An Analysis of Road Design and Techniques Used to Mitigate Highway Inefficiency and Congestion Case Study: Medicine Hat 6 th Street SW and 16 th Street SW Intersections By Brad Irwin A MASTER’S THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2017
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
An Analysis of Road Design and Techniques Used to Mitigate Highway Inefficiency and Congestion
Case Study: Medicine Hat 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW
Intersections
By Brad Irwin
A MASTER’S THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2017
1
Table of Contents
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... 3
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. 4
List of Maps ................................................................................................................................ 4
List of Models ............................................................................................................................ 5
Abbreviations and Notes ...................................................................................................... 6
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. 7
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 9
2.0 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................. 17
3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................. 19 3.1 Highway Efficiency ................................................................................................................................. 19 3.2 Highway Capacity ................................................................................................................................... 20 3.3 Design and Cost ...................................................................................................................................... 23 3.4 Funding ........................................................................................................................................................ 26
3.4.1 Federal Funding .................................................................................. 27 3.4.2 Provincial Funding .............................................................................. 30
3.5 Congestion ................................................................................................................................................. 32 3.6 Traffic Controls ......................................................................................................................................... 34
3.6.1 Traffic Control Lights ........................................................................... 34 3.6.2 Interchanges ....................................................................................... 37 3.6.3 Innovative Designs ............................................................................. 39 3.6.4 Road Categories ................................................................................. 42
4.0 DATA AQUISITON AND ANALYTICAL METHODS ........................................... 46 4.1 Highway Efficiency ................................................................................................................................. 46 4.2 Congestion ................................................................................................................................................. 48 4.3 Mitigation Techniques ........................................................................................................................... 49 4.4 Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 50 4.5 Vehicle Capacity ...................................................................................................................................... 50 4.6 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW Intersection Recommendations ............................... 51
5.0 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ........................................................................................ 53 5.1 Dunmore Road Interchange .............................................................................................................. 53 3.8 Community Values ................................................................................................................................. 55
3.8.1 Smart Growth Strategy ....................................................................... 55 3.8.2 Sustainability ....................................................................................... 55 3.8.3 Transportation Goals .......................................................................... 56
5.2 Population ................................................................................................................................................... 59 5.3 Road design ........................................................................................................................................... 60
5.3.1 Shortfall Designs .............................................................................. 61 5.3.2 Qualifying Designs .............................................................................. 61 5.2.3 Trans-Canada Highway ...................................................................... 64 5.3.3 6th Street SW Intersection Design ....................................................... 67
2
5.3.4 16th Street SW Intersection Design ..................................................... 68 5.4 Road Capacity .......................................................................................................................................... 70
5.4.1 Trans-Canada Highway and 6th Street SW Capacity .......................... 70 5.4.2 Trans-Canada Highway and 16th Street SW Capacity ........................ 71
5.5 Vehicle Volume and Density ............................................................................................................. 72 5.6 Travel Time ................................................................................................................................................ 78 5.7 Funding and Cost .................................................................................................................................... 80 5.8 SWOT Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 83 5.9 Safety ............................................................................................................................................................ 84
5.9.1 6th Street SW Intersection ................................................................... 84 5.9.2 16th Street SW Intersection ................................................................. 85 5.9.3 Pedestrian Safety ............................................................................... 86
6.0 DISCUSSSION AND CONCLUSION ........................................................................ 87 6.1 Trans-Canada Highway ....................................................................................................................... 88 6.2 Innovative Designs ................................................................................................................................. 90
6.2.1 Superstreets ....................................................................................... 90 6.2.2 Diverging Diamond Interchange ......................................................... 91 6.2.3 Roundabouts ...................................................................................... 92 6.2.4 Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI) .................................................... 92 6.2.5 Ring Roads ......................................................................................... 92
6.3 Frontage Roads ....................................................................................................................................... 93 6.4 6th Street SW Intersection ................................................................................................................... 97 6.5 16th Street SW Intersection ................................................................................................................ 99 6.6 Traffic Control Lights .......................................................................................................................... 103 6.7 SWOT Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 103 6.8 Funding and Costs .............................................................................................................................. 105
6.8.1 Funding ............................................................................................. 105 6.8.2 Cost .................................................................................................. 106
7.0 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 108 7.1 Models ....................................................................................................................................................... 109
7.1.2 6th Street SW Intersection – Current ................................................. 110 7.1.3 6th Street SW Intersection - Interchange ........................................... 115 7.1.4 16th Street SW Intersection - Current ................................................ 120 7.1.5 16th Street SW Intersection – Interchange ........................................ 125
7.2 Model Summary .................................................................................................................................... 132
8.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 133
3
List of Figures Figure 1 Trans-Canada Highway................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2 Dunmore Road Intersection ............................................................................................ 12 Figure 3 Dunmore Road Interchange ............................................................................................ 12 Figure 4 6th Street SW Streetview ................................................................................................ 15 Figure 5 6th Street SW Aerial ........................................................................................................ 15 Figure 6 16th Street SW Streetview .............................................................................................. 16 Figure 7 16th Street SW Aerial ...................................................................................................... 16 Figure 8 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................... 18 Figure 9 Construction Costs .......................................................................................................... 24 Figure 10 Peak Period Travel Time Index ..................................................................................... 33 Figure 11 Contributions to Congestion .......................................................................................... 35 Figure 12 Road Categories ........................................................................................................... 42 Figure 13 Frontage Roads ............................................................................................................. 44 Figure 15 ArcCatalog New Shapefile ............................................................................................ 52 Figure 16 ArcCatalog New Shapefile ............................................................................................ 52 Figure 18 Medicine Hat Ring Road Concept ................................................................................. 62 Figure 19 6th Street SW Intersection - Aerial ................................................................................ 67 Figure 20 6th Street SW - Streetview ............................................................................................ 68 Figure 21 16th Street SW - Aerial .................................................................................................. 69 Figure 22 16th Street SW - Streetview .......................................................................................... 70 Figure 23 Medicine Hat Federal Funding ...................................................................................... 81 Figure 23 SWOT Analysis ............................................................................................................. 83
4
List of Tables Table 1 LOS and Average Delay ................................................................................................... 22 Table 2 Vehicle Capacities ............................................................................................................ 23 Table 3 Interchange Comparisons ................................................................................................ 53 Table 4 Medicine Hat Demographics ............................................................................................ 60 Table 5 LOS Medicine Hat Trans-Canada Highway Intersections ................................................ 72 Table 6 Travel Times ..................................................................................................................... 78 Table 7 Interchange Costs ............................................................................................................ 82 Table 8 6th Street SW Intersection Collisions ............................................................................... 84 Table 9 16th Street SW Intersection Collisions ............................................................................. 85
List of Maps Map 1 Trans-Canada Highway, Medicine Hat ............................................................................... 66 Map 2 Volume Capacity Ratio (VCR) ............................................................................................ 74 Map 3 Peak Volume Per Hour (VPH) ............................................................................................ 75 Map 4 Volume Capacity Ratio @ 75,000 Population .................................................................... 76 Map 5 Peak Volume Per Hour @ 75,000 Population .................................................................... 77 Map 6 Medicine Hat Travel Times ................................................................................................. 79
5
List of Models Model 1 6th Street SW ................................................................................................................ 110 Model 2 6th Street SW ................................................................................................................ 111 Model 3 6th Street SW ................................................................................................................ 112 Model 4 6th Street SW ................................................................................................................ 113 Model 5 6th Street SW ................................................................................................................ 114 Model 6 6th Street SW Interchange ............................................................................................ 115 Model 7 6th Street SW Interchange ............................................................................................ 116 Model 8 6th Street SW Interchange ............................................................................................ 117 Model 9 6th Street SW Interchange ............................................................................................ 118 Model 10 6th Street SW Interchange .......................................................................................... 119 Model 11 16th Street SW ............................................................................................................ 120 Model 12 16th Street SW ............................................................................................................ 121 Model 13 16th Street SW ............................................................................................................ 122 Model 14 16th Street SW ............................................................................................................ 123 Model 15 16th Street SW ............................................................................................................ 124 Model 16 16th Street SW Interchange ........................................................................................ 125 Model 17 16th Street SW Interchange ........................................................................................ 126 Model 18 16th Street SW Interchange ........................................................................................ 127 Model 19 16th Street SW Interchange ........................................................................................ 128 Model 20 16th Street SW Interchange ........................................................................................ 129 Model 21 16th Street SW Interchange ........................................................................................ 130 Model 22 16th Street SW Interchange ........................................................................................ 131
6
Abbreviations and Notes Throughout this study, interchanges will be referring to overpasses unless
otherwise specified. Many sources used these terms interchangeably for the
same type of structure based on geographic location.
For the purpose of this study, all dollar values are in Canadian Dollars (CAD),
and inflation has not been accounted for. For this reason, all values are
approximate with some deviation. More accurate values may be calculated using
an average inflation rate for Canada of 1.86, determined from Stats Canada from
1997-2016 (Government of Canada, 2017b).
Highway 1 Trans-Canada Highway NHS National Highway System Km/h & kph Kilometers Per Hour Sq. ft. Square Feet LOS Level of Service VPH Volume Per Hour VCR Volume Capacity Ratio NA Not Available NIC National Infrastructure Component PTIC Provincial-Territorial Infrastructure Component MDP Municipal Development Plan CSIF Canada Infrastructure Strategic Fund STIP Strategic Transportation Infrastructure BMGT Basic Municipal Transportation Grant SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Consequences, Threats
7
ABSTRACT
As a major road for Canada, the Trans-Canada Highway spans across the
entire nation, and is the only direct route of travel from east to west. Classified as
a National Highway System (NHS), the Government of Canada has specific
requirements for the design and maintenance of the Trans-Canada Highway that
ensures an efficient highway system across Canada. Many cities have planned
road networks that allow for an efficient bypass around intersections along the
Trans-Canada Highway to avoid traffic stoppage, where as Medicine Hat has
placed traffic control lights that result in inefficient traffic flow and congestion. The
traffic control lights are placed not only across the highway, but also at the
adjacent roads, resulting a multi-phased system to accommodate the traffic
entering and leaving the highway system. The design of these intersections is
inadequate at moving traffic, and causes travel delays between 66 and 114
seconds. There are multiple concerns with the traffic flow and efficiency of the
current state of the Trans-Canada Highway at these intersections, and there are
severe issues of congestion and poor travel time that need to be addressed.
This study focuses on the characteristics typically associated with
interchange proposals, and ultimately, if Medicine Hat’s 6th Street SW and 16th
Street SW intersections along the Trans-Canada Highway have similar
characteristics meeting the requirements to construct interchanges. The Trans-
Canada Highway section through Medicine Hat currently does not meet NHS
standards, which states a requirement of 90 km/h with a 2-lane highway design,
as well as free flow traffic. 6th Street SW intersection is operating at a level of
8
service (LOS) of E, and 16th Street SW at a LOS of F, representing severe
congestion. Previous intersections in Medicine Hat have had similar issues and
were addressed with interchanges to alleviate the congestion and aid in traffic
flow. If fully funded by the province of Alberta, Medicine Hat would be capable of
constructing diamond interchanges at these intersections for a projected cost
between $14.3 million and $35.5 million, based on length and available land.
9
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The problem with Medicine Hat is we see a city that has grown out to its
highway and river and divides the city in half. As the city sprawled, it resulted in
congestion on the highway, and produced inefficiency along the Trans-Canada
Highway and associated intersections. Addressing this issue we need to look at
techniques capable of mitigating congestion and improving highway efficiency,
and ultimately decide which method is most practical for Medicine Hat’s 6th Street
SW and 16th Street SW intersections.
To determine the best possible solution, the road network around the two
problematic intersections need to be considered, their designs, and how they
influence the movement of traffic. They play an important role in the connectivity
between surrounding neighborhoods and the highway, and the connectivity of the
community needs to be maintained when addressing the congestion and
efficiency issue of the highway and intersections. Many mitigation designs have
shown success in addressing congestion and highway efficiency, however, most
do not meet the requirements of the National Highway System, and therefore, will
only be briefly discussed to provide alternative solutions not specific to Medicine
Hat. Interchanges will be a key technique discussed, as they are the common
technique used to address transportation issues in Medicine Hat.
Canada, the second largest country by area in the world, holds the record
for the longest national highway, spanning 7,281 kilometers (4,860 miles) east to
west across the nation (see Figure 1) (TransCanada FoundLocally Inc., 2015).
The highway, called the Trans-Canada Highway, or Highway 1, runs through the
10
heart of many cities, big and small. As an essential feature to Canada’s
economy, it is important to upgrade and maintain the road to provide an efficient
means of transportation. The Trans-Canada Highway, seen as part of the
‘Alberta Advantage’ with its four-lane, interstate quality roads, provides fast and
efficient access to major markets (Government of Alberta, 2000).
Figure 1 Trans-Canada Highway
Established in 1988 by federal, provincial, and territorial transportation
ministers, the National Highway System (NHS) focused on the efficiency,
connectivity, and needs of Canada’s primary highway system (Government of
Canada, 2011b). Recent efforts by the federal government have examined the
efficiency of the Trans-Canada Highway with the demographic, social, and
Source: (McLeod, 2014)
11
economical changes over the past 15 years. Function planning studies
throughout the provinces began in multiple cities on their road systems and how
they were connected with the Trans-Canada Highway, and how they could be
improved to meet the standards of the NHS. The study concluded that
connectivity needs to be increased and congestion reduced due to demographic,
social, and economical changes, and that major road networks allow traffic to
move at a free flowing rate (Government of Canada, 2011b). Provincial
governments used this as an opportunity to upgrade important intersections from
traffic light controls to interchange systems.
Under Canada’s Constitution Act, provinces have exclusive jurisdiction
over the building and maintenance of national highways. The federal government
administers federal funds to assist with road infrastructure projects, and most of
the funding comes from consolidated revenue, which is allocated across a
budgetary process (Constitution Act, 1867).
Medicine Hat, Alberta, a growing city in Western Canada’s prairies, was
selected for case study to analyze the issues with their 6th SW Street and 16th
Street SW intersections along Trans-Canada Highway, and determine the most
effective technique to address these problematic areas. Established in 1883, it
currently has a population just over 60,000. The municipality has a land area of
112 square kilometers, and is known throughout the country as ‘The Gas City’
due to its abundance of natural gas wells (Government of Canada, 2011a). For
this reason, Medicine Hat draws people from neighboring locations and has a
large oil and gas production and extraction employment sector.
12
After the federal review of the Trans-Canada Highway efficiency, Medicine
Hat proposed its first intersection upgrade from a traffic control light intersection
along the Trans-Canada Highway and Dunmore Road to an interchange system
to reduce the congestion of highway traffic (see Figures 2 & 3). Funded by
Alberta Transportation, the overpass successfully eased congestion of east west
traffic along the highway with its free flow design (Smith, 2013).
Figure 2 Dunmore Road Intersection
Figure 3 Dunmore Road Interchange
Source: Google Images, 2015; Dunmore Road intersection prior to interchange
Source: Google Images, 2015; Dunmore Road intersection interchange design
13
Currently in Alberta, there are six proposed projects linked to the Trans-
Canada Highway under review for highway functionality, addressing issues of
NHS standards, intersection congestion, and safety concerns (Government of
Alberta, 2011):
Highway 1 & Highway 3
Highway 1 & Highway 36
Highway 1 & Conrich Road
Highway 1 & Range Road 33
Highway 1 & Rainbow Road
Highway 1 and Highway 1A
Highway 1 & Strathmore Intersection
The plan for the Trans-Canada Highway, being classified as a NHS, is to
achieve freeway status (UMA Engineering Ltd., 2007). The current interchange
proposals are assisting to make this transition from highway to freeway status by
eliminating intersections and introducing a free flow traffic system.
