Preliminary Design Report: 61 Ave SW, Calgary

61 Avenue SW Greenway Corridor

How might we transform this corridor into a thriving urban boulevard?

Preliminary Design Report April 2015 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Centre St S

1A St SW

3 St SW

Macleod Trail SW

re k Cent Chinoo

61 Ave SW Chinook Station

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Project Team:

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Jadwiga Kroman, Project Sponsor Saadiq Mohiuddin, Project Manager Jason Moroz, Project Manager Jason Lin, Project Manager, 61 Ave / Macleod Trail Ped Bridge

John Steiner, Corporate Support Marcia Eng, Project Manager Andy Warren, Design Lead Leighton Ginther, Urban Designer Stephen Petruk, Designer

Jeff Risom, Partner John Bela, Design Advisory Andrea Gaffney, Design Lead Julia De Martini Day, Project Manager Alex DeCicco, Designer

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 6 A Vision for Chinook Boulevard 7 Concept Plan 8 Planning & Policy Context

Physical Context 14 Introduction 15 Road Geometry 16 Traffic Volumes & Analysis 18 Intersection Operational Analysis 20 Forecast Traffic Volumes & Analysis 26 Multi-modal Level of Service Analysis 34 Transit Services & Routing 52 Safety Assessment 54 Utilities 58 Landscape / Trees 60 Land Use 62 Direct Control Parcel Classification 63 Street Sections & Easements 64 Constructability 70 Outreach, Observations & Opportunities 72 Outreach Methods 73 Outreach Findings 74 Challenges & Opportunities 81 Qualitative Facade Survey Assessment 83

Key Strategies 87 Safe & Secure 90 Accessible 92 Enjoyable 94 Adaptable 96 Success Criteria 98 Concept Design 100 Preferred Plan 102 Road Geometry 104 Land Acquisition 110 Preferred Sections 111 Envisioning a Complete Street 115 Phasing Diagrams for a Complete Street 117 Summary 120 Risks - this wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t work unlessâ&#x20AC;Ś 121 Next Steps 122 Technical Appendix Appendix A - Preliminary Design Drawing Set Appendix B - Stormwater Supporting Information Appendix C - Roadway Lighting Supporting Information Appendix D - Cost Estimates Appendix E - Quality Management Plan Appendix F - Concept Design Options

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Introduction

Executive Summary The City is trying to catalyze private sector The four key strategies for the design of 61 Ave SW are to make the public realm: investment via public realm improvements along Safe & Secure, Accessible, Enjoyable, and Adaptable. the 61 Avenue SW corridor, as part of Calgaryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s larger, growing transportation and public realm network improvements. A range of detailed, visionary plans are in place for Calgaryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s public realm on or near 61 Avenue SW, from the citywide Complete Streets Guide to the MacLeod Trail Corridor Study, but these changes are not anticipated to happen in the near term. Converting 61 Avenue SW into a landmark urban boulevard is the first in many transformations for this part of ENJOYABLE SAFE & SECURE ACCESSIBLE Calgary. The urban boulevard idea for this corridor took root in the 2008 Chinook Station Area Plan. Create a well-lit, well-designed Create a complete street urban Program activities, human-scale frontages along the boulevard. public realm with continuous boulevard that prioritizes This report comprises the concept design Make the public realm a and well-connected sidewalks. pedestrian, bicycle and transit development for the urban boulevard. The adjoining beautiful, colorful, and green movement. technical appendix presents the preliminary design space. development and documentation for design options tested during the concept design phase.

Getting Ready for Change

Calgary has a series of great streets - these can serve as an inspiration to 61 Ave SW as we consider ways to activate the edges in the short-term/ interim period before new development takes place. Great streets are places that do more than provide a range of options to move people from A to B - they also invite people to stay. The staying power in part comes from the edges and the activation of the street. Great streets should be great places for people. This report encompasses the concept and preliminary designs for 61 Avenue SW from MacLeod Trail to Centre Street, and includes the recently re-constructed Chinook Transit Station. The pedestrian bridge design that crosses MacLeod Trail has also been taken consideration for the design proposals along 61 Avenue SW.

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

ADAPTABLE Allow for additive design to address transformation of the public realm and adjacent land use patterns.

Introduction

A Vision for Chinook Boulevard

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Introduction

Concept Plan

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Introduction

Concept Plan

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Planning & Policy Context

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Planning & Policy Context

Planning Studies Summary The following plans and policies create the framework for this design report.

Chinook Station Area Plan 2008/2013 The Chinook Station Area Plan (SAP) identifies a district for transit-oriented development (TOD) around the Chinook Transit Station, with 61 Avenue SW as the main commercial spine connecting the station and Chinook Centre. The SAP, while not a statutory document identifies current best practices for TOD development guidelines and policies. The plan proposes significant parcel and block re-configurations to create a pedestrianscaled urban environment where buildings front the public right-of-way. The SAP also presents a significant upzoning from existing zoning in the area. As a result of, or in keeping with the SAP, most parcels adjacent to the 61 Avenue SW corridor have redefined their zoning under direct control districts to allow for the higher-density development described in the document. The SAP recommended three specific projects for immediate action towards improving the public realm: the redesign of 61 Avenue SW as an urban boulevard, the redesign of the Chinook Transit Station, and the design of a pedestrian bridge (+15) across Macleod Trail to Chinook Centre. In coordination with the SAP, the owners of Chinook Centre have developed proposals to densify their properties in a manner consistent with the guidelines and policies of the plan.

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Planning & Policy Context

Planning Studies Summary Calgary Transportation Plan 2009

Chinook Station Area Concept Plan 2011

The Calgary Transportation laid the foundation for The first round of the Station Area Concept Plan the Grand Boulevard on 61 Avenue SW by defining laid the groundwork for this report. The Concept urban boulevards as a new street type: Plan summarizes the salient points of the Station Area Plan and developed initial ideas for the Transit â&#x20AC;&#x153;Urban Boulevards form the backbone of higher- Station Plaza, schematic cross-sections for 61 density Corridors and Activity Centres. They give Avenue SW, initial concepts for the pedestrian the highest priority to walking, cycling and transit, bridge and incorporated the planned development but accommodate reasonably high volumes of schemes at Chinook Centre. The concept designs vehicular traffic. These streets are destinations, for the transit plaza were further developed into both locally and regionally. They are fully integrated construction documents and the project was with adjacent land uses and provide high levels completed in 2014. The pedestrian bridge concepts of connectivity to surrounding communities or continue to be developed simultaneous to the 61 destinations. They typically carry between 17,500 Avenue SW proposed improvements. and 25,000 vpd. High-quality urban design and green infrastructure are critical components of The concept plan called for a Grand Boulevard Urban Boulevards. They also make up some of along 61 Avenue SW connecting Chinook Centre and the Primary Transit Network. A level of congestion Chinook Station. From this notion, we developed appropriate for a dense urban area is acceptable for the idea for Chinook Boulevard. this street type. Snow clearing should be handled in such a way that it does not interfere with pedestrian and bicycle movement.â&#x20AC;?

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Chinook Station Redevelopment Plan 2012-2014 The Chinook Station Redevelopment Plan recently completed construction. In addition to the station extension, the plaza area along 61 Avenue SW was re-designed with new paving, a heated waiting area, and pedestrian-scale lighting. The pedestrian realm on this plaza appears to be wellsized for the high volumes of foot traffic that move through the transit station. This report considers the improvements for the plaza as a baseline for the recommended improvements with minimum changes to the existing conditions to facilitate social engagement on the site.

Planning & Policy Context

Planning Studies Summary Calgary Cycling Strategy 2011

Complete Streets Guide 2014

The Calgary Cycling Strategy put forward great vision and research into the bicycle ridership in Calgary. The four goals of the vision include: get more people cycling, build more bicycle infrastructure, make cycling safer, and increase satisfaction with cycling in Calgary. To capture the majority of the audience for cycling, bike facilities should be separated from motor vehicles. The 2000 Bicycle Implementation Plan and the 2009 Calgary Transportation Plan identify several planned bicycle routes adjacent to the Chinook Station Area, but none of these routes are budgeted for implementation in the foreseeable future. Despite the lack of city-wide connectivity, bike lanes on 61 Avenue SW could provide connectivity from Chinook Transit Station to Chinook Centre, meeting the goals of connecting the public transit network with the bicycle network.

The Plan It Calgary process put into motion the creation of the Complete Streets Guide which meshes the goals of the Calgary Transportation Plan and the Municipal Development Plan into a singular vision for integrated, multi-valent transportation infrastructure.

MacLeod Trail Corridor Study 2013 The Macleod Trail Corridor Study re-envisioned one of the major north-south corridors in Calgary as an urban boulevard. While highly contentious, the re-classification of this right-of-way represents a major shift in the city’s development patterns, towards a more sustainable, urban fabric. Given the length of the corridor, this study represents a long-range planning effort that remains to be funded. The study called for bicycle lanes along the corridor, but also recognized the challenges to this implementation and as such, proposed an alternate alignment along the LRT maintenance road. This alignment requires a minimal amount of improvements to become a viable bicycle network connection, and as such is being considered as the first possible connection for the proposed bicycle lanes on 61 Avenue SW.

The Urban Boulevard is a new street type under the Livable Streets category which is intended to supports a community. The Complete Streets Guide seeks to achieve the following goals: • serve the land uses adjacent to the street, integrating mobility as a means, not an end; • encourage people to travel by walking, cycling and transit, • provide transportation options for people of all ages, physical abilities, and income levels; • enhance the safety and security of streets, from both a traffic and personal perspective; • improve people’s health; • create livable neighborhoods; • reduce the total amount of paved area; • reduce streetwater runoff into watersheds; • maximize infiltration and reuse of stormwater; • reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants; • reduce energy consumption; • promote the economic well-being of both businesses and residents; • increase civic space and encourage social interaction; • promote alternative streetscapes.

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Physical Context Existing Conditions & Proposed Concept Analysis

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Existing Conditions ARTERIAL STREET 61 Avenue SW can be described as a typical suburban arterial where vehicles occupy the majority of the right-of-way. This type of street configuration indicates a priority on through-put of auto traffic with secondary consideration for movement of pedestrians and cyclists. Very little consideration is given to the concept of staying power, or how the pedestrian realm can promote active social engagement or contribute to the economic vitality of an area. The following section describes the existing conditions and how the proposed design changes traffic patterns.

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Road Geometry

3 Street SW

Macleod Trail

Chinook Centre

ACCESS INVENTORY & UTILIZATION

61 Avenue SW

Corridor Alignment The existing 61 Avenue SW corridor is a straight right-of-way with changes in width to accommodate different lane configurations and center median conditions. These conditions make the road geometry simple as there are no centerline curves to impact the proposed design. The existing centerline is in a slightly different location in each block which contributes to some inconsistency in lane widths and alignment along the corridor.

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

There are many driveway accesses along the corridor that will require modification as part of the proposed design. Existing, there is one right-in/right-out (RIRO) commercial driveway crossing located in each block on each side of 61 Avenue SW at the approximate mid-point of each block. There is also one additional driveway access for the Community Natural Foods business parking lot, located immediately west of the rail crossing. These RIRO driveway crossings are not the sole access for any of the businesses immediately adjacent to the corridor.

To aid in realizing the vision for the corridor, an access management exercise has been undertaken to help reduce the presence of vehicles within the pedestrian environment but still address the local business and stakeholder needs for realistic access conditions to each business. The result was a decision to reduce each existing driveway to a right-in only condition by proposing to implement the City of Calgary standard directional driveway crossing at each of these locations. Egress from each site can still be achieved by the secondary accesses to the side streets.

Physical Context

1A Street SW

Centre Street

Road Geometry

Chinook Station

61 Avenue SW

All driveway crossing are proposed to use a rolled or semi-mountable curb and gutter structure at the gutter line across the full width of the driveway crossing. This is required to enable the cycle tracks, and boulevard zones to remain at a maximum of a 2% crossfall without the need for bike ramps at each driveway. This will provide a smooth, safe and traversable environment for all active mode users within the entire public realm. The eastern most RIRO access to the Community Natural Foods business will be maintained as a conventional RIRO driveway crossing at this time, however, it will need to be moved West by approximately 3.0m to maintain a separation from the proposed pedestrian and bikeway crossings at the rail crossing. 61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

PM61 AVE SW PM61 AVE SW

16:00 - 18:0016:00 - 18:00

18 CHINOOK CENTRE

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report SW SW SW61 AVE61 AVE 61 AVE61 SW SW AVE61 AVE SW 61 AVE

MAC LEOD TRAIL

MAC LEOD TRAIL SW MAC LEO3 D STTRA IL

MAC LEOD TRAIL

1A ST SW

THURS. AUGTHURS. 23RD, 2012 AUG 23RD, 2012

SW SW SW60 AVE60 AVE 60 AVE60 SW SW AVE60 AVE SW 60 AVE

SW SW SW61 AVE61 AVE 61 AVE61 SW SW AVE61 AVE SW 61 AVE

3 ST SW

1A 3 ST SW

3 ST SW

3 ST SW 1A 3 ST SW 3 ST SW 3 ST SW 3 ST SW

3 ST SW

3 ST SW 3 ST SW

3 ST SW

TUES. OCT 9TH, 2007 TUES. OCT 9TH, 2007

1 A ST SW 1 A ST SW

CHINOOK STATION

SW SW SW60 AVE60 AVE 60 AVE60 SW SW AVE60 AVE SW 60 AVE

SW SW SW61 AVE61 AVE 61 AVE61 SW SW AVE61 AVE SW 61 AVE

CHINOOK STATION

CHINOOK CHINOOK CHINOOK CHINOOK CHINOOK CHINOOK STATION STATION STATION STATION STATION STATION

CANADIAN

CENTRE CENTRE ST S ST S

PACIFIC RA ILWAY

CALG NAAR DIAYNTR AN PA CIF SIT IC RAILWAY

FRI. NOV 3OTH, FRI.2012 NOV 3OTH, 2012

ANSIT

CANADIAN

PACIFIC RA ILWAY

CALG NAAR DIAYNTR AN PA CIF SIT IC RAILWAY

CALG NAAR DIAYNTR AN PA CIF SIT IC RAILWAY CALGARY TR CANADIAN ANSIT PACIFIC RA ILWAY CALG NAAR DIAYNTR PA AN CIF SIT IC RAILWAY

ENTRE ST S CACLG NAAR DIAYNTR PA AN CIF SIT IC RAILWAY

CALGARY TR

CANADIAN CENTRE PACIFIC ST S

CENTRE ST CENTRE ST S

RAILWAY

PACIFIC RAILWAY

CALGARY TRANSIT

CANADIAN

CENTRE ST

PACIFIC RA ILWAY

CALG NAAR DIAYNTR AN PA CIF SIT IC RAILWAY CALGARY TR CANADIAN ANSIT PACIFIC RA ILWAY CALG NAAR DIAYNTR PA AN CIF SIT IC RAILWAY

