and pedestrians, and creating a new sidewalk along the south side of the corridor. The roundabout costs are mostly associated with the new circular road construction, acquiring property to accommodate the roundabout and the development of the retaining wall. By utilizing a lamented wood underpass, significant costs can be saved as opposed to using purely steel or concrete. Electrical costs are also quite significant because it includes the two pedestrian signals at the trails, the bicycle signal near Drummond Rd and all the lighting adjacent to the corridor. The overall cost estimate is displayed in Table 13 below. Each of the individual construction cost components have more detailed cost estimates, which are presented in Appendix H. Table 13: Project Cost Estimate (Summary) Overall Cost Estimate Project Title: Chancellor Boulevard Redesign Project No:18001-00 Project Location: Chancellor Boulevard    Currency Dollar: CAD Estimate Date: April 5th, 2018   Est. Class: D   Item Description Base Estimate Contingency Total Price Comments     Design and Planning Costs 1.01 Design and Planning Fees $160,000.00 30% $208,000.00 na 1.02 Project Management $180,000.00 30% $234,000.00 na 1.03 Environmental Costs $100,000.00 30% $130,000.00 na        $572,000.00              41   Construction Costs 2.01 Utilities $191,912.50 30% $249,486.25 na 2.02 Underpass $371,100.00 30% $482,430.00 na 2.03 Roadway  $1,802,052.99 30% $2,342,668.89 na 2.04 Roundabout $1,389,304.81 30% $1,806,096.26 na 2.05 Electrical $881,545.00 30% $1,146,008.50 na        $6,026,689.90                 Total     $6,598,689.90         42 9.0 REPORT SUMMARY Three-Way Engineering’s proposed design transforms the current two lanes in each direction configuration into a one lane travel route in each direction that aims to improve safety by reducing motor vehicle travel speeds while meeting traffic demands. The Chancellor Boulevard corridor is also targeted to be pedestrian and bicycle friendly with the implementation of a multi-use pathway and an underpass crossing. Three-Way Engineering has reviewed and analyzed the various engineering aspects of the proposed design and provided a construction schedule along with a cost-estimate for the project. The estimated completion time of the project is seven months with a total cost of XXX.   43 REFERENCES B. (2000, September). Manual of Standard Traffic Signs & Pavement Markings. Retrieved January, 2018, from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/driving-and-transportation/transportation-infrastructure/engineering-standards-and-guidelines/traffic-engineering-and-safety/traffic-engineering/traffic-signs-and-pavement-markings/manual_signs_pavement_marking.pdf  B. (2007). BC Supplement to TAC Geometric Design Guide 2007 Edition. Retrieved January, 2018. C. (2014). Seattle Pavement Markings. Retrieved Febuary, 2018. Minnesota Bikeway Design Manual. (March, 2007). Retrieved January, 2018. T. (2011). Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. Retrieved February, 2018. T. (2011, December 13). Roundabout Guidelines. Retrieved January, 2018, from http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Documents/Safety/Roundabout-Guidelines.pdf?noredirect=1 Weber, P. A. (1998). Http://ljournal.ru/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/a-2017-023.pdf.  Towards a Canadian Standard for the Geometric Design of Speed Humps. doi:10.18411/a-2017-023 Budhu, M., (2011). Soil Mechanics and Foundations 3E. Retrieved March 3, 2018.    