This case study addresses the issues of Medicine Hat’s two major
intersections situated on the Trans-Canada Highway, 6th Street SW and 16th
Street SW, which have seen no upgrade during the Trans-Canada Highway
planning study. Congestion is a major issue at these intersections and is the
primary route for day-to-day traffic. It provides the only access to the city’s light
industrial area and outlying shops where much of the population works, and is
the only route through the city. It is a key road to the Medicine Hat Regional
Hospital as well as many surrounding neighborhoods. The design of these
14
intersections is notorious for its inefficiency with access roads running parallel to
the Trans-Canada Highway, causing confusing and exceptionally long stop
times. Rush hour has a significant impact on these intersections, where the
access roads are used as collector roads, creating large traffic delays in the
nearby communities as well as increasing traffic stoppage on the highway.
Further problems occur with large semi-trucks, as a coulee is present on the west
end of the 16th Street SW intersection, creating hazards as trucks struggle to
climb the slope when they are forced to slow down due to congestion.
Aside from the local congestion problems and concerns for traffic passing
through, Medicine Hat’s section of the Trans-Canada Highway does not meet
NHS standards. The NHS identifies its routes as roadways with a minimum
posted speed of 90 km/h and no traffic signals (Stantec, 2008). The posted
speed limit along Medicine Hat’s section for Trans-Canada Highway is 80 km/h,
and has two traffic light intersections. Medicine Hat is hindering the Trans-
Canada Highway from becoming a freeway, and is not conforming to NHS
standards. The scope of this study will focus on the current issues with the
Trans-Canada Highway and the 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections
(see Figures 4 through 7), and determine a cost-effective solution to mitigate the
problem of congestion and its associated issues. It will examine the requirements
of the National Highway System standards, and how to conform to the standards
associated with being a national highway.
15
Figure 4 6th Street SW Streetview
Figure 5 6th Street SW Aerial
Source: Google Inc., 2017
Source: Google Inc., 2017
16
Figure 6 16th Street SW Streetview
Figure 7 16th Street SW Aerial
Source: Google Inc., 2017
Source: Google Inc., 2017
17
2.0 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The framework (see Figure 8) for this study centers on mitigation
techniques, road design, location characteristics, and funding for determining the
best solution for Medicine Hat’s congestion and highway inefficiency. As the city
grew and sprawled towards the Trans-Canada Highway, the highway became a
primary route for much of the population. Capacity of the road was reached and
results in congestion and inefficiency along the highway and its corresponding
intersections.
The first step is to determine what congestion and highway efficiency is,
and furthermore, at what values of traffic density and traffic flow is a road
considered congested. To determine traffic flow and traffic density, variables
such as road capacity, population, and population growth will be considered.
Additionally, an analysis of funding and the support from municipal, provincial,
and federal government will be used as an assessment on mitigation techniques
and the planning process. Secondary issues of safety and emissions will be
examined to determine correlation with road congestion, and furthermore, the
effects some of the solutions have on these issues. The National Highway
System (NHS) standards will play a vital role in the study as a support for
mitigation techniques and the national vision towards the Trans-Canada
Highway’s transformation to freeway status.
18
Figure 8 Conceptual Framework
Sprawl
Transportation Mitigation Techniques
Increased Highway Usage
Road Design
Congestion
National Highway System standards
Funding
Location Characteristics
Highway Efficiency
Highway Inefficiency
19
3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1 Highway Efficiency
Academic research and data analysis from government organizations has
frequently highlighted their concerns and visions to create an efficient highway
system. A broad agreement among organizations has mentioned Canada’s
major transportation system will not be capable of meeting the needs of citizens,
communities, and businesses in the future (Western Provincial Transportation
Ministers Council, 2005). PROLOG Canada Inc. (2005) identifies concerns about
the long-term health of our highway system and the level of congestion, and how
the economy and mobile society is dependent on an efficient and safe road
system.
The research of road conditions from Western Provincial Transportation
Ministers Council (2005) and PROLOG Canada Inc. (2005) shown similar
outcomes in deferring infrastructure renewal resulting in lower economic growth,
highway safety concerns, less competitive cities, and traffic congestion and
pollution. The studies show as much as 1/5 of the National Highway System’s
roads, including the Trans-Canada Highway, are in poor condition, and will
increase in these conditions nearly 7% over 4 years (PROLOG Canada Inc.,
2005).
Research from government organizations have identified the impact road
networks have on the economy, and further reasons to reach freeway status for
20
the Trans-Canada Highway. Road networks carry the majority of passengers and
goods in Canada, and it is important for the transport of manufactured goods
(Minister of Transport, 2016). Approximately 10% of Canada’s GDP is produced
from the transportation sector, and four-lane roads can provide fast, efficient, and
safe access to major markets (Government of Alberta, 2014). Alberta’s
infrastructure needs to be planned so it is at least competitive and comparable in
efficiency to the United States interstate system, because there is a positive
correlation between GNP and the efficiency of its transportation networks
(Berezanski, 2004). Berezanski (2004) further concludes freeways provide the
basic infrastructure for flexible and efficient movement of goods and people, and
proper freeway design aids in facilitating this movement in a safe, fuel-efficient
manner. Van Horne Institute’s (2004) research describes the eroding highway
transportation system and congestion could soon lead to costs in hundreds of
millions of dollars in lost time and impede trade flow, and the Trans-Canada
Highway is critical to our economy yet remains underfunded.
3.2 Highway Capacity
Highway capacity is used to express the maximum hourly rate at which
vehicles can reasonably be expected to traverse a point during a given period
under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. Highway capacity embodies
broader relations with highway characteristics, such as traffic composition, flow
patterns, travel time, speed limit, traffic density, and degrees of congestion
(American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2001). The
21
capacity of a highway is categorized into the following six levels of service, and
can be seen in Table 1 (Transportation Research Board, 2000):
. (A) Free Flow Traffic. Individual users are practically unaffected by the
presence of other vehicles on a road section. The choice of speed and the
maneuverability are free. The level of comfort is excellent, as the driver
needs minimal attention. The volume to capacity ratio is usually below 0.2.
. (B) Steady Traffic. The presence of other vehicles on the section begins to
affect the behavior of individual drivers. The choice of the speed is free,
but the maneuverability has somewhat decreased. The comfort is
excellent, as the driver simply needs to keep an eye on nearby vehicles.
. (C) Steady Traffic but Limited. The presence of other vehicles affects drivers.
The choice of the speed is affected and maneuvering requires vigilance.
The level of comfort decreases quickly at this level, because the driver has
a growing impression of being caught between other vehicles.
. (D) Steady Traffic at High Density. The speed and the maneuverability are
severely reduced. Low level of comfort for the driver, as he must
constantly avoid collisions with other vehicles. A slight increase of the
traffic risks causing some operational problems and saturating the
network.
. (E) Traffic at Saturation. Low but uniform speed. Maneuverability is possible
only under constraint for another vehicle. The user is frustrated.
. (F) Congestion. Unstable speed with the formation of waiting lines at several
points. Cycles of stop and departure with no apparent logic because
22
created by the behavior of drivers. High level of vigilance is required for
the user with practically no comfort. At this level the volume to capacity
ratio exceeds 1, implying that the road segment is used above design
capacity.
Table 1 LOS and Average Delay
.
Vehicle capacity plays an important role in road design and mitigation
techniques. Table 2 shows the calculated number of vehicles per location where
previous proposals were recommended. Results have shown on average,
regardless of population, the number of vehicles operated in a community to
create a congested intersection is 37,512 This was determined by multiplying the
population during the time of construction, retrieved from census bureaus and
other statistical sources, with the national average of vehicles per person
retrieved from the International Organization of Motor Vehicles (2012 and 2013)
The outcomes were consistent among old data from1931 to new data of 2013.
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2010
23
Table 2 Vehicle Capacities
3.3 Design and Cost
Design is an important factor in mitigation proposals, and affects the cost
of construction drastically. Mingunang Road interchange, proposed at 1.41km
long and 32.5 m wide, has a simplistic design, but is massive in size. It
incorporates sidewalks along the side for pedestrians, and is wide enough to
accommodate bicycles. The overall project cost was $31 million, and was
projected at five years for completion (City of Chuzhou, 2010). The sheer size of
this project would expect the cost to be way above average, but because of its
simplistic design, costs were kept at a respectable level. Online research has
revealed many interchange proposals have shown similar costs; for example,
Sources: City of North Vancouver (2009), City of Chuzhou (2010), Corporation of the District of North Vancouver (2014), Smith (2013), Whitten (1931), Scott (2013), (Loewen & Baril (2012), Lalonde (2009), Churm (1987), Government of Canada (2011a), City of Surrey (2015) , City Data (2012, 2015), Ingerosec Corporation (2011), UNFPA (2012), International Organization of Motor Vehicles Manufacturers (2012, 2013)
24
Thurston Way Interchange with a cost of roughly $36 million (Washington State
Department of Transportation, 2004). The City of Vancouver (2013) has shown
some interchanges cost slightly higher, such as the Powell Street interchange, at
$53 million, while others cost lower, such as I-90 Evergreen Road Interchange, at
$21.8 million (Washington State Department of Transportation, 2004). After
reviewing multiple proposals, the average cost of construction results in roughly
$30 million. Extremes well above $100 million are not uncommon, and are
mainly seen in large cities, however, for a typical two to four-lane interchange the
average cost is $30 million (Washington State Department of Transportation,
2004). Figure 9, from Washington State Department of Transportation (2014),
shows some average costs per mile for various construction costs in multiple
locations.
Figure 9 Construction Costs
Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, 2014)
25
The key goals for effectives transportation solutions are to expand
capacity and enhance networks that support the movement of goods and
improve the safety and flow of pedestrians and commuters (City of Vancouver,
2013). An increase in movement of goods results in an increase in economic
growth (Shen, et al, 2013).
Proposals for interchanges are a result from multiple traffic issues. Studies
have shown congestion, traffic flow, emissions, and safety of vehicles and
pedestrians are the main issues behind proposals. Interchanges improve safety,
reduce road congestion, improve community connections and traffic flow, as well
as reduce idling time reducing air emissions of vehicles (Corporation of the
District of North Vancouver, 2014).
British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (2012) state
the cost of a diamond, partial cloverleaf, trumpet, or directional interchange, in an
urban environment is between $22.0 million to $35.3 million. Highway
improvement strategies throughout Alberta suggest the average interchange cost
on the Trans-Canada Highway $40 million (Stantec, 2008).
Eleven Media Group (2015) details some extreme costs of an interchange
proposal that leads to a rejection. The data shows the need for government
funding to cover costs is a must for the construction of a new interchange, and
can be received at levels from private, to the federal government, as supported
by Smith (2013) and Shafran and Strauss-Wider (2003). The Washington State
Department of Transportation (2004) and the Corporation of the District of North
Vancouver (2014) have concluded there are multiple factors that influence
26
interchange pricing, including soil type and site conditions. This data is valuable
when comparing costs of interchanges when trying to relate one to another;
however, it is a difficult factor to incorporate into comparisons because soil
conditions are usually not explained in the cost during the proposals.
The Transportation Research Board (1991) states tight urban diamond
interchanges are typically 250 feet to 350 feet in length, and urban diamond
interchanges are on average 500 feet to 600 feet in length. The width varies, but
is typically 97 feet wide, with 10-foot shoulders, making the total width 117 feet
(Transportation Research Board, 1991). In addition, typical costs for the highway
right-of-ways are $5,000 per acre (McLeod, 2014).
3.4 Funding
According to Infrastructure Canada (2014), the Government of Canada is
committed to investing in Canada’s infrastructure to reduce commuting time,
enhance economic competitiveness, and strengthen trade corridors. The federal
government recognizes infrastructure as the backbone of Canada’s economic
productivity, and is vital to connect people and businesses to the world and
reduce gridlock on the highways. The Trans-Canada Highway Act, as described
by McLeod (2014), states the Federal Government shares the costs equally with
provinces. However, Western Provincial Transportation Ministers Council (2005)
have shown federal transportation investment is declining across Canada, and
local and provincial governments have been forced to pick up the differing costs
to keep up with the demand.
27
Funding ranges from private investors to federal government to help with
the large cost of construction (Shafran & Strauss-Wieder, 2003). As seen from
the Phillips Avenue interchange proposal, the project received funding from the
Canadian Federal Government, the Government of British Columbia, the North
Vancouver District, and private partners of Kinder Morgan (Corporation of the
District of North Vancouver, 2014).
Western Provincial Transportation Ministers Council (2005) identifies a
shortfall of $57 billion in Canada’s total infrastructure, and in Western Canada,
40-45% of unfunded infrastructure needs are in roads, interchanges, and traffic
controls. Furthermore, they state social programs consume the majority of
government spending, and transportation projects must compete with other
municipal projects for limited infrastructure funds.
3.4.1 Federal Funding
The Government of Canada supports highway improvement in multiple
ways. Through Infrastructure Canada programs such as the Building Canada
Fund, federal investments support projects that improve the capacity and safety
of core National Highway System routes, rehabilitate highway and bridge assets
and provide Intelligent Transportation Systems. Under the Major Infrastructure
Component of the Building Canada Fund, the core National Highway System is
one of five national priorities, which includes the Trans-Canada Highway
(Government of Canada, 2012b).
2014 New Building Canada Plan
The 2014 New Building Canada Plan provides stable funding for a 10-year
28
period. It includes the Community Improvement Fund, consisting of the Gas Tax
Fund and the incremental Goods and Services Tax Rebate for Municipalities,
which provides over $32 billion to municipalities for projects such as roads, public
transit and recreational facilities, and other community infrastructure
(Infrastructure Canada, 2014).
Under the Gas Tax Fund, Alberta will receive $219.1 million in 2016-17,
and $1.08 billion from 2014-15 to 2018-19. Currently, there is a $14 billion New
Building Canada Fund, which consists of a $4 billion National Infrastructure
Component (NIC) that will support projects of national significance. In addition,
there is a $10 billion Provincial-Territorial Infrastructure Component (PTIC) for
projects of national, regional and local significance. Of this amount, $1 billion is
dedicated to projects in communities with a population of fewer than 100,000
residents (Infrastructure Canada, 2014).
Infrastructure Stimulus Fund
Announced in January 2009 as part of Canada's Economic Action Plan,
the $4 billion Infrastructure Stimulus Fund supports over 4,000 projects as a
short-term boost to the Canadian economy during a period of global recession.
Through this fund, Infrastructure Canada focuses on improving, renewing and
rehabilitating existing infrastructure and new infrastructure projects. Investment
categories include, water, wastewater, transit, roads, culture, parks and trails,
and community services (Infrastructure Canada, 2011).
By providing up to 50 per cent in federal funding for projects, the
Infrastructure Stimulus Fund was able to leverage funding from other partners.
29
These include provinces, territories, municipalities and not-for-profit
organizations, resulting in a greater boost for the Canadian economy.
To help provide sufficient time for some projects to be completed, the
Government of Canada extended the deadline for completion of Infrastructure
Stimulus Fund projects by one full construction season, to October 31, 2011.
Provincial –Territorial Base Fund (Infrastructure Canada, 2011) The Provincial – Territorial Base Fund provides each province and territory
with funding of $25 million per year, over seven years after submitting a capital
plan containing a list of initiatives for federal cost sharing
The Canada Infrastructure Strategic Fund (CISF) (Infrastructure Canada, 2011) The Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund provided $4.3 billion for large-scale
infrastructure projects in support of sustaining the economic growth and
enhancing the quality of life for Canadians. Investment categories include
highways and railways, location transportation, tourism and urban development,
water and sewage, and broadband telecommunications (Infrastructure Canada,
2011). The Government of Canada contributed up to a maximum of 50 per cent
of total eligible costs. Projects were typically chosen according to regional and
national infrastructure priorities, in consultation with provinces and territories.
Of the $4.3 billion originally allocated to the CSIF, approximately $50 million has
been transferred to Parks Canada to support a high priority infrastructure project.
Infrastructure Canada Program (Infrastructure Canada, 2011)
The Infrastructure Canada Program provided $2.05 billion in funding for
urban and rural municipal infrastructure projects that protect the environment and
30
support long-term community and economic growth. Local governments
identified proposed projects for funding according to their priorities. To help meet
local needs, funding was allocated to each province and territory based on each
jurisdiction's population and unemployment rate. In most cases, the Government
of Canada provided up to one-third of the cost of each municipal infrastructure
project.
