Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9




Design Stage Prepared By Date

Nichol Road Pedestrian Improvements

Conceptual Mike Thomas P.Eng. ENV SP April 9, 2014 Version 1.0

Pedestrian safety on Nichol Road has been the subject of community concern in recent years. This has been as a result of increased traffic, particularly related to visitors to the resort, and the risk to children around the Arrow Heights School. An application to the Resort Municipality Initiative Funds for Tourism Infrastructure funding successfully raised an additional $80,000 to compliment the Citys budgeted $126,000 for this project.


The goal of the project is to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety on Nichol Road in all seasons. The project area is the Nichol Road corridor between Airport Way and Park Ave, with potential to extend the work area further east to Hay Road or Camozzi Rd. Nichol Road is designated as a Collector Road in the Official Community Plan and is the primary corridor between downtown and the base area of Revelstoke Mountain Resort (RMR). Several hundred meters of Nichol Road is also designated as a school zone with a speed limit of 30km/hr during school hours; this speed limit is reinforced to drivers with radar actuated digital speed signs in each direction. The project scope also considers the future capacity needs of this corridor. With the long term plan of Nichol Road operating at an arterial road capacity, many thousand residents and guests will use this road for access to RMR. th Current planning for long-term access to the resort relies on the existing 4 Street corridor as the primary link 1 between downtown and the Trans Canada Highway, and the resort .

Nichol Road is currently configured as shown in Figure 1 below, with two 3.6m (12) driving lanes with a narrow shoulder on the south side averaging less than 30cm (1). A shared bike and pedestrian lane (referred to by transportation professionals as a sidepath) is located on the north side of the road and varies in width between 1.5 and 2.0m (5 to 6). The total width of the road corridor is 20m, with the centerline of the road located approximately in the centre of the right of way. As with many of the roads in the Arrow Heights area, Nichol Road has poorly defined drainage systems that impact the long-term integrity of the road structure, and may increase the chance of localized flooding events. Hydro poles with lease streetlights are located on the north side of the road. Much of the land along the south side of Nichol Road is not developed, with no existing street intersections existing between Airport Way and Camozzi Rd on the south side. All developed properties are serviced with potable water; however, none of the houses have connected to the sewermain that is located on Nichol Road, all existing developments on Nichol Road are serviced with septic systems.

The Dra ft Master Tra nsportation Plan i dentified an alternate/additional Collector Road link proposed for future construction,

thi s is described i n detail i n Proposed Tra nsportation Network Upgrades on page 8 of this report.

April 9, 2014

Nichol Road Pedestrian Improvements Design Report

Page 1

Nichol Rd. Design Report

Page 33 of 41


Figure 1 - Nichol Road Current Configuration


During project scoping discussions over the past five years, several pedestrian solutions have been presented. These are discussed in this section.

Curb and gutter is recognized as a standard road edge treatment in urban built up areas for simple separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. It is particularly useful when on-street parking is provided as it ensures an adequate width of pedestrian passage is retained, and provides a safe landing area for the passenger-side of a vehicle. However, curb and gutter, is an expensive option when correctly designed to manage stormwater and safety, as it often requires significant investment in underground drainage structures and piping due to the concentration of stormwater collection at catchbasins. From an infrastructure lifecycle perspective, studies have shown that curb and gutter and the associated drainage infrastructure can be as much as two to three times more expensive than 2 utilizing infiltration and bio-swales . Challenges with a curb and gutter solution include: 1. A lack of detailed stormwater planning in the Arrow Heights area indicating the suitability of concentrated stormwater discharge. As there are no piped stormwater outlets from this site, this option would require investigation into the suitability of concentrated ground disposal options. The design showed the sidewalk located directly behind the curb and gutter. While this is suitable in a downtown situation (where on street parking adds a safety buffer), in residential areas, particularly on collector and arterial roads, it is preferable to incorporate a vegetated buffer, either with street trees or grass between the road and sidewalk. The proposed sanitary upgrades require cutting in to asphalt that was not required to be replaced as part of the curb installation. These patches are likely to form weak planes in the asphalt, leading to cracking and settling. All snow from the north side of the road would need to be pushed to the south side and/or trucked offsite. This would significantly increase the snow removal costs for this section of road.





