Appendix 6: Airdrie Annexation Area Infrastructure Needs Study (Part 4)

2011

INFRASTRUCTURE

NEEDS STUDY

FOR

PROPOSED ANNEXATION LANDS

A011‐921 JUNE, 2011

CITY OF AIRDRIE 2011 INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS STUDY JUNE 2011 FOR PROPOSED ANNEXATION LANDS

A011-921 PAGE i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION .................................................................................................. 2 2.1. Proposed Annexation Area ......................................................................................................................... 2 2.2. Proposed Land Uses ................................................................................................................................... 2 2.3. Population .................................................................................................................................................. 2

2.3.1. Residential Population ...................................................................................................................... 2 2.3.2. Service Population ............................................................................................................................. 3

3. EXISTING WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................... 4

4. WASTEWATER SERVICING CONCEPT FOR PROPOSED ANNEXATION LANDS ................................ 5 4.1. Criteria ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 4.2. Service Population ...................................................................................................................................... 5 4.3. Drainage Areas ........................................................................................................................................... 6 4.4. Wastewater Servicing Concept .................................................................................................................. 6

4.4.1. Drainage Areas WDA 3 and 4 ............................................................................................................ 6 4.4.2. Drainage Areas WDA 1 and 2 ............................................................................................................ 7 4.4.3. Summary of Design Flows ................................................................................................................. 7

5. EXISTING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE .......................................................................................... 8

6. WATER SERVICING CONCEPT FOR PROPOSED ANNEXATION LANDS ......................................... 10 6.1. Criteria ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 6.2. Service Population .................................................................................................................................... 11 6.3. Service Areas ............................................................................................................................................ 11 6.4. Water Servicing Concept .......................................................................................................................... 12

6.4.1. General ............................................................................................................................................ 12 6.4.2. Water Service Areas – WSA 1 and WSA 2 ....................................................................................... 12 6.4.3. Water Service Areas – WSA 3, WSA 4 and WSA 5 ........................................................................... 12 6.4.4. Summary of Future Storage and Pumping Requirements .............................................................. 13

7. STORMWATER ........................................................................................................................ 14

8. TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................................................. 15 8.1. Transportation Network ........................................................................................................................... 15 8.2. Roadway Network (West and East Annexation Areas) ............................................................................ 16 8.3. Roadway Network (North Annexation Area) ........................................................................................... 17 8.4. Roadway Network (Interchanges) ............................................................................................................ 17 8.5. Roadway Network (East Freeway Extension) ........................................................................................... 17 8.6. CPR Crossings............................................................................................................................................ 18 8.7. Highway 2 Crossings ................................................................................................................................. 18 8.8. Pedestrian Routes .................................................................................................................................... 19 8.9. Transit Routing ......................................................................................................................................... 19 8.10. Minor Roadways and Community Access ................................................................................................ 21

9. UTILITY CORRIDORS ................................................................................................................ 22 9.1. General ..................................................................................................................................................... 22 9.2. Within Existing City Lands and Proposed Annexation Areas .................................................................... 22 9.3. Utility Corridors Between Airdrie and Calgary ......................................................................................... 22

10. ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COST ESTIMATES ............................................................................... 23

11. CLOSURE ............................................................................................................................... 27

CITY OF AIRDRIE 2011 INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS STUDY JUNE 2011 FOR PROPOSED ANNEXATION LANDS

A011-921 PAGE ii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix “A” Plates 1.0 to 9.0

Appendix “B” City of Airdrie Water Usage and Wastewater Flow Records

Appendix “C” Spreadsheets for Wastewater Servicing Concept

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

¼ Section Quarter Section C gallons Canadian Gallons CAP Capacity CGS Comprehensive Growth Study Comm. / Ind. Commercial / Industrial ELS East Lift Station – Wastewater EPS East Pump Station – Water kPa Kilopascal l/s & L/S Litres per Second M Meter mm Millimeter NWLS North West Lift Station – Wastewater ppa Persons Per Acre psi Pounds Per Square Inch PFF Peak Flow Factors SEPS South East Pump Station – Wastewater SWPS South West Pump Station – Wastewater WDA Wastewater Drainage Area WBPS West Booster Pump Station – Water WPS West Pump Station – Water WSA Water Service Area

LIST OF DEFINITIONS

Residential Population:

Number of residents (at 24 persons per acre) within the developable portions of the land zoned as residential.

Service Population:

Sum of the residential population plus an allowance for commercial / industrial areas in terms of a resident population at 10 persons per acre.

CITY OF AIRDRIE 2011 INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 2011 FOR PROPOSED ANNEXATION LANDS

A011-921 PAGE 1

1. INTRODUCTION

In February of 2010, BSEI was retained by the City of Airdrie to prepare a study identifying the infrastructure required for the proposed annexation lands. All proposed future infrastructure will need to be confirmed by future detailed engineering studies.

Following is a scope of work prepared by BSEI and accepted by the City.

Review existing documentation relative to the proposed annexation and establish the amount and location of lands to be considered as well as the land use (i.e.: residential or commercial / industrial) for each quarter section. The documentation to include but not be limited to the following:

o A 2008 Comprehensive Growth Study (CGS) prepared by Dillon Consulting Limited;

o A 2009 Supplement to the CGS prepared by Dillon Consulting Limited;

o A 2009 inventory prepared by O2 Planning + Design Inc. that identifies ecologically sensitive areas within the annexation lands that should not be developed.

Wastewater Infrastructure Section encompassing:

o The establishment of wastewater volumes and flow rates based on the June, 2009 – Summary Report Planning and Technical Study on Water and Wastewater Servicing in the Calgary Region – Phase 2 – Revision 1 prepared for the Calgary Regional Partnership by CH2M HILL. This information to be used to assess the capacity of existing infrastructure components and sizing of infrastructure for the proposed annexation area;

o A review of the capacity of existing wastewater pumping stations and wastewater forcemains to The City of Calgary wastewater system;

o Development of a wastewater servicing concept for the proposed annexation lands.

Water Infrastructure Section encompassing:

o The establishment of water demands based on the study noted in the Wastewater Infrastructure Section;

o A review of the capacity of existing and proposed water supply, storage and distribution for the existing City lands;

o Development of a water servicing concept for the annexation lands.

Comments relative to the City of Airdrie’s policy for handling of stormwater;

Identification of utility corridors for water and wastewater infrastructure within the annexation lands and between the City of Airdrie and The City of Calgary;

Preparation of order of magnitude cost estimates based on 2011 dollars for the major water and wastewater infrastructure components required to service the proposed annexation lands;

Incorporation of information prepared by ISL relative to transportation;

Provision of comments relative to the most economical development pattern for the proposed annexation lands and noting the service population horizons at which major infrastructure components are required;

Inclusion of appropriate drawings;

The City of Airdrie’s growth philosophy is that development pays for itself.


A011-921 PAGE 2

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

2.1. PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA

In 2007, Dillon Consulting Limited (Dillon) was retained by the City of Airdrie to develop a Comprehensive Growth Strategy (CGS). The CGS was completed and accepted by Council in 2008. It identified the amount and location of land required for long-term growth and included a strategy for future annexation.

In late 2009, the City retained Dillon to re-evaluate the land surrounding the City taking into account:

New data from a 2009 ecological inventory that identified ecologically sensitive land (hotspots) that should not be developed. The inventory was prepared by O2 Planning + Design Inc.;

A new annexation boundary agreed to by the City and Rocky View County.

The proposed annexation area set out in the 2009 supplement to the 2008 CGS encompassed 63.4 developable quarter sections plus a number of hotspots having a combined area of 5.6 quarter sections for a total of 69 quarter sections.

In January, 2011, BSEI was instructed by City Engineering and Planning to increase the annexation area by 10 quarter sections for a total of 79 quarter sections of which 8 are considered as environmental hotspots. The proposed annexation area is shown on Plates 1.0 and 2.0 in Appendix “A”.

2.2. PROPOSED LAND USES

The land uses to the proposed annexation area are set out in Table 2.1.