Building Canada Fund – Communities Component (Infrastructure Canada, 2011)
The Communities Component of the Building Canada Fund targets
projects in communities with populations of less than 100,000. The Fund
recognizes the unique infrastructure needs of Canada's smaller communities and
focuses on projects that meet environmental, economic and quality of life
objectives. Originally a $1 billion fund, Canada's Economic Action Plan expanded
the Communities Component fund with a top-up of $500 million. The program
has funded more than 1,400 smaller-scale projects that improve water,
wastewater, public transit, local roads and other types of community
infrastructure.
3.4.2 Provincial Funding
Despite government financial commitments, Alberta Infrastructure and
Transportation estimates that the percentage of provincial highways in poor
condition will increase from 11.2 percent to 18.5 over 4 years (PROLOG Canada
Inc., 2005). With a focus on major cities such as Calgary and Edmonton, Alberta
Government has recently announced a one-time, $3.0 billion infrastructure
capital spending program for Alberta’s municipalities, dedicating $1.0 billion each
31
for Calgary and Edmonton (PROLOG Canada Inc., 2005). Provincial and local
governments have been forced to pick up an increasing share of transportation
investment and, nominal spending has become stagnant. In Alberta, the 5-year
investment requirement for highways, local roads and transit is $6.3 billion. $2.4
billion, or 40% of this, is unfunded (Western Provincial Transportation Ministers
Council, 2005).
Alberta Transportation Capital Plan The Alberta Transportation’s capital plan aims to invest over $9.3 billion
over the next 5 years to build and repair roads and bridges to help foster
economic growth and transportation safety and reliability. This includes $1.3
billion for urban, rural and regional transit to connect communities and help the
people of Alberta get where they want to go. In addition, the plan provides $305
million for municipal transit initiatives to support regional and urban transit
(Government of Alberta, 2017).
Alberta Municipal Infrastructure Program
The Alberta Municipal Infrastructure Program began in 2005 to assist
municipalities in addressing their municipal capital infrastructure needs by
providing financial assistance for core capital municipal infrastructure projects
(Government of Alberta, 2017).
Strategic Transportation Infrastructure Program (STIP)
Projects under the Strategic Transportation Infrastructure Program (STIP)
allow municipalities to develop and maintain key transportation infrastructure to
promote economic growth and improve mobility. A total of $35 million in
32
new funding for STIP is available for 2017-18 (Government of Alberta, 2017).
Factors that contribute to the rating of each project include: basic need, safety,
functionality, implications for the overall transportation network, the current
condition of the infrastructure, total traffic volumes, truck traffic volumes, cost
effectiveness and efficiency, economic, social, environmental or innovation
benefits, use of alternate sources to fund the project (Government of Alberta,
2017).
Basic Municipal Transportation Grant (BMGT)
The BMTG provides financial assistance for developing and maintaining
capital transportation infrastructure requirements. It promotes economic growth,
and improving quality of community life. The BMGT provides annual allocation-
based funding for capital construction and rehabilitation of local transportation
infrastructure including roads, bridges, and public transit for all Alberta cities,
towns, villages, summer villages, counties and municipal districts (Government of
Alberta, 2017).
3.5 Congestion
Traffic congestion seems to be the leading issues for road design
proposals; it is the root of all other problems. Reducing traffic congestion pairs
with reducing emissions, increasing traffic flow by reducing delays, and creating
seamless connections from location to location (Shafran, & Strauss-Wieder,
2003). Studies have shown congestion levels are on a rise, and have been for
the past 30 years, and even the smaller locations are having difficulties keeping
up with rising traffic demands (Federal Highway Administration, 2013).
33
Congestion was seen to be a major issue only during peak hours of the
day, but the Federal Highway of Administration (2013) has found congestion is
affecting multiple trips throughout the day, with still 40% longer trip duration
during peak hours (see Figure 10). In the course of 30 years, the number of
hours one might encounter congestion a day has doubled, from 3.5 hours to 7
hours a day (Federal Highway Administration, 2013).
Figure 10 Peak Period Travel Time Index
Many cities are experiencing rapid growth, and this growth is increasing
traffic volume and the cities are unable to move the capacity efficiently. Some
cities will be experiencing a 60% increase in population over the next 30 years
(Lalonde, 2009). An increase in traffic compromises pedestrian and vehicle
safety, and interchanges can provide separation between the two, limiting
incidents (Lalonde, 2007). In addition, interchanges can provide increased safety
for vehicles by reducing the likeliness of rear-ending someone due to differences
in speed (Corporation of the District of North Vancouver, 2014). Interchanges
reduce bottlenecking and reduce the proximity of vehicles, keeping a steady flow
Source: Federal Highway Administration, 2013
34
of traffic and decreasing the likeliness of impacts (Shafran & Strauss-Wieder,
2003). On the other hand, Shen et al (2013) claim interchanges can cause an
increase in incidents with larger trucks, in which collisions with structural support
columns can occur.
The City of Vancouver (2013), Corporation of the District of North Vancouver
(2014), Whitten (1931), and Lalonde (2009) detailed specifics about the cost,
location, funding, and future considerations for interchanges in various locations,
and provide digital renderings for visualization. Their research agrees with Scott
(2013), City of Chuzhou (2010), Devex (2009) that the primary reasons for
interchange proposals is congestion, traffic flow, and safety. The studies have
linked traffic congestion with time of day, and further shown increased travel
times into the future. Travel time is becoming unreliable because of congestion
issues and causing an increase in fuel consumption, leading to an increase in
gas emissions (Federal Highway Administration, 2013).
3.6 Traffic Controls
3.6.1 Traffic Control Lights
Traffic control lights can be an effective way to control an intersection, if
used properly. The timing of traffic control lights can either make a smooth
flowing intersection, or create an inefficient one and lead to accidents and
congestion (Washington State Department of Transportation, 2015). If they are
not programmed correctly, they can create unnecessary intersection delay, and
cause drivers to avoid the intersection entirely (Arizona Department of
35
Transportation, n.d.). According to the Federal Highway Administration (2013),
poor traffic light timing contributes to 5% of overall congestion (see Figure 11).
Figure 11 Contributions to Congestion
Traffic control lights can benefit vehicle and pedestrian safety, as well as
create issues. With the stopping and starting of vehicles, it increases the chances
of rear-ending another vehicle (Arizona Department of Transportation, n.d.). On
the other hand, traffic control lights have been known to reduce broad side
collisions of vehicles (City of Regina, 2015). Traffic engineers tend to trade-off on
increase in rear end collisions to more severe broad side accidents, however, if
the intersection has no severe incidents, then the trade-off is for nothing, and
traffics control lights can decrease the overall safety of that intersection (Arizona
Department of Transportation, n.d.).
Source: Federal Highway Administration, 2013
36
Traffic control lights can increase pedestrian safety as they can stop high
flows of traffic when they need to cross, making it safer (Arizona Department of
Transportation, n.d.). However, pedestrians increase the risk of being struck
when the light turns yellow and they proceed to cross the same time a vehicle is
trying to make the light before it turns red. Another concern with traffic control
lights is turning right on red lights. If a high flow of pedestrians is crossing the
street, this may inhibit vehicles to turn, resulting in a backup of traffic and
increasing congestion (Federal Highway Administration, 2009).
Traffic control lights can contribute to congestion because of improperly
timed lights and poor location choice (Arizona Department of Transportation,
n.d.). Further studies mention traffic control lights a cause of congestion when
vehicles yield to pedestrians on red lights. Vehicles would normally be able to
proceed with a right hand turn, and high pedestrian flow can prevent the turning
of traffic, leading to congestion (Washington State Department of Transportation,
2004). Traffic lights can benefit and decrease congestion in lower traffic areas, if
correctly timed, and can be a relatively low cost alternative to interchange, at
$90,000 to construct (Arizona Department of Transportation, n.d). The sources
above on traffic control lights have accurate data from multiple Departments of
Transportation, and have agreed on the difficulties and benefits of traffic light
systems. The accuracy of traffic lights affecting collision type may be hard to
determine, as lane numbers, traffic flow, road type, and multiple other factors
such as distracted driving may be an influence.
37
Traffic control lights can result in issues such as traffic delay, traffic
disobedience, and frequency of collisions when poorly designed, ineffectively
placed, improperly operated, or poorly maintained (Federal Highway
Administration, 2009). A loss in efficiency and a lead to congestion and safety
problems can develop when traffic control lights are situated on multi-lane
highways or intersections (American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, 2001).
Despite the negative opinions associated with traffic control lights, they
can be valuable devices when used properly. One or more of the following are
seen as advantages traffic control lights have at intersections (Federal Highway
Administration, 2009) provide orderly movement of traffic, increase traffic
handling capacity, reduce frequency of certain types of crashes; especially right-
angle collisions, and allow pedestrians to cross heavy traffic.
3.6.2 Interchanges
Research from Hampton (2005) describes interchanges as providing an
interface on highways to help control congestion, safety, mobility, and improve
highway efficiency. The criteria for interchange construction rely on safety, cost,
operations, constructability, and environmental consideration (UMA Engineering
Ltd., 2007). Leisch and Morrall (2014) expand on this idea by mentioning the four
considerations for interchange selection are location, road type, traffic volume,
and right-of-way availability and cost.
38
Sources, such as Voigt (2012) and Corporation of the District of North
Vancouver (2014), agree interchanges improve vehicle safety, but are
challenged by Shen, Quin, Wehbe, Pei, & Tigges (2013) who have noted the
high risk in large truck crashes. Previous studies have determined reasons vary
upon project, but all consider safety issues as a leading factor caused by high
traffic, which in turn result in increasing issues of vehicle emission pollution
(Shafran and Strauss-Wider, 2003).
Van Horne Institute’s (2004) research support Western Provincial
Transportation Ministers Council (2005), Berezanski (2004), Hampton (2005),
and PROLOG Canada Inc. (2005) studies by concluding adequate capital
investment, road rehabilitation, and upgrades are directly related to interchanges,
and analyses of provincial traffic accidents have shown vehicle collisions reduced
by 44%.
Multiple sources agree with Smith (2013), and gained further support from
Lalonde (2009), City of Vancouver (2013), and Scott (2013) that congestion and
traffic flow are a key factor for interchange proposals. The Government of Alberta
Ministry of Transportation (2014 & 2015) and the Government of Canada (2011b)
agree with the sources about the requirements of interchange proposals relating
to congestion and traffic flow. Information provided directly from the city is
deemed as reliable, and is further supported from TransCanada Overpasses
(2010), which provides public opinion and justification for construction.
Interchanges range in design from simple to complex, and vary in length and
width depending on their intended purpose. They range between two and eight
39
lanes, and average 6 meters in vertical ground clearance. These numbers can
differ greatly, and are often seen between ranges of 4.5 meters to 10 meters
vertical clearances (Government of Alberta Ministry of Transportation, 2015).
3.6.3 Innovative Designs
Advanced Transportation Solutions (2017) has mentioned multiple ways to
address traffic issues using innovative designs. Superstreets, diverging diamond
interchanges, roundabouts, and continuous flow intersections are some
innovative designs that are effective in different locations. The characteristics of
the existing road network play an important role in deciding the appropriate
design.
Superstreet: A Superstreet is an intersection design that reduces signal
phases and improves traffic flow for the major direction. In a Superstreet, the
major roadway allowed to make all the movements directly at the minor roadway.
However, from the minor roadway, traffic will be forced to make a right turn onto
the major roadway with no direct through or left turn movements allowed. To
complete those movements, traffic will need to make a U-turn at a median
opening of the intersection and then return to the minor roadway intersection to
complete the desired movement. All movements are signalized in the
Superstreet. Operationally, superstreets have two major advantages. First, all
traffic signals have just two phases. This allows a higher percentage of green
time for each phase as well as a reduction of the overall cycle length. The
second advantage is that signals in the eastbound direction are independent
40
from signals in the westbound direction. This results in each direction acting as
one-way streets that can have “perfect” signal progression.
Diverging Diamond Interchange: The diverging diamond is another
innovative design for transportation issues. From any direction, the design is
symmetrical on all sides, as the highway enters the interchange; a right exit is
provided for the "right turns". Then the highway crosses over or under the
opposing traffic of the same highway, so that traffic is now on the left side of the
road. After the crossover, a direct left exit is given for the "left turns". The
highway then crosses over or under both directions of the cross highway. It then
receives the "left turns" of the cross highway from a left entrance ramp. After
receiving this traffic, the highway crosses over or under the opposing highway of
the same highway again to get on the right side of the road. Lastly, the highway
receives the "right turns" from the cross highway.
Roundabouts: Successful roundabouts come in all shapes and sizes.
Some have as few as three legs and others as many as six. There are small,
simple mini roundabouts, and larger, more complex multilane
roundabouts. However, regardless of size, circular shape, or number of legs, the
fundamental and essential characteristics of all roundabouts include,
counterclockwise flow, entry yield control, and low speed (U.S. Department of
Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 2017).
Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI): A continuous flow intersection is
another design that provides location to the general problems of congestion and
road efficiency. A CFI removes the left-turning vehicles from the main
41
intersection and directs them to a separate roadway running parallel to the main
lanes. This design allows more green time for the major traffic flows (Texas A&M
Transportation Institute, n.d.).
Ring-roads: Ring roads are an increasingly common method used to
address intersections issues associated with highway efficiency and traffic flow.
According to Focus Corporation (2011), ring roads are an excellent method to
eliminate stop and go traffic, and release capacity of city roads. They re-route
traffic around urban areas, typically near the boundaries of the city to allow for
expansion. There design is a freeway status, with free flow traffic and posted
speed limits appropriate for highway conditions. Ring roads are flexible in route
selection, and aim to provide the best overall solution to meet traffic demands
(Focus Corporation, 2011).
Complete Streets: Complete streets are a relatively new design approach
in addressing multiple transportation issues. Smart Growth America (2017)
describes complete streets as a design that integrates people and place in the
planning, design, operation, and maintenance of transportation networks. This
ensures streets are safe for people of all ages and abilities, and balance the
needs of different modes, and support local land use, economies, cultures, and
natural environments. The City of Calgary (2014) supports the use of complete
streets and its effectiveness in creating more livable neighborhoods. They
improve safety for all road users, provide infrastructure for a range of
transportation, provide attractive streetscapes, and promote economic well being
of both businesses and residents.
42
3.6.4 Road Categories
According to Eppell, Bunker, and McClurg (2011), roads can be
categorized into four major categories based on function and design: arterial, sub
arterial, collector, and local. They state arterial roads carry long distance through
traffic external to specific areas; sub arterial roads carry through traffic between
specific areas; collector streets provide connectivity between environmental cells
and serve property access; and local streets provide direct property access.
Within these four functional categories, Eppell, Bunker, and McClurg (2011) sub
categorize them based on management levels (see Figure 12): highway, arterial,
arterial main, traffic distributor, controlled distributor, sub arterial main street,
major collector, minor collector, access street, and access place.
Figure 12 Road Categories
Source: Eppell, Bunker, and McClurg, 2011
43
Alberta Infrastructure (1999) expands on the road hierarchy by stating
traffic movement is a primary consideration on arterial roads, and direct access
from private property and other roads is permitted, but controlled. Traffic
movement and local access is of equal importance on collector streets. Lastly, for
local streets, land access is the primary consideration, and traffic movement is
secondary.
Frontage Roads
Frontage Roads are a major component to highways and other major
arterial roads. They are used to control access to the arterial road, function as a
street facility serving adjoining properties, and maintain traffic connectivity and
circulation on each side of the arterial road (American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, 2011). Frontage roads are most frequently
used on along highways, where their primary function is to distribute and collect
traffic between local streets and the highway. They not only provide a more
favorable access for commercial and residential development, but also help
preserve the capacity and reduce crashes. Typically, a minimum space of 50
meters between the arterial and frontage road is desirable in an urban area
(American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2011).
Despite the advantages of using frontage roads on arterial roads, they
may become undesirable on relatively high roads with intersections. Along cross
streets, the various through and turning movements can increase crash rates
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2011).