ANSIT

CALGARY TR

CHINOOK CHINOOK CHINOOK CHINOOK CHINOOK CHINOOK STATION STATION STATION STATION STATION STATION

ENTRE ST S CACLG NAAR DIAYNTR PA AN CIF SIT IC RAILWAY

ANSIT

CHINOOK STATION

ENTRE ST S CACLG NAAR DIAYNTR PA AN CIF SIT IC RAILWAY

CALGARY TR

1 A ST SW

CALGARY TRANSIT

1A ST SW

1 ASW ST SW 3 ST

CENTRE ST S

61 AVE SW

3 ST SW

MAC LEOD TRAIL

MAC LEOD TR MAC LEOD 3 ST SW TR

CENTRE ST S

1A ST SW

CHINOOK CENTRE

MAC LEOD TRAIL

60 AVE SW

CENTRE ST S

1A ST SW

CANADIA 1A N ST SW PACIFIC RA ILWAY 1A ST SW

CANADIA 1A N ST SW PACIFIC RA ILWAY

CHINOOK STATION

CANADIA 1A N ST SW PACIFIC RA ILWAY

CHINOOK STATION

CALGAR 1AY STR T SW ANSIT

250

CALGAR 1AY STR T SW ANSIT

500

CALGAR 1AY STR T SW ANSIT

1A ST SW

100

1A ST SW

CANADIA 1A N ST SW PACIFIC RA ILWAY

Six Hour Intersection Count: Weekday Totals

CANADIA 1A N ST SW PACIFIC RA ILWAY

SW SW SW60 AVE60 AVE 60 AVE60 SW SW AVE60 AVE SW 60 AVE

1A ST SW

PED 250 BIKE

CANADIA 1A N ST SW PACIFIC RA ILWAY

PED BIKE 500 CHINOOK CENTRE

PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC VOLUMES

CAR PED BIKE

CALGAR 1AY STR T SW ANSIT

Traffic Volumes & Analysis

CALGAR 1AY STR T SW ANSIT

6 HOUR INTERSECTION COUNT 6 HOUR INTERSECTION COUNT WEEKDAY TOTALS WEEKDAY TOTALS

CALGAR 1AY STR T SW ANSIT

3 ST SW

60 AVE SW

1A 3 ST SW

SW MAC LEO3 D STTRA IL

MAC LEOD TRLEOD TR MAC

3 ST SW

60 AVE SW

1A ST SW

CHINOOK CENTRE

TUES. JUN 28TH, TUES.2011 JUN 28TH, 2011

3 ST SW

MAC LEOD TRAIL

MAC LEOD TRAIL SW MAC LEO3 D STTRA IL

MAC LEOD TRAIL

SW MAC LEO3 D STTRA IL

CHINOOK CENTRE CHINOOK CENTRE

MAC LEOD TRAIL

60 AVE SW

1A ST SW

MAC LEOD TRAIL

MAC LEOD TRAIL SW MAC LEO3 D STTRA IL

MAC LEOD TRAIL

SW MAC LEO3 D STTRA IL

CHINOOK CENTRE

7:00 - 9:00 7:00 - 9:00

CHINOOK CENTRE

11:00 - 13:0011:00 - 13:00

CHINOOK CENTRE

60 AVE SW

CHINOOK CENTRE

AM 61 AVE SWAM 61 AVE SW

CHINOOK CENTRE

60 AVE SW

CHINOOK CENTRE

LUNCH LUNCH 61 AVE SW 61 AVE SW

CHINOOK CENTRE

MAC LEOD TRAIL

60 AVE SW

CHINOOK CENTRE

MAC LEOD TRAIL

Physical Context CAR PED BIKE

60 AVE SW

100

61 AVE SW

CHINOOK STATION

PM PEAK PM PEAK

61 AVE SW

CHINOOK CENTRE

TUES. MARTUES. 17TH,MAR 201517TH, 2015

1 A ST SW 1 A ST SW

CHINOOK STATION

CANADIA 1A N ST SW PACIFIC RA ILWAY

CHINOOK STATION

CALG NADIAYNTR AN PA CIF SIT CALGAR IC RAILWAY ARY TR ANSIT

CHINOOK STATION

CALG NAAR DIAYNTR PA AN CIF SIT IC RAILWAY

ANSIT

CALGARY TR

ANSIT

CENTRE CENTRE ST S ST S

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

CALG NAAR DIAYNTR AN PA CIF SIT IC RAILWAY

CHINOOK CHINOOK CHINOOK CHINOOK CHINOOK CHINOOK STATION STATION STATION STATION STATION STATION

CALGARY TR

TUES. MARTUES. 17TH,MAR 201517TH, 2015

CALG NAAR DIAYNTR AN PA CIF SIT IC RAILWAY

CALG NAAR DIAYNTR PA AN CIF SIT IC RAILWAY

CALG NADIAYNTR AN PA CIF SIT CALGAR IC RAILWAY ARY TR ANSIT

CALG NAAR DIAYNTR PA AN CIF SIT IC RAILWAY

CHINOOK STATION

CALG NAAR DIAYNTR PA AN CIF SIT IC RAILWAY

PACIFIC RAILWAY

CENTRE ST S

PACIFIC RAILWAY

CENTRE ST CENTRE ST

CANADIAN

CALGARY TRANSIT

CANADIAN

CALGARY TRANSIT

1A ST SW

3 ST SW

3 ST1SW A ST SW 1 A ST SW

CALGARY TR ANSIT CENTRE ST S

61 AVE SW

CENTRE ST S

3 ST SW

MAC LEOD TRAIL

MAC LEOD MAC LEOD TR 3 STTR SW

CENTRE ST S

1A ST SW

MAC LEOD TRAIL

60 AVE SW

CALGARY TR ANSIT CENTRE ST S

CENTRE ST S

PACIFIC RA ILWAY 1A ST SW

250

CHINOOK CENTRE

500

1A ST SW

CANADIA 1A N ST SW PACIFIC RA ILWAY

CHINOOK STATION

CANADIAN

61 AVE SW

CANADIA 1ANST SW PACIFIC RA ILWAY

SW SW AVESW AVE60 AVE SW 60AVE 60 SW SW AVE60 60 AVE60

1A ST SW CALGAR 1AY STR T SW ANSIT

CHINOOK STATION

1A ST SW CALGARY TR ANSIT

SW SW AVESW AVE61 AVE SW 61AVE 61 SW SW AVE61 61 AVE61

CANADIAN

60 AVE SW

1A ST SW CALGAR1YATR ST SW ANSIT

100

CHINOOK CENTRE

250

CANADIA 1ANST SW PACIFIC RA ILWAY

PED

CALGAR 1AY STR T SW ANSIT

SW SW AVESW AVE60 AVE SW 60AVE 60 SW SW AVE60 60 AVE60

PACIFIC RA ILWAY

3 ST SW

PED

ANSIT

3 ST SW3 ST SW 3 ST SW 1A ST SW 3 ST SW 3 ST SW

500

CALGARY TR

3 ST SW

TUES. MARTUES. 17TH,MAR 201517TH, 2015

3 ST SW

6 HOUR INTERSECTION COUNT 6 HOUR INTERSECTION COUNT WEEKDAY TOTALS WEEKDAY TOTALS

CALGAR1YATR ST SW ANSIT

3 ST SW

61 AVE SW

1A ST SW 3 ST SW

60 AVE SW

3 ST SW

60 AVE SW 1A ST SW

MAC LEOD TRAIL

M TTR 3 TRAA SIW MAACC LLEEO OD DS ILL

MAC LEOD TRAIL

MACTR LEOD TR MAC LEOD

3 ST SW 1A ST SW 3 ST SW 3 ST SW

60 AVE SW

1A ST SW

SW MAC LEO3 D STTRA IL

TUES. TUES. MAR 17TH,MAR 201517TH, 2015

3 ST SW

MAC LEOD TRAIL

MAC LEOD TT RASIW L 3S

3 ST SW

CHINOOK CENTRE

C CH HIIN NO OO OK KC CEEN NTTR REE

MAC LEOD TRAIL

60 AVE SW

1A ST SW

MAC LEOD TRAIL

M MA AC CL LE EO O3D DSTTR RSA AWIIL L

MAC LEOD TRAIL

MAC LEO3DSTTRSAWIL

LUNCH LUNCH PEAK PEAK 61 AVE SW 61 AVE SW

CHINOOK CENTRE

60 AVE SW CHINOOK CENTRE

AM PEAK AM 61PEAK AVE SW 61 AVE SW

CHINOOK CENTRE

60 AVE SW

C CH HIIN NO OO OK KC CE EN NT TR RE E

MAC LEOD TRAIL

60 AVE SW

CHINOOK CENTRE

MAC LEOD TRAIL

Physical Context

Traffic Volumes & Analysis PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC VOLUMES 60 AVE SW

100

61 AVE SW

CHINOOK STATION

SW SW AVESW AVE61 AVE SW 61AVE 61 SW SW AVE61 61 AVE61

Physical Context

Intersection Operational Analysis TRAFFIC VOLUMES - EXISTING CONDITIONS

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Intersection Operational Analysis TRAFFIC VOLUMES - PROPOSED CONDITIONS

The Complete Streets Guide outlines the Walking: following priorities for accommodating different Cycling: transportation modes on an Urban Boulevard Transit: street type: Goods: Autos:

High Standards High Standards High Standards High/Variable Standards Variable Standards 61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Intersection Operational Analysis EXISTING CONDITIONS

Morning Peak Hour The operational assessment of the pre and post concept condition provides guidance to the anticipated impact to motor vehicle traffic from the post concept condition. The results can validate removal of existing traffic lanes that are not well utilized and/or required to maintain acceptable operational condition. The following section summarizes the existing and post concept condition, and the impact of the proposed lane removals.

EXISTING - WEEKDAY MORNING (AM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY

BASE Intersection

Macleod Trail

Delay (s)

LOS

LT THRU RT LT THRU RT LT Thru, RT

0.13 0.08 0.01 0.59 0.09 0.08 0.57

46.5 45.8 45.0 53.8 44.9 56.3 72.8

D D D D D E E

95th Queue (m) 18.3 17.8 0.0 76.3 13.1 13.6 40.2

Signal

0.78

28.9

222.3

0.66

74.7

52.0

Thru, RT

0.31

16.7

63.2

0.11

5.9

12.2

THRU

0.19

6.1

34.5

0.04

7.9

5.1

0.10

4.3

7.9

Thru, RT

0.15

3.9

14.4

LT, THRU, RT

0.54

27.6

29.3

LT, THRU, RT

0.11 0.19 0.25 0.29 0.20 0.59 0.21 0.48 0.16 0.40 0.83 0.14

23.5 6.3 5.9 10.4 9.1 26.2 21.0 21.8 37.6 20.6 21.3 10.5

C A A B A C C C D C C B

8.9 7.3 13.5 17.6 17.0 40.1 17.1 47.6 19.0 39.6 90.1 10.5

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

WB NB SB

EB 3 ST SW

Signal

EB 1a ST SW

Signal

WB NB SB EB

Centre St

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

v/c ratio

Approach

Existing peak hour turning movement and daily traffic volumes were provided by the City of Calgary. The counts were completed from 2007 to 2012. Initial intersection operational assessments were completed on a rebalancing of the traffic volume to reflect 2012 conditions. Since the initial assessment was completed, more recent traffic counts were completed in March 2015 along 61 Avenue SW at Macleod Trail and Centre Street S to obtain traffic counts that are more reflective of 2015 conditions. December 2014 counts were also obtained for 3 Street SW. In general, it was noted that the 2015 traffic counts showed a decline in traffic volumes particularly for the through traffic at Macleod Trail, but slightly higher traffic coming from the south at 3 Street SW. The following tables show the summary result of the intersection and movement performance during the morning and afternoon peak hours for 2015.

Control

Overall Intersection LOS

Signal

WB NB SB

Movement

LT Thru, RT LT Thru, RT LT, THRU, RT LT, THRU, RT LT, THRU RT LT, THRU, RT LT, THRU, RT LT, THRU, RT

Queue OK? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Note : Queue Length in Italic: 95th percentile volume exceed capacity. Queue may be longer.

Physical Context

Intersection Operational Analysis EXISTING CONDITIONS

Afternoon Peak Hour Overall, the intersections along 61 Avenue SW between Macleod Trail and Centre Street operate at Level of Service C or better during both peak hours except at Macleod Trail during the afternoon peak hour. Level of Service C or better represents good operating conditions for the overall intersections. During the afternoon peak hour at Macleod Trail, the eastbound approach, westbound left and southbound left movement experiences poor operating condition for the existing condition. As well, the eastbound left and northbound left turns are at capacity with high delays, and longer queues are experienced on all approaches for at least one movement. The operational analysis model was adjusted to reflect the post concept condition that removes the left turn bays at 3 Street SW and on the eastbound approach of 1A Street SW, as well, the removal of the right turn lanes for the eastbound and westbound movement between Macleod Trail and Centre Street. The summary result of the intersection and movement performance during the morning and afternoon peak hours for the post concept condition are shown in the following tables.

EXISTING - WEEKDAY AFTERNOON (PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY

BASE Intersection

Control

Overall Intersection LOS

Approach

Macleod Trail

Signal

NB SB

EB 3 ST SW

Signal

B WB

1a ST SW

Centre St

Signal

Movement

v/c ratio

Delay (s)

LOS

95th Queue (m)

Queue OK?

1.66

419.5

98.1

THRU

0.56

71.2

47.5

0.36

66.9

44.2

0.93

71.0

193.4

THRU

0.24

36.8

45.5

0.17

36.1

18.7

1.28

232.9

143.5 139.4

N N

Thru, RT

0.62

33.2

0.67

74.4

56.4

Thru, RT

0.85

40.4

207.3

0.30

18.3

17.5

THRU

0.23

14.7

25.8

0.08

13.8

7.7

0.35

12.0

15.2

Thru, RT

0.45

10.5

34.1

LT, THRU, RT

0.89

37.9

103.0

LT, THRU, RT

0.49

16.2

44.8

0.29

12.9

7.0

Thru, RT

0.35

11.6

14.7

0.59

28.4

29.9

Thru, RT

0.45

17.7

36.8

LT, THRU, RT

0.78

99.8

LT, THRU, RT

0.55

16.9

67.1

LT, THRU

0.39

23.1

47.8

0.36

22.0

25.0

LT, THRU, RT

0.71

32.0

129.7

LT, THRU, RT

1.39dl

33.7

86.2

LT, THRU, RT

0.48

18.3

54.0

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Intersection Operational Analysis PROPOSED CONDITIONS

Morning Peak Hour The post concept condition indicates the following:

POST CONCEPT - WEEKDAY MORNING (AM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY BASE

• Morning peak hour • Marginal impact with largely little or no change in delay. • Minimal impact to queue lengths, with largest impact on the eastbound left turn lanes at 3 Street SW and 1A Street SW. Left turn movements not have to wait with through traffic, so total queue for through traffic increases by approximately 10m at both intersections. Queue for approach is still anticipated to be less than 50m.

Intersection

Control

Overall Intersection LOS

Approach

Macleod Trail

Signal

1A ST SW

Signal

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Signal

LOS

95th Queue (m)

Queue OK?

0.14

46.6

18.4

THRU

0.08

45.8

17.8

0.01

45.0

0.0

0.59

53.7

76.3

0.14

47.4

14.8

0.57

72.8

40.2

Thru, RT

0.79

28.9

222.3

0.66

74.7

52.0

Thru, RT

0.33

16.7

63.2

LT, THRU, RT

0.29

6.9

43.7

LT, Thru, RT

0.21

4.1

17.3

LT, THRU, RT

0.54

27.6

29.3

LT, THRU, RT

LT, Thru, RT LT Thru, RT

0.11 0.37 0.31 0.20

23.5 6.8 11.2 9.3

C A B A

8.9 15.2 19.7 18.6

Y Y Y Y

26.2 21.0 24.3

C C C

40.1 17.1 48.7

Y Y

LT, THRU

0.59 0.21 0.48

0.16

43.3

18.3

LT, THRU, RT

0.40

20.8

39.6

LT, THRU, RT

0.83

21.0

90.1

LT, THRU, RT

0.14

10.4

10.5

WB NB

LT, THRU, RT

EB Centre St

Delay (s)

Signal

v/c ratio

THRU, RT

3 ST SW

Movement

Note: Queue Length in Italic: 95th percentile volume exceed capacity. Queue may be longer.

Physical Context

Intersection Operational Analysis PROPOSED CONDITIONS

Afternoon Peak Hour • Impact to eastbound left turn from Chinook Mall has a large increase in delay; however, the existing movement is already operating poorly. As noted below, with the new pedestrian bridge, there is opportunity to introduce a protected left turn phase to improve the operation of this movement. The traffic volume for this approach is average with approximately 100 vehicles.

POST CONCEPT - WEEKDAY AFTERNOON (PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY

• Marginal impact between 3 Street SW and Centre Street SW with little or no change in delay. Main impact at 3 Street SW with an increase in delay of 1 to 4 seconds in the east and westbound direction.

Macleod Trail

• Westbound through shared right turn queue increases by just over 17 m, but overall queue will still be less than 65 m. The level of service is unchanged and the delay increase by approximately 3 seconds. • Eastbound through shared right turn queue increases by approximately 12 to 13 m at 3 Street SW and 1A Street SW. The level of service is unchanged and the delay increase by approximately 1 to 4 seconds. It should be noted that when the post concept condition was evaluated, no change was made to the existing signal timing plan to reflect the direct impact of the concepts. However, the new pedestrian bridge at Macleod Trail and 61 Avenue SW will increase capacity for the motor vehicle by reducing the time required for pedestrian crossing of Macleod Trail.

BASE Intersection

Control

Overall Intersection LOS

Approach EB

Signal

WB NB SB

3 ST SW

Signal

1A ST SW

Signal

EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB

Centre St

Signal

WB NB SB

Movement

v/c ratio

Delay (s)

LOS

LT THRU RT LT THRU, RT LT Thru, RT LT Thru, RT

1.84 0.56 0.36 0.93 0.41 1.28 0.62 0.67 0.85

502.3 71.2 66.9 71.0 39.4 232.9 33.2 74.4 40.4

F E E E D F C E D

95th Queue (m) 100.2 47.5 44.2 193.4 62.6 143.5 139.4 56.4 207.3

LT, THRU, RT LT, Thru, RT LT, THRU, RT LT, THRU, RT LT, Thru, RT LT Thru, RT LT, THRU, RT LT, THRU, RT LT, THRU RT LT, THRU, RT LT, THRU, RT LT, THRU, RT

0.45 0.67 0.89 0.49 0.50 0.61 0.45 0.78 0.56 0.39 0.36 0.72 1.38dl 0.48

17.4 13.8 37.9 16.2 13.2 29.9 17.6 27.3 17.0 23.4 22.3 32.7 32.6 18.0

B B D B B C B C B C C C C B

38.0 40.4 103.0 44.8 18.8 30.6 36.1 101.1 68.5 47.8 25.0 129.7 86.1 54.0

Queue OK? N Y Y N Y N N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Note: Queue Length in Italic: 95th percentile volume exceed capacity. Queue may be longer.

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Forecast Traffic Volumes & Analysis TRAFFIC VOLUMES - FORECAST WITH BASE CONDITIONS

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Forecast Traffic Volumes & Analysis TRAFFIC VOLUMES - FORECAST WITH PROPOSED CONDITIONS

The Complete Streets Guide outlines the Walking: following priorities for accommodating different Cycling: transportation modes on an Urban Boulevard Transit: street type: Goods: Autos:

High Standards High Standards High Standards High/Variable Standards Variable Standards 61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Forecast Traffic Volumes & Analysis TRAFFIC VOLUMES - FORECAST BACKGROUND

FORECAST BACKGROUND Further to the traffic analysis for the existing traffic condition, the long term forecast traffic along the corridor was also analyzed. The forecast traffic was provided by the City of Calgary forecast group and calibrated with existing traffic data. It represents approximately 25 years in the future, and accounts for redevelopment of the area bounded by 58 Avenue SW to the north, Glenmore Trail to the south, Macleod Trail to the west and the LRT track to the east. The forecast also includes additional growth for Chinook Mall, as well as the industrial/ employment area east of the LRT tracks. The following table provides a brief summary of the projected growth in the immediate area.