TABLE 2.1 – REVISED LAND USE – JANUARY 2011

LAND USE QUARTER SECTIONS HOTSPOTS TOTAL

Residential 46 6 40

Commercial/Industrial 33 2 31

TOTAL 79 8 71

Note: Proposed landuse split is assumed. Final landuse will be recognized via the formal City landuse planning process.

2.3. POPULATION

2.3.1. Residential Population

The estimated residential population within the proposed annexation area at full development of all lands with the exception of hot spots, is 153,600. This is based on a density of 24 persons per developable acre (59.4 persons per hectare).

The estimated residential population within the existing City limits at full development of all lands is 80,000.


A011-921 PAGE 3

2.3.2. Service Population

The service population is used for determining the capacity of water and wastewater services required for the annexation area. It includes the residential population plus an allowance for the commercial / industrial lands in terms of population at a density of 10 persons per acre (24.7 persons per hectare).

The service population for the proposed annexation area with the exception of environmental hotspots is noted in Table 2.2.

TABLE 2.2 – SERVICE POPULATION

LAND USE QUARTER SECTIONS

ACRES PERSONS PER

ACRE SERVICE

POPULATION

Residential 40 6,400 24 153,600

Commercial/Industrial 31 4,960 10 49,600

TOTAL 71 11,360 N/A 203,200

Note: Proposed landuse split is assumed. Final landuse will be recognized via the formal City landuse planning process.


A011-921 PAGE 4

3. EXISTING WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE

The existing wastewater infrastructure consists of conventional gravity flow collection mains with local pumping stations to overcome grade restrictions.

The collected wastewater is transferred to The City of Calgary. The existing transfer system consists of three major pump stations and three forcemains. The capacity of each component together with the estimated service population (i.e.: sum of the residential population plus an allowance for the commercial / industrial lands in terms of population) are summarized in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. The capacities are based on an average daily volume of wastewater per capita of 300 litres (66 C gallons) (refer to Section 4.1 on page 5) and calculation of peak flow rates using the Harmon Formula. The locations of the major components are shown on Plate 3.0 in Appendix “A”. It should be noted that the 2010 Offsite Levies Report used an average day volume of wastewater per capita of 364 liters (80 C gallons).

TABLE 3.1 – MAJOR WASTEWATER PUMP STATIONS

PUMP STATION CURRENT CAPACITY

(l/s) PFF*

ESTIMATED SERVICE

POPULATION

FUTURE CAP. (l/s)

PFF* ESTIMATED SERVICE

POPULATION

Main 400 2.26 51,000 400 2.26 51,000

West 300 2.41 36,000 500 2.15 66,700

South** 150 2.76 15,600 300 2.41 36,000 TOTAL 850 102,600 1,200 153,700

*Peak Flow Factor **currently the South Lift Station flows to the Main lift station however, infrastructure is in place to allow the South Lift Station to flow directly into the new 600mm forcemain when required.

TABLE 3.2 – WASTEWATER FORCEMAINS – AIRDRIE TO CALGARY

FORCEMAIN CAPACITY

(l/s) PFF*

ESTIMATED SERVICE POPULATION

350mm 135 2.81 13,800

600mm 500 2.15 66,700

600mm 425 2.23 55,000

TOTAL 1,060 135,500

*Peak Flow Factor

The estimated service population at full development of all lands within the present City boundary is 103,000 (80,000 residents plus an allowance for commercial / industrial areas equal to 23,000 residents). This is within the capacity available in the pump stations and forcemains.

It should be noted that adoption of the wastewater servicing concept for the proposed annexation areas described in Section 4, would result in the addition of 4.5 residential quarter sections within the present City boundary to proposed Wastewater Drainage Area 1 (WDA 1) on the west side, and an estimated reduction of 17,800 in the service population for the lands within the present City boundary.


A011-921 PAGE 5

4. WASTEWATER SERVICING CONCEPT FOR PROPOSED ANNEXATION LANDS

4.1. CRITERIA

The following criteria were used to establish wastewater generation rates.

An average daily volume of wastewater per capita of 300 litres (66 Canadian gallons) as recommended in the June, 2009 – Summary Report – Planning and Technical Study on Water and Wastewater Servicing in the Calgary Region – Phase 2 – Revision 1. The report was prepared for the Calgary Regional Partnership by CH2M HILL. This generation rate agrees favourably with City recorded flows for the period from 1996 – 2009. Refer to the data sheets in Appendix “B”;

Calculation of peak wastewater flow rates using the Harmon Formula; and

Inclusion of the hotspot areas in the determination of service populations. This will ensure capacity is available in the event that a portion of these areas become available for development in the future and/or the population density of the developable portion in a quarter section containing a hotspot is increased such that the total population equals that allowed for a quarter section without any ecologically sensitive areas.

4.2. SERVICE POPULATION

The service population is made up of the estimated residential population (residential acres times a density factor of 24 persons per acre) plus an allowance for the commercial / industrial acres in terms of population using a density factor of 10 persons per acre.

The service population is noted in Table 4.1.

TABLE 4.1 – SERVICE POPULATIONS

LOCATION SERVICE POPULATION*

ANNEXATION LANDS WDA 3 AND 4 WDA 1 AND 2

Residential 38,400 138,200**

Commercial / Industrial 35,900 16,900

EXISTING LANDS

Residential - 17,800

TOTAL 74,300 172,900

*Populations to the nearest 100.

**52 acres of land along east side of E1-2 10-27-1-W5M not included in the calculation of population (refer to Section 4.4.2)

Note: Wastewater servicing concept is preliminary; detailed engineering is required as landuse is confirmed.


A011-921 PAGE 6

4.3. DRAINAGE AREAS

The drainage areas are delineated on Plate 4.0 in Appendix “A”. The total drainage area consists of 83.2 quarter sections (13,307 acres). Refer to Table 4.2.

TABLE 4.2 – DRAINAGE AREAS

LOCATION DRAINAGE AREAS

¼ SECTIONS ACRES ¼ SECTIONS ACRES

ANNEXATION LANDS WDA 3 AND 4 WDA 1 AND 2

Residential 10.00 1600 36.00 5760

Commercial / Industrial 22.25 3560 10.42 1669

EXISTING LANDS

Residential - - 4.50 720

TOTAL 32.25 5160 50.92 8147


The 4.5 quarter sections of existing City lands include 2.0 quarter sections at the northwest corner of the City (S1/2 14-27-1-W5M) and 2.5 quarter sections at the southwest corner (N1/2 26-26-1-W5M) plus 80 acres in the SW ¼ 35-26-1-W5M).

The 2.0 quarter sections located at the northwest corner of the City are currently discharging wastewater to the existing wastewater system using capacity reserved for servicing the golf course lands in the event that these are developed for housing in the future. The developer obtained permission for this on condition that wastewater flows would be diverted to the system servicing the proposed annexation lands when available.

The reason for inclusion of the 2.5 quarter sections located at the southwest corner is set out in Section 4.4.2.

4.4. WASTEWATER SERVICING CONCEPT

The proposed wastewater servicing concept for the annexation area is shown on Plate 4.0 in Appendix “A”. Details are provided on spreadsheets in Appendix “C”.

4.4.1. Drainage Areas WDA 3 and 4

The proposed concept involves:

Gravity flow trunk mains ranging in size from 250 mm (10 inch) to 750 mm (30 inch);

A wastewater lift station (ELS) to overcome grade restrictions;

A major pump station (SEPS) to transfer wastewater to The City of Calgary system;

Additional forcemain capacity to Calgary


A011-921 PAGE 7

4.4.2. Drainage Areas WDA 1 and 2


Gravity flow trunk mains ranging in size from 250 mm (10 inch) to 1050 mm (42 inch);

A wastewater lift station (NWLS) to overcome grade restrictions;

A major pump station (SWPS) to transfer wastewater to The City of Calgary system; and

Additional forcemain capacity to Calgary.

The initial servicing concept for Drainage Area WDA 2 involved location of a gravity flow trunk main outside and around the present City boundary at the southwest corner. This would have required a 12 meter excavation. In order to avoid this, City Engineering directed that the trunk line be constructed within the existing City limits through the SW ¼ 35-26-1-W5M and the proposed SWPS be located near the southeast corner of the SE ¼ 35-26-1-W5M.