44
Multiple types of frontage road designs aim to address specific needs of a
location. One-way frontage roads are much preferred than two-way from an
operational and safety standpoint, and work well along arterials with slow-moving
traffic (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
2011). Two-way frontage roads are considered for partially developed urban
areas, where the adjoining street systems are so irregular and disconnected that
one-way operation would add travel distance and inconvenience.
Figure 13 Frontage Roads
Under Alberta Infrastructure’s (2011) classification system, frontage roads
are classified as a local road, which defines as land access a primary
consideration, and traffic movement secondary. On the other hand, frontage
roads defined by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (2001) is to maintain connectivity and collect and distribute traffic.
Eppell, Bunker, and McClurg (2011) strengthen the American Association of
Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2001
45
State Highway and Transportation Official’s argument saying frontage roads
provide local property access, collect local traffic, and provide access to adjacent
properties and local areas.
The literature has shown there are many methods to address
transportation issues, and the most effective method is based on characteristics
of the location and the overall intent of the road. In additional, funding influences
the decision greatly, and can be collected from numerous federal and provincial
programs. Lastly, population, road design, and total vehicles play an important
role in road capacity, and are leading contributors to issues of congestion and
highway inefficiency.
46
4.0 DATA AQUISITON AND ANALYTICAL METHODS
The data acquisition and analytical methods for this project use a
qualitative and quantitative approach. Road design and mitigation techniques are
dependent on the variables of its location, and the determining factors are
represented through statistics, case studies, and comparisons of results. This
study focuses on road design and different techniques used to mitigate
congestion and improve highway efficiency. Medicine Hat’s 6th Street SW and
16th Street SW intersections with be analyzed to determine which technique is
most effective and will improve Medicine Hat’s highway efficiency and congestion
problems.
This research uses multiple online sources ranging from public forums to
census statistics, and a large number of interchange proposals. Gathering the
information from ten cities located in Canada, United States, and around the
world, this study compares population, vehicles per person, and traffic issues
during the year of the city’s proposals. Supporting evidence of reasons behind
interchange proposals from online articles span from 1931 to 2015. This analysis
focuses on location, design, cost, purpose, and public opinion and relates this
information with interchanges, traffic control lights, congestion, and highway
efficiency.
4.1 Highway Efficiency
The first item to look at is highway efficiency. The following documents
were gathered from municipal, provincial, and federal websites and examined the
qualities of an efficient highway:
47
Alberta Transportation Advantage
Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure
Western Canada Transportation Infrastructure Strategy for an Economic
Network
New Highway 1 interchange opens in Medicine Hat
Transportation in Canada 2015
City of Medicine Hat Roadway Systems Master Plan
National Highway Policy for Canada
Case studies contributing to inefficient highways from various locations
across the globe were reviewed and compared with one another to determine
any pattern in highway congestion. A collection of interchange proposals and
infrastructure maintenance documents from Canada, the United States, and
other countries were the source of data regarding methods used to address
congestion issues and promote highway efficiency.
Additional online sources such as Infrastructure Canada, Transportation
Association of Canada, Alberta Infrastructure, Alberta Budget, Canadian Council
of Motor Transportation Administrators, and Transport Canada were used to
determine costs and funding for infrastructure proposals such as an interchange.
Data gathered from Alberta engineering companies was used to help determine
roadway construction prices, as well as maintenance costs and projected
interchange costs. Data from the National Highway System (NHS) for the Trans-
Canada Highway was used to determine if Medicine Hat’s section of the highway
48
was in the requirements of a NHS, and further aided as support to address the
issues of the two intersections.
4.2 Congestion
To identify congestion, online sources and case studies were used to
quantify the following characteristics using the giving measurements:
Traffic flow (vehicles per hour)
Travel time (minutes and seconds from point A to B)
Traffic density (vehicles per km)
Highway capacity (cars per hour per lane)
Road design (number of lanes, road type, speed limit)
Vehicle capacity (vehicles per person)
Population (persons)
Population growth (% of population increase)
Each factor is vital in the study of congestion and the purpose of this research
because no single variable is the cause for congestion, and some may be more
influential than others. Many of these factors are related and a result of one
another. Traffic flow and traffic density can be a result of road design and
population. Highway capacity is a pre-determined factor and can play a pivotal
role on travel time, traffic flow, and traffic density. Time of day must be
considered to account for peak rush hour times, in which congestion can
commonly be seen (Federal Highway Administration, 2013).
Studying these factors of roadways allow us to measure data and give
particular values of vehicle capacity for highway congestion. Once the values
49
were calculated, an analysis of Medicine Hat’s roadway was completed, and the
results were compared to determine if Medicine Hat’s Trans-Canada Highway
intersections are congested. Statistics Canada and multiple government websites
were used as sources for the collection of data for Medicine Hat for a consistent
source throughout the years.
4.3 Mitigation Techniques
Interchanges, traffic lights, and innovative designs such as superstreets
and roundabouts where analyzed on the effectives they provide any particular
locations, as well as frontage roads and their design on how they impact the
surrounding land use and connectivity.
Mitigation technique selection relies on the available land, surrounding
context, cost, and characteristics of the location. Numerous types of mitigation
techniques using online sources and proposals were studied to help determine
the most appropriate technique for Medicine Hat’s two locations. The goals and
visions of the Trans-Canada Highway for Medicine Hat, Alberta, and Canada
were considered to aid in the best-suited type.
Highway data from the province of Alberta and engineering companies
was used to determine Medicine Hat characteristics and which technique would
best suit 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections. Analyzing traffic
statistics, such has vehicle crash reports and incidents, vehicle flow, and vehicle
volume, it provided a better understanding of Medicine Hat’s traffic
characteristics and the functionality different mitigation techniques might have.
50
4.4 Policies
Government documents and legislature, such as Medicine Hat’s
Municipal Development Plan, Alberta Infrastructure Frameworks, and Transport
Canada Overview Reports were analyzed to determine any policies and land
use.
A previous proposal for a similar interchange scenario regarding Medicine
Hat’s Trans-Canada Highway and Dunmore Road intersection was analyzed to
understand the local procedures taken for the success of the previous
interchange. Further comparisons of the Trans-Canada Highway and Dunmore
Road interchange, Trans-Canada Highway and 6th Street SW intersection, and
Trans-Canada Highway and 16th Street SW intersection provided data on the
steps, procedures, and credibility of an interchange at the two problematic
intersections.
4.5 Vehicle Capacity
A calculation was completed from gathered statistics on the capacity of
vehicles at which mitigation proposals occurs and determined when congestion
starts to form. The formula looked at the population during the time of the
interchange proposal and multiplied it by the national average of vehicles per
person for its location. Charts and graphs were created of this information and
allows for comparison with Medicine Hat’s data.
Statistics from the years 2001 through 2016 were used to perform
calculations for the year 2016. Total number of vehicles were calculated for the
year 2016 using known variables of population, total vehicles, total households,
51
and vehicles per households and compared with the previous Dunmore Road
and Trans-Canada Highway interchange. Analyzing the total vehicles for the year
2006 allowed us to determine Medicine Hat’s guidelines for an interchange
proposal at a Trans-Canada Highway location. Comparing this will the calculated
total vehicles for 2016 provided valuable information on the requirements and
justification for interchange proposals for the 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW
locations, as they are situated in similar settings along the Trans-Canada
Highway.
4.6 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW Intersection Recommendations
Once research was complete, a mitigation technique was selected that
proved to be the most effective and opportunistic for Medicine Hat’s Trans-
Canada Highway and 16th Street SW, and Trans-Canada Highway and 6th Street
SW. Digitizing software and 3D modeling software was used to help visualize the
data on a base map of Medicine Hat. Using ArcGIS software, specifically
ArcCatalog and ArcMap Pro, maps were created to show speed limit variations
and travel times along the Trans-Canada Highway. Shapefiles as polylines and
polygons were created for the different speed limits and lane directions, and
digitized to the corresponding imagery of the Trans-Canada Highway (See
Figures 15 & 16). Google’s SketchUP was used to model current 6th Street SW
and 16th Street SW intersections, as well interchange concepts at each location.
Land use of the surrounding areas was included to provide further context of the
area.
52
Tables, figures, and maps were created to better organize the data for
simple comparison, as well as a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and
Threats (SWOT) analysis of the current intersections. The SWOT analysis was
completed using previous case studies and online studies on issues that may
arise if problems are not addressed, how mitigation techniques can benefit and
impact the location, and the benefits and consequences of doing nothing at these
intersections
Figure 14 ArcCatalog New Shapefile
Figure 15 ArcCatalog New Shapefile
53
5.0 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
5.1 Dunmore Road Interchange
Medicine Hat’s Dunmore Road and Trans-Canada Highway interchange
was proposed in 2007. The census statistics reveal Medicine Hat’s population at
this time was 56,997, with a total number of households of 23,641(Government
of Canada, 2012b). In 2006, the total motor vehicles were recorded at 49,411, a
3% increase from 2001 census, with a rate of 2.09 motor vehicles per household
(Community Foundation of Medicine Hat & Southern Alberta, 2012). This
suggests that Medicine Hat’s vehicle capacity at the time of the Dunmore Road
and Trans-Canada Highway interchange proposal was 49,411. Population has
increased by 9.05% over the course of 10 years, and as population increases,
number of households increases, and number of vehicles increases
(Government of Canada, 2012b; Government of Canada, 2017a).
Table 3 Interchange Comparisons
Sources: Smith (2013), Revill (2014), Washington State Department of Transportation (2012)
54
Medicine Hat’s Dunmore Road interchange has turned up results
comparable to other interchange proposals (see Table 3). Its design is a simple
four-lane diamond interchange across the TransCanada Highway and Dunmore
Road, with a vertical height of 4.5 meters (see Figure 14) (Government of
Alberta Ministry of Transportation, 2015). Its key purpose was to decrease
congestion on the TransCanada Highway and allow a more efficient flow of traffic
in the east-west direction, with an inclusion of traffic lights adjunct to the ramps
making it safer to cross below (Smith, 2013).
The city received provincial funding from the Government of Alberta
towards the interchange project (Smith, 2013). The cost of the project was
$18.71 million, with additional costs for management totaling $23 million (Revell,
2014). The only significant difference with Medicine Hat’s interchange compared
to others is a cheaper cost.
Figure 17 Dunmore Road Interchange
Source: Google Images, 2015
55
3.8 Community Values 3.8.1 Smart Growth Strategy
Medicine Hat focuses on three key principles of the Smart Growth
Strategy, adopted in 2007 (City of Medicine Hat, 2012):
Encourage the design of compact, well-designed, mixed-use
neighborhoods.
Support growth in existing residential communities while fostering unique
neighborhood identities.
Foster alternative transportation options and infrastructure systems that
are sustainable including city streets, the public transit system, bike
paths and multiuser trails.
3.8.2 Sustainability
Medicine Hat visions sustainable transportation, and the community’s
economic and social wellbeing depends on the transportation system to be safe,
clean, and able to efficiently move people and goods. The key principles for
sustainable transportation is to integrate transportation and land use planning,
support economic development, plan cost effective project, and manage the
supply and demand of transportation (Associated Engineering, 2013).
Principles of Medicine Hat’s Municipal Development Plan are as follows (City of
Medicine Hat, 2012):
A great place to live
A prosperous economy
56
A vibrant community center
A connected community
A beautiful community
A healthy community
A green and sustainable community
A well-serviced community
3.8.3 Transportation Goals
Medicine Hat strives for a connected community capable of moving goods
and people efficiently throughout the city and its region. Creating efficient major
roadways to foster economic development, designing complete, safe and visually
appealing streets for residents, and connecting people to the destinations that
they need to reach are all vital to Medicine Hat (City of Medicine Hat, 2012). The
City of Medicine Hat (2012) outlines their goals for transportation in their most
current municipal development plan:
Policy 5.4.1 General
(a) To achieve a well-connected city, land use planning, urban design and
transportation planning should be closely integrated.
(b) The planning and design of development across the city should be based
on supporting a transportation hierarchy that gives priority to passenger
transportation options in the following order:
(i) Pedestrians and cyclists;
(ii) Transit; and
(iii) Single occupant vehicles.
57
(c) The City of Medicine Hat should support initiatives that provide for the
mobility of all residents by ensuring that accessibility and inclusion are
considered in the planning and design of all urban transportation
facilities, including transit.
Policy 5.4.2 Complete Streets
(a) The City of Medicine Hat will plan, construct, operate and maintain the
roadway system in a manner that promotes safety for the user.
(b) Roads should be planned and designed as complete streets,
accommodating all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, public transit
and private vehicles, with priority placed on users in accordance with
Policy 5.4.1(b).
(c)In addition to any requirements of the Municipal Servicing Standards, the
following design elements may be considered for new roadways in
Greenfield Areas and when re-designing or re-developing existing
roadways:
(i) Provision for the safe and efficient movement of service and
emergency vehicles;
(ii) Optimizing building frontage (i.e. development facing the
roadway) to provide a safer and more attractive walking
environment for pedestrians;
(iii) Spacing of traffic lights that contributes to a safe pedestrian
environment;
(iv) Access points to residential neighborhoods that are highly
58
visible;
(v) Treed boulevards between sidewalks and traffic lanes that
separate pedestrians from the roadway; and
(vi) In commercial areas, reducing mid-block curb cuts for entry/exit
of vehicles to parking lots to improve pedestrian safety and
reduce road congestion.
(d) The Municipal Servicing Standards roadway hierarchy should be subject
to periodic review and adjusted where necessary as a result of urban
growth, innovations in technology, improvements in financing methods,
or changes in public requirements.
Policy 5.4.3 Major Roadways
(a) Appropriate noise attenuation methods should be used between major
roadways and adjacent residential areas.
(b) The requirements for truck movements to, from and within the city will
continue to be recognized in the planning and maintenance of the
roadway network. Designated truck routes should minimize, as far as
practical, negative influences on established residential areas.
Dangerous goods routes must balance the interests of the trucking
industry and businesses with those of the community and immediately
adjacent neighborhoods.
(c)The integrity of the TransCanada Highway through Medicine Hat should
be protected by controlling access pursuant to the Memorandum of
Agreement Between Alberta Infrastructure and the City of Medicine Hat
59
for the Transfer of Title for the TransCanada Highway (Highway 1) and
Crowsnest Trail (Highway 3) from the City to the Province.
(d) The City should continue to work with Alberta Transportation with the
objective that in matters dealing with the TransCanada Highway and
other provincial highways, provision is made for the safe, efficient and
effective transportation of people and goods, and provincial decisions
respect and help to implement this Plan, and other municipal plans.
Planning within the city’s boundaries will continue to take into account
the future TransCanada bypass, as depicted in Schedule B, and its
potential impacts on the city.
5.2 Population
Results calculated with census data (Table 4) have shown the total
number of vehicles in Medicine Hat for the year 2016 is approximately 56,401.
This is significantly higher than the 2006 total of 49,411 total vehicles when the
Dunmore Road and Trans-Canada Highway interchange was proposed
(Community Foundation of Medicine Hat & Southern Alberta, 2012). The most
recent average vehicles per household for Medicine Hat, which is 2.09, is higher
than the province of Alberta’s, at 2.06 (Community Foundation of Medicine Hat &
Southern Alberta, 2012).
60
Table 4 Medicine Hat Demographics
. Demographics in Medicine Hat have increased significantly over the past
years; population has increased by 19% from 2001 to 2016, total vehicles
increased 26%, and total households by 24% (Government of Canada, 2012b;
Government of Canada, 2017a; Community Foundation of Medicine Hat &
Southeastern Alberta, 2012).
5.3 Road design Road designs are important when addressing transportation problems because
they are dependent on location. Road designs will work different in various
locations, and are based on the relative location of centers of population, commerce,
industry, and transportation (Benson and Lay, 2017). Traffic between two centers is
proportional to their populations and inversely proportional to the distance
between them. Effective road designs consider road needs and transport options;
planning a system to meet those needs; designing an economically, socially, and
environmentally acceptable set of roads; obtaining the required approval and
Sources: Government of Canada, 2012b; Government of Canada, 2017a; Community Foundation of Medicine Hat & Southeastern Alberta, 2012
61
financing; building, operating, and maintaining the system; and providing for
future extensions and reconstruction (Benson and Lay, 2017).