FORECAST LAND USE GROWTH

FORECAST LAND USE GROWTH AREA Chinook Mall

POPULATION EMPLOYMENT GROWTH GROWTH (people) (jobs) FORECAST LAND USE GROWTH 0 +849

58 Avenue to 61 Avenue SW AREA

W of LRT Tracks to Macleod Trail Chinook Mall

61 Avenue SW to Glenmore Trail

58 Avenue to 61 Avenue SW

W of LRT Tracks to Macleod Trail

58 Avenue to Glenmore Trail Trail 61 Avenue SW to Glenmore

E of LRT Tracks to 4 Street SE Trail W of LRT Tracks to Macleod 58 Avenue to Glenmore Trail E of LRT Tracks to 4 Street SE

POPULATION +5,000 GROWTH (people) 0

+4,700

EMPLOYMENT GROWTH +187 (jobs) +849

+1,508

+5,000

+187

0 +4,700

+657 +1,508

+657

STUDY AREA MODAL SPLIT COMPARISON

STUDY AREA MODALMODAL SPLITSPLIT COMPARISON The 25 year (2039) forecast Regional Transportation (%) STUDY AREA MODAL SPLIT COMPARISON Model (RTM) also provides information on the FORECAST FOR CHINOOK MALL FORECAST FOR REDEVELOPMENT MODAL SPLIT (%) TRAVEL MODE EXISTING projected modal split for the area. The following / INDUSTRIAL/ EMPLOYMENT AREA BETWEEN 58 AVE AND FORECAST FOR CHINOOK MALL FORECAST FOR REDEVELOPMENT table provides a summary of the forecast modal split AREA (2014)* TRAVEL MODE EXISTING AREA E of LRT TRACKS GLENMORE TR W OF LRT TRACKS / INDUSTRIAL/ EMPLOYMENT AREA BETWEEN 58 AVE AND in the area, with a comparison to the existing (2014) AREA (2014)* Automobiles 66% 79 81% 67 76% AREA E of LRT TRACKS GLENMORE TR W OF LRT TRACKS modal split for the adjacent area communities. - 81% 6710 - 76% TransitAutomobiles 25% 66% 8 -79 12% - 14% Transit 25% 8 12% 10 5% 6 - 12% 1314% - 18% Areas with population growth typically have Walk 6 - 12% 13 - 18% a different split than areas that are primarily Bicycle Walk 1% 5% 1% 1% Bicycle 1% 1% 1% employment based. Population based areas* Note: Community Census includes Alyth/Bonnybrook, Elboya, Meadowlark Park, and Windsor Park * Note: Community Census includes Alyth/Bonnybrook, Elboya, Meadowlark Park, and Windsor Park typically have higher modal split between the different modes. The above table represents the modal split during the morning and afternoon peak two hour period. During off-peak hours, the trend was similar except with a shift of transit user to pedestrian modes. As shown the projected modal split in the future is similar to that of existing condition. 28

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Forecast Traffic Volumes & Analysis TRAFFIC VOLUMES - FORECAST WITH BASE CONDITIONS

FORECAST TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The operational assessment of the forecast base and post concept condition provides guidance to the anticipated impact to motor vehicle traffic from the post concept condition. The results can validate removal of existing traffic lanes that are not well utilized and/or required to maintain acceptable operational condition. The following section summarizes the forecast base and post concept condition, and the impact of the proposed lane removals. For post concept condition, some minor changes to the traffic signal timing were made to reduce some of the queuing concerns. The following tables show the summary result of the intersection and movement performance during the morning and afternoon peak hours for the forecast base condition.

FORECAST BASE CONDITION –

FORECAST BASE CONDITION – WEEKDAY MORNING (AM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY WEEKDAY MORNING (AM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY BASE Intersection

Control

Overall Intersection LOS

Approach

WB Macleod Trail

Signal

E NB SB

3 ST SW

Signal

95th Queue (m)

Queue OK?

LT THRU RT LT THRU RT LT Thru, RT

0.34 0.18 0.10 1.60 0.10 0.08 0.98 0.92

48.8 46.3 45.3 347.0 48.7 63.2 130.3 40.4

D D D F D E F D

40.4 34.0 18.8 267.9 16.1 14.5 100.0 251.8

Y Y Y N Y Y Y N

0.91

101.1

110.3

Thru, RT

0.41

19.7

78.0

0.15

5.5

10.2

THRU

0.20

5.3

28.8

0.08

7.3

7.4

0.19

6.2

17.5

0.22

5.4

26.7

0.70

34.8

34.9

LT, THRU, RT

0.61

28.9

35.1

LT Thru, RT LT Thru, RT LT, THRU, RT

0.23 0.26 0.27 0.18 0.75

6.5 5.6 10.2 8.7 35.3

A A B A D

9.0 13.6 18.1 17.2 46.7

Y Y Y Y Y

LT, THRU, RT LT, THRU RT LT, THRU, RT LT, THRU, RT LT, THRU, RT

0.43 0.56 0.19 0.44 0.87 0.22

22.2 23.5 34.8 22.8 22.3 10.1

C C C C C B

30.1 50.7 19.1 40.1 107.1 14.8

Y Y Y Y Y Y

WB SB

LOS

Thru, RT

EB Signal

Delay (s)

LT, THRU, RT

Centre St

v/c ratio

EB 1a ST SW

Movement

WB NB SB

Note : Queue Length in Italic: 95th percentile volume exceed capacity. Queue may be longer. 61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Forecast Traffic Volumes & Analysis TRAFFIC VOLUMES - FORECAST WITH BASE CONDITIONS

FORECAST BASE CONDITION FORECAST BASE CONDITION WEEKDAY AFTERNOON (PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY Overall, the intersections along 61 Avenue SW between Macleod Trail and Centre Street will operate at Level of Service D or better during both peak hours except at Macleod Trail which will operate with LOS E and F during the morning and afternoon peak hour respectively. Level of Service D or better represents fair or good operating conditions for the overall intersections. During the afternoon peak hour at Macleod Trail, the eastbound approach, westbound left, northbound left and southbound left movement will experience poor operating condition for the future base condition. As well, the left turns on all approaches are at capacity with high delays, and longer queues.

WEEKDAY AFTERNOON (PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY BASE Intersection

Control

Overall Intersection LOS

Approach

Signal

122.5

216.1

114.8

0.96

138.9

95.8

1.41

245.3

322.6

THRU

0.26

37.1

48.8

0.15

35.8

17.4

1.47

308.7

167.7

Thru, RT

0.72

39.8

149.5

1.04

133.4

144.5

Thru, RT

1.03

67.3

303.1

0.55

29.4

33.0

THRU

0.29

16.2

30.8

0.25

17.2

15.4

0.49

16.3

19.5

Thru, RT

0.57

14.2

40.1

LT, THRU, RT

0.94

45.8

117.2

LT, THRU, RT

0.55

16.2

53.4

0.64

28.5

26.8

Thru, RT

0.38

10.3

9.9

0.75

42.1

35.4

Thru, RT

0.60

21.7

43.1

LT, THRU, RT

0.82

28.5

114.8

LT, THRU, RT

0.65

18.1

95.2

LT, THRU

0.51

30.9

51.9

0.34

26.0

24.0

LT, THRU, RT

0.95

62.2

151.3

LT, THRU, RT

1.90dl

79.5

163.3

LT, THRU, RT

0.60

16.5

73.6

Centre St

Signal

Queue OK?

699.3

Signal

95th Queue (m)

1.22

1a ST SW

LOS

2.30

Signal

Delay (s)

3 ST SW

v/c ratio

THRU

Macleod Trail

Movement

Note: Queue Length in Italic: 95th percentile volume exceed capacity. Queue may be longer. 30

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Forecast Traffic Volumes & Analysis PROPOSED CONCEPT TRAFFIC LANES

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Forecast Traffic Volumes & Analysis TRAFFIC VOLUMES - FORECAST WITH PROPOSED CONDITIONS

FORECAST POST CONCEPT CONDITION –

FORECAST POST CONCEPT CONDITION – MORNING (AM)TRAFFIC PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY WEEKDAYWEEKDAY MORNING (AM) PEAK HOUR ANALYSIS SUMMARY Following the forecast base condition analysis, the operational analysis model was adjusted to reflect the forecast post concept condition that removes the left turn bays at 3 Street SW and on the eastbound approach of 1A Street SW, as well, the removal of the right turn lanes for the eastbound and westbound movement between Macleod Trail and Centre Street. The summary result of the intersection and movement performance during the morning and afternoon peak hours for the forecast post concept condition are shown in the following tables. The forecast post concept condition indicates the following: • Morning peak hour »» Marginal impact with largely little or no change in delay, with signal timing adjustment some delay and queues are reduced. »» Minimal impact to queue lengths, with largest impact on the northbound through shared right at Macleod Trail, largely due to shift in signal timing to reduce queuing on the westbound approach.

POST CONCEPT Intersection

Control

Overall Intersection LOS

Approach

Macleod Trail

Signal

WB NB

1A ST SW

Signal

Delay (s)

LOS

95th Queue (m)

0.52

62.7

33.6

THRU

0.61

76.3

44.1

0.10

66.2

23.0

1.02

96.9

170.9

THRU, RT

0.17

48.8

21.1

0.75

77.4

73.2

Thru, RT

1.04

70.8

300.9

1.00

126.4

118.9

0.54

28.7

106.3

LT, THRU, RT

0.36

5.2

38.2

LT, THRU, RT

0.35

6.7

36.4

Y Y

LT, THRU, RT

0.69

33.5

35.9

LT, THRU, RT

0.63

29.0

37.5

LT, THRU, RT LT THRU, RT LT, THRU, RT

0.40 0.29 0.17 0.75

7.8 8.3 5.9 34.7

A A A C

14.6 14.2 13.5 45.4

Y Y Y Y

LT, THRU, RT

0.40

22.0

27.4

LT, THRU

0.82

32.9

32.6

0.18

12.2

0.3

LT, THRU, RT

0.72

36.0

52.4

LT, THRU, RT

0.75

12.8

91.6

LT, THRU, RT

0.17

6.7

12.5

Note: Queue Length in Italic: 95th percentile volume exceed capacity. Queue may be longer.

Note: Queue Length in Italic: 95th percentile volume exceed capacity. Queue may be longer. 32

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Queue OK?

EB Centre St

v/c ratio

Thru, RT

3 ST SW

Movement

Physical Context

Forecast Traffic Volumes & Analysis TRAFFIC VOLUMES - FORECAST WITH PROPOSED CONDITIONS

CONCEPT CONDITION – FORECAST POST CONCEPTFORECAST CONDITION POST – WEEKDAY AFTERNOON (PM) PEAK TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY WEEKDAY AFTERNOON (PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFICHOUR ANALYSIS SUMMARY • Afternoon peak hour »» Adjustments to the signal timing in the post concept condition, reduced the queueing and overall delay from the base condition, however, the overall intersection will still experience congestion. »» Some impact between 3 Street SW and Centre Street SW. Main impact at 3 Street SW with an increase in delay of 30 seconds and 30m in queue in the westbound direction. Some additional queuing will be experienced for the eastbound right turn at the Centre Street intersection due to adjustment to the signal timing It should be noted that when the post concept condition was evaluated, adjustments and coordination were only made along the 61 Avenue SW corridor. A more detailed assessment should be completed at the detailed design stage to confirm signal timing coordinate with downstream signals on the cross streets. Additional consideration in the detailed design should be made to consider increasing the capacity of the westbound left turn lane by adding a lane, or conversion of the inside through lane to a shared through lane at the Macleod Trail intersection. The addition of this lane would also have downstream benefits at the 3 Street SW intersection.

POST CONCEPT Intersection

Macleod Trail

Control

Signal

Overall Intersection LOS

Approach

Movement LT

THRU

WB NB

3 ST SW

1A ST SW

Signal

LOS

0.75

73.5

46.4

1.20

208.7

113.5

Queue OK?

0.68

81.5

72.4

1.21

141.0

213.7

THRU, RT

0.44

43.4

56.3

1.31

238.4

160.0

Thru, RT

0.91

55.4

181.8

0.89

87.5

123.1

N Y

Thru, RT

1.25

162.4

348.6

LT, THRU, RT

0.93

28.1

62.3

LT, THRU, RT

1.08

65.1

109.5

LT, THRU, RT

0.98

55.6

125.7

LT, THRU, RT

0.57

16.7

58.4

LT, THRU, RT

0.75

19.3

33.7

Y Y

0.76

42.7

54.0

THRU, RT

0.57

19.6

57.2

LT, THRU, RT

0.95

51.5

105.4

LT, THRU, RT

0.73

22.8

78.9

LT, THRU

0.53

28.7

52.2

0.63

31.1

74.7

EB Centre St

95th Queue (m)

Delay (s)

v/c ratio

LT, THRU, RT

1.05

92.9

158.0

LT, THRU, RT

1.84dl

78.3

166.2

LT, THRU, RT

0.58

16.5

72.9

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Multi-modal Level of Service Analysis METHODOLOGY

Introduction The intersections analysed for the proposed condition is similar to the existing condition. Understanding that the major difference between the existing and proposed is the driving lane width. Lane designation and proposed alterations have been assumed to be negligible for modeling purposes.

Methodology The current state of practice for multi-modal analysis includes a variety of methods and approaches to conduct the integrated operational assessment. The more widely accepted approaches have been developed by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program 616 program (NCHRP) and the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).

The HCM model was developed with the technical guidance from the NCHRP studies; however the published multi-modal analysis methodology had the following limitations: 1. Presence or lack of on-street parking; 2. Driveway density or access control; 3. Lane additions leading up to or lane drops leading away from intersections; 4. The effects of grades between intersections; 5. Any capacity constraints between intersections (such as a narrow bridge); 6. Mid-block medians and two-way left-turn lanes; 7. Turning movements that exceed 20 percent of the total volume on the street; 8. Queues at one intersection backing up to and interfering with the operation of an upstream intersection; and 9. Cross-street congestion blocking through trafﬁc.

The NCHRP have conducted video observation studies in a variety of locations (in United States) to develop statically accurate models to understand the integrated measures of effectiveness for the four modes. It should be noted that both methods only determine LOS based on perceived separation. The current practice for an integrated evaluation for the four modes does not consider the volume of people biking or walking as part of the LOS calculation. Results from the multi-modal evaluation produce a “score” versus the traditional seconds of delay that corresponds to a letter grade. While the multi-modal field is an ever evolving practice, for purposes of the 61 Avenue evaluations, the NCHRP 616 methodology was adopted to determine measures of effectives for the study corridor. The analysis was divided in two directions: • Eastbound 61 Avenue • Westbound 61 Avenue By separating the analysis into the various directional flows, the results provided operational results for people cycling and walking on the corridor (segment) and the approach (intersection). The NCHRP methodology provided results for each segment and intersection for the study boundary.

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Multi-modal Level of Service Analysis

Table 1 – Existing Geometry

Existing Conditions The 61st Avenue Greenway project includes an array of improvements to better accommodate and improve the active space for people biking and walking. As part of the operational analysis, a multi-modal level of service approach was used to develop an understanding based on the existing operation. Once the existing operational conditions were understood, the proposed scenario was analysis to determine the potential benefits for the active users (people walking and cycling).

Curb TableSegment 1 – Existing Geometry Lane Macleod Trail to 3.5 3 Street Segment Curb 3 Street to 1a Lane 3.8 Street Macleod Trail to 3.5 1a Street to Rail 3 Street 3.7 Crossing 3 Street to 1a 3.8 Rail Crossing to Street 2.9 1aCentre StreetStreet to Rail 3.7 Crossing Rail Crossing to 2.9 Centre Street

EXISTING & PROPOSED CONDITIONS Eastbound Bike Buffer Lane Eastbound N/A 4.90 Bike Buffer Lane N/A 4.90

Sidewalk 1.80

Curb Lane

Sidewalk 1.80

3.3 Curb Lane 3.3

Westbound Bike Buffer Lane Westbound N/A 1.2 Bike Buffer Lane N/A 1.6

Sidewalk 1.30 Sidewalk 1.30

N/A N/A

4.90 1.00

1.80 8.00

3.3 3.8

N/A N/A

1.2 5.6

1.30 1.30

N/A N/A

4.90 0

1.80 1.5

3.3 2.9

N/A N/A

1.6 4.2

1.30 1.6

N/A

1.00

8.00

3.8

N/A

5.6

1.30

N/A

1.5

2.9

N/A

4.2

1.6

Table 2 – Study Intersection Intersection

The current scenario was modeled using four segments and five intersections. Table 1 summarizes the geometrics used for the analysis.

Street Table 2 – Study Major Intersection Macleod Trail 61 Avenue 61 Avenue Major Street 61 Avenue Macleod Trail 61 Avenue

Intersection

61 Avenue 61 Avenue 61 Avenue

A summary of the intersections evaluated in the current scenario are included in Table 2.