It is recommended that approximately 52 acres of low land along the east side of the E ½ 10-27-1-W5M be serviced by the existing system within the present City boundary It should be noted that capacity is available in the existing system. Alternatively the wastewater could be pumped to the proposed trunk line along the west side of the area.

4.4.3. Summary of Design Flows

TABLE 4.3 – DESIGN FLOWS

ITEM COMPONENT PEAK DESIGN FLOW

(l/s)

1 North West Lift Station (NWLS) 541

2 South West Pump Station (SWPS) 1,448

3 East Lift Station (ELS) 486

4 South East Pump Station (SEPS) 650

5 Forcemain(s) to Calgary (Sum of Items 2 & 4) 2,098



A011-921 PAGE 8

5. EXISTING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE

The City of Airdrie obtains treated water from The City of Calgary via two supply mains:

A 350 mm (14-inch) diameter line installed in 1977; and

A 900 mm (36-inch) diameter line installed in 1981.

The 900 mm main has capacity for a service population of ±66,000 using an average per capita per day consumption rate of 315 litres (69.3 C gallons) (refer to Section 6.1 on Page 10), a maximum day factor of 2.5 and based on the capacity limitations within the current City infrastructure to the main reservoir. However, upgrades to the existing City infrastructure (currently restricted by a 400 mm and a 350 mm inlet line) from the 900 mm main would allow for a population of ±100,000 to be serviced by the existing 900 mm main. The 350 mm main can handle a population of ±12,000. This is based on the assumption that the supply component of a municipal water system should be capable of meeting the maximum day demand.

The City, concerned that disruption of the water supply due to a failure of the 900 mm line would have serious consequences, has decided to install an additional line from The City of Calgary. This is tentatively scheduled for 2012.

The existing infrastructure in Airdrie consists of:

Two storage reservoirs with a third scheduled for construction in 2012;

Two distribution pump stations:

o The main pump station servicing Pressure Zone A;

o The north east pump station servicing a portion of Pressure Zone B which lies within the present City boundary on the east side; and

A network of distribution mains varying in diameter from 150 mm (6-inch) to 400 mm (16-inch).

The service limits of Pressure Zone A are defined by geodetic elevation 1,107.00. The limits are shown on Plate 5.0.

The capacity of the existing and future storage reservoirs and pump stations within the current City limits, are summarized in Tables 5.1 and 5.2. The estimated maximum service population for the existing and proposed infrastructure components within Pressure Zone A, are also noted These are based on the following criteria:

The empirical formula (S = A + B + C) suggested by Albert Environment for calculating storage volumes where the supply component is only capable of satisfying the maximum day demand.

Where:

S = Total Storage A = Fire Storage – 828 Cubic Meters B = Equalization storage – 25% of projected maximum day demand C = Emergency Storage – 15% of projected average day demand

Pump stations capable of supplying the maximum day demand plus a fire flow or the peak hour demand, whichever is greater;

A daily water usage per capita of 315 litres per day (69.3 C gallons);

A maximum day demand equal to 2.5 times the average day demand;

A peak hour demand equal to 4.0 times the average day demand; and

A fire flow of 115 l/s (approximately 1,500 C gallons/minute) for two hours.


A011-921 PAGE 9

The location of each component within The City is shown on Plate 6.0.

TABLE 5.1 – CAPACITY OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED RESERVOIRS

RESERVOIR PRESSURE ZONE* CAPACITY

CUBIC METERS SERVICE POPULATION*

Main (existing) A 18,200 71,500

South West (proposed 2012) A 7,000 28,800

TOTAL A 25,200 100,300

North East (existing) B 2,922 8,600

North East (future expansion) B 2,269 9,300

TOTAL B 5,191 17,900

* Populations to nearest 100

The estimated service population at full development of lands within the present City boundary is 103,200 (100,000 in Pressure Zone A and 3,200 in Pressure Zone B). Refer to Plate 5.0.

The existing and proposed storage volumes are adequate for full development of lands within the present City boundary.

TABLE 5.2 – CAPACITY OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED PUMP STATIONS

PUMP STATION PRESSURE

ZONE*

DAILY CAPACITY (Maximum Day & Fire)

PEAK HOUR (Average Day x 4)

CUBIC METERS SERVICE

POPULATION* FLOW RATE

(l/s) SERVICE

POPULATION

Main (existing) A 62,000 77,700 720 49,400

South West (proposed 2012) A 26,700 33,900 310 21,350

TOTAL A 88,700 111,600 1030 70,650 North East (existing) B 19,700 24,000 230 15,700

TOTAL B 19,700 24,000 230 15,700


The total capacity of the existing and proposed pump stations is sufficient to support full development of lands within the present City boundary based on maximum day demand plus fire flow. Additional pumping capacity is required to meet the peak hour demand. The flow rates for each pump station assumes all pumps are operational (i.e: no redundancy) in order to service the peak hour demand.


A011-921 PAGE 10

6. WATER SERVICING CONCEPT FOR PROPOSED ANNEXATION LANDS

6.1. CRITERIA

The following criteria were used to establish water demands, reservoir volumes and pump station requirements:

An average daily water consumption per capita of 315 litres (69.3 gallons) as recommended in the June 2009 – Summary Report – Planning and Technical Study on Water and Wastewater Servicing in the Calgary Region – Phase 2 – Revision1. The report was prepared for the Calgary Regional Partnership by CH2M HILL. This consumption rate agrees favorably with City recorded flows for the period from 1996 – 2009. Refer to the data sheets in Appendix “B”;

The empirial formula (S = A + B + C) suggested by Alberta Environment for calculation storage volumes where the supply component is only capable of satisfying the maximum day demand.

Where:

S = Total Storage A = Fire Storage B = Equalization storage – 25% of projected maximum day demand C = Emergency Storage – 15% of projected average day demand

A maximum day demand equal to 2.5 times the average day demand;

A peak hour demand equal to 4.0 times the average day demand;

A fire flow of 115 l/s (approximately 1,500 C gallons per minute) for two hours;

Pump stations capable of supplying the maximum day demand plus a fire flow or the peak hour demand, whichever is greater; and

Inclusion of the hotspot areas in the determination of service populations. This will ensure capacity is available in the event that a portion of these areas become available for development in the future and/or the population density of the developable portion in a quarter section containing a hotspot is increased such that the total population equals that allowed for a quarter section without any ecologically sensitive areas.

The approximate static pressures for Pressure Zones A, B and C are noted in Table 6.1 and shown on Plate 6.0. These are based on providing a static pressure of 100 psi at the lower end of each zone. Also shown are the relevant ground elevations.

TABLE 6.1 – PRESSURE ZONES

ZONE A

ZONE B EAST SIDE

ZONE B WEST SIDE

ZONE C WEST SIDE

LOWER END UPPER END LOWER END UPPER END LOWER END UPPER END LOWER END UPPER END

Elevation (m)

1080 1107 1107 1140 1107 1140 1140 1160

Pressure (psi)

100 62 100 54 100 54 88 60

Notes: Pressure reducing required where pressure exceeds 100 psi.

Water servicing concept is preliminary; detailed engineering is required as landuse is confirmed.


A011-921 PAGE 11

6.2. SERVICE POPULATION

The service population is noted in Table 6.2.

TABLE 6.2 – SERVICE POPULATIONS

LOCATION SERVICE POPULATION*

ANNEXATION LANDS WSA 3, WSA 4 and WSA 5 WSA 1 and WSA 2

Residential 49,900 126,700

Commercial / Industrial 52,800 -

Sub-Total 102,700 126,700

EXISTING LANDS

Commercial / Industrial 3,200 -

Sub-Total 3,200 -

TOTAL ALL LANDS 105,900 126,720


Note: Water servicing concept is preliminary; detailed engineering is required as landuse is confirmed.

6.3. SERVICE AREAS

The service areas are shown on Plate 6.0 in Appendix “A”. Also noted are the lands within the proposed annexation area that are within Pressure Zone A and the existing lands that are within Pressure Zone B. The areas are summarized in Tables 6.3 and 6.4.