5.3.1 Shortfall Designs
Research shows that many designs can aid in transportation. However,
Medicine Hat’s inefficient intersection and highway design need to meet the
requirement of the National highway System, and the following innovative
designs do not meet the requirements set by the federal government.
Superstreets do not provide free flow traffic. Roundabouts are not capable of
producing the minimum 90 km/h posted speed limits. Continuous flow
intersections do not allow free flow traffic.
5.3.2 Qualifying Designs
Ring Roads
Only one previous study done provides information on transportation
through Medicine Hat. Associated Engineering (2013) has shown a concept of a
ring road around the City of Medicine Hat to provide a bypass of the city and help
disperse traffic on the Trans-Canada Highway (see Figure 18). The intent of the
ring road was to get the City and the neighboring communities thinking about
long-range roadway connectivity irrespective of City, Town or County
Boundaries. It is has not yet been presented to the public, and is a very
conceptual work that will become more of a consideration in 50 to 100 years
(Associated Engineering, 2013).
62
Figure 18 Medicine Hat Ring Road Concept
Interchanges
Research has shown interchanges provide an excellent solution in
addressing the issues of the 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections
along the Trans-Canada Highway. They are capable of meeting the requirements
of the National Highway System, and have multiple designs to meet the
specifications of Medicine Hat’s 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections.
Complete Streets
Medicine Hat’s streets around 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW,
specifically the frontage roads and highway, are not complete streets as
Source: Associated Engineering, 2013
63
described by Smart Growth America. They do not provide a balance of safety for
all people, accessibility, or support local land uses and the economy in an
efficient way. The absence of pedestrian cross walks makes it dangerous to
cross the highway, and make it impossible for any individual with a disability. The
complex and time consuming intersections negatively impact the surrounding
land use by making it difficult to get to any destination, and decrease the
efficiency of the highway with long delay times.
Frontage Roads
An analysis of the frontage roads along the Trans-Canada Highway at the 6th
Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections shows the complex designs of each
road and their corresponding intersection. The following list shows the
characteristics of the frontage roads and corresponding intersection:
6th Street SW and Trans-Canada Highway
o Redcliff Drive SW: 2-way frontage road with 2-way stop prior to
multi-phased traffic control lights, access to commercial land use
o Red Deer Drive SW: 2-way frontage road and collector street, multi-
phased traffic control lights, no access to few commercial
properties
16th Street SW and Trans-Canada Highway
o Bomford Crescent SW: 1-way and 2-way frontage road, limited
access to surrounding area, multi-phased traffic control lights
64
o Bullivant Crescent SW: 2-way frontage road / collector street / local
road, direct access to residential communities, multi-phased traffic
control lights
5.2.3 Trans-Canada Highway The Trans-Canada Highway section that runs through Medicine Hat is a
four-lane divided highway spanning 13.4 km (Map 1) (Stantec, 2008). Within the
city limits of Medicine Hat, the posted speed limit is 80 km/h (Stantec, 2008).
Heading west towards the town of Redcliff the speed limit increases to 100 km/h,
before reducing back down to 80 km/h when driving through Redcliff. Heading
east towards the hamlet of Dunmore the speed limit increases to 110 km/h
outside Medicine Hat’s city limits. Once Dunmore is reached, the speed limit
reduces to 80 km/h. Outside the urban areas the designed highway speed is 130
km/h, with a posted speed limit of 110 km/h (Stantec, 2008).
The Trans-Canada Highway is classified as a national highway system
(NHS), which has specific standards set by the Federal Government of Canada
to support inter-provincial and international trade and travel by connecting, as
directly as possible, a capital city, or major provincial population or commercial
center (Government of Canada, 2011b). The National Highway Policy Steering
Committee (1988) lists the following standards for a NHS:
Design Minimum: 2-lane arterial undivided with full shoulders and a
100km/h design speed
Design Maximum: 4-lane rural divided arterial with a 130 km/h design
speed
65
Serviceability (Capacity): provide a minimum operating speed of 90km/h
under free flow conditions (no traffic control lights allowed)
Structural Adequacy (Strength): be capable of providing all weather
service (no seasonal load restrictions) and be capable of carrying the
national standards in vehicle weights and dimensions.
Rideability (comfort): provide a riding comfort index (RCI) of 6.0 or greater.
Medicine Hat’s section of the Trans-Canada Highway currently does not
meet the serviceability (capacity) of a minimum operating speed of 90 km/h, as
well has the free flow standards with no traffic control light intersections (Stantec,
2008). Furthermore, the posted speed limits and traffic control light intersections
are preventing the Trans-Canada Highway in reaching its freeway status goal
(UMA Engineering Ltd., 2007).
66
Map 1 Trans-Canada Highway, Medicine Hat
67
5.3.3 6th Street SW Intersection Design
The Trans-Canada Highway and 6th Street SW intersection is a signalized
intersection with designated left-turn lanes off the highway (see Figures 19 & 20).
The highway has service roads adjacent to it that increase the number of traffic
movements at the intersection (Associated Engineering, 2013). The design
results in the traffic control lights being multi-phased to accommodate the
additional traffic lanes from the service road. The outside shoulder north of the
intersection operates as a makeshift right turning lane in the southeast bound
direction on the Trans-Canada Highway (Associated Engineering, 2013).
Figure 19 6th Street SW Intersection - Aerial
Source: Google Earth, 2010
68
Figure 20 6th Street SW - Streetview
Traffic exiting this intersection primarily accesses the residential area and
hospital east of the highway, and the commercial area southeast of the highway
(Associated Engineering, 2013).
5.3.4 16th Street SW Intersection Design
The Trans-Canada Highway and 16th Street SW intersection is a
signalized intersection with designated left turns off the highway (see Figures 21
& 22). A service road runs adjacent to the highway, with multi-phased traffic
control lights similar to the 6th Street SW intersection (Associated Engineering,
2013). The east leg of the intersection services the Kensington residential area,
Source: Google Earth, 2010
69
and the west leg accesses the light industrial area. The service road intersections
at 16th Street SW in close proximity with the highway intersection results in one
complex signalized intersection (Associated Engineering, 2013).
Figure 21 16th Street SW - Aerial
Source: Google Earth, 2010
70
Figure 22 16th Street SW - Streetview
5.4 Road Capacity
5.4.1 Trans-Canada Highway and 6th Street SW Capacity
The following list from Associated Engineering (2013) shows the operating
capacity of 6th Street SW and the Trans-Canada Highway intersection with their
corresponding road networks:
Highway 1 southeast bound through (LOS E)
Highway 1 southeast bound right turn to 7th Street SW (LOS D)
Highway 1 southeast bound left turn to 6th Street SW (LOS E)
Highway 1 northwest bound through (LOS E)
Highway 1 northwest bound right turn to 6th Street SW (LOS D)
Highway 1 northwest bound left turn to 7th Street SW (LOS E)
Source: Google Earth, 2010
71
7th Street SW through to 6th Street SW (LOS F)
7th Street SW left to northwest bound Highway 1 (LOS F).
Results have determined the Trans-Canada Highway and 6th Street SW
intersection is operating at an average LOS of E, with a total delay of 66.1
seconds (Associated Engineering, 2013).
5.4.2 Trans-Canada Highway and 16th Street SW Capacity
The following list from Associated Engineering (2013) shows the
intersection and lanes of the Trans-Canada Highway and 16th Street SW traffic
and their operating capacity:
16th Street SW westbound through (LOS E)
Highway 1 southeast bound through (LOS F)
Southeast bound Highway 1 to east bound Bullivant Crescent left turn
(LOS D)
Northwest bound Highway 1 to westbound 16th Street SW left turn (LOS
E).
Results show the Trans-Canada Highway and 16th Street SW intersection is
operating at an average LOS of F, with a total delay of 114.4 seconds. Due to the
vicinity of the service roads to the highway, it results in the worst performing
intersection in the city from a capacity, and travel time/delay perspective
(Associated Engineering, 2013).
Summarizing the level of operating service (LOS) for the Trans-Canada
Highway, we can see both 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersection are
operating at unacceptable capacity levels with high delay times (Table 5).
72
Table 5 LOS Medicine Hat Trans-Canada Highway Intersections
5.5 Vehicle Volume and Density
In 2010, the population of Medicine Hat was near 60,000 people
(Government of Canada, 2012b). Majority of the roads were operating within
capacity, as indicated by a volume to capacity ratio (VCR) less than 0.6.
Locations nearing capacity have a VCR greater than 0.85, and include the Trans-
Canada Highway and 16th St SW intersection (Map 2).
The peak volume at the Trans-Canada Highway and 16th Street SW
intersection is greater than 2000 vehicle per hour (VPH), and 1001-1500 VPH at
6th Street and Trans-Canada Highway intersection (Map 3) (Associated
Engineering, 2013). The 6th Street SW intersection is not depicted on the road
network map, but shows signs of congestion that need to be monitored
(Associated Engineering, 2013).
As Medicine Hat approaches a population of 75,000, the peak volume
near 16th St SW expands significantly along the Trans-Canada Highway, and the
Sources: Associated Engineering, 2013
73
6th Street SW intersection VPH raises to 1501-2000 (Associated Engineering,
2013) (Maps 4 & 5).
Traffic volumes on the Trans-Canada Highway is 8,650 vehicles per day
(VPD) west of the Town of Redcliff, and increases significantly inside the City of
Medicine Hat peaking at College Avenue with 32,400 before reducing to 6,550
VPD east of the Hamlet of Dunmore (Stantec, 2008). This suggests that the
Trans-Canada Highway is used for local travel in the Medicine Hat region.
The Trans-Canada Highway has had an increase in traffic both west and
east of Dunmore Road. West of Dunmore Road there was an increase of 25% in
traffic between 2001 and 2007. East of Dunmore on the Trans-Canada Highway
traffic increased over 42% between 2001 and 2007 (Community Foundation of
Medicine Hat & Southeastern Alberta, 2012).
74
Map 2 Volume Capacity Ratio (VCR)
Source: Associated Engineering, 2013
75
Map 3 Peak Volume Per Hour (VPH)
Source: Associated Engineering, 2013
76
Map 4 Volume Capacity Ratio @ 75,000 Population
Source: Associated Engineering, 2013
77
Map 5 Peak Volume Per Hour @ 75,000 Population
Source: Associated Engineering, 2013
78
5.6 Travel Time
Table 6 shows the travel times from the Box Springs Road turnoff to 13th
Avenue, an intersection that connects routes to the inner city and southern
neighborhoods. Map 6 shows the average travel times with the current state of
6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections at 11.6 minutes in the eastern
direction, and 10.4 minutes in the western direction (Associated Engineering,
2013). A scenario from Associated Engineering (2013) was ran and concluded
the closing of the 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections and allowing
free flow traffic would result in a decrease in travel time by 1.0 to 1.3 minutes.
Table 6 Travel Times
Source: Associated Engineering, 2013 (pg 3-11)
79
Map 6 Medicine Hat Travel Times
Source: Associated Engineering, 2013
80
5.7 Funding and Cost
The cost of upgrading current intersection designs and road infrastructure
vary with the projects purpose and characteristics of the location. Canada’s
infrastructure, being the backbone of the country’s economic productivity,
receives funding from the provincial and federal levels of government
(Infrastructure Canada, 2014). Efficient road and highway infrastructure helps
goods get to the markets, connect people and businesses with the world, and
reduce gridlock on our highways (Infrastructure Canada, 2014).
According to the Infrastructure Canada projects, since 2002 Medicine Hat
has received no federal funding for the analysis or mitigation technique to deal
with the intersections of 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections with the
Trans-Canada Highway (Government of Canada, 2017c). In 2011, $2.4 million of
the total cost $4.8 million was funded by the federal government for Trans-
Canada Highway rehabilitation, as well as $400,000 out of a total cost of
$850,000 for resurfacing (Government of Canada, 2017c). In addition, $51,000
out of a total cost of $153,800 was funded for traffic control light synchronization
in 2007 (Government of Canada, 2017c). In total, Medicine Hat has received $20
million in federal funding, divided among 14 projects. As depicted in Figure 23,
highways and roads only see 30% of the incoming funds, with majority focused
on sports (Government of Canada, 2017c).
81
Figure 23 Medicine Hat Federal Funding
In 2011 and 2012, Medicine Hat received $3,711,073 each year through
the Basic Municipal Transportation Grant (BMGT) (Government of Alberta, 2011
and Government of Alberta, 2012). There was a slight increase in grant funding
for the year 2013, with the BGMT funding Medicine Hat $3,716,053 (Government
of Alberta, 2013).
Medicine Hat’s most recently constructed interchange systems allowing
free flow traffic at the east end of the Trans-Canada Highway were constructed in
2004 and 2013. The 2004 interchange at the intersection of 13th Avenue SE was
completely funded by the Alberta Government, with a cost of $10 million (Smith,
2004). The 2013 interchange constructed at the Dunmore Road intersection was
funded and delivered by Alberta Transportation, with a cost of $23 million (Smith,
Source: Government of Canada, 2017c
82
2013). The cost of the diverging diamond interchange was $18.71 million, with
additional management costs of $4.29 million (Revell, 2014).
Construction costs on the Trans-Canada Highway average about $5
million per kilometer when beyond the Kin Coulee valley, with bridge construction
costs of $5,000 per square meter. Right-of-way cost is roughly $5,000 per acres,
and $500,000 per direct development impact (Stantec, 2008). Table 7 shows the
projected costs based on average construction rates in Medicine Hat.
Table 7 Interchange Costs
Using data on construction costs and interchange dimensions, the
projected cost for Medicine Hat to construct interchanges at 6th Street SW and
16th Street SW would be between $14,357,549 and $34,458,026 each. The tight
urban diamond interchange with the minimum average 250-foot length produces
the least cost, and the diamond urban interchange with a maximum average
length of 600-feet cost the greatest.
Sources: Stantec, 2008 and Transportation Research Board, 1991
83
5.8 SWOT Analysis
Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis was
created for the 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections with the Trans-
Canada Highway (Figure 24). The strengths and weaknesses categories focus
on the characteristics of the current state of the intersections and highway, and
the opportunities category centers on the benefits an interchange may provide at
these locations. The threats category focuses on the limitations and potential an
interchange may have on the surrounding area. The analsyis looks at
characterstics associated with highway effeciency, congestion, costs, policies,
and safety.
Figure 23 SWOT Analysis
Little Maintenance No additional costs
Extreme congestion Vehicle collisions Pedestrian Safety Vehicle emissions
Increased economic activity Reduced collisions Pedestrian accessibility &
safety Emissions control NHS freeway status
Prioritization of government funding
Increased maintenance costs Re-routing traffic for
construction
SWOT
84
5.9 Safety
5.9.1 6th Street SW Intersection
The intersection of the Trans-Canada Highway and 6th Street SW
produces 13.3 collisions per year. 49% of these collisions are rear-ends, which is
associated with traffic congestion in the lanes (Associated Engineering, 2013).
Over the course of 7 years, 106 collisions have occurred, varying in collision
type. Table 8 depicts the collision types and number of occurrences each year
(Associated Engineering, 2013). There has been no significant change in the
total number of collisions through the years 2003 and 2010, and the dominant
collision types tend to remain consistent.
Table 8 6th Street SW Intersection Collisions
Sources: Associated Engineering, 2013
85
5.9.2 16th Street SW Intersection The intersection of 16th Street SW and the Trans-Canada Highway results
in 15.6 collisions per year. The most occurring types of collisions are rear-ends,
representing, 40% of the total collisions, right angle representing 10%, and
sideswipes representing 8% (Associated Engineering, 2013). The rear-end
collisions are symptomatic of traffic congestion in through-lanes (Associated
Engineering, 2013). Table 9 shows over the course of 7 years from 2003 to 2010,
a relatively constant 125 collisions have been reported at this intersection
(Associated Engineering, 2013).