44 APPENDIX A – TIMBER BRIDGE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS  51  APPENDIX B – RETAINING WALL DESIGN CALCULATIONS   58  APPENDIX C – ROUNDABOUT FIGURES  Figure 19: Roundabout Design with Signage & Pavement Markings 59  Figure 20: Roundabout Lane Configuration  Figure 21: Zoom-In View of Roundabout Design with Signage & Pavement Markings 60 APPENDIX D – STORM NETWORK DRAWINGS WP47070 7070707575757575757575 757575 757580NEW STORM SEWER ALIGNMENT WITHINVERT ELEVATIONS BELOW BIKE ANDPEDESTRIAN PATHWAYSNEW STORM OUTFALLTIE IN TO EXISTINGSTORM SEWER ANDWATER MAINPSMH4ADDITIONALUNDERPASS CATCHBASIN LEADSPROPOSEDCATCH BASINSPSMH3NPSMH2PSMH1PSMH6ESMH13ESMH12PSMH4PSMH5EXISTING DITCHCATCH BASINPROPOSED DITCHCATCH BASINDEMOLISH EXISTINGSTORM INFRASTUCTUREP250mm STORM @4.8%P450mm STORM @0.6%P6000mm STORM @0.6%P6000mm STORM @0.6%P375mm STORM @6.5%E375mm STORM @4.3%E250mm STORM @2.0%USE EXISTINGSTORM NETWORK WESTOF HEREEXISTING STORM OUTFALLTHREE WAY ENGINEERING LTDHAMMOND UTILITIES LAYOUTHAMMOND ROAD STORM UTILITIES LAYOUTDRAWING 1 OF 1 SCALE 1:1000ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVED:DESIGN:TAMARA MCPHERSON 2018.01.20 DRAFTED:GEORGE HILL 2018.02.20FILE:20180101-01 DWG No.013N705 7580NEW STORM SEWER ALIGNMENT WITHI VERT ELEVATIONS BELOW BIKE ANDP DE RIAN PATHW YSEW STORM OUTFALL TI  IN TO EXISTINGSTO M S WERAD ITIONALUN RP SS C CHBASI  L DR P SC TCH BA I SSMH3E 110 ESMH9ESMH86543 ESMH21PROPOSED ADDITIONALCATCH BASINU E EXISTINGOUTFALL 27263ESMH12 4PSMH5 STORM MAIN UPGRADETO 350mm7 XISTINGOUTFALL 1200mm STORM @3.3%  2.5250mm STORM @1.4%  0.630   3.2  0.4%E250mm STORM @10.6%E250mm STORM @1.3%2 0mm S ORM @2.1%  1.7 X ENDEDDITCHXI ING IT H B IN DITCH I  DITCH3. m SOUTHD OLISH XI ING INFR STUCTURE  4.8450mm STORM @0.6%P6000m  STORM @0.6%6000mm STORM @0.6%375mm STORM @6.5% 375   4.3E250m  STOR  @2.0%U E EXISTINGSTORM NETWORK WESTOF H EEXISTING STORM 70 7 7057 5 580 8 80 0 8 85 909 909N NESMH11ESMH10ESMH9ESMH8E250mm STORM @10.6%E250mm STORM @1.3%E250mm STORM @2.1%E250mm STORM @1.7%7575757575757575758080NTHREE WAY ENGINEERING LTDCHANCELLOR UTILITIES LAYOUTCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD STORM SEWER UTILITIES LAYOUTDRAWING 1 OF 1 SCALE 1:1000 CONTOURS 0.25mISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVED:DESIGN:TAMARA MCPHERSON 2018.01.20 DRAFTED:GEORGE HILL 2018.02.20FILE:20180101-01 DWG No.014N705 7580NEW STORM SEWER ALIGNMENT WITHI VERT ELEVATIONS BELOW BIKE ANDP DE RIAN PATHW YSEW STORM OUTFALL TI  IN TO EXISTINGSTO M S WERAD ITIONALUN RP SS C CHBASI  L DR P SC TCH BA I SSMH3E 110 ESMH9ESMH86543 ESMH21PROPOSED ADDITIONALCATCH BASINU E EXISTINGOUTFALL 27263ESMH12 4PSMH5 STORM MAIN UPGRADETO 350mm7 XISTINGOUTFALL 1200mm STORM @3.3%  2.5250mm STORM @1.4%  0.630   3.2  0.4%E250mm STORM @10.6%E250mm STORM @1.3%2 0mm S ORM @2.1%  1.7 X ENDEDDITCHXI ING IT H B IN DITCH I  DITCH3. m SOUTHD OLISH XI ING INFR STUCTURE  4.8450mm STORM @0.6%P6000m  STORM @0.6%6000mm STORM @0.6%375mm STORM @6.5% 375   4.3E250m  STOR  @2.0%U E EXISTINGSTORM NETWORK WESTOF H EEXISTING STORM 70 7 7057 5 580 8 80 0 8 85 909 909N NESMH6ESMH5ESMH4ESMH3PROPOSED ADDITIONALCATCH BASINUSE EXISTINGOUTFALL 2ESMH7STORM MAIN UPGRADETO 350mmSTORM MAIN UPGRADETO 350mmSTORM MAIN UPGRADETO 375mmE200mm STORM @2.5%E250mm STORM @1.4%E250mm STORM @0.6%P300mm STORM @3.2%P300mm STORM @10.4%E250mm STORM @10.6%EXTENDEDDITCHEXTEND DITCH3.5m SOUTH7070757575757575757575NTHREE WAY ENGINEERING LTDCHANCELLOR