TABLE 6.3 – SERVICE AREAS –PRESSURE ZONES B AND C

LOCATION SERVICE AREA

¼ SECTIONS ACRES ¼ SECTIONS ACRES

ANNEXATION LANDS WSA 3 AND WSA 5 WSA 1

Residential 5.7 912 24.1 3,856

Commercial / Industrial 28.0 4,480 - -

EXISTING LANDS

Commercial / Industrial 2.0 320 - -

Sub-Total Residential 5.7 912 24.1 3,856

Sub-Total Commercial / Industrial 30.0 4,800 - -

TOTAL ALL LANDS 35.7 5,712 24.1 3,856


TABLE 6.4 – SERVICE AREAS –PRESSURE ZONE A


WSA 4 WSA 2

ANNEXATION LANDS ¼ SECTIONS ACRES ¼ SECTIONS ACRES

Residential 7.3 1,168 8.9 1,424

Commercial / Industrial 5.0 800 - -

TOTAL ALL LANDS 12.3 1,968 8.9 1,424



A011-921 PAGE 12

The total service areas for the east and west side lands are summarized in Table 6.3.

TABLE 6.5 – TOTAL SERVICE AREAS – WITHIN PRESSURE ZONES A,B AND C


¼ SECTIONS ACRES

ANNEXATION LANDS

Residential 46.0 7,360

Commercial / Industrial 33.0 5,280

Sub-Total 79.0 12,640

EXISTING LANDS

Commercial / Industrial 2.0 320

Sub-Total 2.0 320

TOTAL ALL LANDS 81.0 12,960


6.4. WATER SERVICING CONCEPT

6.4.1. General

The proposed water servicing concept for the annexation area is shown on Plate 6.0 in Appendix “A”.

The proposed concept is based on providing service to the annexation areas located within the lower pressure zone from the upper pressure zone utilizing pressure reducing stations. It may be possible to service a portion of these areas directly from the existing infrastructure. A detailed network analysis is required to determine if this is feasible.

6.4.2. Water Service Areas – WSA 1 and WSA 2


A dedicated feeder main from the proposed Calgary to Airdrie supply main to a booster pump station;

A booster pump station (WBPS) to overcome pressure restrictions in the supply line from Calgary;

A dedicated feeder main from the booster pump station to the proposed west reservoir;

The proposed west reservoir complete with a distribution pump station (WPS).

6.4.3. Water Service Areas – WSA 3, WSA 4 and WSA 5


A dedicated feeder main from the Calgary to Airdrie supply main to the proposed east storage reservoir;

A dedicated booster pump station (EPBS) to overcome pressure restrictions in the supply line from Calgary;

A distribution pump station (EPS) at the east reservoir; and

Continued use of the north-east reservoir and pumping station. This includes the proposed future addition of a 2,269 cubic meter reservoir adjacent to the existing.


A011-921 PAGE 13

6.4.4. Summary of Future Storage and Pumping Requirements

Proposed future storage and pumping requirements for the water service concept are summarized in Table 6.6.

TABLE 6.6 – FUTURE STORAGE AND PUMPING REQUIREMENTS

COMPONENT STORAGE PUMP RATE*

(Cubic Meters) (l/s)

West Booster Pump Station (WBPS) - 1,155**

West Reservoir and West Pump Station (WPS) 31,763 1,850*

East Booster Pump Station (EBPS) - 965**

East Reservoir and East Pump Station (EPS) 21,512 1,180*

*Based on peak hour demand

**Based on maximum day demand



A011-921 PAGE 14

7. STORMWATER

The City continues to support the concept of regional stormwater facilities entirely developer funded. The City will endeavor to assist the Developer in recovering applicable oversize costs by inserting the requirements that the other developers who directly benefit, reimburse the Developer for such costs when the City enters into development agreements with the other developers.

All future developments will include stormwater management facilities to limit runoff to rates that have been established based on the assimilative capacity of the Nose Creek Watershed.

The City has expressed a preference for stormwater management concepts to be developed on the basis of a “regional” system.

City Engineering intends to commission preparation of a Stormwater Drainage Master Plan for the annexation area.


A011-921 PAGE 15

8. TRANSPORTATION

The following transportation report has been completed by ISL Engineering and Land Services Ltd. and provided to BSEI for inclusion in this section of the report.

8.1. TRANSPORTATION NETWORK

A generalized transportation network has been developed for the City of Airdrie’s proposed annexation area and surrounding lands. As transportation has the most intimate connection with land use, which remains largely speculative at this time, network and capacity analysis has not been completed at this stage. A future update to the City’s Transportation Master Plan and more comprehensive coordination with land use planning will be required in future in order to better confirm transportation network requirements, particularly in the previously unplanned northern annexation zone.

Without the benefit of land use planning or network analysis, the resulting transportation network is considered conceptual only at this time. Considerations in developing the network included the following:

Incorporating previous transportation planning by the City of Airdrie and Rocky View County, particularly for areas on the west and east sides of the existing City limits;

Incorporating concept plans for regional transit service and transportation networks under the Calgary Metropolitan Plan and the Calgary Regional Partnership’s Regional Transit Plan;

Expanding and maintaining a basic one mile grid for arterial / expressway routes;

Recognizing key constraints including creek crossings and other sensitive areas, CPR crossings, and connections to the Provincial Highway system;

The need for strong north-south connections, recognizing the major traffic patterns in Airdrie generated by its strong employment ties with the City of Calgary;

The need for improved east-west connectivity, allowing for enhanced circulation between residential and employment uses within the City of Airdrie and across major physical boundaries (Highway 2, the CPR, and Nose Creek);

Maintaining the major road network grid at approximately 1.6 km (1 mile) spacing.

The TMP update provides an opportunity to test and verify the generalized concept provided for the annexation lands. Completing the TMP in concert with land use planning will provide further benefit by allowing the City to consider balanced land-use patterns to optimize the transportation network and improve mobility City-wide. Detailed right-of-way way requirements, particularly for any required interchange sites, should be confirmed through functional planning studies.


A011-921 PAGE 16

8.2. ROADWAY NETWORK (WEST AND EAST ANNEXATION AREAS)

Planning for much of the roadway network has been previously completed by Rocky View County in the west and east annexation areas, via the West QE2 Transportation Functional Study (October 2009, for lands west and south of the City of Airdrie) and the Transportation Planning Study of North Balzac / East Airdrie Area (July 2008, for lands east and south of the City of Airdrie). The City participated in both studies. These plans were incorporated into the network concept, with key highlights as follows:

In west Airdrie, the arterial / expressway network would be completed on a one mile grid, with the exception of 40 Avenue S (Township Road 265), which would not extend west beyond 56 Street W (Range Road 14) due to a major creek feature;

At Highway 2, there is a planned partial interchange at 40 Avenue S (Township Road 265) (to/from the south only) and full service interchange at 56 Avenue S (Township Road 264);

In east Airdrie, the east/west grid would extend completely from Highway 2 to the east;

In east Airdrie, the north/south grid would be aligned to accommodate a correction line shift at Yankee Valley Blvd, with offset alignments to the south;

In east Airdrie, the north/south grid is complete with the exception of a one mile segment of 48 Street E (Range Road 291,) which is restricted by the Airdrie Airport;

Yankee Valley Blvd and 56 Avenue S (Township Road 264) are protected as major east-west transportation facilities, possibly expressways;

32 Street E (Range Road 292) is protected as a major north-south transportation facility, possibly as an expressway, connecting through Balzac to Métis Trail in Calgary;

Interchanges were identified at the intersections of Range Road 292 with Township Road 264 and Yankee Valley Blvd. These are subject to future study, but recognize the major nature of the noted facilities.

Further to these prior studies, the following revisions were made in the west and east network areas:

Addition of 8 Avenue S (Township Road 271) west of 24 Street W. It may be desirable to consider a more direct connection First Avenue, however this route is significantly limited by a creek and severe topography west of the First Avenue / 24 Street intersection;

Addition of 8 Avenue S (Township Road 271) east of Airdrie, including a connection to the East Lake Industrial area. Although no continuous east/west network has been protected within the existing City limits, this would provide the best possible surrogate, particularly for transit routing;

The plan does not identify a north-south arterial on the existing east City boundary. However, the 2008 TMP does cite the benefits of adding a minor north-south connector in this area, providing secondary access to the Thorburn and Meadowbrook neighbourhoods. This should still be considered at the detailed planning level, although this link would not serve as a major arterial or regional route.