Table 9 16th Street SW Intersection Collisions
Sources: Associated Engineering, 2013
86
5.9.3 Pedestrian Safety
Crossing the Highway at the intersections of 6th Street SW and 16th Street
SW as a pedestrian is problematic. Neither intersection has a crosswalk nor is
there a safe way to cross the intersection. A pedestrian bridge is situated near
6th Street SW and allows some public to cross the highway, but accessibility is
limited with stair access only.
87
6.0 DISCUSSSION AND CONCLUSION
This study was intended to show effective solutions for Medicine Hat’s 6th
Street SW intersection and 16th Street SW intersection with the Trans-Canada
Highway to help alleviate the congestion and highway efficiency issues. The
literature reviewed provides multiple techniques as an effective solution to help
mitigate congestion at intersections, and further help improve highway efficiency
(Scott, 2013).
Population growth is directly correlated with vehicle congestion; the more
people, the more vehicles (Downs, 2004). With Medicine Hat’s population at a
growth of over 1% per year, combined with their high vehicle ownership rate of
2.09 per household average, they are well past the typical requirements for
typical mitigation proposals to alleviate traffic congestion at intersections
(Government of Canada, 2011a and Community Foundation of Medicine Hat &
Southern Alberta, 2012).
Comparing vehicle capacity among cities, the total number of vehicles in
Medicine Hat’s is substantially higher. The average number of vehicles in a city
that result in congested intersections along major roadways is 37,512, and
Medicine Hat’s current vehicle capacity is approximately 56,401 (Community
Foundation of Medicine Hat & Southern Alberta, 2012). At the time of their most
recent interchange proposal in 2006, Medicine Hat was still greatly above
average, at a total of 49,411 vehicles. Based on population and vehicle capacity
data, Medicine Hat’s 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections with the
Trans-Canada Highway have the characteristics suitable for an interchange.
88
6.1 Trans-Canada Highway
The Trans-Canada Highway, as a national highway system (NHS), has
specific standards and design requirements it must meet. Medicine Hat’s section
of the Trans-Canada Highway meets the required design lane minimum, which is
two lanes. However, the Government of Canada (2011b) states the minimum
design speed of a two-lane highway is 100 km/h, with a minimum operating
speed of 90 km/h with free flow traffic. The Medicine Hat section of the Trans-
Canada Highway does not meet the design requirements set by the Federal
Government of Canada as a national highway.
The posted speeds of the Trans-Canada Highway throughout Medicine
Hat and surrounding area are random. Driving to Medicine from the outskirts of
the town of Redcliff and hamlet of Dunmore the speed limit is 110 km/h, which is
that standard speed limit across the country (Government of Canada, 2011b).
Inside these areas, the speeds vary from 100 km/h, to 80 km/h, and 110 km/h; it
can be confusing and affects traffic flow from the sudden changes in speed.
Not meeting the requirements of a national highway system provides
further reason to address the 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections.
Addressing Medicine Hat’s congestion issue at these intersections by
constructing interchanges allows the city to meet the requirements a NHS, and
furthermore, aid in the process of the Trans-Canada Highway reaching freeway
status (UMA Engineering Ltd., 2007).
The transport of goods and services, as a key priority for Canada’s
economy, relies greatly on the efficiency of the Trans-Canada Highway
89
(Government of Canada, 2012c). The difficultly for large trucks to stop and start
when traffic is congested increases the congestion even further at a substantial
rate. Furthermore, because of the proximity of these two intersections, extreme
congestion can span from 6th SW Street to 16th Street SW.
Travel times of the Trans-Canada Highway are relatively slow when
compared with the distance and speed limit of the highway. Heading east
through 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW, studies from Associated Engineering
(2013) show over the course of 13.8 km, with a posted speed limit of 80 km/h, it
takes 11.6 minutes heading east; heading west it takes 10.4 minutes. This
converts to an average speed of 71.5 km/h going east, and 79.7 km/h going
west, below the 80 km/h posted speed limit going east, and well below the
minimum 90 km/h requirement speed limit from the National Highway System
(NHS) (Government of Canada, 2011). If the intersections were completely
closed off to create free flow traffic on the highway, it would reduce the travel
times by 1 to 1.3 minutes, which would make the average speed limit 91.4 km/h
west and 80.7 km/h east, with a posted speed limit of 80 km/h; a significant
increase.
As impracticable as closing the intersections are because it means no
access to the surrounding land use, it is an important study to show the impact
free flow traffic can have on the highway in these locations. The associated
Engineering (2013) scenario has shown Medicine Hat’s traffic can reach, and
surpass, the posted speed limit if the highway is converted to free flow. This
means increasing the posted speed limit to 110 km/h would be an efficient way to
90
move traffic knowing the speed could be reached, and the use of an interchange
could provide access to surrounding land use. Furthermore, the requirements of
free flow traffic with a minimum posted speed limit of 90 km/h by the NHS would
be met.
To summarize the characteristics of Medicine Hat’s Trans-Canada
Highway section, there is one major factor that needs to be addressed; it does
not meet the requirements of the National Highway System (NHS). The Federal
Government of Canada has created these standards, and categorized the Trans-
Canada Highway as a NHS because it carries the majority of passengers and
goods in Canada (Minister of Transport, 2016). The highway has a significant
impact on the economy of Canada, and requires fast, efficient, and safe access
to markets (Government of Alberta, 2014). Hundreds of millions of dollars are
lost due to lost time and impeded trade flow from eroding highway transportation
systems and congestion (Van Horne Institute, 2004). It is vital for Medicine Hat to
address the issue of their Trans-Canada Section for the betterment of not only
the local economy, but also provincial and federal economy.
6.2 Innovative Designs
6.2.1 Superstreets
This issue with this design of superstreets for Medicine Hat is that traffic
control signals are located on this segment of the roadway, which does not meet
National Highway System standards. In addition, the superstreet design creates
an issue with the surrounding neighborhoods by not allowing left hand turns on to
the major road, reducing connectivity. If the design followed NHS standards, a
91
superstreet would be a plausible solution to Medicine Hat’s 6th Street SW and
16th Street SW intersection issues.
6.2.2 Diverging Diamond Interchange
The innovative design of a diverging diamond interchange is a plausible
solution to Medicine Hat’s 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW congestion and
highway efficiency problems. It requires less right-of-way than other designs, less
bridge structure, and fewer lanes than other interchange forms. 95% of drivers
felt that there was less congestion using this design than previous diamond
interchange designs (Advanced Transportation Solutions, 2014). The issue with
the diverging diamond interchange that makes it difficult to suggest is the
unfamiliar design in the Canadian road system. Steel, Schmidt, and Miller (2014)
explain there are currently no standards for the diverging diamond interchange
design and no experience in the Canadian context. The first proposal of a
diverging diamond interchange is in 2014 in the province of Saskatchewan.
There are possible issues with driver unfamiliarity, costs, and overall success for
Canadian road systems (Steel, Schmidt, and Miller, 2014). Medicine Hat has
shown the success and relatively low costs for tight urban diamond interchanges,
and they are seen in multiple locations throughout Canada. They have shown
great success in previous locations in Medicine Hat. For this reason I suggest the
diverging diamond interchange as a possible alternative once more is known
about them in the Canadian road system.
92
6.2.3 Roundabouts
As successful as roundabouts may be in certain situations, the design
does not meet the requirements of 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW
intersections. The low speed is not ideal for larger vehicles, as well as does not
meet the National Highway System standards of a minimum posted speed of 90
km/h. Although a good design, it is not a solution for Medicine Hat’s issues.
6.2.4 Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI)
Although an efficient innovative design that targets major intersection
congestion due to left hand turn, it is not a viable option for Medicine Hat
because it does not meet the National Highway Standards of free flow traffic. In
addition, re-routing the left hand turning traffic causes connectivity issues with the
surrounding land uses, and may further lead to transferring the congestion issue
to another intersection. The design of the highway and road networks make this
design difficult in addressing the issues, and because the intersections are
complex with the multi-phased lights, the adjacent service roads will still require
traffic to stop, not addressing the problem of highway efficiency.
6.2.5 Ring Roads
Although increasing in popularity due to success in many Canadian cities,
a ring road is not a possible solution for Medicine Hat’s 6th Street SW and 16th
Street SW because of Medicine Hat’s surrounding landscape. The only possible
route would be beyond the southern city limits, as there is a Canadian Forces
Base that occupies land to the north of the city. The road would need to be built a
93
fair distance from the city limits to allow for city growth because Medicine Hat is
currently nearing the southern boundary with new residential neighbourhoods.
Furthermore, a ring road would require construction of a bridge over the South
Saskatchewan River in any route chosen. The construction costs would far
exceed any other design, and therefore, is not a practicable solution for Medicine
Hat.
6.3 Frontage Roads
The issue with Medicine Hat’s complex intersection design has to do with
the frontage roads, also known as access roads, adjacent to the Trans-Canada
Highway. It is difficult to categorize many of the frontage roads around 6th Street
SW and 16th Street SW, because it is unclear on their primary purpose and
functionality. Currently, the frontage road intersections phased with the Trans-
Canada Highway are operating at, or near, congestion entering and exiting the
highway (Associated Engineering, 2013). This contributes to the overall highway
congestion and highway efficiency. The frontage road intersections negatively
impact the connectivity from surrounding land use with long delays and confusing
networks.
The roads frontage adjacent to Medicine Hat’s Trans-Canada Highway are
difficult to get to. They require waiting at an intersection for a green light, and
because of the multi-phased control light design with the frontage road
intersection, there are no right hand turns on a red light. Coming from the
frontage roads to the highway is similar, where drivers must wait for a green light
to proceed in any direction. The purpose of frontage roads, according to the
94
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (2011) is to
maintain connectivity and collect and distribute traffic, which Medicine Hat’s do
not do efficiently.
The frontage road on the southern end of the Trans-Canada Highway at
the 6th Street SW intersection is the most functional frontage road. This frontage
road, named Redcliff Drive SW, serves a commercial area and moves traffic
efficiently and safely coming off the highway. However, it can be confusing when
attempting to get on to the Trans-Canada, with its 2-way stop directly before the
traffic control lights. This causes traffic to back up on the frontage road, as well
as the street heading south from the highway when trying to get through or on to
the Trans-Canada Highway. Furthermore, when the intersection has a green
light, traffic from both directions at the frontage road intersection are still required
to stop at the stop sign directly before the intersection, greatly reducing the
amount of traffic capable of making the green light. However, despite its
problematic 2-way stop, it is the only road I would categorize as a frontage road
due to its acceptable functionality.
The frontage road on the northern side of the Trans-Canada Highway at
the 6th Street SW intersection is a complex design that proves to be inefficient at
moving traffic and creating connectivity between surrounding land use and the
highway. The frontage road, named Red Deer Drive SW, like the others, is
connected to the Trans-Canada Highway intersection in a multi-phased control
light system. This frontage road provides no direct access to the few stores
situated along it, and is more used as a collector street for the residential
95
neighborhood nearby. However, because of its poor design phased with the
Trans-Canada Highway, it seldom gets any use, and drivers tend to drive a few
blocks north to have access to an arterial road or a different collector street as a
different, more effective route.
The frontage roads of 16th Street SW intersections are so complex, it is
difficult to categorize them as frontage roads, or any other hierarchical road.
Bomford Crescent SW, the southern frontage road, switches between a 1-way
and 2-way road design, at two different locations. The northern end of the
frontage road is 1-way heading south, then switches to 2-way until 16th Street
SW intersection, then shortly after the intersection it switches back to 1-way, and
turns into a merge ramp for the highway. The road provides little access to any
adjacent land use and commercial buildings. The surrounding land uses are
accessed by the many different collector streets and arterial road situated
nearby. There are multiple collector streets to the east of this frontage road that
majority of the traffic uses simply so they can avoid the intersection at 16th Street
SW when trying to get on to the highway. This frontage road provides no efficient
connectivity to the highway or surrounding area, and decreases the intersection
and highway efficiency by stopping traffic in every direction when a vehicle is at
the 16th Street SW intersection on this road. This is unnecessary because
vehicles can make a quick turn prior and get to a collector or arterial road and
have direct access to a highway merge ramp, or wait at a slightly less negatively
impacting control light if heading west. There is no need for this frontage road, as
it provides little functionality and has negative impacts.
96
Lastly, the frontage road on the northern side of the 16th Street SW intersection is
difficult to categorize as a frontage road because of its primary use. This road,
called Bullivant Crescent SW, runs directly adjacent to the highway, as well as is
the primary road of a residential neighborhood. Directly across from the
intersection is a block of houses, and exiting the houses driveways the vehicle
would be in the middle of the frontage road intersection. Bullivant Crescent SW I
would classify as a collector street based on primary function, but it is also a local
road for the residents. The planning design makes it appear the original intent of
this road was not as a frontage road, but now serves as one as well as multiple
other purposes. It functions as a frontage road / collector road / local road
sufficiently, but does not contribute much in terms of connectivity or traffic flow,
as it is still phased in with the Trans-Canada Highway traffic control lights. Similar
to some of the other frontage roads, it tends to be avoided to do its situation with
the Trans-Canada Highway intersection.
After the analysis of the frontage roads in Medicine Hat along the Trans-
Canada Highways 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections, an
interchange could help improve the frontage roads by increasing the functionally
of them by incorporating them into an interchange. It would allow for more free
flow connectivity between highway and surrounding land use, and a potential
dispersal of vehicle traffic from these areas. As the city sprawled out to the
highway and beyond, drivers tended to find the path of least resistance to get to
their destination.
97
6.4 6th Street SW Intersection
The design of the 6th Street SW intersection and connecting roads
decreases the efficiency of the highway. The leading contributor to this is the
traffic control lights and their inability to move the amount of traffic at a
reasonable rate due to intersection design. The access roads on either side
prevent right hand turns off the highway, which back up traffic significantly. In
additional, there are no right hand turning lanes, so the backed up traffic queues
in the through-lanes. Many residents use the shoulders as make shift turning
lanes, but law enforcement has started giving traffic violations for this purpose
(Associated Engineering, 2013. Overall, the 6th Street SW intersection design
has a major flaw for the efficient movement of traffic.
The operating capacity of 6th Street SW and Trans-Canada Highway has
been calculated as an average level of service (LOS) of E, with a total delay of
66.1 seconds (Associated Engineering, 2013). The lanes vary from a LOS of D
to F, which represent steady traffic at high density (D), traffic saturation (E), and
congestion (F). The average LOS for the intersection is defined as low but
uniform speed, maneuverability possible only under constraint of another vehicle,
and often the user is frustrated (Transportation Research Board, 2000). With
increasing population and vehicles in Medicine Hat, it may not take long for the
lanes and average intersection LOS to reach an F. Furthermore, as the traffic
increases at 6th Street SW, it trickles down to 16th Street.
The most recent data shows 6th Street SW has between 1001-1500
vehicles per hour (VPH) (Associated Engineering, 2013). At this VPH, congestion
98
is a concern for the intersection. With an average increase in highway traffic by
5% every year, the VPH rapidly rises and increases congestion. At this rate, the
intersection will be at a LOS of F in the near future, if not already. A major
concern for this intersection worsening any further is it is a primary route to the
Medicine Hat Regional Hospital. If congestion occurs, emergency vehicles
struggle to get passed the queued traffic and through the intersection. The issue
should be priority for the city because many emergency situations rely on
transporting patients efficiently and safely to the hospital. The underlying issue
with this major issue is the emergency vehicles drastically increase congestion;
as the vehicles scramble and attempt to make way for the emergency vehicle,
chaos occurs. Delay is increased as vehicles trying to get back into an orderly
fashion, as well as traffic delayed from all sides of the intersection due to
complete intersection stoppage.
On the Trans-Canada Highway at 6th Street SW, 13.3 collisions occur per
year, with the majority being rear-ends associated with traffic congestion
(Associated Engineering, 2013). With studies finding interchanges reduce rear-
end collisions due to differences in speed, Medicine Hat could see a reduction in
number of incidents a year (Corporation of the District of North Vancouver,
2014). In addition, interchanges reduce bottlenecking and the proximity of
vehicles, keeping a steady flow of traffic and decreasing the likeliness of impacts
in general (Shafran & Strauss-Wieder, 2003).