UTILITIES LAYOUTCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD STORM SEWER UTILITIES LAYOUTDRAWING 1 OF 1 SCALE 1:1000 CONTOURS 0.25mISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVED:DESIGN:TAMARA MCPHERSON 2018.01.20 DRAFTED:GEORGE HILL 2018.02.20FILE:20180101-01 DWG No.015N705 7580NEW STORM SEWER ALIGNMENT WITHI VERT ELEVATIONS BELOW BIKE ANDP DE RIAN PATHW YSEW STORM OUTFALL TI  IN TO EXISTINGSTO M S WERAD ITIONALUN RP SS C CHBASI  L DR P SC TCH BA I SSMH3E 110 ESMH9ESMH86543 ESMH21PROPOSED ADDITIONALCATCH BASINU E EXISTINGOUTFALL 27263ESMH12 4PSMH5 STORM MAIN UPGRADETO 350mm7 XISTINGOUTFALL 1200mm STORM @3.3%  2.5250mm STORM @1.4%  0.630   3.2  0.4%E250mm STORM @10.6%E250mm STORM @1.3%2 0mm S ORM @2.1%  1.7 X ENDEDDITCHXI ING IT H B IN DITCH I  DITCH3. m SOUTHD OLISH XI ING INFR STUCTURE  4.8450mm STORM @0.6%P6000m  STORM @0.6%6000mm STORM @0.6%375mm STORM @6.5% 375   4.3E250m  STOR  @2.0%U E EXISTINGSTORM NETWORK WESTOF H EEXISTING STORM 70 7 7057 5 580 8 80 0 8 85 909 909N NESMH2ESMH1EXISTINGOUTFALL 1E200mm STORM @3.3%E200mm STORM @2.5%8080808085858585859090NTHREE WAY ENGINEERING LTDCHANCELLOR UTILITIES LAYOUTCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD STORM SEWER UTILITIES LAYOUTDRAWING 1 OF 1 SCALE 1:1000 CONTOURS 0.25mISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVED:DESIGN:TAMARA MCPHERSON 2018.01.20 DRAFTED:GEORGE HILL 2018.02.20FILE:20180101-01 DWG No.016 66m 67m 68m 69m 70m 71m 72m 73m 74m 75m 76m70.0069.8469.8369.6469.6369.35STORMPIPEINVERTSTHREE WAY ENGINEERING LTDCHANCELLOR UTILITIES PROFILECHANCELLOR BOULEVARD STORM SEWER UTILITIES PROFILEDRAWING 1 OF 1 SCALE 1:500 V.SCALE 1:100 CONTOURS 0.25mISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVED:DESIGN:TAMARA MCPHERSON 2018.01.20 DRAFTED:GEORGE HILL 2018.02.20FILE:20180101-01 DWG No.01765  APPENDIX E – SANITARY AND WATER MAIN DRAWINGS © 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS NPSEMH5TIE IN TO EXISTINGSAN SEWERCHANCELLOR BOULEVARDHAMBER ROADPSEMH2PSEMH1TIE-IN TOEXISTING SAN SEWERABANDON EXISTINGSAN SEWER PSEMH3PSEMH4ABANDON/DEMOLISHEXISTING WATERMAINSNEW WATERMAINALIGNMENTTIE-IN TOEXISTING WATERMAINTIE-IN TO EXISTINGWATER MAINRELOCATEFIRE HYDRANTTHREE WAY ENGINEERING LTDHAMMOND UTILITIES LAYOUTHAMMOND ROAD SANITARY AND WATER UTILITIES LAYOUTDRAWING 1 OF 1 SCALE 1:1000ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVED:DESIGN:TAMARA MCPHERSON 2018.01.20 DRAFTED:GEORGE HILL 2018.02.20FILE:20180101-01 DWG No.01267  APPENDIX F – STORM NETWORK LOADING CALCULATIONS AND FORMULAS Rational Formula 𝑸 = 𝑹𝑨𝑰𝑵  Where: 𝑄 = 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑖𝑛 𝑐𝑢𝑏𝑖𝑐 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 (𝑚3𝑠)  R = Runoff coefficient  A = Drainage area in hectares (Ha)  I = Rainfall intensity in mm/hr  N = Conversion factor 0.00278 Time of Concentration 𝑻𝒄 = 𝑶𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑭𝒍𝒐𝒘 𝑻𝒊𝒎𝒆 (𝑻𝒐) + 𝑻𝒓𝒂𝒗𝒆𝒍 𝑻𝒊𝒎𝒆 (𝑻𝒕) Where: 𝑇𝑜 =3.26 ∗ (1.1 − 𝑅) ∗ √𝐿𝑆𝑆13      [𝐴𝑖𝑟𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑀𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑑] 𝑇𝑡 =𝐿𝑉𝐶𝑎𝑝60⁄ 𝑉𝐶𝑎𝑝 =𝑄𝐶𝑎𝑝1000 ∗ 𝜋 ∗ (𝐷 2000⁄ )2 𝑄𝐶𝑎𝑝 =𝜋 ∗ (𝐷 2000⁄ )2𝑛∗ (𝐷 4000⁄ )23 ∗ √𝑃𝑆 ∗ 1000 Where: 𝑅 = 𝑅𝑢𝑛𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐿 = 𝑃𝑖𝑝𝑒 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔ℎ𝑡 (𝑚) 68 𝑆𝑆 = 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑡 𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 (%) 𝑃𝑆 = 𝑃𝑖𝑝𝑒 𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 (%) 𝐷 = 𝑃𝑖𝑝𝑒 𝐷𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 (𝑚𝑚) 𝑉𝐶𝑎𝑝 = 𝑃𝑖𝑝𝑒 𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑎𝑡 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 (𝑚𝑠) 𝑄𝐶𝑎𝑝 = 𝑃𝑖𝑝𝑒 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑎𝑡 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 (𝑚33) 𝑛 = 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 0.013 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑃𝑉𝐶 𝑝𝑖𝑝𝑒𝑠)  I(5) I(100) Q(5) Q(100)Pipe	SlopePipe	Dia.Mannings	"n"Q	Cap. V	Cap.Pipe	LengthQ(5)/Q	Cap.Q(100)/Q	Cap.From To (m2) (m) % C (ha) (ha) (min) (min) (min) (mm/hr) (mm/hr) (L/s) (L/s) % (mm) (L/s) (m/s) (m) % % % Min Tc Max TcESMH1 ESMH2 Asphalt/Grass 3991 84.2 3.3% 0.703 0.280 0.280 37.20 0.744 20.00 30.61 48.92 23.84 38.10 3.3% 200 0.013 59.26 1.89 84.2 40.22% 64.29% 0.03 15 20ESMH2 ESMH3 Asphalt/Grass 2713 90.9 2.5% 0.703 0.191 0.471 42.40 0.923 20.00 30.61 48.92 40.04 64.00 2.5% 200 0.013 51.59 1.64 90.9 77.60% 124.04% 0.02 15 20ESMH3 ESMH4 Asphalt/Grass 3049 90.9 1.4% 0.703 0.214 0.685 51.57 1.066 20.00 30.61 48.92 58.25 93.10 1.4% 250 0.013 69.73 1.42 90.9 83.53% 133.51% 0.01 15 20ESMH4 ESMH5 Asphalt/Grass 2858 90.0 0.6% 0.703 0.201 0.886 69.41 1.268 20.00 30.61 48.92 75.32 120.38 0.6% 375 0.013 130.68 1.18 90.0 57.63% 92.12% 0.01 15 20ESMH5 ESMH6 Asphalt/Grass 4032 46.9 0.0% 0.703 0.283 1.169 191.19 0.275 30.00 24.79 39.01 80.50 126.70 3.2% 375 0.013 313.48 2.84 46.9 25.68% 40.42% 0.00 15 30ESMH6 ESMH7	(OF2) Asphalt	(no	catch) 0 9.6 -5.2% 0.703 0.000 1.169 10.76 0.020 10.78 42.22 69.08 137.10 224.35 10.4% 750 0.013 3583.40 8.11 9.6 3.83% 6.26% -0.05 10 15ESMH11 ESMH10 Asphalt/Grass 4162 87.00 1.7% 0.703 0.292 0.292 46.79 0.912 30.00 24.79 39.01 20.13 31.69 1.7% 250 0.013 78.08 1.59 87.00 25.78% 40.58% 0.02 15 30ESMH10 ESMH9 Asphalt/Grass 2770 87.30 2.1% 0.703 0.195 0.487 44.16 0.837 20.00 30.61 48.92 41.40 66.17 2.1% 250 0.013 85.38 1.74 87.30 48.49% 77.50% 0.02 15 20ESMH9 ESMH8 Asphalt/Grass 2698 86.90 1.3% 0.703 0.190 0.677 51.83 1.063 20.00 30.61 48.92 57.51 91.93 1.3% 250 0.013 66.90 1.36 86.90 85.97% 137.40% 0.01 15 20ESMH8 ESMH7	(OT2) Asphalt/Grass 3676 31.40 1.1% 0.703 0.258 0.935 32.51 0.133 20.00 30.61 48.92 79.47 127.02 10.6% 250 0.013 193.69 3.95 31.40 41.03% 65.58% 0.01 15 20PSMH1 PSMH2 Asphalt/Grass 4005 89.90 5.3% 0.703 0.281 0.281 32.64 0.566 30.00 24.79 39.01 19.37 30.49 4.8% 250 0.013 129.98 2.65 89.90 14.90% 23.46% 0.05 15 30PSMH2 PSMH3 Asphalt/Grass 8439 28.60 -3.1% 0.703 0.593 0.874 21.95 0.356 22.31 28.92 46.02 70.22 111.76 0.56% 450 0.013 213.25 1.34 28.60 32.93% 52.41% -0.03 15 30D PSMH3 PSMH4 Asphalt/Grass 2083 31.80 -5.3% 0.703 0.146 2.171 19.41 0.316 19.72 30.83 49.30 70.22 297.24 0.60% 600 0.013 474.61 1.68 31.80 14.79% 62.63% -0.05 15 20PSMH4 PSMH5 Asphalt/Grass 1275 48.30 0.8% 0.703 0.090 2.260 44.51 0.478 15.00 35.54 57.44 223.14 360.58 0.60% 600 0.013 475.77 1.68 48.30 46.90% 75.79% 0.01 10 15PSMH5 Outfall	3 Pacific	Spirit	Park	(no	catch) 0 21.00 0.7% 0.703 0.000 2.260 30.83 0.191 15.00 35.54 57.44 223.14 360.58 0.7% 600 0.013 518.93 1.84 21.00 43.00% 69.49% 0.01 10 15ESM12 PSM6 Asphalt/Grass 3436 54.90 -0.7% 0.703 0.241 0.241 49.53 0.534 20.00 30.61 48.92 20.52 32.80 2.0% 250 0.013 84.17 1.71 54.90 24.38% 38.97% -0.01 15 20D1 PSM6 PSM5 Hamber	Elementary	Field 11382 37.90 4.2% 0.300 0.341 1.150 46.12 0.157 30.00 24.79 39.01 79.18 124.62 6.5% 375 0.013 445.31 4.03 37.90 17.78% 27.98% 0.04 15 