A011-921 PAGE 17

8.3. ROADWAY NETWORK (NORTH ANNEXATION AREA)

In the north annexation area, no prior planning has been completed. Strong north-south routing options exist on a number of corridors including all Range Roads west and east of Highway 2. These are logically extended north as part of the contemplated City / County networks. East Lake Blvd (Range Road 293) and Main Street (Dickson Stevenson Trail) provide parallel arterial routes to Highway 2.

East-west connectivity in the north annexation area is most challenging, and will require more detailed study at the TMP and CASP levels. Physical barriers include Nose Creek, the CPR tracks and Highway 2 - with the CPR requiring grade separation for all new crossings, and Alberta Transportation having strict requirements for additional interchanges on the provincial freeway facility.

Conceptually, the network plan identifies two major east-west routes north of Veterans Blvd. Due to Alberta Transportation requirements for interchange spacing on the provincial network north of Airdrie, the next interchange north of Veterans Blvd is identified two miles to the north, at Township Road 274. This location would also support future urban development north of the planned annexation boundary.

To support development within the current annexation area, the plan identifies an intermediate arterial route, with a flyover crossing of Highway 2 between the interchange. This provides internal connectivity for the City, addressing the “barrier” of Highway 2, without affecting the provincial facility. Without the interaction of highway / interchange traffic, the fly-over route should be highly effective for internal traffic flow, and would be a strong candidate for primary transit service.

8.4. ROADWAY NETWORK (INTERCHANGES)

The size and land-use distribution of the proposed annexation area will likely generate demand within and between the four quadrants of the City. It would be desirable to accommodate these internal trips on routes others than the “central axis” roadways at the heart of Airdrie (i.e. - Highway 2 and Yankee Valley Blvd).

The resulting higher demand on certain perimeter roadways may require protection for interchanges at key locations. Following a pattern set by the North Balzac / East Airdrie study, key interchange sites have been identified generally at two mile spacing on surrounding roadways including 40 Street W (Range Road 14), 40 Avenue N (Township Road 274), 32 Street E (Township Road 292), and 56 Avenue S (Township Road 264). While the location of these interchanges is not considered fixed at this level of planning, their identification is intended to protect key regional corridors, particularly those that connect south to Stoney Trail via the Métis Trail and Harvest Hills Blvd interchanges, and those that provide alternate east-west connections to Highway 2.

8.5. ROADWAY NETWORK (EAST FREEWAY EXTENSION)

Alberta Transportation has previously indicated that it may ultimately designate and protect for an East Freeway Extension, originating from the northeastern-most interchange on the Stoney Trail ring road and ultimately connecting back to Highway 2 somewhere north of Airdrie. The route would be protected to a very high freeway standard, with the intent that it provides a primary provincial network alternative to Highway 2 as a north penetrator / bypass route for the Calgary metropolitan area.


A011-921 PAGE 18

While planning for the East Freeway route has not been completed at this time, it is nevertheless of interest to future planning for the City of Airdrie, and has been identified on a conceptual level east of the contemplated annexation area. In doing so, the following items are noted in relation to its depiction and areas of interest to the City in future discussions with the Province:

Interchanges are expected to be permitted on the East Freeway route at most at a spacing of 3.2 km (2 miles), if not greater. Expecting this to be the case, the plan identifies interchange locations at the major east-west roadways, including 56 Avenue S (Township Road 264), Yankee Valley Blvd, Veterans Blvd and the new east-west route in the north annexation area (which could be diverted north in the County to achieve the required spacing, at Township Road 274).

If there is an expectation of future development to the east, it is desirable to protect for intermediate “fly-over” locations on a one-mile grid, between interchanges, so that local traffic has alternative access across the freeway, without using the provincial facilities.

Although the East Freeway largely aligns with Range Road 290 in the City of Calgary, it is highly desirable that the freeway be planned as a “green field” route east of Range Road 290, allowing the latter to be maintained as a continuous north-south roadway, without “severance” by the provincial network. If Range Road 290 is removed or severed, it would leave the east annexation area with only one possible north-south roadway, and significantly constrain the City’s network and growth in the area. The (poor) example of 84 Street E in the City of Calgary is instructive, and something to be avoided in future.

8.6. CPR CROSSINGS

Through prior agreement with CPR, it is contemplated that no new at-grade crossings of the CPR will be permitted in the Airdrie region, following completion of the Railway Avenue connection in 2011. Thus, the identification of roadway corridors across the tracks should carefully consider the cost associated with grade-separation in confirming their benefit to the network.

For the purpose of the annexation concept, grade-separated CPR crossings have been identified at six locations: 56 Avenue S (Township Road 264), 40 Avenue S, Yankee Valley Blvd, Veterans Blvd, Township Road 273, and Township Road 274. It is expected that Township Road 274 could be staged as an at-grade crossing, as is already the case. Upgrading to a grade-separated crossing could likely to be deferred until urban development proceeds further north.

Pedestrian overpasses should be considered across the CPR at intermediate locations, particularly if there are strong east-west features severed by the rail line.

8.7. HIGHWAY 2 CROSSINGS

Interchange locations on Highway 2 have been largely set through previous studies. The two-mile spacing between Yankee Valley Blvd and Veterans Blvd has left an appreciate gap in the City’s east-west transportation network. However, previous TMP analysis has confirmed that there is little practical possibility of establishing such an east-west route at this time, without significant and undesirable disruption to existing neighbourhoods. Thus, a vehicular flyover is not provided.

Central Highway 2 access is provided via the southerly-ramps to East Lake Crescent and from Edmonton Trail. These connections remain beneficial to the City, providing alternative routes to Highway 2, particularly for the strong commuter movements to/from the south. Severing the connections would increase demand on the already-overloaded Yankee Valley Blvd and Veterans Blvd routes.


A011-921 PAGE 19

South of Yankee Valley Blvd, vehicular access across Highway 2 will be provided at one-mile spacing, with new interchanges at 40 Avenue S (Township Road 265) (to/from the south only) and 56 Avenue S (Township Road 264). It is of note that prior planning for East Airdrie by Rocky View County has identified a continuous east-west arterial connection at 40 Avenue S (Township Road 265) east of Highway 2. Right-of-way for this link remains in question at the time of this report, but remains a desirable consideration so that east Airdrie can enjoy the full benefits of the proposed partial interchange. If the link is removed from the network, demands on Yankee Valley Blvd and 56 Avenue S (Township Road 264) will be increased proportionately, and may limit growth opportunities in the “shadow” area between Sharp Hill and the Airdrie Airport. This issue should be considered in greater detail at the TMP and CASP levels.

North of Veterans Blvd, the plan has identified two crossings of Highway 2, including a new interchange two miles north at Township Road 274, and an intermediate flyover crossing at Township Road 273. This interchange spacing meets provincial guidelines for the freeway facility, while the flyover is of benefit to both the City and Province by providing for east-west connectivity with reduced impact on existing and future interchanges.

8.8. PEDESTRIAN ROUTES

Pedestrian circulation is an important consideration in future expansion of the transportation network. Although not considered in detail here, CASPs should identify well-connected pathway networks within and between communities, connecting green spaces and providing well-appointed corridors throughout the City. An overview of such corridors is provided in the City’s “Great Spaces Parks Master Plan,” which should be extended as the City grows.

A key consideration for pedestrian circulation is the provision of convenient access across the major physical barriers in the City - notably including Nose Creek, the CPR and Highway 2. The “Great Spaces” plan identified the need for numerous new pedestrian overpass crossings of Highway 2, and these are carried into the conceptual network. Extrapolating these requirements, the network plan also considers the need for additional crossings, particularly north of Veterans Blvd. Additional pedestrian crossings are identified at each intermediate half-mile location between future interchanges or flyovers. The exact locations and connections to these routes requires further study in each case, with overpasses most desirable where they will connect major east-west features in communities on both sides of the Highway or CPR.

8.9. TRANSIT ROUTING

Regularly-scheduled transit service is approaching its fifth anniversary in the City of Airdrie. While still in early stages of development, it is expected and necessary that transit service will accommodate a greater proportion of trips as Airdrie grows. Numerous Airdrie policies, particularly the residential density policy and the planned development of communities on a more grid-like network, have been aligned with this goal in mind.

Transit service in Airdrie currently consists of three local routes, plus the recently-implemented Inter-City Express (ICE) rush hour routes between Airdrie and Calgary. The ICE service was the first step taken under the Calgary Regional Partnership’s regional transit plan, and is the genesis for future implementation of regular Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service between Airdrie in Calgary. In future, it is possible that transit service throughout Airdrie will be closely coordinated with that in the City of Calgary, either through joint planning with Calgary Transit or directly through a new regional transit authority.


A011-921 PAGE 20

For the purpose of the transportation network concept, major transit components have been identified for commuter rail, LRT and primary east-west corridors, which are each described as follows. Commuter Rail:

Commuter rail service from Airdrie to Calgary would be implemented on the CPR corridor and is already part of the Regional Transit Plan;

The use of the CPR corridor for commuter rail would allow the route to service downtown Airdrie, with the expectation that the terminal station would be located in the vicinity of Railway Avenue in the Tower Lane area.

LRT:

LRT service connections have been identified into the City of Airdrie, but these are not currently part of the Regional Transit Plan and remain highly conceptual at this time. Alignments within the City of Airdrie have not been identified;

Western Airdrie could be serviced by Calgary’s planned North Line, which has not yet been developed but has been protected along the Harvest Hills Blvd corridor. It is expected to be several decades before the line is developed even within the City of Calgary;

Eastern Airdrie could be serviced by Calgary’s Northeast Line, which currently runs to McKnight-Westwinds and will be open to Saddleridge by 2013. Current planning has provided for an extension of this line through northeast Calgary (generally along 60 Street E), then diverting west and continuing north into Rocky View County (generally along 36 Street E, between Deerfoot Trail and Metis Trail). However, planning for the intervening section of LRT through Rocky View County to service the expected Balzac development core has not yet been completed, and may be limited due to lower densities in the area. It is assumed that it would connect to Airdrie in the vicinity of Township Road 292.

Major Transit Spines

Providing east-west and north-south primary transit routes is desirable to promote high-quality, frequent service between all areas of the City. East-routes are particular important, as this direction of travel is not planned to be serviced by any rail-based transit system;

In south Airdrie, 40 Avenue S (Township Road 265) provides the logical transit spine, allowing it to be developed in a more transit-oriented fashion at the City’s periphery, and keeping the service focused off the major auto routes of Yankee Valley Blvd and 56 Avenue S (Township Road 264). A key consideration here is that 40 Avenue would be connected east of Highway 2, which remains in question at this time;

In central Airdrie, it would be desirable to provide an east-west route that services a commuter rail hub in downtown Airdrie. To the west, this is well accessible via First Avenue. To the east, routing is not well established, and the routing would need to divert via East Lake Blvd and Veterans Blvd to cross Highway 2;

In north Airdrie, Township Road 273 provides a logical transit connection, crossing Highway 2 without an interchange or interference from highway traffic;

North-south, primary transit routes are identified along 24 Street to service west Airdrie and Township Road 292 / 293 to service east Airdrie.


A011-921 PAGE 21

8.10. MINOR ROADWAYS AND COMMUNITY ACCESS

Although not directly contemplated within the network concept, it is important to the functioning of the future transportation system that planning allows for a well-connected network of multi-purpose roadways throughout the City of Airdrie. Some principles for planning of minor networks are highlighted below:

Airdrie should try to avoid the “closed community” model that prevailed in new neighbourhoods from the 1970s through the 2000s, with “circular” or circuitous collector roads running internally to the community, and few access points to the surrounding arterial network;

For mid-range arterials (i.e. those not serving as Highway Arterials or on the Perimeter Route), regular access to and between communities should not only be permitted, but encouraged;

CASP-level planning should identify and protect for inter-community connections besides the arterial roadways. A grid network providing multiple access points into and through communities will promote shorter trips, and keep short-range traffic off the arterial grid;

Networks that require vehicles or pedestrians to go significantly out of their way, or travel considerable distances on arterial roads, to access “local” amenities, should be avoided;

The City should consider classifications of roadway between the traditional arterial and collector roadways. As an example, the City of Calgary will implement a “Neighbourhood Boulevard” standard that provides for community permeability, transit access and walkable commercial frontage, which could be considered here, as well. A well-connected grid of such “Neighbourhood Boulevards” would be beneficial to circulation generally.

In addition to the physical layout of the network, land use should be planned concurrently with transportation in future, and should recognize the need for a better mix of land uses throughout the City than has been the case in the past. Providing employment opportunities throughout the City, and not just in concentrated industrial sectors, would be beneficial, as are land use patterns that allow for shorter, local trips within “complete” neighbourhoods. Compatible and parallel land-use and transportation planning provides an opportunity for Airdrie to optimize mobility throughout the City, and align with regional goals as expressed through the Calgary Metropolitan Plan.


A011-921 PAGE 22

9. UTILITY CORRIDORS

9.1. GENERAL

Utility corridors considered in this section are:

Rights-of-Way – These are areas owned by the City and include land set aside for roads, public thoroughfares such as pathways and public utilities;

Easements – this is the right held by the City over another persons lands for a specific use; and

Existing Road Allowances in Rocky View County and The City of Calgary

9.2. WITHIN EXISTING CITY LANDS AND PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREAS

The approximate locations of recommended utility corridors are shown on Plate 7.0 in Appendix “A”.

The utility corridors will likely take the form of rights-of-way within the annexation areas and a combination of rights-of-way and easements within the existing City boundary.

9.3. UTILITY CORRIDORS BETWEEN AIRDRIE AND CALGARY

The location of required utility corridors are shown on Plate 8.0 in Appendix “A”. The intent is to locate the proposed water supply main from Calgary within The City of Calgary rights-of-way and Rocky View County road allowance (Range Road 11).

The wastewater forcemains would be located within an easement parallel to and abutting the existing easement from Airdrie, which is located immediately along the west side of the CPR right-of-way, to the point of connection with the Calgary system at 144 Avenue N.E.


A011-921 PAGE 23

10. ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COST ESTIMATES

Order of magnitude cost estimates for the major infrastructure components related to water, wastewater and transportation infrastructure are noted in Table 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4. The estimates include engineering but are exclusive of land costs and GST. Estimates are based on 2011 dollars,.

Costs are not provided for the following:

Stormwater management facilities;

Transportation infrastructure that are not part of the major systems shown on previous plates;

Water and wastewater mains that are not part of the major systems shown on the previous plates.

TABLE 10.1 – ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTS FOR MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENTS (WATER)

WATER

INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENT ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COST

1. Booster Pump Station for WSA1 and WSA2 (1.155 l/s) $ 7,500,000

2. Water Supply Main for WSA1 and WSA2 (±5.5km of 600mm PVC) $ 5,500,000

3. Water Reservoir for WSA1 and WSA2 (31.8ML) $ 25,50,000

4. Water Pump Station for WSA1 and WSA2 (1,850 l/s) $ 12,600,000

SUB TOTAL WSA1 AND WSA2 $ 51,100,000

5. Booster Pump Station for WSA3 and WSA4 (965 l/s) $ 6,300,000

6. Water Supply Main for WSA3 and WSA4 (±13.0km of 600mm PVC) $ 13,000,000

7. Water Reservoir for WSA3 and WSA4 (21.5ML) $ 17,200,000

8. Water Pump Station for WSA3 and WSA4 (1,180 l/s) $ 8,400,000

SUB TOTAL WSA3 AND WSA4 $ 44,900,000


A011-921 PAGE 24

TABLE 10.2 – ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTS FOR MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENTS (WASTEWATER)

WASTEWATER

INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENT ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COST

Wastewater Drainage Area 1 (WDA1)

1. Trunk Main from N-1 to Lift Station $ 1,780,000

2. Trunk Main from N-5 to Lift Station $ 555,000

3. Northwest Lift Station (541 l/s) $ 6,750,000

4. Northwest Forcemain $ 1,320,000

TOTAL WDA1 $ 10,405,000


5. Trunk Main from W-1 to Lift Station $ 7,395,000

6. Southwest Pump Station (1,448 l/s) $ 14,063,000

7. Southwest Forcemain $ 3,360,000

TOTAL WDA2 $ 24,818,000


8. Trunk Main from E-1 to Lift Station $ 1,525,000

9. East Lift Station (486 l/s) $ 6,188,000

10. East Forcemain from SE Pump Station to CPR $ 8,860,000

TOTAL WDA3 $ 16,573,000


11. Trunk Main from SE1 to Southeast Pump Station $ 3,880,000

12. Southeast Pump Station (650 l/s) $ 7,596,000

13. Forcemain from SE Pump Station to CPR $ 1,015,000

TOTAL WDA4 $ 12,491,000

14. 2 Forcemain(s) to Calgary (2,098 l/s) – (1) 900mm and (1) 1,200mm $ 32,000,000

Note: Estimates are exclusive of land costs and GST Estimates based on 2011 dollars Estimates include Engineering Fees and Contingency Major infrastructure costs funded by acreage assessment and development levies


A011-921 PAGE 25

TABLE 10.3 – ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTS FOR MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENTS (TRANSPORTATION)

(Refer to Table 10.4 for List of Projects)

ITEM # DESCRIPTION TOTAL AMOUNT

1 4 Lane Arterial (50.3 Km) $ 301,800,000

2 6 Lane Arterial (22 Km) $ 220,000,000

3 Interchange (7 ea) $ 280,000,000

4 Interchange (on Highway 2)* (1 ea) $ 15,000,000

5 Flyover (1 ea) $ 10,000,000

6 Combined Railway Overpass/Interchange (2 ea) $ 100,000,000

7 Major Creek Crossing (2 ea) $ 4,000,000

8 Pedestrian Overpass (2 ea) $ 12,000,000

TOTAL PROJECT COST (2011 DOLLARS) $ 942,800,000

Note: Amount is the 25% City of Airdrie contribution; 75% of cost attributable to the Province Transit infrastructure/LRT cost excluded in the estimate


A011-921 PAGE 26

TABLE 10.4 – LIST OF PROJECTS FOR TRANSPORTATION

ROAD SECTION

DESCRIPTION

4 LANES

6 LANES # OF FULL

INTERCHANGES # OF

FLYOVERS # OF CREEK CROSSINGS

# OF PEDESTRIAN OVERPASSES (KM of

road) (KM of road)

EAST – WEST ALIGNMENT 56 Avenue S 40 Street W to 8 Street W 3.2

40 Avenue S 40 Street W to 24 Street W 1.6

40 Avenue S ½ mile west of Metis Trail to ½ mile west of 64 Street E

3.2

Yankee Valley Boulevard

40 Street W t 24 Street W 1.6

Yankee Valley Boulevard

32 Street E to just right of 64 Street E

3.2 1

8 Avenue S 40 Street W to 2 Street W 1.6

8 Avenue S ½ mile west of 32 Street E to ½ mile west of 64 Street E

3.2

Veterans Boulevard

½ mile west of 40 Street W to 24 Street W

2.4

Veterans Boulevard

½ mile west of 32 Street E to ½ mile west of 64 Street E

3.2 1

24 Avenue N 40 Street W to ½ mile east of 32 Street

8.4 1 1 1

40 Avenue N 40 Street W to ½ mile east of 32 Street

8.4 2 1

NORTH – SOUTH ALIGNMENT 40 Street W 56 Avenue S to 40 Avenue N 9.6 4

24 Street W 56 Avenue S to ½ mile north of 56 Avenue S

0.8

24 Street W ½ mile south of 24 Avenue N to 40 Avenue N

2.4

8 Street W ½ mile south of 24 Avenue N to 40 Avenue N

2.4

Main Street ½ mile south of 24 Avenue N to 40 Avenue N

2.4

East Lake Boulevard

½ mile south of 24 Avenue N to 40 Avenue N

2.4

32 Street E 40 Avenue S to 40 Avenue N 8.4

48 Street E YVB to ½ mile north of Highway 567

4.0

Highway 2 1 2

TOTAL 50.3 22.0 10 1 2 2


A011-921 PAGE 27

11. CLOSURE

This report documents the infrastructure needs and order of magnitude costs relative to the proposed lands to be annexed by the City of Airdrie.

Based on the information contained in the report it is BSEI’s opinion that it is feasible to service the proposed lands relative to the infrastructure needs and order of magnitude costs.

We trust this report satisfies your current requirements.

If you have any questions or require further details, please contact the undersigned at any time.

Troy B. McNeill, B.Sc., P.Eng. Principal/Project Engineer

TBM/ded

APPENDIX “A”

PLATES 1.0 TO 9.0

APPENDIX “B”

CITY OF AIRDRIE WATER USAGE AND

WASTEWATER FLOW RECORDS

Water Consumption

Year

Average

consumption

Peak Day

consumption

total annual

consumption total residential

Industrial

(1) Average Peaked

Peaking

factor(m3/day) (m3/day) (m3/year) (Lpcd) (Igpcd) (Lpcd) (Igpcd)

1998 6,078 12,758 2,218,337 22,500 18,000 4,500 270.12 59.50 567.02 124.89 2.101999 6,412 9,655 2,340,384 22,883 18,306 4,577 280.21 61.72 421.94 92.94 1.512000 7,116 14,961 2,597,227 23,956 19,165 4,791 297.03 65.42 624.51 137.56 2.102001 8,656 14,726 3,159,421 26,413 21,130 5,283 327.72 72.19 557.54 122.81 1.702002 8,927 15,945 3,258,336 27,474 21,979 5,495 324.93 71.57 580.37 127.84 1.792003 9,458 17,995 3,452,043 31,820 25,456 6,364 297.22 65.47 565.52 124.56 1.902004 9,219 16,962 3,364,812 32,008 25,606 6,402 288.02 63.44 529.94 116.73 1.842005 10,040 18,634 3,664,588 33,836 27,069 6,767 296.72 65.36 550.71 121.30 1.862006 11,379 19,075 4,153,226 36,294 29,035 7,259 313.52 69.06 525.57 115.76 1.682007 12063 21,938 4,403,086 39,390 31,512 7,878 306.25 67.46 556.94 122.67 1.822008 12,432 20,479 4,537,730 42,645 34,116 8,529 291.53 64.21 480.22 105.78 1.652009 12,972 23,674 4,734,961 47,614 38,091 9,523 272.45 60.01 497.21 109.52 1.82

Average 297.14 65.45 538.13 118.53 1.81Maximum 327.72 72.19 624.51 137.56 2.10

notes

1) Industrial population equivalency assumed to be 25% of residential population as per 2008 offsite levy report

Consumption per capita per dayPopulation

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Resu

ltin

g P

eakin

g f

acto

r

Co

nsu

mp

tio

n

Year

Water Consumption

AveragePeakedPeaking factor

Wastewater Flows

Year Total Flows

Average Daily

Flows

Peak day

Flows population Average Peaked

Peaking

factor

(m3/year) (m3/day) (m3/day) Total residential Industrial (1) (Lpcd) (Igpcd) (Lpcd) (Igpcd)

1997 2,023,480 5543.78 12,530 21,875 17,500 4,375 253.43 55.82 572.80 126.17 2.261998 2,018,919 5531.28 11,177 22,500 18,000 4,500 245.83 54.15 496.76 109.42 2.021999 2,520,685 6905.99 13,549 22,883 18,306 4,577 301.80 66.48 592.11 130.42 1.962000 2,503,381 6858.58 10,113 23,956 19,165 4,791 286.30 63.06 422.14 92.98 1.472001 2,634,614 7218.12 14,421 26,413 21,130 5,283 273.28 60.19 545.99 120.26 2.002002 2,797,779 7665.15 10,278 27,474 21,979 5,495 279.00 61.45 374.10 82.40 1.342003 3,136,993 8594.50 16,705 31,820 25,456 6,364 270.10 59.49 524.98 115.64 1.942004 3,314,704 9081.38 15,910 32,008 25,606 6,402 283.73 62.49 497.07 109.49 1.752005 3,790,918 10386.08 26,268 33,836 27,069 6,767 306.95 67.61 776.33 171.00 2.532006 3,949,877 10821.58 18,755 36,294 29,035 7,259 298.17 65.68 516.76 113.82 1.732007 4,398,657 12051.11 29,196 39,390 31,512 7,878 305.94 67.39 741.20 163.26 2.422008 3,677,270 10074.71 27,262 42,645 34,116 8,529 236.25 52.04 639.28 140.81 2.712009 4,031,969 11046.49 26,268 47,614 38,091 9,523 232.00 51.10 551.69 121.52 2.38

Average 274.83 60.54 557.79 122.86 2.04Maximum 306.95 67.61 776.33 171.00 2.71

notes

1) Industrial population equivalency assumed to be 25% of residential population as per 2008 offsite levy report

Flows per capita per day

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

900.00

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Resu

ltin

g P

eakin

g f

acto

r

Flo

ws (

Lp

cd

)

Year

Wastewater Flows

AveragePeakedPeaking factor

APPENDIX “C”

SPREADSHEETS FOR WASTEWATER

SERVICING CONCEPTS

WASTEWATER SERVICING CONCEPT

FOR

PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA

Page 1 of 2

Average Average Total Total Total Upper Upper Lower Length Proposed Upper MH

Res. C/I C/I Peak Daily Daily WW Peak WW Peak WW Peak WW Ground Invert Invert Between Pipe Trench

From To Service Service Res. Equi. Total Flow WW Vol. Flow Rate Flow Rate Flow Rate Flow Rate Elev. Elev. Elev. Manholes Slope Diameter Capacity Depth

Trunk MH MH Area - Acs Area - Acs Pop. Pop. Pop. Factor Cgallons Cgpm Cgpm cfs L/s meters meters meters meters % Inches cfs meters

North N-1 N-2 0 470 0 4700 4700 3.27 310200 215 704.4 1.88 53.4 1115 1111.0 1098.0 800 1.63 10 3.70 4.0N-2 N-3 0 790 0 7900 7900 3.06 521400 362 1106.4 2.96 83.8 1102 1098.0 1087.0 800 1.38 10 3.40 4.0N-3 N-4 320 1110 7680 11100 18780 2.68 1239480 861 2306.8 6.17 174.8 1091 1087.0 1082.0 800 0.63 15 6.70 4.0N-4 NWLS 480 1110 11520 11100 22620 2.60 1492920 1037 2694.4 7.21 204.2 1086 1082.0 1080.0 800 0.25 21 10.50 4.0

See Note 1 NWLS 800 580 19200 5800 25000 2.56 1650000 1146 2928.2 7.84 221.9 1085 1082.0 1080.0 800 0.25 21 10.50 3.0

Northwest See Note 2 NWLS 480 0 11520 0 11520 2.89 760320 528 1527.7 4.09 115.8

Total NWLS 1565 7150.4 19.13 541.8

West See Note3 660 0 15840 0 15840 2.75 1045440 726 1999.7 5.35 151.5W-1 W-2 620 0 14880 0 14880 2.78 982080 682 11047.2 29.56 837.1 1105 1102.0 1100.0 1100 0.18 33 30 3.0W-2 W-3 1368 0 32832 0 32832 2.44 2166912 1505 12820.0 34.31 971.5 1105 1100.0 1097.0 1400 0.21 36 40 5.0W-3 W-4 1688 0 40512 0 40512 2.35 2673792 1857 13514.9 36.17 1024.1 1100 1097.0 1096.2 800 0.10 42 41 3.0W-4 W-5 2008 0 48192 0 48192 2.28 3180672 2209 14184.9 37.96 1074.9 1100 1096.2 1095.4 800 0.10 42 41 3.8W-5 W-6 2328 0 55872 0 55872 2.22 3687552 2561 14835.2 39.70 1124.2 1100 1095.4 1094.6 800 0.10 42 41 4.6W-6 SWPS 2728 0 65472 0 65472 2.16 4321152 3001 15625.3 41.81 1184.1 1100 1094.6 1093.8 800 0.10 42 41 5.4

Southwest See Note 4 SWPS 1280 0 30720 0 30720 2.47 2027520 1408 3474 9.3 263.2

Total SWPS 5628 1110 19099.0 51.1 1447.3

Note 1 Wastewater from the N 1/2 of Sections 22,23 and 24 -27-1-W5M and the N1/2 of Sections 22,23, and part of 24-27-29-4-W5M ( N-5 ) Note 2 Wastewater from the S1/2 of Section 22-27-1-W5M and the SW1/4 of Section 23-27-1-W5M Note 3 Pumped wastewater from Section 14 - 27 - 1 - W5M plus 20 acres from the SE1/4 - 15 - 27 - 1 - W5M to Line from W1 to W2 Note 4 Remainder of southwest service area

08/04/2011 2011 01 26 - A011921WastewaterSevicingConceptRev2

WASTEWATER SERVICING CONCEPT

FOR

PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA

Page 2 of 2

Average Average Total Total Total Upper Upper Lower Length Proposed Upper MH

Res. C/I C/I Peak Daily Daily WW Peak WW Peak WW Peak WW Ground Invert Invert Between Pipe Trench

From To Service Service Res. Equi. Total Flow WW Vol. Flow Rate Flow Rate Flow Rate Flow Rate Elev. Elev. Elev. Manholes Slope Diameter Capacity Depth

Trunk MH MH Area - Acs Area - Acs Pop. Pop. Pop. Factor Cgallons Cgpm Cgpm cfs L/s meters meters meters meters % Inches cfs Meters

East E-1 E-2 0 330 0 3300 3300 3.41 217800 151 515 1.4 39.0 1127.0 1124.0 1119.0 800 0.63 10 2.3 3.0E-2 E-3 0 490 0 4900 4900 3.25 323400 225 731 2.0 55.4 1122.0 1119.0 1110.0 800 1.13 10 3.0 3.0E-3 E-4 0 730 0 7300 7300 3.09 481800 335 1034 2.8 78.3 1113.0 1110.0 1106.0 800 0.50 12 3.4 3.0E-4 E-5 160 810 3840 8100 11940 2.88 788040 547 1575 4.2 119.3 1110.0 1106.0 1103.0 800 0.38 15 5.3 4.0E-5 ELS 300 810 7200 8100 15300 2.77 1009800 701 1942 5.2 147.2 1107.0 1103.0 1094.0 800 1.13 15 9.0 4.0

Northeast See note ELS 980 1820 23520 18200 41720 2.34 2753520 1912 4472 12.0 338.7

Southeast SE-1 SE-2 160 480 3840 4800 8640 3.02 570240 396 7609 20.4 576.6 1105.0 1102.0 1094.0 800 1.00 21 21 3.0SE-2 SE-3 320 960 7680 9600 17280 2.72 1140480 792 8565 22.9 649.1 1097.0 1094.0 1092.0 800 0.25 30 27.0 3.0SE-3 SE-4 320 960 7680 9600 17280 2.72 1140480 792 8565 22.9 649.1 1095.0 1092.0 1087.0 800 0.63 30 43.0 3.0SE-4 SE-5 320 960 7680 9600 17280 2.72 1140480 792 8565 22.9 649.1 1090.0 1087.0 1084.0 800 0.38 30 34.0 3.0SE-5 SE-6 320 960 7680 9600 17280 2.72 1140480 792 8565 22.9 649.1 1085.0 1082.0 1079.0 800 0.38 30 34.0 3.0SE-6 SEPS 320 960 7680 9600 17280 2.72 1140480 792 8565 22.9 649.1 1085.0 1079.0 1077.0 800 0.25 30 27.0 6.0

Total ELS 485.9Total SEPS 649.1

Note Remainder of service area north of Yankee Valley Road

08/04/2011 2011 01 26 - A011921WastewaterSevicingConceptRev2

Appendix 6: Airdrie Annexation Area Infrastructure Needs Study (Part 4)

Documents