Minor Street 61 Avenue 3 Street 1a Street Minor Street Rail 61 Crossing Avenue Centre Street 3 Street 1a Street Rail Crossing Centre Street

Table 3 – Improved Geometry

Proposed Conditions The proposed scenario was modeled using four segments and five intersections. Table 3 summarizes the proposed improved geometry.

Segment Macleod Trail to 3 Street 3 Street to 1a Street 1a Street to Rail Crossing Rail Crossing to Centre Street

Curb Lane

Eastbound Bike Buffer Lane

Sidewalk

Curb Lane

Westbound Bike Buffer Lane

Sidewalk

3.3

2.1

2.00

3.00

3.3

2.1

2.00

3.00

3.3

2.1

2.00

3.00

3.3

2.1

2.00

3.00

3.3

2.1

2.00

3.00

3.3

2.1

2.00

3.00

3.3

N/A

2.00

3.00

3.3

2.00

3.00

N/A

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Pedestrian Facilities LOW PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY TO BUSINESSES... AN AUTO-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT PATTERN

58 AVE SW

3RD ST SE

CENTRE ST S

MAC LEOD TRAIL

58 AVE SW

CHINOOK CENTRE

59 AVE SW

60 AVE SW

3RD ST SE

2RD ST SE

CENTRE ST S

SIT CALGARY TRAN

CANADIAN

1A ST SW

3 ST SW

MAC LEOD TRAIL

61 AVE SW

PACIFIC RAILW AY

60 AVE SW

61 AVE SW

CHINO OK CEN

TRE

CHINOOK STATION

62 AVE SW

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

GLENMORE TRAIL

EXISTING SIDEWALKS

GLENMORE TRAIL SW

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

3RD ST SE

2RD ST SE

CENTRE ST S

MAC LEOD TRAIL

65 AVE SW

Physical Context

Pedestrian Facilities

The existing sidewalks are significantly under-sized for the high volumes of pedestrian traffic between Chinook Station and Chinook Mall. Crowding was observed along most stretches of the sidewalks where people had to step off the sidewalk to pass other people or people with strollers. Google Streetview has also captured the high-pulse flows of pedestrian traffic. The sidewalks are not well-maintained with cracks, upheavals, and icy conditions in the winter. East of the LRT tracks, the sidewalks become very narrow and discontinuous at Centre Street. The existing crossings do not provide high-visibility crossing zones for pedestrians to safely cross traffic. There are no pedestrian refuges in the medians. Currently there is no crosswalk at the LRT tracks, but numerous people were observed jay walking in this area indicating this is a desire line for pedestrians. Sidewalks Mid-block driveway access points disrupt the pedestrian realm, prioritizing auto access over continuous pedestrian paths of travel.

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Multi-modal Level of Service Analysis EXISTING CONDITIONS - PEDESTRIAN

Existing Analysis Pedestrian Analysis Segment Evaluation: The pedestrian segment LOS is determined by the perceived separation between pedestrian and vehicle traffic and decreased when the following conditions occurred: • •

Higher traffic speeds and higher traffic volumes

The NCHRP study illustrated that physical barriers and parked cars between the traffic and the pedestrian can increase the perceived separation; however, sidewalks wider than 3.0m do not contribute to the perceived separation. Two models were created from the research: The ﬁrst model provides a better statistical ﬁt with the video recorded from the field. However, it did not produce LOS F for the streets in the observation video data set. The second model was developed to address potential decision makers’ acceptance issues that might arise with adopting the first LOS model that might not produce LOS A and LOS F. The second model produced a full range of LOS A to F results for a reasonable range of street conditions typical of urban areas in the United States.

Table 4 and 5 illustrate the calculate LOS for both eastbound and westbound direction respectively. 38

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Table 4 Existing Eastbound Pedestrian LOS Grade

Score

Segment

Macleod Trail to 3 Street

0.94

0.91

3 Street to 1a Street 1a Street to Rail Crossing Rail Crossing to Centre Street

0.93

0.94

-0.04

0.07

2.97

3.08

Table 5 Existing Westbound Pedestrian LOS Grade

Score

Intersection

MacLeod Trail → 61 St

3.85

5.44

61 St → 3 St

2.88

4.59

61 St → 1a St

3.54

4.48

61 St → Rail Crossing

2.05

2.47

61 St → Centre St

2.49

3.14

The NCHRP methodology scored the existing facilities along the study segment LOS ‘C’ or better during the morning and afternoon period.

Physical Context

Multi-modal Level of Service Analysis EXISTING CONDITIONS - PEDESTRIAN

Intersection Evaluation Intersection LOS for people walking was based on the following criteria: • • • • • •

Right turn on red volume Permissive left turns from parallel street Traffic volumes on street Number of lanes crossed Pedestrian delay Right turn channelization

These principles were used in the statistical formula developed in the NCHRP study to ultimately determine the score and the corresponding LOS. Table 6 and 7 summarize the existing intersection performance. Two locations are highlighted with LOS ‘F’, the resulting score can be contributed to the lack of crossing facility and the traffic volumes affecting the LOS for people walking.

Table 6 Existing Eastbound Pedestrian Intersection

LOS Grade

Score AM

MacLeod Trail → 61 Ave

4.20

5.24

61 Ave → 3 St

3.63

3.68

61 Ave → 1a St

3.87

4.20

61 Ave → Rail Crossing

3.08

4.04

61 Ave → Centre St

3.96

5.90

Table 7 Existing Westbound Pedestrian Intersection

LOS Grade

Score AM

MacLeod Trail → 61 Ave

3.80

5.44

61 Ave → 3 St

2.70

4.59

61 Ave → 1a St

3.09

4.48

61 Ave → Rail Crossing

3.11

2.47

61 Ave → Centre St

3.11

3.14

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Multi-modal Level of Service Analysis PROPOSED CONDITIONS

Proposed Improved Analysis Pedestrian Analysis Segment Evaluation: Table 12 and 13 summarizes the proposed improved condition. The study segment scored a LOS ‘A’ or better during the morning and afternoon analyses periods.

Table 12 Improved Eastbound Pedestrian

Segment

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Macleod Trail to 3 Street

1.28 1.24 3 Street to 1a Street 1.28 1.29 1a Street to Rail Crossing 0.78 0.89 Rail Crossing to Centre Street 1.26 1.37 Table 13 Improved Westbound Pedestrian Intersection

Improved Score

Score

Improved LOS Grade AM PM A

LOS Grade

MacLeod Trail → 61 St

3.37

4.30

61 St → 3 St

2.88

4.59

61 St → 1a St

3.54

4.48

61 St → Rail Crossing

2.05

2.47

61 St → Centre St

2.49

3.14

Physical Context

Multi-modal Level of Service Analysis PROPOSED CONDITIONS

Intersection Evaluation Table 14 and 15 illustrates the proposed condition for people walking. Improvements include a grade separated walk over MacLeod Trail immediately south of the intersection. However, with the proposed improvement, the existing at-grade crossing location just north of MacLeod Trail/61 Avenue will be removed diverting people walking to the grade separated crossing. The intersection LOS for pedestrian is ‘D’ or better with the exception of 61 Avenue/Centre Street where traffic volume heavily influence the LOS score.

Table 14 Improved Eastbound Pedestrian Intersection

LOS Grade

Score AM

MacLeod Trail → 61 Ave

2.29

61 Ave → 3 St

3.63

3.68

61 Ave → 1a St

3.87

4.20

61 Ave → Rail Crossing

3.08

4.02

61 Ave → Centre St

3.96

5.90

Table 15 Improved Westbound Pedestrian Intersection

LOS Grade

Score AM

MacLeod Trail → 61 Ave

3.37

4.30

61 Ave → 3 St

2.88

4.59

61 Ave → 1a St

3.54

4.48

61 Ave → Rail Crossing

2.06

2.47

61 Ave → Centre St

2.66

3.31

Table 16 Improved Eastbound Bicycle

Segment Macleod Trail to 3 Street 3 Street to 1a Street 1a Street to Rail

Improved Score AM

3.06

3.00

Improved LOS Grade AM PM C

3.65 D Design Report D 61 Avenue3.67 SW - Preliminary

Physical Context

Pedestrian Facilities PEDESTRIAN & LRT / RAILWAY CROSSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS

The following table describes the pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) as defined by HCM. The theory behind Table A is circulation area or space available for the average pedestrian. A larger area is more desirable from the pedestrian perspective.

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

TABLE A â&#x20AC;&#x201C; PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE Pedestrian Average Space Description LOS (m 2 ) A >49.2 Ability to move in a desired path, no need to alter movements B >8.36-49.2 Occasional need to adjust path to avoid conflicts C >3.71-8.36 Frequent need to adjust path to avoid conflict D >2.14-3.71 Speed and ability to pass slower pedestrians restricted E >1.02-2.14 Speed restricted, very limited ability to pass slower pedestrians F =<1.02 Speeds severely restricted, frequent contact with other users

Physical Context

Pedestrian Facilities PEDESTRIAN & LRT / RAILWAY CROSSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS

NOTES: 730

42.2Ø GALVANIZED STEEL RAIL

280

DO NOT CROSS IF LIGHTS ARE FLASHING

280

730

CPR TRACK CROSSING TO REMAIN

REFER TO FLOOR PLANS FOR SIGNAGE CONTENT

BLACK TEXT ON YELLOW BACKGROUND

SIGNAGE BOLTED TO 100mm x 75mm GALVANIZED STEEL PLATES TO RAIL

WHITE BACKGROUND

1250

150

1450

150

1450

150

1450

175

LOOK BOTH WAYS FOR TRAINS

1500 LOOK BOTH WAYS FOR TRAINS

LOOK BOTH WAYS FOR TRAINS

1400

1450

150

1250

1000

280 REFER TO 1/A401 FOR DIMENSION

*ALL WELDS SHALL BE GROUND SMOOTH NOTE: WHEN INSTALLING, LEAVE NO OFFSET BETWEEN ADJOINING BEDSTEAD BASEPLATES

1 : 20

N TTB BASE

175

DO NOT CROSS IF LIGHTS ARE FLASHING

150

A401

150mm x 150mm X 13mm GALVANIZED STEEL PLATE BOLTED TO CONCRETE SLAB

1250

4313

1450

150

BLANK SIGN AS PER 2/A401

325

1450

150

900 EQ

BEDSTEAD DETAILS

EXTENT OF CPR DYNAMIC ENVELOPE

LOOK BOTH WAYS FOR TRAINS

SLOPE 2%

CROSSING MAST "D"

BLACK TEXT ON YELLOW BACKGROUND

1650 2000

1400

DO NOT CROSS IF LIGHTS ARE FLASHING

NEW WALK

PROVIDE 5mm VENT HOLE AT U/S OF EACH RADIUS BEND (TYP) 730

SIGN 1 ELEV

BLANK SIGN AS PER 2/A401

175

DO NOT CROSS IF LIGHTS ARE FLASHING

EXIST. WALK

DO NOT CROSS IF LIGHTS ARE FLASHING

150

280

LOOK BOTH WAYS FOR TRAINS

730

BLANK SIGN ON BOTH SIDES OF BEDSTEAD. SIGN AS PER 2/A401 1250

360

SIGN 2 ELEV

SIGN 3 ELEV C.P. RAILWAY

1450

If we take a look at drawing A401 – from the Chinook Issued for Construction (IFC) design package for the transit plaza, the space available for a pedestrian at the west side of the LRT crossing through each gates ranges from 1.8 to 2.1 m2 for a total area of 6.6 m2 which translates to a LOS C based on the HCM. On the east side, the gates are more restrained and has an effective opening area of 2.1 m2 reflecting a Level of Service E. These gates were constructed as part of the improvements to the Chinook LRT Station in 2014.

BLANK SIGN AS PER 2/A401

NEW CROSSING PLANKS CL OF INBOUND TRACK

EQ.

ISSUED FOR PRE-TENDER REVIEW

90% REVIEW

ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEW

No.

DESCRIPTION

13210

LOOK BOTH WAYS FOR TRAINS

TVM

STRUCTURAL:

READ JONES CHRISTOF 450

175

1400 200

LOOK BOTH WAYS FOR TRAINS

1500

LOOK BOTH WAYS FOR TRAINS

1650

1200 1650

1650

1500

2100

1250 DO NOT CROSS IF LIGHTS ARE FLASHING

200

LOOK BOTH WAYS FOR TRAINS

1400

SNC LAVALIN B

1450 DO NOT CROSS IF LIGHTS ARE FLASHING

1200

BLANK SIGN ON BOTH SIDES OF BEDSTEAD. SIGN AS PER 2/A401

1000

1250 DO NOT CROSS IF LIGHTS ARE FLASHING

LOOK BOTH WAYS FOR TRAINS

100 MAX GAP TYP.

2% SLOPE

1000

1450

CROSSING MAST "B"

GEC ARCHITECTURE MECHANICAL:

BLANK SIGN ON BOTH SIDES OF BEDSTEAD. SIGN AS PER 2/A401

1200 200

2% SLOPE

2100

5480

DO NOT CROSS IF LIGHTS ARE FLASHING

EXISTING OCS POLE TO REMAIN

ARCHITECTURAL:

450

2100

LOOK BOTH WAYS FOR TRAINS

1650

200

1400

BLANK SIGN ON BOTH SIDES OF BEDSTEAD. SIGN AS PER 2/A401

TVM

1400

LOOK BOTH WAYS FOR TRAINS

EXISTING OCS POLE TO REMAIN

CROSSING MAST "C"

1665

1500

EXISTING CROSSING PLANKS TO REMAIN

1450

1650

175

150

1650

EXISTING CROSSING PLANKS TO BE REMOVED BY CALGARY TRANSIT

SHADING DENOTES YELLOW PEDESTRIAN DECK COATING C/W TOOLED JOINTS SEE DETAIL 6/A504

7211

175

ISSUED FOR TENDER

PRIME CONSULTANTS:

BLANK SIGN ON BOTH SIDES OF BEDSTEAD. SIGN AS PER 2/A401

ASPHALT EXTENT OF

ELECTRICAL:

SNC LAVALIN PERMIT

100 MAX GAP TYP.

LOOK BOTH WAYS FOR TRAINS

1200

DO NOT CROSS IF LIGHTS ARE FLASHING

1250

1450

1250

APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVED BY: FOR CITY ENGINEER

CL OF OUTBOUND TRACK

DESIGNED

DRAWN

CHECKED

SCALE:

BLANK SIGN ON BOTH SIDES OF BEDSTEAD. SIGN AS PER 2/A401

1450 DO NOT CROSS IF LIGHTS ARE FLASHING

DO NOT CROSS IF LIGHTS ARE FLASHING

As indicated

THE CITY OF CA

BLANK SIGN ON BOTH SIDES OF BEDSTEAD. SIGN AS PER 2/A401 TTB BASE PROJECT:

CHINOOK STA

CROSSING MAST "B"

NEW SIGNAL CABINET

LOOK BOTH WAYS FOR TRAINS

1200

LOOK BOTH WAYS FOR TRAINS

1400

200 LOOK BOTH WAYS FOR TRAINS

DO NOT CROSS IF LIGHTS ARE FLASHING

1250

1450

1250

1650

LOOK BOTH WAYS FOR TRAINS

1200

1500

200

1500

200

LOOK BOTH WAYS FOR TRAINS

1400

1650

LOOK BOTH WAYS FOR TRAINS

1200

NEW CHAINLINK FENCE

1250 DO NOT CROSS IF LIGHTS ARE FLASHING

1650

EXISTING CROSSING PLANKS TO BE REMOVED BY CALGARY TRANSIT

1500

EXISTING CROSSING PLANKS TO REMAIN

1650

In conjunction with the track crossing, the adjacent sidewalk leading to the crossing was assessed for approximate capacity using a study from the City of Ottawa completed in 2013. The City’s study “Downtown Moves – Transforming Ottawa’s Streets” calibrated the HCM 2010 data to correspond with sidewalk widths in relation with the estimated volume of pedestrians to produce the expected LOS.

TENDER

NEW CROSSING PLANKS

EQ.

Along the north side, there are similar gates that have been in place for a number of years. The gates on both the east and west side of the LRT tracks only have one opening, for an effective opening area of 1.8 to 2.1 m2. The pedestrian LOS for the north side of 61 Avenue SW crossing the LRT tracks is LOS D or E according to HCS 2010. There are no pedestrian gates for crossing the CP tracks to the east of the LRT tracks. It should also be noted that the LRT tracks are fenced in on either side of 61 Avenue SW.

1200

NEW CHAINLINK FENCE TVM

TVM

SHEET TITLE:

PAY PHONE

STATION - CROSSING P

CONTRACT NO.

1 A401

FILE NO.

CROSSING PLAN 1 : 50

Source: Chinook Issued for Construction (IFC) design package, drawing A401 61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

MICROFILM NO.

CONSU

DRAW

Physical Context

Pedestrian Facilities PEDESTRIAN & LRT / RAILWAY CROSSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS

The following table summarizes the approximate number of pedestrians that the existing and post concept condition can accommodate. This table is corroborated from previous experience by Gehl where one square meter of sidewalk can accommodate approximately 12 pedestrian passing per minute. This qualitative assessment is in relation to crowding and how cluttered the sidewalk feels for pedestrians. No data was available for the existing number of pedestrians crossing the tracks. An interpolation of pedestrian volumes counts between 1A Street SW and Centre Street S indicate that pedestrian volumes are estimated at less than 100 per hour, heading to and from east of the tracks. This would reflect a LOS B or better for the existing condition. As redevelopment occurs on the east side of the track, and higher density and mixed land use is realized, a wider sidewalk approaching the crossing, as well as reconfiguration of the pedestrian gates would facilitate a better pedestrian LOS. Pedestrian volumes going to and from the west is currently significantly higher than the east, where peak pedestrian volumes ranges from 1,000 to 1,200 pedestrians per hour.