30D1 ESM13 PSM6 Hamber	Elementary	School 7089 39.40 0.5% 0.800 0.567 0.567 35.72 0.199 30.00 24.79 39.01 39.05 61.46 4.3% 375 0.013 364.02 3.30 39.40 10.73% 16.88% 0.01 15 30Reused	Existing	Main5	year 100	year Upsized	Existing	Main Ashphalt GrassProposed	Main	(re-design) 2187 1073A 17.286									 26.499						B (0.520)										 (0.558)							 0.9 0.3City of Surrey Engineering Department Design Criteria STORMWATER / DRAINAGE Section 5.0Table	5.3.14:		Rational	Method	Calculation	SheetConsultant:	Threeway	Engineering	Ltd. Storm	Sewer	Design	Criteria Sheet									ofProject	No.:	1600-00 Rainfall	Intensity	(5-year	storm) File	Name:	1600-00Project	Description:	Storm	Water	Management	Plan	 Rainfall	Intensity	(100-year	storm) Completed	by:	Tamara	McPhersonQ	=	RAIN Date:4th	April,	2018Sewer	Design RatioBBranchBranches	AddedTime	of	concentration	Travel	timeManholeDrainageArea	DescriptionArea	(A) Lenght	(L)Slope	(%)Runoff	CoefficientC	*A Total	C	*ATime	of	concentration	Airport	methodACDDate:6th	April,	2018MANNINGS	"n"		=		0.01332600.703Checked	by:	TWE	EngineerQ	=	C*I*ALocation:	University	Endownment	Lands,	BC,	CanadaArea	(m^2)Total	Area	(m^2)Runoff	Coefficent	(5yr)Weight	Runoff	Coefficent	(5yr)Mixed	Zoning	CalcsCorridorKwantlen Park Rainfall IDF DataQ(100)SlopeTotal	TimeIntensity Flow100-yr	Overland	Flow	to	Ditch	System70  APPENDIX G – PROJECT SCHEDULE   May June July August September October November December Construction Activity Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Equipment delivery to site                                  Setting control lines                                  Removal of vegetation and old concrete                                   Excavation to underpass elevation                                  Removal of current utilities and installation of new ones                                    Installation of concrete bases for lights & pedestrian crossings                                   Installation of timber bridge support piles and foundation                                   Conduits installed                                    Installation of bike intersection loop detectors                                   Backfill on utilities and grading                                   Installation of street lights and pedestrian flashers                                   Installation of pedestrian and cyclist lanes                                     Resurfacing of vehicle lanes                                     Paving of raised crosswalks                                   Paving traffic circle                                   Painting of roadway and multi-use pathway                                    Installation of retaining walls                                    Paving of underpass                                  Installation of timber bridge                                     Landscaping and remediation                                      Week1 Week2 Week3 Week4 Week5 Week6 Week7 Week8 Week9 Week10 Week11 Week12 Week13 Week14 Week15 Week16 Week17 Week18 Week19 Week20 Week21 Week22 Week23 Week24 Week25 Week26 Week27 Week28 Week29   71  APPENDIX H – COST ESTIMATE  Storm Network Cost Estimate Project Title: Chancellor Boulevard Redesign Project No:18001-00 Project Location: Chancellor Boulevard  Currency Dollar: CAD Estimate Date: April 5th, 2018 Est. Class: D   Item Description Est. Qty Unit Unit Rate Total Price Comments     Pipes 1.00 250mm dia PVC Stormpipe 144.8 lm $140.00 $20,272.00 na 1.01 