99
6.5 16th Street SW Intersection
The 16th Street intersection is notorious for its faulty design. The north side
of the highway is a residential community, and the south side a light industrial,
with an access road and residential road adjacent to the highway. Similar to 6th
Street SW, traffic control lights inefficiently manage the traffic at this intersection.
Right hand turns are restricted unless on a green light, and the adjacent
roadways create exceptionally long delay times for through traffic. Traffic coming
from the residential area must wait for a green light to enter the Trans-Canada
Highway in either direction, as well as to proceed through the intersection. Traffic
coming from the light industrial area varies, depending which street you come
from. 16th Street SW, the main road through the light industrial allows some traffic
to turn onto a merge ramp to enter the highway going east; going west you must
wait for a green light. Coming from any other street west of 16th Street SW, you
need to navigate uncontrolled intersections and proceed to 16th Street, along with
the majority of other vehicles to enter the highway, which becomes congested
and ends up blocking traffic from the merge ramp. The other option is to use the
adjacent access road, which you have to wait at a traffic control light and precede
to the merge ramp once green. This is for eastern bound traffic only, heading
west you must wait at the already congested traffic control light. The traffic in the
eastbound left turning lane is usually the most queued lane of the intersection.
Vehicles waiting to turn into the light industrial area becomes congested and
affects the left hand through-lane. This results in the highway turning into a single
lane for through traffic, greatly increasing travel times.
100
This intersection becomes very problematic for large vehicles transporting
goods and services. East of 16th Street SW intersection is a dip in the highway
that crosses Kin Coulee, creating a fairly significant slope. Not of concern to
average size vehicles, but large transport vehicles have issues stopping and
starting when traffic is badly congested, and worsens in the winter when roads
are icy. The amount of time it takes large vehicles to stop and start impacts
congestion greatly, as well as increase the travel time for deliveries of goods and
services.
Similar to 6th Street SW intersection, the lanes vary in LOS for 16th Street
SW. However, the 16th Street SW intersection operates at an average LOS of F,
representing unstable speed with the formation of waiting lines. A cycle of stop
and departure with no apparent logic, and high vigilance is required for the user
with no comfort; the road segment is above the design capacity (Transportation
Research Board, 2000). The delay time for this intersection is 114.4 seconds,
and is the worst performing intersection in the city (Associated Engineering,
2013). With a title of the worst preforming intersection in Medicine Hat, and
classified as a National Highway System which depends on efficiency of the
highway, it is vital to address the major congestion problem and should be a
priority for the city and province.
Data collected from Associated Engineering (2013) has shown 16th Street
SW intersection has more than of 2000 vehicles per hour (VPH). The intersection
is already at a LOS of F, and an increase in VPH will further back up traffic down
the highway and start affecting traffic to a greater extent east and west along the
101
highway. A delay in addressing this intersection will have increased negative
effects on highway efficiency, and become an increasing concern for vehicle
safety. As the intersection worsens and traffic becomes more congested, drivers
may attempt to find alternative routes and attempt to bypass this intersection
through the city and merge back onto the highway. This may result in other
intersections to become congested from road design and intersection design
unable to efficiently move the new amount of traffic.
16th Street SW and the Trans-Canada Highway intersection sees an
average of 15.6 collisions per year, with the top collisions types as rear-ends,
right angles, and sideswipes. Collisions at this intersection create significant
problems with traffic flow and congestion because they turn the highway into
single lane as result of safety measure for the accident. A key contributor of
collisions, aside from congestion, is road design, and 16th Street SW is symbolic
of bad road design (Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, 2016).
The complex intersections major flaw is the multiple adjacent traffic control lights
correlated with the highway’s traffic control lights, creating numerous, and long,
stoppages. A solution to this issue is addressing the road network, which would
require a complete re-design of the intersection and its adjacent roads. Ideally,
an interchange would address all issues as well as aid in meeting the
requirements of the NHS. Closure of this intersection and rerouting traffic is an
alternative solution, but is impracticable as it takes away a major access point to
a residential neighborhood and busy employment sector.
102
Lastly, 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW are exceptionally dangerous for
pedestrians; there is no way for a pedestrian to cross the road safely at either
intersection. With a residential area adjacent to 16th Street SW, and a residential
area respectively close to 6th Street SW intersection, there should be some way
to cross the highway at these intersections to safely get to destinations across
the highway. There is a pedestrian bridge roughly 100 meters form 6th Street SW,
but is difficult to get to, and provides poor accessibility with stairs only; no method
for individuals with disabilities. An interchange could provide increased safety by
allowing pedestrians to avoid the high speeds of highway traffic.
To summarize the characteristics of the 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW
intersections, they are within the average, as well as above, the variables
multiple other cities have shown at the time of interchange proposals. As of the
year 2013, they are operating at a LOS of E (6th Street SW), and a LOS of F (16th
Street SW). According to the Transportation Research Board (2010), these levels
of service are characteristic of congestion and long delays. Medicine Hat’s
population is comparable with many cities population when they felt the need to
construct interchanges, and Medicine Hat’s vehicles per household is above the
average of the province of Alberta (Community Foundation of Medicine Hat &
Southern Alberta, 2012). There has been success with Medicine Hat’s most
current Dunmore Road interchange, and is likely 6th Street SW and 16th Street
SW with see identical results:
“The Dunmore Road interchange provides a critical link for local
businesses and residents, meaning safer access to the surrounding
103
communities and commercial businesses. It is an outstanding example of
collaboration between Alberta Transportation and the City. The new
interchange offers safer, free-flow travel while supporting the east-west
trade corridor.” – Mayor Ted Clugston (Government of Alberta, 2014)
6.6 Traffic Control Lights
With interchanges reviewed as a solution to help control congestion,
safety, mobility, and improve highway efficiency, they are a viable solution to
address Medicine Hat’s 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW congestion issues
(Hampton, 2005). The traffic control lights situated at these intersections are a
leading cause of the problem, and altering the properties of the traffic control
lights, such as timing, will not solve the issues. The traffic volume is far too great
at 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections. The adjacent roads resulting in
additional traffic control lights have a significant negative impact on the highway
intersections, and mitigation techniques such as removing these traffic control
lights is not a feasible option without completely re-designing the adjacent roads
and re-routing traffic. The most viable option that addresses the issues of
congestion and meets the requirements of the National Highway System an
interchange at each location.
6.7 SWOT Analysis
As seen in the SWOT analysis, there are few advantages to leaving the 6th
Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections as is. The strengths only take affect if
nothing is done with the intersections. If the issues are not addressed, there
104
would be no major costs and little maintenance to be done, however, congestion
would still occur, and the highway would remain inefficient.
The weaknesses are the congestion located at each intersection, the
amount of vehicle collisions, pedestrian safety, and vehicle emissions. Vehicle
emissions are directly related with congestion, and interchanges have shown to
decrease air emissions by reducing idle times of vehicles (Corporation of the
District of North Vancouver, 2014).
The opportunities that can become of the 6th Street SW and 16th Street
SW if an interchange is constructed could be increased economic activity,
reduced collisions, pedestrian safety, emissions control, freeway status, and
temporary employment for construction. The overall result is an efficient highway
that can move traffic through the city and provide easy access to adjacent land
uses.
Some threats will need to be considered with an interchange proposal.
First off, the costs to maintain the structures are greater than traffic control lights,
and there are additional costs to address road conditions through seasonal
changes, such as icy bridges often seen in Medicine Hat (Voigt, 2012). Second, if
an interchange proposal is approved re-routing traffic will cause major issues for
traffic flow. The Trans-Canada Highway will need to remain open for large trucks
to deliver goods, as it is the only trucking route though the city east-west bound.
This would mean closing down one side of the highway at a time and
constructing the interchange, reducing traffic to single lane, reducing speed, and
increasing travel time. Lastly, and the greatest threat, is government funding. If a
105
proposal was created it still relies heavily on funding from the government, and it
is ultimately the provincial governments decision to determine its priority and
whether to fund (Infrastructure Canada, 2014).
6.8 Funding and Costs
6.8.1 Funding The major limitation for construction of interchanges at 6th Street SW and
16th Street SW on the Trans-Canada Highway is the available funding for the
projects, and moreover, the priority of the projects as seen by the Government of
Alberta. Today, most highway and road construction is a provincial responsibility;
provinces decide on the design, construction, safety standards and financing of
highways under their jurisdiction (Government of Canada, 2012a). The previous
Dunmore Road and Trans-Canada Highway interchange was completely funded
by the provincial and federal government, which cost a total of $23 million (Smith,
2004). Alberta Transportation and the Alberta Government viewed this project as
a top priority to better Canada’s economy through efficient roads and
infrastructure (Infrastructure Canada, 2014). Currently, there has been no
funding towards research and analysis for interchange proposals at 6th Street SW
and 16th Street SW intersections. $20 million has been giving to Medicine Hat
from the provincial and federal governments, but this was divided among 14
projects, none towards the two intersections (Government of Canada, 2017c).
The provincial government often overlooks Medicine Hat’s issues, and
respectively, there are many projects across Alberta that need equal attention.
The two largest cities in Alberta, Calgary and Edmonton, are higher in priority
106
than Medicine Hat. Their roads and highways move greater amounts of people,
have a significantly higher population, and have a greater impact on Alberta.
Recently, the Alberta Government has given Calgary and Edmonton $1 billion
each out of a total of $3 billion from their infrastructure capital-spending program,
leaving the remaining municipalities in the province to split the remaining $1
billion (PROLOG Canada, 2005).
The provincial and federal governments have multiple funding programs
to assist municipalities in road and infrastructure upgrades. The Basic Municipal
Transportation Grant is the primary source of funding for the City of Medicine
Hat. The average amount received in recent years was $3.7 million a year, none
of which been spent towards 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections
(Government of Canada, 2017c).
6.8.2 Cost
The decision by Medicine Hat to not focus on 6th Street SW and 16th
Street SW and the Trans-Canada Highway may be a result of lack of funding.
Some funding was received, but the cost of interchanges may be greater than
the amount of funding received.
The typical diamond interchange in an urban environment, which is the
type Medicine Hat has used previously, is between $22,050,000 and
$35,300,000 (British Columbia Ministry of Transportation, 2012). Stantec (2008)
suggests the average interchange cost on the Trans-Canada Highway is $40
million. The Dunmore Road intersection at the east end of the Trans-Canada
Highway shared similar traffic characteristics with 6th Street SW and 16th Street
107
SW intersections, and the resulting diamond interchange ended up costing $23
million, at the low end of the average interchange cost (Smith, 2004). It is
acceptable to argue a similar designed interchange at 6th Street SW and 16th
Street SW would be comparable in price.
Using data from Stantec (2008), projected interchange costs were created
for the construction of a 2-lane diamond urban interchange similar to Medicine
Hat’s previous Dunmore Road interchange. Cost analysis were studied using
variable lengths of 250 feet, 350 feet, 500 feet, and 600 feet, which was
considered the average length of interchanges (Transportation Research Board,
1991). The minimum projected cost Medicine Hat could build an interchange is
$14,357,549, which would result in a 250-feet interchange. The more expensive
option is a 600-foot interchange, costing roughly $34,458,026. Depending on the
exact dimensions required for interchanges at these intersections, all the
projected cost options are within the average of interchange proposals, and
furthermore, comparable to Medicine Hat’s previous Dunmore Road interchange.
With the total available funding for Medicine Hat being $20 million, it would
take a majority of the funding focused towards one of the intersections to
construct a diamond interchange (Government of Canada, 2017c). Two years of
funding directed towards 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW would result in the
possibility of interchanges at both locations. However, because it is not practical
to use all the funding towards one project, as there are many other important
issues as well, further funding would be ideal. A smaller and cheaper
interchange, if possible, may be a better solution.
108
7.0 Recommendations
After analysis of 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections on the
Trans-Canada Highway, my recommendation is the proposal of a 500-foot
interchange at each location, if the funding is available. Otherwise, I continue to
suggest an interchange, but one of smaller length, lowering the cost. The
projected cost would be roughly $27 million, and require 58,500 square feet,
which would require complete road re-design, but achievable with the available
space (Transportation Research Board, 1991).
The construction of this interchange would greatly reduce congestion and
allow traffic to merge off ramps to the surrounding land use. The NHS standards
would be met with a minimum posted speed of 90km/h, as well as provide free
flowing traffic, allowing faster travel times and a more efficient highway.
Models have been created for 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW to
illustrated possible interchange proposals based on this study. Models 1 through
5 show a model of the current highway and 6th Street SW intersection, and
Models 6 through 9 show models of an interchange concept. Models 10 through
15 show a model of the current 16th Street SW intersection and the Trans-
Canada Highway, and Models 16 through 22 show an interchange concept. Land
use of the surrounding area is also depicted in the models.
109
7.1 Models The following models were created using Google’s SketchUP program.
The interchange concepts are to be used for visual aid only, and are not actual
representations of interchange proposals.
110
7.1.2 6th Street SW Intersection – Current
This model shows the current 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses in aerial view.
Model 1 6th Street SW
111
Model 2 6th Street SW
This model shows the current 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from the south-east.
112
Model 3 6th Street SW
This model shows the current 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from the south-west.
113
Model 4 6th Street SW
This model shows the current 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from the north.
114
Model 5 6th Street SW
This model shows the current 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from the west.
115
7.1.3 6th Street SW Intersection - Interchange
Model 6 6th Street SW Interchange
This model shows an interchange at 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses aerial view.
116
Model 7 6th Street SW Interchange
This model shows an interchange at 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from the south-east.
117
Model 8 6th Street SW Interchange
This model shows an interchange at 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from the south.
118
Model 9 6th Street SW Interchange
This model shows an interchange at 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from south-west.
119
Model 10 6th Street SW Interchange
This model shows an interchange at 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from the west.
120
7.1.4 16th Street SW Intersection - Current
Model 11 16th Street SW
This model shows the current 16th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses in aerial view.
121
Model 12 16th Street SW
This model shows the current 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from the south-east.
122
Model 13 16th Street SW
This model shows the current 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from the south-west.
123
Model 14 16th Street SW
This model shows the current 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from the west.
124
Model 15 16th Street SW
This model shows the current 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from the east.
125
7.1.5 16th Street SW Intersection – Interchange
Model 16 16th Street SW Interchange
This model shows an interchange at 16th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses aerial view.
126
Model 17 16th Street SW Interchange
This model shows an interchange at 16th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from south-east.
127
Model 18 16th Street SW Interchange
This model shows an interchange at 16th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from south.
128
Model 19 16th Street SW Interchange
This model shows an interchange at 16th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from south-west.
129
Model 20 16th Street SW Interchange
This model shows an interchange at 16th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from north-west.
130
Model 21 16th Street SW Interchange
This model shows an interchange at 16th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from north.
131
Model 22 16th Street SW Interchange
This model shows an interchange at 16th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from east.
132
7.2 Model Summary
The conceptual models above were a creative attempt to show urban
interchanges for 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections and the Trans-
Canada Highway. The current intersection models aim to help visualize the
complex intersection and road design, and how traffic moves throughout the
intersections and adjacent land use. Arrows on the roads help show traffic
direction, and traffic signal controls are accurately depicted in the intersections.
The models of the interchanges were to show the potential impact an
urban interchange may have situated at these locations. It attempts to show free
flow traffic and connectivity to the adjacent land use, as well as arrows on the
roads to depict an efficient solution of traffic movement.