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

TABLE B â&#x20AC;&#x201C; PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE & APPROXIMATE CAPACITY Approximate # of Pedestrians (per hour) by Effective Sidewalk Width Pedestrian LOS Existing Condition Post Concept Condition 1.2 m 1.5m 3m A n/a n/a 250 B 250-500 250-500 500-1,000 C 1,000 1,000 2,000-3,000 D 2,000 2,000-3,000 4,000-6,000 E 3,000-4,000 4,000-5,000 n/a F 5,000-6,000 6,000 n/a

Physical Context

Pedestrian Facilities PEDESTRIAN & LRT / RAILWAY CROSSING CAPACITY ANALYSIS

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Bicycle Facilities VERY LIMITED BICYCLE FACILITIES IN THE AREA

CYCLIST ROUTES

EXISTING ROUTES PLANNED ROUTES 46

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Bicycle Facilities

The only existing bicycle facility in the area is an onstreet facility located on the west side of Chinook Centre along 5 Street SW. There are several planned or proposed bicycle facilities in this area, but theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re not likely to be built in the near future.

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Multi-modal Level of Service Analysis EXISTING CONDITIONS - CYCLING

Bicycle Analysis Segment Evaluation: Segment LOS for people biking is measured by calculated the perceived separation between a vehicle and a bike based on the following factors: • • • • • •

motor vehicle traffic parked vehicle interference quality of pavement higher vehicle volumes higher percent heavy vehicles higher vehicle speeds decrease the perceived separation

Perceived separation is increase when bike lane is provided. The first model provides a better fit with the numerical scores given by the video lab participants to the video clips. This model was derived based on a statistical fitting process to the video clip data. However, this first model does not predict LOS A or B for the video clips. Consequently the second model was developed. The second model produces the full range, LOS A through F. This was derived from the first model by reducing the constant so that the second model would predict the LOS range A through F.

Table 8 Existing Eastbound Bicycle Segment

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

LOS Grade

Macleod Trail to 3 Street

3.97

3.91

3 Street to 1a Street 1a Street to Rail Crossing Rail Crossing to Centre Street

4.45

4.46

3.69

4.23

4.96

4.51

Table 9 Existing Westbound Bicycle Segment

Score

LOS Grade

Macleod Trail to 3 Street

3.69

4.20

3 Street to 1a Street 1a Street to Rail Crossing Rail Crossing to Centre Street

3.87

4.29

6.16

5.01

6.29

5.14

Table 8 and 9 illustrate the LOS for people biking along the study segment during the morning and afternoon periods. The decrease LOS in the westbound direction can be factors based on the statistical formula as listed above. 48

Score

Physical Context

Multi-modal Level of Service Analysis EXISTING CONDITIONS - CYCLING

Intersection Evaluation Intersection LOS for people biking was based on the following criteria: • • • •

Lane width (driving lane and bike lane) Crossing distance Volume of directional traffic during a 15-minute period Number of through lanes

The resulting score from the above criteria was used in the statistical formula to determine the LOS for the given study location. Table 10 and 11 summarize the existing bicycle intersection performance. The evaluation resulted with a LOS ‘D’ or better for all locations in the eastbound and westbound direction for the morning and afternoon period.

Table 10 Existing Eastbound Bicycle Intersection

LOS Grade

Score AM

MacLeod Trail → 61 Ave

3.73

3.70

61 Ave → 3 St

2.81

2.77

61 Ave → 1a St

2.70

2.72

61 Ave → Rail Crossing

3.55

3.71

61 Ave → Centre St

3.05

3.21

Table 11 Existing Westbound Bicycle Intersection

LOS Grade

Score AM

MacLeod Trail → 61 Ave

3.80

4.18

61 Ave → 3 St

2.70

3.19

61 Ave → 1a St

3.09

3.44

61 Ave → Rail Crossing

3.11

3.29

61 Ave → Centre St

3.11

3.29

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Table 15 Improved Westbound Pedestrian Score

LOS Grade

Multi-modal Level of Service Analysis

PROPOSED CONDITIONS

MacLeod Trail → 61 Ave

3.37

4.30

61 Ave → 3 St

2.88

4.59

61 Ave → 1a St

3.54

4.48

61 Ave → Rail Crossing

2.06

2.47

61 Ave → Centre St

2.66

3.31

Intersection

Bicycle Analysis Segment Evaluation: Table 16 and 17 summarize the proposed improvement condition. The LOS for the study segments are ‘E’ or better with the exception of the westbound corridor east of the rail tracks. Cycling facilities were not proposed for the study alignment and other parameters listed above would influence the proposed LOS. The westbound segment score improved slightly based on the proposed condition.

Table 16 Improved Eastbound Bicycle

Segment

Improved Score

Improved LOS Grade AM PM

Macleod Trail to 3 Street

3.06

3.00

3 Street to 1a Street 1a Street to Rail Crossing Rail Crossing to Centre Street

3.65

3.67

2.86

2.83

2.86

4.38

Table 17 Improved Westbound Bicycle

Segment

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Improved Score

Improved LOS Grade AM PM

Macleod Trail to 3 Street

2.90

3.41

3 Street to 1a Street 1a Street to Rail Crossing Rail Crossing to Centre Street

2.89

3.30

4.61

4.03

4.61

5.01

Physical Context

Multi-modal Level of Service Analysis PROPOSED CONDITIONS

Intersection Evaluation Table 18 and 19summarize the proposed improved scenario in the eastbound and westbound direction respectively. The study locations operate at a LOS ‘D’ or better in the morning and afternoon period based on the proposed improvements.

Conclusion While the state of practice for multi-modal analysis is evolving, the current NCHRP methodology provides a “leading edge” evaluation to determine LOS for an integrated corridor. The 61 Avenue evaluations validate the NCHRP methods by illustrating improved LOS scores based on the proposed geometric design for the study corridors and intersections.

Table 18 Improved Eastbound Bicycle Intersection

LOS Grade

Score AM

MacLeod Trail → 61 Ave

3.73

3.70

61 Ave → 3 St

1.47

1.43

61 Ave → 1a St

1.58

1.59

61 Ave → Rail Crossing

2.36

2.52

61 Ave → Centre St

1.85

2.01

Table 19 Improved Westbound Bicycle Intersection

LOS Grade

Score AM

MacLeod Trail → 61 Ave

3.66

4.04

61 Ave → 3 St

2.91

3.40

61 Ave → 1a St

1.62

1.97

61 Ave → Rail Crossing

1.63

1.81

61 Ave → Centre St

1.00

1.18

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Transit Services & Routing CHINOOK STATION HAS ONE OF THE HIGHEST RIDERSHIP VOLUMES ON SOUTH LINE

58 AVE SW

3RD ST SE

CENTRE ST S

MAC LEOD TRAIL

58 AVE SW

CHINOOK CENTRE

59 AVE SW

60 AVE SW

2RD ST SE

3RD ST SE 3RD ST SE

2RD ST SE

CENTRE ST S

CALGARY TRAN

CANADIAN

SIT

1A ST SW

3 ST SW

MAC LEOD TRAIL

61 AVE SW

PACIFIC RAILW AY

61 AVE SW

47 CHINOOK CENTRE SHUTTLE

CHINOOK

STATION CHINOOK STATION

CHINO OK CEN

TRE

506

36 66

136

410

506

36 62 AVE SW

41 23 65 AVE SW

GLENMORE TRAIL

CENTRE ST S

MAC LEOD TRAIL

136

410

47 GLENMORE TRAIL SW

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Transit Services & Routing There are currently 12 existing transit bus routes that run through the study corridor and access the Chinook LRT Station transit plaza. The route types consist of major routes, standard routes, special routes and minor routes. The following is a list of the various routes and their range of frequency along the corridor.

The C-Train (LRT) runs perpendicular to the corridor and crosses 61 Avenue between 1A Street SW and Centre Street SW. A CP railway track runs parallel to the LRT line on the east side. The LRT runs every 3 to 6 minutes during weekday peak times, and every 10 minutes outside the peak during the weekday. On the weekend, the LRT runs every 10 to 15 minutes.

Major Routes (< 15 min frequency during peak The routings for these routes are shown in the times, and runs all day) associated figure. Calgary Transit informed the • 23 Foothills Industrial project team that they were considering rerouting • 72/73 Circle Route more routes to go north on 1A Street instead of Standard Routes (runs all day 20-60 min frequency) turning onto 61 Avenue SW in the future. Also shown in the figure are the bus stop locations • 10 Dalhousie/Southcentre along 61 Avenue SW. In addition the transit plaza on • 36 Riverbend 1A Street SW, there are also three stops directly on • 41 Lynnwood 61 Avenue SW. Two stops are on the north side, one • 47 Lakeview just west of the midblock driveway access between • 81 Macleod Trail Macleod Trail and 3 Street SW and has a bench. The • Special Route (15 min frequency) second stop on the north side is just west of Centre • 506 Chinook Centre Shuttle Street SW, and does not have any amenities. Along Minor Routes (>30 min frequency or Peak time only) the south side, the only other bus stop is just east of 3 Street SW and has a bus shelter and bench. • 66 Blackfoot Express • 136 Riverbend The average daily activity for buses at the transit plaza is approximately 2,000 passengers loading, and 1,850 passengers unloading for a total of TRANSIT SYSTEMS LEGEND approximately 3,850 passengers per day at the transit plaza. This is exclusive of boarding and alighting for the LRT. Passenger information for the LRT was not available at the time of this study, but the Chinook LRT stop was noted as the second busiest BUS ROUTES stop along the south line. The average daily activity at the bus stop locations by 3 Street SW were both SHUTTLE fairly low with approximately 35 daily passengers at the eastbound stop, and approximately 70 daily 10 BUS ROUTE NO. passengers at the westbound stop. The eastbound 10 stop services five routes while the westbound stop LOW FLOOR BUS ROUTE NO. services three routes. It should be noted that both these stops services the Chinook Mall shuttle. 10 EXPRESS ROUTE NO.

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Safety Assessment COLLISION DATA

Safety Assessment Data for all reported collisions involving motor vehicles between January 2009 and December 2013 was provided by the City of Calgary. Key findings are described below: • Overall, 389 collisions were reported along this segment of 61 Avenue SW between 2009 and 2013, representing approximately 78 reported collisions per year. • Generally, there has been a decrease in the number of reported collision along the corridor. Reported collision went down from 84 in 2009 to 65 in 2013 – a reduction of approximately 23%. However, it should be noted that collision in 2012 did show a jump at 83 collisions along the corridor. • The highest concentration of collisions occurred at Macleod Trail and 61 Avenue SW. A total of 249 collisions were reported between 2009 and 2013, or approximately 50 per year. The next highest collision location was observed to be Centre Street and 61 Avenue SW, where a total 65 collisions were reported, or approximately 13 collisions per year. The intersections at 3 Street SW and at 1A Street had 36 and 39 total collisions respectively or approximately 7 to 8 collisions per year.

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

• The most common type of collision along 61 Avenue SW was rear end collisions (53%), followed by sideswipes (15%), left turn across path (12%), and struck object (8%). • Of the 389 reported collisions, pedestrian related collisions accounted for approximately 2% or 8 collisions. Of these pedestrian collisions, 25% occurred at each Macleod Trail and Centre Street, and the remaining 50% occurred at 1A Street SW. There were no fatal cases, but 7 of the 8 collisions resulted in an injury. Summaries of collision severity by year for the two corridors are shown in the following table. The majority of reported collisions resulted in property damage only, with 6% of reported collisions resulting in injury. There were no reported fatalities over this period.

61 Avenue SW - Collision Severity by Year, 2009 to 2013 Year Property Damage Only Injury

Fatality

Total

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Total

366

389

Physical Context

Safety Assessment COLLISION DATA

The 61 Avenue SW corridor between Macleod Trail and 1A Street SW experience high pedestrian traffic volumes, second to downtown. During the six hour peak (two hour morning, midday and afternoon peaks), there have been recorded 1,400 to 2,400 pedestrians. Macleod Trail has approximately 60,000 average weekday traffic, and 61 Avenue SW has approximately 13,000 average weekday traffic. With the high number of pedestrian and traffic in the study area, pedestrian vehicle conflict is high.

However, the collisions statistics indicate that they are infrequent. Enhanced pedestrian refuge and larger waiting area at intersections can help increase safety for pedestrians by providing better setback from vehicle travel. Sightlines are adequate along the corridor in general for all signalized intersections and right-in/right-out accesses. The large number of rear end and sideswipe condition could be caused by careless or inattention of drivers, and/or congestion. Inattention could be due to the straight nature of the road and large cross section of lanes which leads to higher speed and more weaving conflicts.

An existing LRT and railway crossing is adequately signed and equipped with warning flashers, bells and gate arms. Pedestrian gates have also been installed on either side of the street and LRT tracks to slow and warn pedestrians of the track crossing.

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Safety Assessment LIGHTING, CROSSWALKS, VISIBILITY

58 AVE SW

3RD ST SE

CENTRE ST S

MAC LEOD TRAIL

58 AVE SW

CHINOOK CENTRE

59 AVE SW

60 AVE SW

3RD ST SE

2RD ST SE

CENTRE ST S

SIT CALGARY TRAN

CANADIAN

1A ST SW

3 ST SW

MAC LEOD TRAIL

61 AVE SW

PACIFIC RAILW AY

60 AVE SW

61 AVE SW

CHINO OK CEN TRE

CHINOOK STATION

62 AVE SW

UTILITIES LEGEND

GLENMORE TRAIL

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

UTILITY BOXES

3RD ST SE

UTILITY POLES BROKEN LIGHTS

GLENMORE TRAIL SW

2RD ST SE

CENTRE ST S

MAC LEOD TRAIL

65 AVE SW

Physical Context

Safety Assessment CPTED ANALYSIS 61 Avenue CPTED Analysis

Existing Conditions

An analysis was conducted to assess the existing • Inactive street frontage – adjacent parking lots and post concept condition of the site according to bordering the sidewalk, provide minimal natural Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design surveillance, and do little to activate the street (CPTED) principles. CPTED is a method of design or promote ownership within the area. that enhances the safety of areas by influencing the • Lack of public space – deters people from physical design of the environment and encouraging remaining in the area which gives the appearance positive social interaction. Existing and proposed that the area is not controlled. design elements were evaluated against a number • Neglect in maintenance – gives the perception of key CPTED principles: that there is no monitoring encouraging unwanted activities. • Natural Access Control – strategic restriction • Inefficient street lighting – standard ‘cobra head’ lighting does not provide enough visibility of access to areas controls how people enter for pedestrians to feel comfortable in the area. and exit a space. Denies criminals access to potential targets and creates a perception of This is also evident on pedestrian crossings. risk for would be offenders. • Vehicle priority – current condition facilitates • Natural Surveillance – increase of visibility and higher traffic speeds. increase in human presence and monitoring. • In general, current conditions do little to People are more likely to feel safer when they promote positive social interaction in the area. have adequate sight lines and can be seen by others. In turn, potential criminals are less likely to attempt a crime if they are at risk of being observed. • Territorial Reinforcement – promote a sense of ownership of a space, including distinctions between private and public spaces. • Maintenance – deters offenders and creates a sense of guardianship within a space. • Activity Support – encourage positive social interaction and active public spaces that discourage criminal activity.

Proposed Conditions • Active street frontage – Future development will include windows and doors facing the street providing needed and ongoing natural surveillance and ensuring safe sight lines along the property line limiting blind spots. Temporary programming along the street edge can promote an active street frontage, in the interim. • Pedestrian-scale lighting – increased lighting frequency along the boulevard features higher intensity lighting providing improved visibility for users. • Enhanced public use spaces – increased reasons for people to stay in the area for longer periods of time will facilitate increased monitoring and promote territorial reinforcement. • Improved visual quality – the use of high quality materials and enhanced maintenance will reinforce the value and ownership of the space. • Traffic calming – design elements including the landscaped median, street trees and narrower travel lanes will slow traffic and improve vehicular and pedestrian safety in the area. • Pedestrian crossing improvements – defined pedestrian refuge areas, highly visible and colored crosswalks will increase visibility and pedestrian safety. In summary, proposed design elements are consistent with CPTED principles and will significantly improve the character, quality and safety of the area for all users.

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Utilities ABOVE-GROUND & BELOW-GRADE UTILITIES Refer to the technical appendix, drawing sheet An asset management review of the 61 Avenue SW corridor was completed by The City of Calgary noâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. UTL01 and UTL02. in April 2015. This review noted that there are no Deep Underground Utilities current concerns with the City owned infrastructure in the project area limits. This project is largely a surface works focused program and as such, there are no identified issues There are two fire hydrants that are located within with conflicts between any of the relocations or the construction limits of the project that will proposed infrastructure and the deep underground require relocation to move them out of the cycle utility services. There will be small adjustments track or pedestrian environment. The first is required to surface level appurtenances such as located on the southeast corner at 3 Street SW; the valves and manholes. second is located on the northwest corner at 1A Street SW. The watermain running down the center

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

of 61 Avenue may be in conflict with the ability to plant trees within the center median. The location will need to be field verified to confirm the potential conflict. There are several catch basins located along the existing curbs which will require relocation to the proposed curb lines. Further details on drainage areas and catchment boundaries will be explored during the next stages of detailed design. A high level look at the stormwater/drainage 61ST AVE BASE PLAN design is included in the Technical Appendix. Refer to drawing sheet no. SWM01.