300mm dia PVC Stormpipe  0.0 lm $160.00 $0.00 na 1.02 375mm dia PVC Stormpipe  136.9 lm $165.00 $22,588.50 na 1.03 450mm dia PVC Stormpipe  28.6 lm $180.00 $5,148.00 na 1.04 600mm dia PVC Stormpipe  101.1 lm $240.00 $24,264.00 na     Manholes 1.05 1050mm dia. Manhole 9 ea $3,000.00 $27,000.00 na     Catch Basins 1.06 Standard Catch Basin Additional 5 ea $1,750.00 $8,750.00 na 1.07 Standard Catch Basin Relocation 6 ea $500.00 $3,000.00 na 1.08 Ditch Catch Basin  1 ea $2,500.00 $2,500.00 na   Total       $110,522.50   Sanitary Sewer Cost Estimate Project Title: Chancellor Boulevard Redesign Project No:18001-00 Project Location: Chancellor Boulevard  Currency Dollar: CAD Estimate Date: April 5th, 2018 Est. Class: D   Item Description Est. Qty Unit Unit Rate Total Price Comments     Pipes 1.09 380mm dia PVC Stormpipe 307.0 lm $170.00 $52,190.00 na     Manholes 1.10 1050mm dia. Manhole 5 ea $3,000.00 $15,000.00 na  Total    $67,190.00    72 Water Main Cost Estimate Project Title: Chancellor Boulevard Redesign Project No:18001-00 Project Location: Chancellor Boulevard  Currency Dollar: CAD Estimate Date: April 5th, 2018 Est. Class: D   Item Description Est. Qty Unit Unit Rate Total Price Comments     Pipes 1.09 150mm dia CAST IRON Watermain 140.0 lm $100.00 $14,000.00 na     PRV 1.10 Relocation 2 ea $100.00 $200.00 na   Total       $14,200.00     73 APPENDIX I – DETAILED DESIGN DRAWINGS  0+0200+0800+0400+060NEW ROAD CENTERLINEEXISTING EDGE OF ROADNEW EDGE OF ROAD BRIDGE EDGE OF ROADBRIDGE EDGE60°WP#1WP#2WP#3WP#4STRIP CONCRETE ABUTMENTBIKE PATHWAYPEDESTRIAN PATHWAYMULTI-USE PATHWAYUNIVERSITY HILL SOCCER FIELDPEDESTRIAN PATHWAYPACIFIC SPIRIT PARKRE-VEGETATE SLOPEPLANT TREESRETAINING WALLS IN LOCATIONSSHOWN IN RETAINING WALL DRAWINGS3000010000CT1CT2NB03A02PROJECT No. 20180101-01 GENERAL NOTESCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD AT HAMBER ROADPEDESTRIAN AND CYCLIST UNDERPASSSITE PLAN 0.25m CONTOURSSCALE 1:250 on ANSI B (11x17)DRAWN GEORGE HILLDESIGNED GEORGE HILL0 1/4/2018 G.H. G.H. ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION CHECKEDNO. DATE ENG. BY SUBJECT APPROVED DRAWING NUMBER REV. NO. SHEETREVISIONS DATE INITIAL 20180101-01-001 0Layout ScheduleWaypoint Easting Northing Elev. to CT1 to CT2WP1 482 655.73 5457 862.01 74.57 47.6 58.3WP2 482 668.4 5457 849.17 75.03 43.7 40.8WP3 482 694.64 5457 834.63 74.98 59.2 22.9WP4 482 725.33 5457 825.6 75.08 22.9 40.1CT1 482 637.91 5457 817.83 75.11 0 49.6CT2 482 687.25 5457 812.97 75.91 49.6 0ALL WP AND CT ARE CL TO BEARING (HORIZANTAL DISTANCE). ELEVATIONS ARE FINAL CONSTRUCTED ELEVATIONS. ALLDISTANCE IN METERS. SYSTEM: UTM NAD83 ZONE 10 ESPG 26910WP2WP3WP2WP320 40 65 70 80 85TL2 MOTI Approved GuardrailExisting Ground SurfaceRoundabout PavedSurfaceBike and Pedestrian Pathways3259Future Ground Surface24F-E D.FIR-L 315x1330x30000 GLT GIRDERSNo. 2 D.FIR-L 86x1000x10000 TIMBER DECKINGTHIN PLANT-MIX ASPHALT COVER 40mmCONCRETE STRIPFOOTING ANDABUTMENT WALL200x1500x1732016251500200HAMBERROAD4tHAVENUECHANCELLOR BOULEVARDPAVED SURFACEPROJECT No. 20180101-01 GENERAL NOTESCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD AT HAMBER ROADPEDESTRIAN AND CYCLIST UNDERPASSSECTION APROFILE VIEW FACING NORTHSCALE 1:100 on ANSI B (11x17)DRAWN GEORGE HILLDESIGNED GEORGE HILL0 1/4/2018 G.H. G.H. ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION CHECKEDNO. DATE ENG. BY SUBJECT APPROVED DRAWING NUMBER REV. NO. SHEETREVISIONS DATE INITIAL 20180101-01-002 0TL2 MOTI Approved Guardrail40mm RAISED CURB125mm DIA. PVC DRAINAGE PIPEPIPE TO CATCH BASINTWO 4m LANES WITH 1% CROWN40-90mm PLANT-MIX ASPHALTNo.2 D-FIR.L 86x1000x10000 GLT DECKING24F-E D.FIR-L 315x1330x30000 GLT GIRDER50x50L STEEL DIAPHRAMGAUGE BEAMS37x100 typ. CONCRETE STRIP FOOTINGCONCRETE PRIMER, WIRE MESH ANDWATERPROOF MEMBRANENAILED SLIDING DECKCONNECTIONBOLTSSTEEL TRANSLATIONALRELEASE CONNECTIONPROJECT No. 20180101-01 GENERAL NOTESCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD AT HAMBER ROADPEDESTRIAN AND CYCLIST UNDERPASSSECTION BELEVATION VIEW FACING WESTSCALE 1:30 on ANSI B (11x17)DRAWN GEORGE HILLDESIGNED GEORGE HILL0 1/4/2018 G.H. G.H. ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION CHECKEDNO. DATE ENG. BY SUBJECT APPROVED DRAWING NUMBER REV. NO. SHEETREVISIONS DATE INITIAL 20180101-01-002 03003003003002002002002002001002002500Free Draining BackfillSlope: 12°4000Perforated Drainage PipeWall Height Reinforcement SpacingReinforcement DepthGeotextile ReinforcementPROJECT No. 20180101-01 GENERAL NOTESCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD AT HAMBER ROADPEDESTRIAN AND CYCLIST UNDERPASSMSE RETAINING STRUCTURE TYPE ASCALE 1:25 (ON 11"x17")DRAWN ANDY STEWARTDESIGNED ANDY STEWART0 1/4/2018 A.S. A.S. ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION CHECKEDNO. DATE ENG. BY SUBJECT APPROVED DRAWING NUMBER REV. NO. SHEETREVISIONS DATE 2018/04/8 INITIAL A.S. 20180101-01-004 060060040040027502000Slope: 29°Free Draining BackfillPerforated Drainage PipeGeotextile ReinforcementWall Height Reinforcement SpacingReinforcement DepthPROJECT No. 20180101-01 GENERAL NOTESCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD AT HAMBER ROADPEDESTRIAN AND CYCLIST UNDERPASSMSE RETAINING STRUCTURE TYPE BSCALE 1:25 (ON 11"x17")DRAWN ANDY STEWARTDESIGNED ANDY STEWART0 1/4/2018 A.S. A.S. ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION CHECKEDNO. DATE ENG. BY SUBJECT APPROVED DRAWING NUMBER REV. NO. SHEETREVISIONS DATE 2018/04/8 INITIAL A.S. 20180101-01-005 040040040025025025025030040002500Slope: 30°Free Draining BackfillPerforated Drainage PipeGeotextile ReinforcementWall HeightReinforcement SpacingReinforcement DepthPROJECT No. 20180101-01 GENERAL NOTESCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD AT HAMBER ROADPEDESTRIAN AND CYCLIST UNDERPASSMSE RETAINING STRUCTURE TYPE CSCALE 1:25 (ON 11"x17")DRAWN ANDY STEWARTDESIGNED ANDY STEWART0 1/4/2018 A.S. A.S. ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION CHECKEDNO. DATE ENG. BY SUBJECT APPROVED DRAWING NUMBER REV. NO. SHEETREVISIONS DATE 2018/04/8 INITIAL A.S. 20180101-01-006 0© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS 50m TRANSITION LENGTHBETWEEN 8m CROSS SECTION AND 6m CROSS SECTIONTRAFFIC SIGNAL AND STOPLINES. INTERSECTION WIDTH18m, ROAD CROSS SECTIONWIDTH 6m.50m TRANSITION LENGTHBETWEEN 8m CROSS SECTION AND 6m CROSS SECTION20m  CROSSING DISTANCE. FOREASTBOUND CYCLISTS ONLY. NOPEDESTRIAN OR WESTBOUNDCYCLIST CROSSINGS PERMITTED.INTERSECTION FULLY ACTUATEDBY LOOP DETECTOR OR BUTTON.BIKE PATH ASPHALT WITH GREENHIGH VISIBILITY PAINT.BIKE STOP LINE,TRAFFIC SIGNAL ANDCROSSING BUTTON.2m BACK FROM ROAD23m RADIUSHORIZ. CURVESBIKE LOOP DETECTOR 47m AND 70mFROM  STOP LINE ALLOW LIGHT TO ACTIVATE FOR CYCLISTS PRIOR TO CYCLIST ARRIVAL AT INTERSECTIONTIE INTO EXISTINGON STREET BIKELANES.NEW 2m PEDESTRIAN PATHUPGRADE EXISTING 1.5mPEDESTRIAN PATH WITHNEW ASPHALT.TIE INTOEXISTING8m ROADCROSSSECTION8m CROSS SECTIONTIE INTO EXISTINGROAD ALIGNMENTNTO