April 9, 2014

Nichol Road Pedestrian Improvements Design Report

Page 2

Nichol Rd. Design Report

Page 34 of 41


5. This option does not account for future road widening projects that may be required as RMR and associated developments grow.

This design option attempted to incorporate the installation of sewer services through a widened asphalt 3 replacement in front of the curb and gutter , while not necessary for the pedestrian works, the sewer is located south of road centreline and would still require localized patches at the tie-ins. Note that the installation of curb and gutter and sidewalk would increase the amount of remediation work for new sewer services, if this work was not incorporated at the same time as the installation of the curb and gutter.


This option involves the greatest disruption to the existing corridor and is likely the most costly to construct. To accommodate a 3-4 meter wide multiuse pathway and swale on the north side of Nichol Road, the centerline of the road needs to be shifted to the south, moving both driving lanes by several meters. This design, developed several years ago continued to provide 12 foot lanes as are existing, but could be modified to allow for 10 foot lanes. Challenges with the design include: 1. Without significant regarding and reshaping of the asphalt, the crown of the road would be offset; forcing more stormwater to the south side of the road, which currently is not serviced with a ditch, and in several places flows onto private property. The proposed sanitary upgrades require cutting in to asphalt that was not going to be replaced as part of the lane relocations, these patches would form weak planes in the asphalt, leading to cracking and settling. Cyclist safety may be lessened due to the decreased driver awareness of cyclists on multiuse pathways at 4 side road intersections and driveways .




This involves widening the sidepath on the north side of Nichol Road to accommodate increased pedestrian safety through a greater buffer to vehicles. No physical barrier would be imposed between vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists in this scenario; however, in the fall and spring it would be possible to install temporary barriers to increase the physical separation. This solution was proposed as part of the grant application. Challenges with this design include: 1. The increased road surface area means slight increases in snow removal costs due to the additional width to be plowed. Additionally, it may be more difficult to find space to store snow on the north side, increasing the need to move snow to the south side of the road or to truck snow offsite. Increased pavement width means that there are increased lifecycle costs. Increased road surface area means additional runoff is generated off the pavement, increasing the amount of drainage infrastructure required to dispose of the water. Cyclist safety may be lessened due to the decreased driver awareness of cyclists on multiuse pathways at side road intersections and driveways.

2. 3. 4.

3 4

Typi ca lly new curb and gutter only requires a one foot wi de asphalt patch for a clean ti e-in to the road surface.

A Germa n police study found that cyclists are 4 ti mes more likely to have an accident on a cycl e path than on the a djacent roa d, a nd the likelihood of serious i njury or a fa tality i s similarly i ncreased.

April 9, 2014

Nichol Road Pedestrian Improvements Design Report

Page 3

Nichol Rd. Design Report

Page 35 of 41


Through a review of current best practice of road design, and in an attempt to reuse the existing road structure, the design shown in Figure 2 was developed. The rationale for this design is described in the following sections.

Figure 2 - Nichol Road Proposed Changes

This design is the only improvement option that retains the existing road surface with minimal, localized widening. All other options incorporate a requirement to modify the pavement, either by widening the surface, moving the centerline, or tying-in curb and gutter. This has implications when considering the condition of the existing assets and desirable upgrades in the area; 1. The pavement on Nichol Road will require significant investment in the next 5-10 years. In 2013, these road sections were estimated to have a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating of between 54 and 86 (out of 100). Without a formal Level of Service policy for pavement assets, it is difficult to predict how these road sections would be ranked as priorities. At this stage it is recommended that the whole road surface 5 be planned for mill and filled within the next 10 years . Central to several of the previously discussed options was the conclusion that the installation of sewer services to each property along Nichol Road between Airport Way and Park Ave was a desirable outcome of the project. Any solution that installs a new asphalt driving surface should consider the likely timeline of future requests for sewer service within this neighbourhood, as all of these properties are on existing septic systems, and any new development or failure of an existing septic system, will, in accordance with the Sewer Regulation Bylaw (#1683), be required to connect to the sanitary sewer main. This section of road is heavily used during the winter season and two Resort Shuttle bus stops are located within this area. If feasible during the design phase, localized bus pullouts should be incorporated into the bike lane sections to accommodate the resort shuttles while allowing through traffic to pass unimpeded. The transit and school buses also use Nichol Road for their routes.