Physical Context

Utilities ABOVE-GROUND & BELOW-GRADE UTILITIES Third Party or Shallow Utilities There are many identified shallow buried utilities within the proposed work zone that will require detailed investigation and coordination with the individual owners to identify any requirements for relocation, replacement or protection. This impact will be dependent on the specific location of each buried utility and its location relative to the type of construction or infrastructure being constructed near it. The physical construction is limited to roadway and boulevard surface work. This will entail excavation down to subgrade (Maximum 0.7m; to be confirmed by geotechnical investigation) in areas of new construction. The majority of the 61 Avenue paved surface will be retained or slightly reduced in width so the amount of full depth roadway subgrade excavation will be small. Other notable impacts will be due to proposed tree plantings and the installation of ‘Silva Cells’ in the boulevard area along the north side of 61 Avenue. Shallow utilities are typically assumed to be installed at 0.6m deep for communication and power, and 1.2m for natural gas lines. Field verification of these depths is typically completed by the contractor unless the utility owner requests that it be completed if there is a serious concern related to any impact.

Of particular note, are several shallow utilities located with the construction zone that will be impacted by construction activities: • Atco gas line running adjacent (+/- 1.0m) to the north curb line between 1A Street SW and Center Street SW; • Atco gas line running approximately 1.0m south of the proposed south median lip of gutter (LOG); • Enmax buried power running approximately 1.0m north of the south LOG between Macleod Trail SW and the rail crossing; • Shaw communication line running at a variable offset to the south LOG between 1A Street SW and the rail crossing; • Telus communication line running down the center of the roadway from 1A Street SW to Center Street. This line may pose a conflict with the ability to plant trees within the center median and will require field verification to confirm the potential conflict. There is an overhead powerline which runs northsouth across 61 Avenue SW, along the west side of 1A Street SW which will remain. There is another overhead powerline along the south side of 61 Avenue SW starting immediately west of the rail crossing, continuing east across Center Street S. This overhead line has three pole locations that are located in the middle of the proposed sidewalk. These will interfere with the free-flow environment intended for the pedestrian corridor. Our recommendation for this project is that this line be placed underground from the rail crossing to the east side of Center Street S.

infrastructure. The cost for this work has not been included in the construction cost estimate and should be considered in further detail following the preliminary design. Many of the traffic signal bases are located close to the roadway edge and within the pedestrian circulation area within the intersections. It is recommended that these bases be relocated to a more efficient location which will not interfere with the pedestrian movements or free circulation within the public realm. As part of the project scope and design vision, the roadway and pedestrian level lighting strategy is a large component of the design which will be a key contributor to the overall ‘feel’ of the corridor once complete. As such, all existing ‘cobra-head’ type light fixtures are proposed to be removed and replaced with a more appropriate type of system. This lighting strategy is detailed further in the Roadway Lighting section of this report. Input from the owners, and confirmation of any potential conflicts will be gained through the circulation of this report to all parties with infrastructure in the vicinity of the construction limit and also to determine if any party has immediate or short term plans for replacement or upgrades to their existing lines. These plans will also require review and input from The City’s Utility Line Assignment group to confirm their acceptance of the proposed design.

Our past experience with this type of infrastructure when operated by Enmax has been that there may be an opportunity for cost sharing of this type of work depending on the condition and age of the 61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Landscape / Trees GREENING AROUND THE EDGES & LOW-PERFORMING LANDSCAPES

58 AVE SW

3RD ST SE

CENTRE ST S

MAC LEOD TRAIL

58 AVE SW

CHINOOK CENTRE

59 AVE SW

60 AVE SW

3RD ST SE

2RD ST SE

CENTRE ST S

SIT CALGARY TRAN

CANADIAN

1A ST SW

3 ST SW

MAC LEOD TRAIL

61 AVE SW

PACIFIC RAILW AY

60 AVE SW

61 AVE SW

CHINO OK CEN

TRE

CHINOOK STATION

62 AVE SW

EXISTING LANDSCAPE

PLANTED AREA TREES

GLENMORE TRAIL

GLENMORE TRAIL SW

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

3RD ST SE

2RD ST SE

CENTRE ST S

MAC LEOD TRAIL

65 AVE SW

Physical Context

Landscape / Trees EXISTING TREE CANOPY

The existing tree canopy is a mix of deciduous and conifers with no consistent planting along the street. Each property owner appears to have planted the edge of their individual properties with trees, but thereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s no coordination in planting along the corridor. The most consistent planting falls along the southern side of the corridor between 1a and 3 Street SW. The city arborist needs to make an assessment as to the health of these trees, but the current strategy is to maintain as many of these trees as possible. Currently, none of the landscape on the corridor manages stormwater flows or treatment with the exception of direct infiltration where soils have not been heavily compacted. The north side of the street can be re-planted with a similar species and spacing to create a consistent canopy for the boulevard. The trees on the north side can be planted in Silva Cells to manage stormwater.

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Land Use EXISTING LAND USES Existing land uses primarily consist of commercial and retail establishments. West of Chinook Centre land uses switch to mainly residential areas. East of Centre Street, land uses quickly transition to manufacturing and industrial uses.

CENTRE ST S

MAC LEOD TRAIL

3RD ST SE

58 AVE SW

CHINOOK CENTRE

59 AVE SW

60 AVE SW

3RD ST SE

2RD ST SE

CENTRE ST S

SIT CALGARY TRAN

CANADIAN

1A ST SW

3 ST SW

MAC LEOD TRAIL

61 AVE SW

PACIFIC RAILW AY

60 AVE SW

61 AVE SW

CHINO OK CEN

TRE

CHINOOK STATION

62 AVE SW

LAND USE LEGEND

COMMERCIAL MIXED USE / DIRECT CONTROL 65 AVE SW

GLENMORE TRAIL

SW GLENMORE TRAIL SW

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

INFRASTRUCTURE DISTRICT

3RD ST SE

2RD ST SE

CENTRE ST S

MAC LEOD TRAIL

RESIDENTIAL

Physical Context

Direct Control Parcel Classification READY FOR TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT

All of the parcels highlighted here have been upzoned to high-density mixed use development. Building heights range from a minimum of 13.5m to a maximum of 75m with residential uses. Front setback requirements range from 0 to 4m, which means there will be a strong street wall to define the boulevard when redevelopment is complete.

58 AVE SW

DC 41D2008

DC 56D2010 SITE 2 DC 58D2010

3RD ST SE

CENTRE ST S

SIT

DC 97D2013 DC 57D2010

61 AVE SW

DC 56D2010 SITE 4

DC 72D2013 SITE 3

TRE CHINO OK CEN

PACIFIC RAILW AY

CALGARY TRAN

DC 56D2010 SITE 3

CANADIAN

DC 98Z2007

1A ST SW

3 ST SW

MAC LEOD TRAIL

DC 72D2013 SITE 2

DC 56D2010 SITE 1

3RD ST SE

60 AVE SW

2RD ST SE

CHINOOK CENTRE

3RD ST SE

DC 95Z95

59 AVE SW

2RD ST SE

DC 72D2013 SITE 1

CENTRE ST S

MAC LEOD TRAIL

58 AVE SW

DC 102D2013

CHINOOK STATION

62 AVE SW

DC 72D2013 SITE 4

GLENMORE TRAIL

CENTRE ST S

MAC LEOD TRAIL

65 AVE SW

SW GLENMORE TRAIL SW

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

A 61 Avenue SW

A review of existing titles, caveats, easements, encroachments and URWâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s on properties along the south side of 61 Avenue SW was completed. There is currently one existing access easement along the south side of 61 Avenue between Macleod Trail and 1A Street SW, and is covered under Plan 941 2088. The access easement is strictly for access/maintenance to the existing infrastructure already built by the owner. Further sidewalk construction or landscaping by the City on these lands would likely require a different agreement or purchase of the lands by the City. A plan showing the existing easement agreement area is included in the Technical Appendix. Refer to drawing sheet no. PR01. There does not appear to be any easement along the north side of 61 Avenue, as such, a review of the titles were not required at this time.

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

3 Street SW

Macleod Trail

Chinook Centre

Street Sections & Easements

Physical Context

Centre Street

61 Avenue SW

Chinook Station

1A Street SW

Street Sections & Easements

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Street Sections 1A Street SW

3 Street SW

Macleod Trail

Existing Conditions 25m to 35m Right-of-Way (+ 6m Sidewalk Easement)

Centre Street

EXISTING CONDITIONS: SECTION A

61 Avenue SW

PARKING LOT

PA SW

6.0m

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

SECTION A “C”

PROPERTY LINE

SIDEWALK EASEMENT

Chinook Station

Chinook Centre

61 Avenue SW

PA & DRIVEWAY

PA SW

35.0m

PLANTED AREA

PARKING LOT

Physical Context

Street Sections Centre Street

1A Street SW

3 Street SW

Macleod Trail

EXISTING CONDITIONS: SECTION B

61 Avenue SW

PARKING LOT

SW PA BUS STOP

PROPERTY LINE

SIDEWALK EASEMENT

Chinook Station

Chinook Centre

61 Avenue SW

PA SW

PLANTED AREA

PARKING LOT

6.0m

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Street Sections Centre Street

1A Street SW

3 Street SW

EXISTING CONDITIONS: SECTION C C

61 Avenue SW

PLANTED AREA

TRANSIT PLAZA

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

TREE ZONE

PROPERTY LINE

Chinook Station

61 Avenue SW

PLANTED AREA

PARKING LOT

Physical Context

Street Sections D

61 Avenue SW

Centre Street

1A Street SW

PROPERTY LINE

Chinook Station

61 Avenue SW

PROPERTY LINE

3 Street SW

EXISTING CONDITIONS: SECTION D

PARKING LOT

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

Constructability Construction Staging The proposed design including all utility relocations, surface works and other improvements can be completed without requiring any long term roadway closures in the area if it’s completed according to the staging plan outlined below. This preliminary construction staging plan is broken down into three principle stages. A figure illustrating this plan is included in the Technical Appendix. Refer to drawing sheet no. CS01.

Access Management During Construction

During construction of the proposed works on 61 Avenue SW, temporary access closures and restrictions will likely be required to facilitate widening and reconstruction of the adjacent boulevards. As several of the existing businesses along the 61 Avenue SW corridor have multiple accesses, permanent closure and/or access consolidation and restriction will be considered to enhance the pedestrian/cyclist environment along the corridor and reduce the amount of vehicular Stage 1 – This stage includes the short term side friction from traffic entering/exiting onto 61 closure of the existing median lanes to facilitate Avenue SW. the removal of the existing median islands, and the construction of the new median island curbs and concrete work. Stage 2 – This stage will require the outside curb lane closures in the eastbound and westbound directions to facilitate the removal of the existing outside curb lines, reconstruction of accesses, the construction of the bike lanes and associated adjacent curb and concrete work. Pedestrian traffic can continue to use the existing sidewalks during this stage. Stage 3 – This stage will not require any short term lane closures and will include the construction of the boulevard area and sidewalks. Pedestrian traffic can use the cycle tracks as temporary sidewalk facilities. Throughout each of these stages, associated and relevant utility work can be undertaken during each appropriate stage. Driveways can be closed as required and the Silva Cells can also be installed under each section of cycle track and boulevard zone.

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Physical Context

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Outreach, Observations & Opportunities

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Outreach, Observations & Opportunities

Outreach Methods LISTEN & LEARN

What would make 61 Avenue SW more enjoyable, appealing and safe? The outreach for the corridor redesign consisted of three on-site “listen and learn” sessions where city staff and the consultants asked people at Chinook Station and Chinook Centre “What would make 61 Avenue SW more enjoyable, appealing and safe?” The consultants prepared image precedent boards and asked people if they would like to see any of the elements in the images along the corridor. Once the images were identified, the citizens were then asked to articulate why they liked the image and what they specifically liked about the image and wanted to see along the corridor. These comments were documented with postit notes on the images and then translated to a list of findings. Gehl Studio then categorized the comments into public space quality criteria categories, which have been derived over decades of their work in public spaces.

City Stakeholders The consultant team met with numerous city departments to better understand the relevant issues pertaining to the re-design of the corridor.

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Outreach, Observations & Opportunities

Outreach Findings CITIZEN COMMENTS & OUTREACH LOCATIONS

Imagine 61 Avenue SW! Compiled Findings

More pedestrian crossings between 58 and 61 Avenues

Flower boxes along sidewalks, trees hard to maintain with ice.

Better Signal Activation for crossings

Make more places to enter the mall to reduce bike/ped and vehicle conflicts

OUTREACH! Chinook Centre Friday January 23, 2015 16:15-17:30 Saturday January 24, 2015 10:30-11:30

Longer pedestrian crossing time

Better pedestrian connections along side streets

Buses only along 61 Ave SW

Pedestrian Overpass More safe places, +15 to Chinook

Pedestrian crossing on both sides of street

Wider sidewalks

More protection from the elements

Snow sidewalk clearing

Provide clear path from transit station to ped bridge I park my car here and walk over to mall to avoid traffic.

Bridge too far away to be useful

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

SUMMARY FINDINGS FEBRUARY 24, 2015

Lots of people walking, but there are lots of lights and stops and a rush to make the lights

Wider Sidewalks, like Stephen Avenue Crosswalk at the tracks

Easier way to cross

OUTREACH! Chinook Station Thursday January 22, 2015 16:00-17:30

Wider sidewalks

Not very nice right now, kind of junky

More stores, nicer architecture, less space for undesirable activities

Store fronts, more activity, safer

More small stores, useful shops like Canada Post

Better Snowbank maintenance Better shelter, warmer station

Outreach, Observations & Opportunities

Outreach Findings CHINOOK STATION THURSDAY JANUARY 22, 2015 16:00-17:30 We spoke with approximately 50-65 people.

Imagine 61 Avenue SW!

Chinook Station Thursday 01.22.2015 16:00 - 17:30

We talked to approximately 50 - 65 people, and recorded about 30 of them. It seems we talked to between 35-50% women and at least 50% men. Wider Sidewalks Safe Crossings

The More People Around, The More Inviting And Welcoming It Feels

Storefronts

Food trucks

Good / Safe Nightlife

NO COMMENTS Nice To Have Food Near The Train Station

Garbage Bins (With Ashtrays)

More Green; Good For Animals, and People

Good Sidewalks / Beautiful

Wider Sidewalk / Clean Maintenance

KEY

Local Art (showcase)

MORE THAN 10 COMMENTS

MORE THAN 3 COMMENTS

LESS THAN 3 COMMENTS Easier Transportation / Exercise

Drinking Space Would Be Nice On The Way From Work

Summer Stands

If You Impact The Area, It Will Be Safe

Something To Keep People From Rushing Through

Fun Activities

Accessible For Bicycles And Skateboards

Ashtrays - Less Litter

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Outreach, Observations & Opportunities

Outreach Findings CHINOOK CENTRE FRIDAY JANUARY 23, 2015 16:15-17:30 We spoke with approximately 45 people.

Imagine 61 Avenue SW!

Chinook Centre Friday 01.23.2015 16:15-17:30

We talked to approximately 45 people. More Pedestrian and Bike Friendly

Nice Place to Sit

Ideal Space to Walk / Stay

Biking with Open Space / Pleasant Views

Wider Sidewalks, Like Princess Island Bikeways

Bike Racks for Those who Bike

Places To Sit

Outdoor. Informal. Looks like a Place to Relax Outside

Cozy. Eating with different cultures and people; not formal.

Imagine Coming To Work And Stopping To Get Something To Eat More Art and Culture.

“I like the seats” (7 yr old boy) Well lit Areas

Things to Glance at While you Walk

Snowy Bike Lane with Greenery and Space for people. Combine images 15/16

Relaxing Outside

Biking Paths!

More European: Nice, Cozy, Small Buildings

Mix of Shops and Restaurants: More Life, Small Feel, Trees

Buses Only Going Along 61st Ave SW

Places to Sit Street cafes Outdoor Performances

LESS THAN 3 COMMENTS

Kids Important to Have a Welcoming, Safe Environment

More Urban More Activities Along the Street Coming into the Mall

Easier to Bike when Transit is Prioritized -Less Traffic

MORE THAN 3 COMMENTS

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

NO COMMENTS

Wide Space!

Paving Stones are Nice: Different Pattern than Concrete

Outreach, Observations & Opportunities

Outreach Findings CHINOOK CENTRE SATURDAY JANUARY 24, 2015 10:30-11:30 We spoke with 21 people.

Imagine 61 Avenue SW!

Chinook Centre Saturday 01.24.2015 10:30 - 11:30

We talked to 21 people.

Nice place to walk

NO COMMENTS

Green Notion - More Trees

LESS THAN 3 COMMENTS

Green!

Welcoming, small shops, good for walking

Too Crowded!

Shops like this would make walk feel safer at night. Green is good!

Shops along the street

Wider sidewalks in front of shops...

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Outreach, Observations & Opportunities

Outreach Findings CLASSIFYING RESPONSES INTO PUBLIC SPACE QUALITY CRITERIA

Imagine 61 Avenue SW!