DRUMMOND ROADAND 4TH AVENUETOWARDS UBCAND HAMBER ROADCHANCELLOR BOULEVARDPACIFIC SPIRIT PARKLOOP BIKEDETECTORTHREE WAY ENGINEERING LTDDRUMMOND ROAD LAYOUTDRUMMOND ROAD BIKE INTERSECTION AND COORIDOR TIE-IN DETAILSDRAWING 1 OF 1 SCALE 1:750ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVED:DESIGN:ANDY STEWART & GEORGE HILL 2018.01.20 DRAFTED:GEORGE HILL 2018.02.20FILE:20180101-01 DWG No.007© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS NVEHICLES YIELD TO PEDESTRIANTSAND CYCLISTSNEW PARKING LOT FOR  PACIFICSPIRIT PARK. GATED AND LOCKEDAFTER 10pm.BIKE LANES SEPARATED BY PLANTERBOXES ON ORIGINAL EXISTING PAVEMENTPIONEER TRAIL CROSSING. RAISED CROSSWALKWITH PEDESTRIAN ACTUATED FLASHERSPEDESTRIANS YIELD TO BIKESSPANISH TRAIL CROSSING.RAISED CROSSWALK WITHPEDESTRIAN ACTUATEDFLASHERS.TOWARDS 4th AVENUEPACIFIC SPIRIT PARKPACIFIC SPIRIT PARKTOWARDS UBCAND HAMBER ROADCHANCELLOR BOULEVARDSTOP SIGNONE WAY NORTH BOUNDTHREE WAY ENGINEERING LTDSPANISH AND PIONEER LAYOUTCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD SPANISH AND PIONEER TRAIL CROSSINGS LAYOUTDRAWING 1 OF 1  SCALE 1:1500ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVED:DESIGN:GEORGE HILL 2018.01.20 DRAFTED:GEORGE HILL 2018.02.20FILE:20180101-01 DWG No.008© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS N50 TREES REMOVED. REPLANTINGON GENTLE 4:1 FILL SLOPETOE OF FILLTOP OF FILL 0.5m FROM ROAD EDGETOP OF RETAINING WALLGENTLE SLOPE. TREE REPLANTINGRETAINING WALLRETAINING WALL10m WIDE  2 LANE 30M LONG 30 DEGREE SKEWPEDESTRIAN AND BIKE UNDERPASSBUS PADBUS PAD2m PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYTWO 2m SEPERATED BIKE LANESPEDESTRIAN CROSSINGYIELD TO BIKES.TO SCHOOLSCHOOL SPORTS FIELD2 LANE 8m ROAD CROSS SECTIONNEW 3m MULTIUSE PATHWAYCHANCELLOR BOULEVARDHAMBER ROADLEFT LANEEXITONLY RIGHTLANECOUNTERCLOCKWISEDIRECTION SIGNLEFT LANEEXITONLY RIGHTLANELEFT LANEEXITONLY RIGHTLANEROUNDABOUTAHEAD SIGNYIELD SIGNKEEP RIGHT SIGNGRASS MEDIANTHREE WAY ENGINEERING LTDCHANCELLOR-HAMBER LAYOUTCHANCELLOR BOULEVARD AND HAMMOND ROAD INTERSECTION ROAD LAYOUTDRAWING 1 OF 1  SCALE 1:500 CONTOURS 0.25mISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVED:DESIGN:MAX LEUNG & GEORGE HILL 2018.01.20 DRAFTED:GEORGE HILL 2018.02.20FILE:20180101-01 DWG No.009© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS Intersection Design TBD and Req'd Prior to Phase 2Wesbrook MallChancellor BlvdNo Left TurnsNo Left TurnsNo Right TurnsNo Left TurnsNo Right TurnsNo Right TurnsPedestrian and BikeActuated Traffic SignalNTHREE WAY ENGINEERING LTDWESBROOK MALL LAYOUTWESBROOK MALL-CHANCELLOR BOULEVARD INTERSECTION PHASE 1 DETAILSDRAWING 1 OF 1 SCALE 1:500ISSUED FOR PRODUCTION APPROVED:DESIGN:GEORGE HILL 2018.01.20 DRAFTED:GEORGE HILL 2018.02.20FILE:20180101-01 DWG No.010© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS Tie in with Phase 1(designed 2016 by Liang et. al) Modifications to Liang et. al. forbi-directional traffic on the currentWB Chancellor Blvd.Bike and Pedestrainpaths continue on toEast MallNTHREE WAY ENGINEERING LTDEAST MALL LAYOUTEAST MALL-CHANCELLOR BOULEVARD INTERSECTION PHASE 1 DETAILSDRAWING 1 OF 1 SCALE 1:750ISSUED FOR PRODUCTION APPROVED:DESIGN:GEORGE HILL 2018.01.20 DRAFTED:GEORGE HILL 2018.02.20FILE:20180101-01 DWG No.011

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

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"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.18861.1-0374276/manifest

Comment

Related Items