Note tha t none of the previously considered options included full remediation of the pavement, but only addressed one lane wi dth of remediation.

April 9, 2014

Nichol Road Pedestrian Improvements Design Report

Page 4

Nichol Rd. Design Report

Page 36 of 41


For safety, it is ideal to separate pedestrians from cyclists, and pedestrians from vehicles. The provision of bike lanes in both directions is recognized to provide additional safety for cyclists of all ages. These bike lanes should be marked as no parking areas during school hours. Narrower driving lanes have been shown to reduce driving speeds with no reduction in safety or road Figure 3 - 20m Collector Road Typical Section (Bylaw #1846) usability, particularly in low speed environments. Ten foot lanes are considered adequate for most roads in the city, exceptions apply with areas of frequent on-street parking turnover and where bike lanes are not marked. This represents a departure from the requirements of the Subdivision and Development Standards Bylaw (#1846) that requires all new development to provide 12 foot wide lanes and curb and gutter on almost all classes of roads. It is notable that the Envision Rating System rewards project teams that through their sustainability leadership make efforts to identify and change laws, standards, regulations and/or policies that may unintentionally run counter to sustainability goals, objectives and practices. The existing Subdivision Bylaw fits this description, and council may consider amending the language and standards with sustainable goals in mind. Figure 3 shows the Subdivision Bylaws typical section for a Collector Road in a 20m Right of Way, with 3.5m (12) lanes. Immediately east of the Arrow Heights school there is a rock bluff that may pose some challenges for continuing a sidewalk up this hill. Detailed survey would be required to determine if a sidewalk can be constructed, if blasting is required, and what other engineering challenges may exist.

The Manager of Public Works and Operations has been involved in the preliminary design considerations regarding snow removal from this corridor, particularly for pedestrians. These services can be provided using the existing City equipment such as sidewalk plows, graders and loaders. Minor changes to the way the equipment would operate along the corridor would allow the sidewalk to be maintained as part of the sidewalk plows route, supported by the larger road clearing equipment.

Table 1 Estimated Unit Prices

Item Concrete Sidewalk Swale Line Marking Signage 6 Asphalt Widening (localized)

Unit Cost $16,000 $15,000 $3,000 $1,000 $6,000

Units Per 100m Per 100m Per 100m Per 100m Per 100m

It is expected that construction costs for this project in the short term will be approximately as shown in Table 7 1. At these rates, $170,000 will cover the construction of 410m of the project, which allowing for road crossings is approximately the length of sidewalk required for Airport to Park.

This project focuses on pedestrian and cyclist safety; and defers road and traffic improvements and sewer upgrades, not directly related to the project priorities. This decision to defer allows a greater percentage of the
6 7

As s umed that minor widening will be required on either side a t a maximum of 50s qm per 100m l ength of road. $30,000 a l lowance for s urvey, engineering a nd contingency.

April 9, 2014

Nichol Road Pedestrian Improvements Design Report

Page 5

Nichol Rd. Design Report

Page 37 of 41


budget to be directed to the project priorities, potentially increasing the length of pedestrian improvements that 8 can be made .