133
8.0 REFERENCES Advanced Transportation Solutions. (2014). Benefits of Diverging Diamond
interchange. In Diverging Diamond Interchange. Retrieved from http://www.divergingdiamond.com/benefits.html
Advanced Transportation Solutions . (2017). Innovative Designs. In Advanced Transportation Solutions / American. Retrieved from http://www.ats-american.com/category/innovative-designs/continuous-flow-intersection/
Alberta Infrastructure. (1999). Highway Geometric Design Guide. In Alberta
Infrastructure. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/951.htm American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2001). A
Policy and Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://nacto.org/docs/usdg/geometric_design_highways_and_streets_aash to.pdf
Arizona Department of Transportation. (n.d.). Pros and Cons of Traffic Signals. In Arizona Department of Transportation. Retrieved from http://azdot.gov/business/engineering-and-construction/traffic/faq/pros-and-cons-of-traffic-signals
Associated Engineering. (2013, April). Assessment of Alberta Transportation
Highway 1 and 3 Proposed Improvements. In The City of Medicine Hat. Retrieved from http://www.medicinehat.ca/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=5078
Benson, F. J., & Lay, M. G. (2017). The Modern Road. In Enyclopaedia Brittanica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/technology/transportation-technology
Berezanski, J. (2004). Best Practices for Planning and Design of Freeway Facilities. InAlberta Transportation. Retrieved from
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType233/Production/freewyfclty.pdf
British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. (2012). CONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION COST GUIDE. In Province of British Columbia. Retrieved from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/driving-and-transportation/transportationinfrastructure/contracting-with-the-province/documents/costguide-2012.pdf
134
Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators. (2016). Canada's Road Safety Strategy 2025. In Tranport Canada. Retrieved from http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/menu.htm
City Data. (2012). Lubbock, TX - Demographics. In City Data. Retrieved from
http://www.city-data.com/zipmaps/Lubbock-Texas.html
City Data. (2015). Aynor, South Carolina. In City Data. Retrieved from http://www.city-data.com/city/Aynor-South-Carolina.html
City of Calgary. (2014). Complete Streets Policy. In The City of Calgary. Retrieved from http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/DirectDownload.aspx?target=http%3a%2f%2fwww.calgary.ca%2fCA%2fcity-clerks%2fDocuments%2fCouncil-policy-library%2fTP021-Complete-Streets-Policy.pdf&noredirect=1&sf=
City of Chuzhou. (2010). Design Proposal of Overpass Bridge of Mingguang Road. In City of Chuzhou. Retrieved from http://en.lyq.gov.cn/DocHtml/488/2010/8/28/2725782012969.html
City of Medicine Hat. (2012). Municipal Development Plan. In City of Medicine
Hat. Retrieved from http://www.city.medicine- hat.ab.ca/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=2715
City of North Vancouver. (2009, October). City of North Vancouver 2009
Community ProfileRelease 1 - Data Inventory. In City of North Vancouver. Retrieved from http://www.cnv.org/~/media/2ECEB6CBF2204BB4814EDCD1E26530D8.pdf
City of Regina. (2015). Traffic Lights. In City of Regina. Retrieved from https://www.regina.ca/business/roads-traffic/traffic-lights-signals-sign/traffic-lights/
City of Surrey. (2015). Population Estimates & Projections. In City of Surrey.
Retrieved from http://www.surrey.ca/business-economic-development/1418.aspx
City of Vancouver. (2013, June 5). Powell Street Overpass project. In City of Vancouver. Retrieved from http://vancouver.ca/home-propertydevelopment/powell-street-overpass-project.aspx
Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, § 92, http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1867.html.
135
Community Foundation of Medicine Hat & Southeastern Alberta. (2012). Medicine Hat Vital Signs 2008. In Community Foundation of Medicine Hat & Southeastern Alberta. Retrieved from http://cfsea.ca/new/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Vital_Signs_Online-Version-20081.pdf
Corporation of the District of North Vancouver. (2014). Proposed Philip Avenue Overpass. In District of North Vancouver. Retrieved from https://www.dnv.org/upload/pcdocsdocuments/141jt01!.pdf
Devex. (2009, October). Proposed Heilongjiang Road Development II Project
(Yichun-Nenjiang) In China: Yichun-Beian Section Civil Works And Beian-Wudalianchi Section Bridge Construction. In Devex. Retrieved from https://www.devex.com/projects/tenders/proposed-heilongjiang-road-development-ii-project-yichun-nenjiang-in-china-yichun-beian-section-civil-works-and-beian-wudalianchi-section-bridges-construction/55
Downs, A. (2004). Why Traffic Congestion Is Here to Stay.and Will Get Worse. In
UC Transportation Center. Retrieved from http://www.uctc.net/access/25/Access%2025%20-%2004%20- %20Traffic%20Congestion%20is%20Here%20to%20Stay.pdf
Eleven Media Group. (2015). Japan says no to overpass proposal over high cost.
In Eleven. Retrieved from http://www.elevenmyanmar.com/local/japan-says-no-overpass-proposal-over-high-cost
Eppell, V. A., Bunker, J. M., & McClurg, B. A. (2001). A four level road hierarchy for network planning and management. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/2349/1/2349.pdf
Federal Highway Administration. (2009). The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. In US Department of Transportation. Retrieved from https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009/mutcd2009edition.pdf
Federal Highway Administration. (2013, December 5). Traffic Congestion and
Reliability: Linking Solutions to Problems. In U.S. Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved from http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion_report_04/executive_summary.htm
Focus Corporation . (2011). Calgary Southwest Ring Road Functional Planning Study. In Alberta Transportation. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType490/Production/CSWRR/Communities_workshop_1.pdf
Google Earth V 6.2.2.6613. (June 22, 2010). Medicine Hat, Alberta.17° 50o 01’ 59.14” N, 110° 42’ 24.78” W, Eye alt 1.22 km. SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy,
136
NGA, GEBCO. TerraMetrics 2012, DigitalGlobe 2012. http://www.earth.google.com Google Images. (2015). Medicine Hat Dunmore Road Overpass. In Google
Images. Retrieved from https://www.google.ca/search?q=medicine+hat+dunmore+road+overpass&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=9cWJVcivGMWy-AHQqZyYDA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAw&biw=945&bih=625, 2012]
Government of Alberta. (2000). Alberta's Transportation Advantage. In Alberta Transportation. Retrieved from https://www.transportation.alberta.ca/2256.htm
Government of Alberta. (2011). Basic Municipal Transportation Grant (BMTG)
Allocation Table 2011. In Alberta Transportation. Retrieved from https://www.transportation.alberta.ca/5407.htm
Government of Alberta. (2012). Basic Municipal Transportation Grant (BMTG)
Allocation Table 2012. In Alberta Transportation. Retrieved from https://www.transportation.alberta.ca/5407.htm
Government of Alberta. (2013). Basic Municipal Transportation Grant (BMTG)
Allocation Table 2013. In Alberta Transportation. Retrieved from https://www.transportation.alberta.ca/5407.htm
Government of Alberta. (2014). New Highway 1 interchange opens in Medicine Hat. In Alberta Government. Retrieved from https://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=36919810219A6-9E8B-68F4-24FDB920EE4DB320
Government of Alberta. (2017). Budget 2016 Highlights. In Alberta
Transportation. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/5141.htm
Government of Alberta Ministry of Transportation. (2014). Alberta Provincial Highway Projects. In Alberta Transportation. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/projects/
Government of Alberta Ministry of Transportation. (2015, February 4). In
Transportation Alberta. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType260/Production/teg005.pdf
Government of Canada. (2011a). Census agglomeration of Medicine Hat,
Alberta. In Stats Canada. from https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-
137
recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-cma-eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GK=CMA&GC=805
Government of Canada. (2011b). National Highway System. In Transport Canada. Retrieved from https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/acg-acgd-menu-highways-2149.htm
Government of Canada. (2012a). The Trans-Canada Highway: Backgrounder. In Transport Canada. Retrieved from https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/acg-acgd-menu-highways-2153.htm
Government of Canada. (2012b). 2011 Census. In Statistics Canada. Retrieved
from https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-cma-eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GK=CMA&GC=805
Government of Canada. (2012c). Infrastructure Spotlight: Canada’s Highway
System: Backbone of a Strong Economy. In Infrastructure Canada. Retrieved from http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/pub/infra/hwy-route/hwy-route-eng.html
Government of Canada. (2017a). 2016 Census. In Statistics Canada. Retrieved
from https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=POPC&Code1=0523&Geo2=PR&Code2=48&Data=Count&SearchText=Medicine%20Hat&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&G
Government of Canada. (2017b). Consumer Price Index, historical summary
(1997 to 2016). In Stats Canada. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/econ46a- eng.htm
Government of Canada. (2017c). Infrastructure Canada projects since 2002 –
Medicine Hat, Alta. In Infrastructure Canada. Retrieved from http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/map-carte/ab-list-eng.html?municipality=medicine-hat
Hampton, M. (2005). Highway Interchanges, Transportation and Land Use: An
Exploration of Changes in Transportation Volumes and Land Use Factors within Interchange Catchments. In Portland State University. Retrieved February 18, 2017, from http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=geog_masterpapers
Infrastructure Canada. (2011). Funding Programs. In Government of Canada. Retrieved from
138
http://http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/prog/ptbase-finbasept-eng.html/site/altformat/pdf/pdf-ptic/NBCP-NPCC-20160505-eng.pdf
Infrastructure Canada. (2014). 2014 New Building Canada Fund. In Government
of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/site/alt-format/pdf/pdf-ptic/NBCP-NPCC-20160505-eng.pdf
Ingerosec Corporation. (2011). Preparatory Survey on the Project for Improvement of Transport Capacity in Dar es Salaam,Tanzania. In Ingerosec. Retrieved from http://www.ingerosec.com/en/list_achievements_en/list_road_infrastructures_en/544.html
International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers. (2013). Total World Vehicles in Use. In OICA. Retrieved from http://www.oica.net/wp- content/uploads//total-inuse-2013.pdf
International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers. (2012). Total World Vehicles in Use. In OICA. Retrieved from http://www.oica.net/wp- content/uploads//total-inuse-2012.pdf
Lalonde, V. (2009, November 30). City of Surrey - Corporate Report. In City of
Surrey. Retrieved from http://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcouncillibrary/R221-FA05.pdf
Leisch, J. P., & Morrall, J. (2014). Evolution of Interchange Design in North
America. Retrieved from http://conf.tac- atc.ca/english/annualconference/tac2014/s-30/morrall.pdf
Loewen, E. B., & Baril, M. (2012). Chief Peguis Trail Extension - Rothesay St.
Overpass. Retrieved from http://conf.tac-atc.ca/english/annualconference/tac2012/docs/session11/loewen.pdf
McLeod, D. (2014). THE TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY – A Major Link in
Canada’s Transportation System. Retrieved from http://conf.tac-atc.ca/english/annualconference/tac2014/s-32/macleod.pdf
Minister of Transport. (2016). Transportation in Canada 2015. In Transport
Canada. Retrieved from http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/menu.htm
National Highway Policy Steering Committee. (1988). National Highway Policy for Canada. Retrieved from http://www.comt.ca/reports/nhp2.PDF
PROLOG Canada Inc. (2005). The Transportation Sector in Alberta: Present Position and Future Outlook. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType56/Production/AEDA
139
2005.pdf
Rawlinson, J., & Scott, P. F. (1963, January 29). The Hammersmith Flyover. In Ramboll. Retrieved from http://www.ramboll.com/~/media/Files/RUK/ICE%20Proceedings/Hammersmith%20Flyover_Rawlinson%20and%20Stott.pdf
Revell, P. (2014, December 17). Overpass Completion a Highlight of 2014. In
Medicine Hat News. Retrieved from http://medicinehatnews.com/news/local-news/2014/12/27/overpass- completion-a-highlight-of-2014/
Scott, L. L. (2013, January 13). Woodrow Road overpass proposal unveiled. In
Lubbock Avalanche Journal. Retrieved from http://lubbockonline.com/local-news/2013-01-17/woodrow-road-overpass-proposal-unveiled#.VX8p1vlVhHw
Shafran, I., & Strauss-Wieder, A. (2003). Financing and Improving Land Access
to U.S. Intermodal Cargo Hubs. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?id=gIWv4mxFS2cC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=benefits+of+an+overpass+over+traffic+lights&source=bl&ots=HrNUznfJLu&sig=cJmcOmHVP9jYj1QemslHud_2Jo4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCGoVChMIx
Shen, Z., Qin, X., Wehbe, N., Pei, S., & Tigges, B. (2013, May 7). Evaluation and
Mitigation of Vehicle Impact Hazards for Overpasses. Retrieved from http://www.gis-t.org/files/cA1tk.pdf
Smart Growth America. (2017). What are Complete Streets?. Retrieved from
https://smartgrowthamerica.org/resources?resource_type=fact-sheet&authors=&category_name=complete-streets&s= Smith, R. (2004). New interchange makes highway travel more safe and efficient.
In Government of Alberta . Retrieved from https://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=173633E4AFA59-6742-476D-9833EE063EF46E87
Smith, S. J. (2013). Highway 1 and Dunmore Road Bridge Construction Update. In City of Medicine Hat. Retrieved from http://www.medicinehat.ca/index.aspx?page=30&recordid=816
Stantec. (2008). Highways 1 & 3 Network Functional Planning Study. In Alberta Transportation. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/projects/assets/Area_8_South/Hwy%201%20Medicine%20Hat/Executive%20Summary.pdf
140
Steel, P. H., Schmidt, T., & Miller, B. L. (2014). Consideration of a Diverging
Diamond Interchange in Saskatchewan. Retrieved from http://conf.tac-atc.ca/english/annualconference/tac2014/s-14/steel.pdf
Texas A&M Transportation Institute. (n.d.). Continous Flow Intersections. In Mobility Investment Priorities. Retrieved April 7, 2017, from https://mobility.tamu.edu/mip/strategies-pdfs/systemmodification/technical-summary/cfi-intersections-4-pg.pdf
TransCanada FoundLocally Inc. (2015). Highway Overview on Trans-Canada Highway. In Trans-Canada Highway. Retrieved from http://transcanadahighway.com/General/transcanadahighway.htm
TransCanada Overpasses (2010). In Medicine Hat Media. Retrieved from
http://www.medicinehatmedia.com/2010/08/transcanada-overpasses/)
Transportation Research Board. (1991). Single Point Urban Interchange Design and Operations Analysis . In Google Books. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?id=t0jfX9fK5oUC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=average+overpass+length&source=bl&ots=LZInQNylcb&sig=q6CbQkhDqhw5qrFUix0M8MFBhsw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqntmtwMXSAhXLxFQKHdc1BKQQ6AEII
Transportation Research Board. (2000). Highway Capacity Manual 2000.
Retrieved from http://www.gsweventcenter.com/Draft_SEIR_References%5C2000_TRB.pdf
Transportation Research Board. (2010). Highway Capacity Manual 2010. Retrieved from http://hcm.trb.org/?qr=1
UMA Engineering Ltd. (2007). Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation. In
Alberta Transportation. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/projects/south.aspx
UNFPA. (2012). More people move to urban areas as Tanzanian population
gallops. In UNFPA Tanzania. Retrieved from http://countryoffice.unfpa.org/tanzania/2013/04/19/6599/more_people_move_to_urban_areas_as_tanzanian_population_gallops/
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. (2017). Roundabouts and Mini Roundabouts. Retrieved from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/innovative/roundabouts/
141
Van Horne Institute. (2004). The Transportation Sector in Alberta: Present Position and Future Outlook. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType56/Production/AEDA2004.pdf
Voigt, N. R. (2012). Transportation Depth Reference Manual. Belmont, CA: Professional Publications, Inc. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?id=mmu49t4tIREC&pg=SA4-PA43&lpg=SA4-PA43&dq=benefits+of+an+overpass/underpass&source=bl&ots=UBxJlqHy2i&sig=mzTrjuP0STJTCQnt9mo97ZOiHrY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o4ZoVeKSDZLooATusYCAA
Washington State Department of Transportation. (2004, July 12). Are WSDOT’s
highway construction costs in line with national experience?. In Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.vtpi.org/WSDOT_HighwayCosts_2004.pdf
Washington State Department of Transportation. (2015). Traffic Signals.
In Washington State Department of Transportation. Retrieved June 22, 2015, from http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Operations/Traffic/signals.htm
Western Provincial Transportation Ministers Council. (2005). Western Canada
Transportation Infrastructure Strategy for an Economic Network. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/content/doctype56/production/wtm- strategy.pdf
Whitten, R. (1931, December 28). Report to the Selectmen of the Town of
Brookline by the Planning Board and Report to the Planning Board. In High Street Hill. Retrieved from http://highstreethill.org/?page_id=1299
Related Documents