Compiled Findings - Public Space Quality Criteria

Public Space Quality Criteria

Mode of Transportation Used by Respondents to Arrive at Outreach Locations

ENJOYMENT

COMFORT

PROTECTION

Image comments were categorized into Gehl’s Basic Public Space Quality Criteria. From here we can begin to synthesize findings to make design recommendations, and define success criteria.

FEELING SAFE

FEELING SECURE

MICRO CLIMATE

· Protection against traffic and accidents · Protection for pedestrians · Eliminating fear of traffic - low speed

· Protection against crime and violence · Lively public realm · Eyes on the street ·Overlapping functions day and night · Good lighting

· Sun/shade · Heat/coolness · Shelter from wind/breeze · Minimize pollution · Minimize dust, noise, glare

CONNECTED

WALKABLE

SIT & STAY

· Part of a pedestrian network · Links to destinations · Accessible with bicycle · Links to public transportation

· Room for walking · No obstacles · Good surfaces · Accessibility for everyone

· Edge effect/attractive zones for standing/staying · Zones for sitting and resting · Good places to sit with view, sun, people

ACTIVITY & FUNCTIONS

SEEING

TALK & LISTEN

· Easy orientation · Reasonable viewing distances · Unhindered views ·Orientation at nigth

· Low noise levels · Dimensions that stimulates meeting others · Street furniture that provides ‘talkscapes’

HUMAN SCALE

IDENTITY

BEAUTY

· Buildings and spaces designed to human scale · Dimensions and detialing that stimulate our senses · Spatial encloisure

· History · Sense of place · Local identity · Amenity values

· Good design and detailing · Good materials · Fine views · Trees, plants, water

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

· Physical activity, exercise, play · Variety of functions that stimulates activity · By day and night · In summer and winter

Response Numbers Categorized by Quality Criteria by Outreach Location

Outreach, Observations & Opportunities

Outreach Findings SIGNIFICANT IMAGES & PUBLIC SPACE QUALITY CRITERIA

Imagine 61 Avenue Imagine 61 Avenue SW! SW! These are images that resonated between two or three of the outreach sessions. These are images that resonated between two or three of the outreach sessions. Common Images from all 3 Outreach Sessions Common Images from all 3 Outreach Sessions

CONNECTED - BIKE LANES CONNECTED - BIKE LANES BEAUTY - GREENING/LANDSCAPE BEAUTY - GREENING/LANDSCAPE More green! More green! More green, good for animals, and people; good for phoMore green, good for animals, and people; good for photo-shoots to-shoots Greenery, trees Greenery, trees Better pedestrian area / walkway Better pedestrian area / walkway Green space Green space Green space is good (makes me feel happy) Green space is good (makes me feel happy) Biking paths. Biking paths. Green! Green! WALKABLE - BETTER SIDEWALKS WALKABLE - BETTER SIDEWALKS HUMAN SCALE - ACTIVE FRONTAGES HUMAN SCALE - ACTIVE FRONTAGES ACTIVITIES - FOOD/DRINK ACTIVITIES - FOOD/DRINK More shops More shops Good sidewalks / Beautiful Good sidewalks / Beautiful Flowers Flowers Coffee area / Food trucks Coffee area / Food trucks Stores where you can stop and just chill Stores where you can stop and just chill More European: nice, cozy, small buildings. More European: nice, cozy, small buildings. Welcoming, small shops, and good for walking. Welcoming, small shops, and good for walking. SAFE & SECURE SAFE & SECURE CONNECTED - BIKE LANES CONNECTED - BIKE LANES HUMAN SCALE - ACTIVE FRONTAGES HUMAN SCALE - ACTIVE FRONTAGES if you impact the area, it will be safe if you impact the area, it will be safe street frontage street frontage protected bike lanes protected bike lanes More city-feel; more urban; more activities along the street coming into the mall. More city-feel; more urban; more activities along the street coming into the mall. Separate space for bikes and pedestrians - busy and orderly. Separate space for bikes and pedestrians - busy and orderly. Seems more lively. Seems more lively. Sits longer - people engagement; street cafe; color. Sits longer - people engagement; street cafe; color. Angled parking, shops along the street. Angled parking, shops along the street.

Common Images from 2 of 3 Outreach Sessions Common Images from 2 of 3 Outreach Sessions

Connected - Bike Lanes Beauty - Greening/Landscape Activities - Play Space Connected - Bike Lanes Beauty - Greening/Landscape Activities - Play Space Human Scale - Active Frontages Sit and Stay - Street Furniture Human Scale - Active Frontages Sit and Stay - Street Furniture Sit and Stay Connected - Bike Lanes Sit and Stay Connected - Bike Lanes Walkable - Better Sidewalks Walkable - Better Sidewalks Walkable - Safer Crosswalks Walkable - Safer Crosswalks

Activities - Interim Activities Beauty - Greening / Landscape Activities - Interim Activities - Food / Drink Activities - Interim Activities Beauty - Greening / Landscape Activities - Interim Activities - Food / Drink Connected - Bike Lanes Human Scale - Active Frontages Activities - Play Space Connected - Bike Lanes Human Scale - Active Frontages Activities - Play Space Human Scale - Active Frontages Walkable - Better Sidewalks Beauty - Color Human Scale - Active Frontages Walkable - Better Sidewalks Beauty - Color Sit and Stay - Street Furniture Connected - Bike Lanes Sit and Stay - Street Furniture Connected - Bike Lanes Sit and Stay Sit and Stay Walkable - Better Sidewalks Walkable - Better Sidewalks

Activities - Interim Activities - Food / Drink Connected - Transit / Mobility Options Beauty - Color Activities - Interim Activities - Food / Drink Connected - Transit / Mobility Options Beauty - Color Beauty - Color Sit and Stay - Street Furniture Beauty - Color Sit and Stay - Street Furniture Human Scale - Active Frontages Human Scale - Active Frontages Sit and Stay Sit and Stay

Activities - Night Life Activities - Cultural Programming Beauty - Public Art Activities - Night Life Activities - Cultural Programming Beauty - Public Art Human Scale - Active Frontages / Food Activities - Food / Drink Beauty - Public Art / Lighting / Interactive Human Scale - Active Frontages / Food Activities - Food / Drink Beauty - Public Art / Lighting / Interactive Sit and Stay - Street Furniture Sit and Stay - Street Furniture Human Scale - Active Frontages / Food Sit and Stay - Street Furniture Sit and Stay - Street Furniture Human Scale - Active Frontages / Food Safe & Secure - Lighting Safe & Secure - Lighting Sit and Stay - Street Furniture Sit and Stay - Street Furniture

Most Commented Images Most Commented Images

22 Comments

20 Comments

Beauty - Color / Public Art Beauty - Color / Public Art Connected - Bike Lanes Connected - Bike Lanes

Activities - Cultural Programming Activities Activities - Cultural Programming Activities Connected - Bike Lanes / Transit Walkable - Better Sidewalks Connected - Bike Lanes / Transit - Better Sidewalks Beauty - Greening / Landscape Walkable / Public Art Human Scale - Active Frontages Beauty - Greening / Landscape / Public Art Human Scale - Active FrontagesHuman Scale - Active Frontages Human Scale - Active Frontages Safe & Secure - Street Lighting Safe & Secure - Street Lighting

20 Comments

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Outreach, Observations & Opportunities

Outreach Findings TRANSLATING PUBLIC SPACE QUALITY CRITERIA INTO KEY STRATEGIES

Imagine 61 Avenue SW! Desired Public Space Qualities from Outreach Activities and Informed Key Strategies

Lighting

Safe & Secure SAFE & SECURE

Safer Crosswalks

Walkable

Better Sidewalks

Walkable

Bike Lanes Mobility Options Transit

Connected

Street Furniture Public Art Cultural Programming Food/Drink Interim Activation Nightlife Play Space Active Frontages Color Greening - Landscape Public Art - Interactive Public Art - Lighting

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Create a well-lit, well-designed public with continuous and wellconnected sidewalks.

ACCESSIBLE

Create a complete street urban boulevard that prioritizes pedestrian, bicycle and transit movement.

Sit and Stay

Activities ENJOYABLE

Human Scale

Beauty

Program activities, human-scale frontages along the boulevard. Make the public realm beautiful, colorful, and green space.

Outreach, Observations & Opportunities

Challenges & Opportunities Existing Conditions Challenges

Project Challenges

Opportunities

• Narrow sidewalks

• Station Area Plan non-statutory document

• Driveways disrupt sidewalks

• Existing transit hub (Chinook Station)

• Complete Streets Urban Boulevard Classification defines generous areas for pedestrian and bicyclists.

• Wide travel lanes allow for higher travel speeds • Frequent transit routes along 61 Avenue SW • Wide travel lanes allow for higher travel speeds • High existing traffic volumes • Poorly-marked crossings • Parking lots are inactive street frontages • Lack of human-scale frontages • Few places to spend time along corridor • No protected bicycle facilities • Inconsistent tree canopy • Inconsistent pedestrian lighting

• Limited existing City right of way

• Opportunity to integrate crossings in to overall streetscape design. • 61 Avenue SW has one of the highest pedestrian volumes in Calgary which is a significant audience for ground-floor retail redevelopment opportunities. • The outreach findings show an expressed desire for active frontages along the corridor. • Interim uses in existing parking lots can be used to test pilot projects for providing activities and places to sit and stay along the redesigned boulevard before committing to full-scale permanent redevelopment. • Auto lane removals create more space for pedestrians and cyclists, rebalancing the rightof-way. • All parcels fronting 61 Avenue SW have been re-zoned for transit-oriented development density, so it could be easier to convert the Station Area Plan to a statutory document.

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Outreach, Observations & Opportunities

Opportunities

complete streets re-classification

very high pedestrian volumes

temporary uses to activate parking lot frontages

desire for active frontages

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Creation of enjoyable, safe and appealing space to create enjoyable, safe, and appealing space

connections to future bicycle corridors

economic development

Improved safety for multiple modes of travel

Outreach, Observations & Opportunities

Qualitative Facade Survey Assessment EXISTING CORRIDOR FRONTAGE One of the key findings from the outreach sessions was people’s desire for active frontages along 61 Avenue SW. Active frontages provide engaging opportunities to sit and stay, which is the underpinning of social life in public spaces. The qualitative façade survey assessment provides a method for comparing different frontages and how they contribute to public space and public life.

As noted by numerous observations, 61 Avenue SW currently lacks any high quality, active frontages in which pedestrians can engage. Most of the properties along the corridor contain commercial retail uses, but they’re not currently oriented to the pedestrian realm.

STREET FRONTAGE EVALUATION CRITERIA

A - ACTIVE B - PLEASANT C - SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN D - DULL E - INACTIVE F - NO FRONTAGE 61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Outreach, Observations & Opportunities

Qualitative Facade Survey Assessment COMPARISON: INGLEWOOD 9 AVE SE 9 Avenue SE in Inglewood represents a highly walkable street with active ground-floor uses, and a variety of faรงade treatments.

INGLEWOOD 9 AVE SE FRONTAGE EVALUATION

13 ST SE

12 ST SE

11 ST SE

9 AVE SE

100 M

STREET FRONTAGE EVALUATION CRITERIA

A - ACTIVE B - PLEASANT C - SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN D - DULL E - INACTIVE F - NO FRONTAGE 84

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Outreach, Observations & Opportunities

Qualitative Facade Survey Assessment COMPARISON: KENSINGTON 10 ST NW 10 Street NW in Kensington illustrates a successful pedestrian-oriented streetscape within walking distance of a C-Train station.

KENSINGTON 10 STREET NW FRONTAGE EVALUATION

MEM

2 AVE NW

L DR

ORIA

3 AVE NW

4 AVE NW

10 ST NW

KENSINGTON RD NW

3 AVE NW

5 AVE NW 100 M

STREET FRONTAGE EVALUATION CRITERIA

A - ACTIVE B - PLEASANT C - SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN D - DULL E - INACTIVE F - NO FRONTAGE 61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Outreach, Observations & Opportunities

Qualitative Facade Survey Assessment CHINOOK CENTRE Chinook Centre represents one of the most active frontages in all of Calgary. Can you imagine what could happen if you could extend this activity out onto 61 Avenue SW all the way to Chinook Station???

STREET FRONTAGE EVALUATION CRITERIA

A - ACTIVE B - PLEASANT C - SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN D - DULL E - INACTIVE F - NO FRONTAGE 86

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Key Strategies

Key Strategies Safe, Accessible, Enjoyable, Adaptable

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Key Strategies

Transforming 61 Avenue SW into Chinook Boulevard Based on feedback from the outreach sessions, informational meetings with city stakeholders and the consultantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; site observations, four key strategies emerged.

SAFE & SECURE

Create a well-lit, well-designed public realm with continuous and well-connected sidewalks.

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

ACCESSIBLE

Create a complete street urban boulevard that prioritizes pedestrian, bicycle and transit movement.

ENJOYABLE

Program activities, human-scale frontages along the boulevard. Make the public realm a beautiful, colorful, and green space.

Key Strategies

Transforming 61 Avenue SW into Chinook Boulevard

ADAPTABLE

Allow for additive design to address transformation of the public realm and adjacent land use patterns.

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Key Strategies

Safe & Secure Create a pedestrian-priority frontage by reducing midblock vehicle access to right-turn-in only, or remove access entirely. Use existing signalized intersections to control most of the pedestrian -vehicle interactions. Raised bike lanes define edge of roadway to facilitate easy removal of mid-block vehicle access.

Provide pedestrian-scaled lighting to create a well-lit, safe walking environment. 90

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Provide safe crossings at desire lines, at LRT station rail crossing adjacent to station entrance.

Well-defined cross-walks minimize danger for pedestrians. Wider medians provide protected pedestrian refuges. Minimum curb radii help reduce crossing distance and time.

Key Strategies

Safe & Secure

Design safe, visible crosswalks

Create well-lit spaces and walkways for pedestrians and vehicles

Locate crosswalks along desire lines

Provide protected bicycle facilities

Maintain well-lit and well-marked transit shelters and bicycle facilities

Provide additional space where transit users and cyclists interact

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Key Strategies

Accessible Removal of dedicated turn lanes reduces pedestrian crossing distance and time.

Widen sidewalks to accommodate existing and future high pedestrian volumes

Re-balance right-of-way to complete street urban boulevard standards with a generous pedestrian realm. Create a consistent right-ofway to make an imageable boulevard. 92

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Provide connections to proposed bicycle network adjacent to LRT track and other future/planned bicycle routes. Study expansion of rail crossing when pedestrian volumes increase and/or when bicycle lanes on Centre Street are scheduled for implementation.

Incorporate bus stops along corridor into overall streetscape design

Key Strategies

Accessible

Design wider, better sidewalks to accommodate high pedestrian volumes and large groups

Provide grade-separated bicycle facilities to provide access to bicycle mobility to the highest percentage of the population

Maintain well-designed sidewalks for universal accessibility

Integrate design for bicycle facilities and furnishing zones into streetscape concept

Provide multiple mobility options at key nodes along corridor where bike share can connect with and extend the public transit network

Provide well-marked crossings for both pedestrians and cyclists.

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Key Strategies

Enjoyable Encourage public-facing private art installations to add color and beauty to the boulevard

Continuous street trees create a strong character for the boulevard within the image of the City. New trees on north side of boulevard to include Silva Cell LID. 94

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Encourage temporary events in parking lots to create engaging experiences along the boulevard and test long-term program ideas

Provide street furniture and public art along the boulevard. Add color and playfulness to public realm. Consider painting murals on existing blank facades

Redevelop with active frontages facing the street

Activate the transit plaza and transit stops with invitations to sit and stay, such as food offerings, seating areas, and informal play areas.

Key Strategies

Enjoyable

Employ color to amplify public realm experience

Provide places for active/passive and formal/ informal social engagement along the boulevard

Use blank facades as canvases to enliven the public realm with art

Encourage and/or curate social behavior and activities

Grow a beautiful urban forest canopy that can become an iconic space for Calgary

Create formal and informal seating areas along the boulevard and allow for programs and activities in these spaces

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Key Strategies

Adaptable Redevelopment will re-orient building frontages along the boulevard, which can extend the retail experience of Chinook Centre to Chinook Station and beyond to Centre Street

Incorporate an enhanced public realm at the entrances to the forthcoming pedestrian bridge 96

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Further expand pedestrian realm when redevelopment occurs to provide a robust frontage zone. Consider prioritizing the pedestrian realm along the boulevard and re-locate vehicle parking entrances to side streets.

Key Strategies

Adaptable

Use setback zones in development to create a varied frontage zone

In-fill development should build up to sidewalks to create a strong street wall and reinforce boulevard concept

Encourage active ground-floor uses in new developments

Start now! Test program ideas with temporary programs like a farmers market, or a holiday market

Start Now! Convert parts of under-used parking lots into spaces for social gatherings, such as a beer garden

Start Now! Convert parking lots next to sidewalks into seating areas where food trucks can provide dining experiences, even in cold weather!