A simplified Risk Register has been developed at the pre-design stage of the project, summarized in Table 2.
Table 2 - Risk Register

Risk Category Geotechnical Legal Survey

Description Ground conditions may be unsuitable for proposed works. Proposed Sidewalk location may need to be modified. The existing pavement width may not allow for full width bike lanes. Ground conditions may be unsuitable for proposed works. Cost of construction may be higher than expected Design may not be supported by the community

Consequence Minor Minor

Likelihood Unlikely Possible

Comments/Action Priorities Low Risk - Predominantly sandy soil, likely to be suitable. Planned Action - Sidewalk can be divert around hydro poles, This will narrow the swale slightly in these locations. Prioritized Action - An allowance for additional width has been provided in the budget. Low Risk - With minimal additional pavement, and the addition of swales, the drainage will not be worse than existing. Prioritized Action Construction Project will focus on core objectives, and allow for optional works as budget permits. Planned Action Communication Plan will be developed to inform the community of the design features and rationale.

Road Width Drainage

Moderate Minor

Possible Unlikely







A simplified Stakeholder Register has been developed for the project at the pre-design stage, shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3 - Stakeholder Register

Stakeholder Group Mayor and Council School District and PAC Tourism Infrastructure Committee Neighborhood

Expectations, interests, impact, and requirements Project Sponsor. Quality, procurement, cost and scope management Safe route to school, maintenance standards. Construction timing, school bus access Project Sponsor. Quality, meeting approved objectives. Construction management, dust control, rehabilitation of works

Communications Council Meetings, project progress reports through committees. Letters to school district. Council reports, final project report. Media, Council reports, letters to adjacent

Note tha t the road rehabilitation costs far exceed the proposed budget of this project. Estimated costs ra nge from $38,000/100m of roa d for mill a nd fill to $95,000/100m of roa d for full depth reconstruction.

April 9, 2014

Nichol Road Pedestrian Improvements Design Report

Page 6

Nichol Rd. Design Report

Page 38 of 41


Stakeholder Group Contractors Transit and Shuttle RMR Expectations, interests, impact, and requirements Tendering process advertising Transit re-routing during construction, location and scale of transit and shuttle stops in planned works Construction timing, links to planned resort related works Communications residents BC Bid, City website Letters to BC transit, meetings if required. Regular meetings with staff.

A self-assessment checklist using the Envision Rating System was completed to determine the relative sustainability of the proposed project. This checklist is intended to be used during the early stages of a project to provide an overview of the project against the core infrastructure sustainability objectives identified in the Envision Rating System. The self assessment checklist asks questions with Yes, No, Not Applicable answers on each of these areas. The assessment areas, and some example questions that the project team hopes to be able to answer yes to, are listed in Table 4:
Table 4 - Example Envision Rating System Questions

Area Quality of Life

Example Envision Questions Will the project make the community more attractive to people and businesses? Has the project team coordinated the design with other infrastructure assets to reduce traffic congestion, and improve walkability and livability? Will the project be designed in ways that extend substantially the useful life of the project? Will the project team consider the appropriate reuse of existing structures and materials and incorporated them into the project? Will the project divert a significant amount of project waste from landfills? Will the project be designed to reduce storm runoff to pre-development conditions?

Leadership Resource Allocation Natural World Climate and Risk

Will the project team specify locally appropriate and non-invasive plants on the site? Will a comprehensive review be conducted to identify the potential risks and vulnerabilities that would be created or made worse by the project? Will the project be designed to accommodate a changing operating environment throughout the project life cycle? From a preliminary review of the project, ranging from the high level of neighborhood support for pedestrian and cyclist improvements, to the proposed methodology of construction and reuse of existing assets, to onsite stormwater management, the project meets many of the applicable sustainability objectives.

This report has indicated several areas of future works that are likely along this corridor. These are summarized below, additionally; external projects that may impact the future use of Nichol Road are listed.


Over time all of the properties along Nichol Road will connect into the sanitary sewer system. Infrastructure planning is required to determine the ideal timing of providing these service connections and attempt to combine this work with a resurfacing project, or road reconstruction in the future. Concrete sidewalk panels can be individually removed to facilitate required sewer service installation.


April 9, 2014

Nichol Road Pedestrian Improvements Design Report

Page 7

Nichol Rd. Design Report

Page 39 of 41


Large parcels adjacent to Nichol Road remain undeveloped at this stage, predominantly along the south side; the Resort Master Plan identifies golf course facilities and residential development in this area. Additionally, uphill of Park Avenue there are several larger parcels on the north side of Nichol ready for development.


Given the proposed development indicated in RMRs Resort Master Plan, it is probable that Nichol Road will need to be widened to four lanes, with the potential for intersection upgrades such as roundabouts or turning lanes to facilitate turning movements in busier periods. The existing 20m road right of way is inadequate for providing all of the desired streetscape elements; such as sidewalks, bike lanes and street trees with four driving lanes. In this scenario, the existing hydro poles would likely need to be undergrounded, and bike lane and sidewalk widths are less than optimal. An example cross section is shown in Figure 4. With 4m meters of road dedication from new development along the frontage, an improved 4-lane cross section could be developed. For both of these options, a detailed stormwater management plan for the Arrow Heights area would be required to ensure stormwater generated by the increased asphalt and concentrated through the collection system could be handled for the design storms.

Figure 4 - Future 20m Cross Section Nichol Road


The Draft Master Transportation Plan indicated a future second crossing of the Illecillewaet River from Camozzi Road, (north of Nichol) to Powerhouse Road in the industrial park. The feasibility of this connection (shown as a dashed line in Figure 5) has been debated over the past decade, with an estimated cost of construction of between $60M - $100M, due to the steep grades, span of the bridge and environmental concerns. At this stage, it is more likely that the existing 4 Street and Airport Way corridor would be upgraded to accommodate a new bridge crossing and four traffic lanes to Nichol Road.

Figure 5 -Future Road Network Classifications (as identified in the Draft Master Transportation Plan).

April 9, 2014

Nichol Road Pedestrian Improvements Design Report

Page 8

Nichol Rd. Design Report

Page 40 of 41


Table 5 summarizes the options in this report, providing a relative comparison.
Table 5 - Summary of Options

Vehicle Speed Do Nothing - Existing (Sidepath) Curb and Gutter and Sidewalk Detached Multiuse Path 13 Widen Existing Sidepath Narrower Lanes, Bikelanes and Sidewalk no change may reduce no change no change reduced

Cyclist Safety no change 10 reduced 11 reduced 14 reduced improved

Pedestrian Safety no change improved improved improved improved

Construction Costs (rank 1-5) 1 4 12 5 2 3

Maintenance Costs (rank 1-5) 1 5 4 2 3

The proposed option of narrower driving lanes, adding dedicated bike lanes on both sides and providing a sidewalk on the North side of Nichol Road is the best option to meet sustainability and community objectives.

Following acceptance of this report and the suggested design, City staff will proceed with detailed design work and stakeholder engagement. It is expected that construction will be tendered this summer.

This report provides justification for the reconfiguration of Nichol Road to narrower driving lanes, bike lanes in both directions and the construction of a sidewalk on the North Side of the road. This is a cost effective, safe option that meets many of the communitys previously stated expectations and is a long-term sustainable solution that does not inhibit future construction or reconfiguration.

The design drawings previ ously prepared do not i ndicate a ny width a vailable for bike lanes. Additionally, i f bike lanes are l oca ted a djacent to curb and gutter, generally they s hould be about 45cm (18) wi der for ri der s afety. A l i terature review of multiuse pathway s afety i ndicates that this configuration is likely to be more dangerous for cyclists than dedicated bike lanes. http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html The construction cost for the detached multi-use path is considered the highest as i t requires moving the centerline of the roa d to the south to a ccommodate the separated pathway.
13 14 12 11


Thi s option does not provide a ny i mprovement for eastbound cycl ist safety. Exa mples of studies are located here: http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

April 9, 2014

Nichol Road Pedestrian Improvements Design Report

Page 9

Nichol Rd. Design Report

Page 41 of 41