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Key Strategies Success Criteria

Success Criteria Qualitative & Quantitative

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Success Criteria

Complete Street Urban Boulevard Success Criteria Public Space Quality Criteria

Returning to the Key Strategies, here’s a series of Complete Streets Guide Criteria quantitative and qualitative metrics to measure the Gehl’s people-first approach is based on actual success of the boulevard: The Complete Streets Guide outlines the use and human behavior. Therefore the following following priorities for accommodating different metrics for success are best suited to monitoring, Safe and Secure transportation modes on an Urban Boulevard evaluating and then adjusting the design overtime. street type: • Pedestrian usage after dark We can use similar metrics as a point of departure • Percent of women and children pedestrians Walking: High Standards for evaluating trade-offs between various design Cycling: High Standards options. We know for example the best way to Accessible Transit: High Standards ensure perceived safety is through putting “more Goods: High/Variable Standards eyes on the street” through mixed use functions that • Increase in pedestrian movement – number of Autos: Variable Standards people walking, improved LOS where people do help to activate and enliven the street throughout not walk in landscape to bypass others the day, week and year. However, it will likely These standards can be assigned to specific metrics take years before this increased density and mix • Increase in bicycling activity for the different modes of mobility as referenced in of uses can be fully achieved along the boulevard. • Distribution of Age/Gender (especially of the Calgary Transportation Plan, which includes children under 8 and elderly over 65) using the LID performance criteria. Nonetheless, decisions about land acquisitions can boulevard be informed by the extent to which we know this will impact not only safety and security but also • Bus and transit ridership, change in ridership The Calgary Cycling Strategy spells out criteria of Chinook Centre Shuttle? Are more people for measuring cyclist activity, connectivity, facility accessibility, enjoyment, and adaptability. walking to Chinook Centre? Are more people maintenance, safety, and user satisfaction. taking transit to Chinook Centre instead of Public space quality criteria metrics reference driving? Are there other destinations for which The Crime Prevention Through Environmental many of the quantitative metrics spelled out in the the boulevard is being? various plans and guides for the City of Calgary. Design (CPTED) Review in the Existing Conditions The combination of quantitative and qualitative and Proposed Concept Analysis Chapter criteria evaluation applied through the tactics of Enjoyable establishes criteria that can measured post-project “measure, test, refine” can provide robust feedback to determine success for safety issues. for the redevelopment of the properties adjacent to • Amount of time spent along the street the boulevard. For example, evaluating the quantity • Diversity of lingering activities along the Any motor vehicle operational assessment should boulevard of pedestrians and the quality and characteristics include pedestrians and cyclists and document of the desired activities for ground-floor uses can • Amount of social media references to boulevard times that reflect peak traffic demand for all modes as enjoyable, imageable place help inform developers and decision makers how of mobility, which likely includes weekday lunch to articulate ground-floor setbacks, or where to and weekend times. locate a more significant plaza/open space along Adaptable the boulevard. • Change in land use and function over time • Ability to attract new investments over time

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Concept Design

100

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Concept Design

Chinook Winds 61 Avenue SW is being re-designed as an urban boulevard, and with this transformation we propose re-branding and re-naming it as: Chinook Boulevard!

The Chinook winds play an important role in the character and identity of Calgary. Chinook Boulevard will connect Chinook Station and Chinook Centre and be the spine of the Chinook Station Area redevelopment. We are calling upon the name and the wind pattern as design inspiration for the public realm improvements to create a safe, accessible and enjoyable public realm. 61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

101

Concept Design

Preferred Plan

REFER TO DRAWINGS. 102

APPENDIX

FOR

TECHNICAL

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Concept Design

Preferred Plan

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

103

Concept Design

Road Geometry Corridor Alignment The proposed design drawing plans are included in the Technical Appendix, refer to drawing sheet number PD01 and PD02. The design proposes to adjust all lane widths, median widths and gutter locations in each block to achieve the vision for the corridor. This presents the opportunity to adjust the centerline of the cross section to be a consistent alignment through the length of the corridor with one exception. This exception is the median transition which occurs between 1A Street SW and the C-train/CPR rail crossing. The centerline shifts through this section where the center median will be reduced from the full width of 6.5m to the 1.5m median east of the rail crossing.

Center Medians All medians are proposed to be reconstructed. This reconstruction is required to achieve the additional width for the proposed landscaping and tree planting design. Left turn lanes and bay taper development located on the eastbound and westbound approach at 3 Street SW and the eastbound approach for the 1A Street SW are proposed to be removed.

Curb Radii at Intersections All geometry at the intersections requires reconstruction to align with the proposed crosssection elements. The curb radii at the intersections have been designed to accommodate specific truck and transit turning movements, however, the approach for the design was to keep the radii the same as the existing geometry, and reduce them where possible.

intersection in conjunction with providing a flush grade curb extension around each curb return. These areas, which will be a different treatment from the typical roadway asphalt, are intended to visually reduce the road width, promoting a pedestrian friendly feel, while enabling large trucks to track over the corner. Pedestrians and wheelchair access ramps will be set back at the standard curb and low height bollards will be placed at this curb location to prevent pedestrians from standing on the flush level treatment.

Cross-Sections The cross section for the proposed corridor design are included in the Technical Appendix, refer to drawing sheet number TS01 and TS02. All cross section elements have been developed as part of the conceptual design process and the resulting elements are intended to provide a focus on the public realm, rather than the vehicles. The cross sections themselves are conventional in the sense that each section of the corridor is comprised of a raised center median, two driving lanes in each direction, a raised cycle track at sidewalk level, a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;streetscapeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; zone where there will be street furniture with hard and soft landscaping features, and a wide sidewalk area dedicated to pedestrian movements.

The widths for each of these components are consistent throughout the corridor, but are specific to the corridor with the intent to help achieve the overall vision. The full median width is 6.5m from lip of gutter to lip of gutter, which provides the opportunity for a more robust landscaping zone A different approach has also been taken for the along the median islands, plus larger pedestrian treatment at each intersection where the bike refuge in the center of the road at the intersection lanes have been integrated with the roadway at the crossing points. 104

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

All travel lanes have been reduced to 3.3m. This is consistent with the current City of Calgary Design Guidelines for Subdivision Servicing 2014 which indicates 3.3m travel lane width for an Urban Boulevard road classification. The 1.7m cycle track (measured from back of curb to lip of flush curb) runs adjacent to the travel lanes and is separated from the roadway by a standard concrete curb and 250mm gutter. The cycle track will be at the same grade as the streetscape and sidewalk, separated from the streetscape zone by a flush level depressed type curb and 250mm gutter. The cycle tracks will extend from Macleod Trail to the rail crossing on both sides of 61 Avenue SW and will ramp down to the intersections just prior to the crosswalk and stop bars. Prior to the intersection ramps down, the cycle track becomes separated from the roadway by a 1.25m concrete median. This separation is to provide room for signage and to protect the cycle track users by deterring vehicles from turning across the cycle tracks and onto the flush level intersection bump-outs. The remainder of the boulevard is comprised of a 2.0m wide streetscape zone and a 3.0m wide sidewalk with a 0.3m buffer from the proposed road right-of-way limit.

Concept Design

Road Geometry A NEW KIND OF INTERSECTION

Inlaid epoxy colored striping in crosswalk Grade-separated, colored asphalt bicycle lanes and striped intersection crossings define clear areas for cyclists Consistent tree planting defines street edge and separates cyclists and pedestrians Furnishing zone provides area for street furniture, consistent pedestrian and roadway lighting, and LID street tree planting Wood seating surfaces with powder-coated metal supports Tinted concrete sidewalk with high albedo and sparkle additive. Narrow scoring pattern to create visual rhythm

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

105

Concept Design

Road Geometry A NEW KIND OF INTERSECTION

Inlaid epoxy colored striping in crosswalk Flush bulb-outs visually narrow intersections while allowing for truck turning Grade-separated, colored asphalt bicycle lanes and striped intersection crossings define clear areas for cyclists Median extensions provide pedestrian refuges Furnishing zone provide area for street furniture, consistent pedestrian and roadway lighting, and LID street tree planting. Consistent tree planting defines street edge and separates cyclists and pedestrians Bollards protect pedestrians from vehicular traffic and also provide informal seating areas

106

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Concept Design

Road Geometry A NEW KIND OF INTERSECTION

Right-in-only mid-block vehicular access, with continuous bicycle lane and sidewalk paving Grade-separated, colored asphalt bicycle lanes and striped intersection crossings define clear areas for cyclists Consistent tree planting defines street edge and separates cyclists and pedestrians Furnishing zone provide area for street furniture, consistent pedestrian and roadway lighting, and LID street tree planting. A configurable LED light column that can function as pedestrian lighting and roadway lighting

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

107

Concept Design

Road Geometry A NEW KIND OF INTERSECTION

Flush bulb-outs visually narrow intersections while allowing for truck turning Median with turn lane Grade-separated, colored asphalt bicycle lanes and striped intersection crossings define clear areas for cyclists Bollards protect pedestrians from vehicular traffic and also provide informal seating areas Median extensions provide pedestrian refuges Inlaid epoxy colored striping in crosswalk

108

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Concept Design

Road Geometry A NEW KIND OF INTERSECTION

Inlaid epoxy colored striping in crosswalk Consistent tree planting defines street edge and separates cyclists and pedestrians Furnishing zone provide area for street furniture, consistent pedestrian and roadway lighting, and LID street tree planting. Sharrow: Shared use lane markers east of Chinook Station to Centre St A configurable LED light column that can function as pedestrian lighting and roadway lighting

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

109

Concept Design

Land Acquisition To create an urban boulevard with a consistent image, a consistent cross-section needs to be created. In doing so, a certain amount of land acquisition will be required. The following street sections illustrate the schematic design of the boulevard in relation to existing property lines. The sections also show adjacent building heights, which fall within the Direct Control District acceptable building heights, to illustrate how the buildings define the edges of the boulevard as a street wall, an essential component in the image of an urban boulevard.

110

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Please refer to the technical appendix for the preliminary cross-sections, the actual property acquisition requirements, and the horizontal layout of the boulevard.

Concept Design

Preferred Sections SECTION A A

PROPERTY LINE

BIKE LANE

CENTER LINE

FURNISHING ZONE

(EXISTING) SIDEWALK EASEMENT

ROADWAY

PROPERTY LINE

PLANTED MEDIAN

+21 M 1:2 RATIO

SIDEWALK THROUGHWAY FRONTAGE ZONE SIDEWALK EXPANSION SIDEWALK EASEMENT LAND ACQUISITION AREA

For schematic purposes only

SOUTH SIDE

0-5

phase sidewalk widening with adjacent parcel redevelopment

2.1

3.3

vertical curb, grade separated bike lane

2.7

3.3

planted median with turn lane

3.3

2.1

0-3

NORTH SIDE

furnishing zone with tree planting (Silva Cell on north side) 61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

111

Concept Design

Preferred Sections SECTION B

BIKE LANE

(EXISTING) SIDEWALK EASEMENT

SIDEWALK THROUGHWAY FRONTAGE ZONE SIDEWALK EXPANSION SIDEWALK EASEMENT LAND ACQUISITION AREA

PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE

FURNISHING ZONE

(EXISTING) PROPERTY LINE

ROADWAY

CENTER LINE

PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE

PLANTED MEDIAN

(EXISTING) PROPERTY LINE

+20M 1:2 RATIO

For schematic purposes only

SOUTH SIDE

0-3

2.1

rolled curb allows for mid-block vehicle access while clearly defines space as bicycle and pedestrian-priority 112

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

3.3

planted median with pedestrian refuge

2.1

0-3

NORTH SIDE

Concept Design

Preferred Sections SECTION C

ROADWAY FURNISHING ZONE

(PROPOSED) PROPERTY LINE

PLANTED MEDIAN

CENTER LINE

PROPERTY LINE (EXISTING) CURB LINE

BIKE LANE

+20M 1:2 RATIO

(EXISTING) PROPERTY LINE

SIDEWALK THROUGHWAY FRONTAGE ZONE SIDEWALK EXPANSION SIDEWALK EASEMENT LAND ACQUISITION AREA

For schematic purposes only

TRANSIT PLAZA

4.5

bike lane on transit plaza between curb & pedestrian lights

3.3

2.7

3.3

2.1

0-3

NORTH SIDE

planted median with turn lane 61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

113

Concept Design

Preferred Sections SECTION D D

PLANTED MEDIAN ROADWAY FURNISHING ZONE BIKE LANE

LAND ACQUISITION AREA

(EXISTING) PROPERTY LINE

For schematic purposes only

SOUTH SIDE

0-3

redevelopment will need to reconcile grade changes from sidewalk within property setback 114

(PROPOSED) PROPERTY LINE

SIDEWALK EASEMENT

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

(EXISTING) PROPERTY LINE

FRONTAGE ZONE SIDEWALK EXPANSION

CENTER LINE

(PROPOSED) PROPERTY LINE

SIDEWALK THROUGHWAY

3.3

widen lanes to acceptable minimum width

0-3

NORTH SIDE

furnishing zone with trees and minimum sidewalk width

Concept Design

Perspectives ENVISIONING EXISTING CONDITIONS INTO A COMPLETE STREET

SETBACK (FRONTAGE ZONE)

BIKE LANE

FURNISHING ZONE

SIDEWALK

FURNISHING ZONE

SIDEWALK

BIKE LANE

SETBACK (FRONTAGE ZONE)

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

115

Concept Design

Perspectives ENVISIONING EXISTING CONDITIONS INTO A COMPLETE STREET

116

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Concept Design

Phasing Diagrams to Create a Complete Street EXISTING CONDITIONS

The following diagrams illustrate how the existing suburban arterial can incrementally be transformed into a great urban boulevard. Changes to the public and private realms are both required for Chinook Boulevard to become a great place.

Parking lots are inactive street frontages

Wide curb cuts interrupts pedestrian realm

No bicycle facilities Driveways disrupt sidewalks Narrow sidewalks

Inconsistent tree canopy Wide travel lanes allow for higher travel speeds

No pedestrian refuges in crossings

Low-visibility crosswalks

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

117

Concept Design

Phasing Diagrams to Create a Complete Street INTERIM PHASE During the interim phase, before the private properties are re-developed, but the urban boulevard has been constructed, private properties can take advantage of the re-newed public realm by testing temporary programs that activate the streetscape. Food trucks in parking lots, temporary markets such as the Christmas Tree lot at Home Depot, or a farmerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s market could engage the high pedestrian volumes along the street. A minimal amount of furnishings in the public realm accommodate these temporary activities. The first installment of public realm amenities begin to hint at the future of the place. Create space for a bike lane and use it as multiuse pathway in the interim until the bike network connects Provide street furniture and public art along the boulevard

Widen sidewalks to accommodate existing and future high pedestrian volumes Reduced and redesign driveway access points Tree-lined medians help create a strong image for the boulevard Continuous street trees with Silva cells Secure pedestrian refuge in median Encourage temporary events in parking lots to create engaging experiences High visibility, colorful crosswalks

118

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Concept Design

Phasing Diagrams to Create a Complete Street COMPLETE STREET URBAN BOULEVARD Once the private parcels have been re-developed to street-facing buildings with active groundfloor land uses, the boulevard can thrive at its full potential. More street furniture can be added as needed to fill out the capacity of social life in the public realm.

Redevelop with active frontages Frontage zone setbacks

Provide street furniture and public art along the boulevard Widen sidewalks to accommodate existing and future high pedestrian volumes Grade separated bicycle lanes Secure Crosswalks

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

119

Summary

120

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

Summary

Risks - this won’t work unless… We have identified the following risks to the project, and potential mitigation measures:

Risk #1

Landowners and businesses oppose concept, delay in project due to longer land acquisition process • Mitigation – Additional engagement with landowners/businesses to share the vision of the area and corridor and address concerns.

Risk #4

Reconstruction of corridor sections due to utility improvement and maintenance schedule, and/or future redevelopment tie in to utilities. • Mitigation – Consultation initiated with City departments on deep utilities and road maintenance, and third parties on shallow Risk #2 utilities plans for replacement and potential Realization of the vision of the corridor upgrades to existing systems along 61 Avenue • Mitigation – During transitional stage of and side streets. redevelopment for TOD area, encourage existing business and landowners in area Risk #5 to provide programming to encourage more Pedestrian Bridge project impact to schedule and activity and vibrancy along 61 Avenue SW. construction. • Mitigation – Ongoing and continuous Risk #3 coordination with Pedestrian Bridge project Design approval process with the City team to ensure timing and schedule of two • Mitigation – Initial consultation with various City project and overlap construction area is departments at the concept and preliminary complimentary. stage to ensure initial feedback and comments are incorporated and/or addressed.

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

121

Summary

Next Steps Improvements to the 61 Avenue Greenway will enhance the pedestrian environment, and foster redevelopment potential by promoting active spaces. As well, provision for cycling facilities will provide a variety of modal options to the already well used transit corridor and roadway. This preliminary design provides the basis for implementation of the corridor.

122

61 Avenue SW - Preliminary Design Report

NEXT STEPS The following are planned and recommended next steps for advancing the project to the detailed design and construction phases, currently budgeted for 2016-2017. • Landowner Engage! session planned for April 24, 2015 to discuss the proposed preliminary design, and listen and learn. Feedback from the session will be summarized and compiled in a separate report by the City Engage! project team. • Public open house planned for April 28, 2015 to present proposed preliminary design. • Detailed geotechnical investigation along various points of the corridor is currently being procured by the City. The results will go to guide the detailed design of the Low Impact Development (LID) measure in the boulevard/ streetscape zone. As well, to confirm existing pavement structure. • Initiate land negotiations and register new rightof-way. • Complete topographical survey of the corridor to confirm existing grades and tie-in points. To be completed in conjunction with detailed design. • Continue discussion and circulate preliminary design report to utilities for both deep and third party shallows. Feedback received can be incorporated into the final report, and/or upcoming detailed design. • Confirm budget and scope of 61 Avenue Greenway project.

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE