Saanich Peninsula Transportation Strategies Part II
By R. Ian Kingham, GMK Transportation Planning and Engineering Ltd.
Last month's article described growth in the Saanich Peninsula and its impact on traffic volumes throughout the road network. Results were reported for Highway 17, the Pat Bay Highway. Although demographic and employment growth was reported to be very modest, substantial increases in traffic from other sources produced unsatisfactory performance for the road system in the Year 2020. Growth in ferries traffic including service to foot passengers, growth in the number of departures and arrivals at the airport, development of the airport lands for employment, and spot development on Indian lands, were principal factors.
This article describes the alternatives considered to ameliorate the impacts of increased travel and concludes with the identification of three alternative packages of actions that should be considered when a regional growth strategy is adopted by the Capital Regional District.
Network Strategies
To provide relief to the entire network, 13 strategies were identified, one being the no action alternative reported on in the previous newsletter. Strategies are listed in Table 1 and shown geographically were possible, in Figure 1. They include demand management strategies (2 and 3), supply strategies (6-12) and a mix of demand management - supply in the two high occupancy vehicle (HOV) strategies (4 and 5). Strategies in this context were single actions and not combinations of actions which would likely be adopted in practice. The strategies are self explanatory except perhaps for the Mid-Peninsula, Prospect Lake Corridor and Cherry Point/Moses Point Bridge strategies. The Mid-Peninsula Strategy calls for the joining and improving of existing north/south roads in a corridor located approximately in the middle of the peninsula. This corridor lies between Highway 17, on the east side of the peninsula and Highway 17A on the west side. The Prospect Lake Corridor provides a shorter connection between Highway 17A on the west side of the peninsula and Highway 1. The bridge would join the northern tip of the Peninsula with the Vancouver Island "mainland".
Table 1 Benefit/Cost Ratio Comparisons
| Strategy | Total Benefits | Cost $M | Benefit/Cost Ratio |
| 2 Mixed Land Use | 242.4 | 3.0 | 80.8 |
| 3 TDM/Transit | 146.1 | 3.0 | 48.7 |
| 4 HOV/Highway No.17 Six Lanes | 216.8 | 31.4 | 6.9 |
| 5 HOV/Highway No.17 Grade Separated Six Lanes | 231.4 | 68.3 - 4.3 | 3.4-2.7 |
| 6 Highway No.17A Arterial | 129.1 | 54.4 | 2.4 |
| 7 Mid Peninsula | 183.4 | 35.4 | 5.1 |
| 8 Highway No.17 Six Lanes | 215.7 | 29.9 | 7.2 |
| 9 Highway No.17 Grade Separated | 403.6 | 34.1-48.9 | 11.8-8.3 |
| 10 Prospect Lake Corridor | 89.2 | 24.4 | 3.6 |
| 11 Royal Oak/Colwood Connector | 2.4 | 18.7 | 0.13 |
| 12 Cherry Point/Moses Point Bridge | 443.9 | 930.4 | 0.48 |
Figure 1 Study Area
Economic Analysis
Table 1 shows the results of the economic analysis. Benefits were quantified for the network time saved, network accident reductions and motor vehicle cost savings. Benefits were larger for the big capital cost strategies and significant for the demand management strategies. The highest benefits resulted from building the Cherry Point/Moses Point Bridge.
Costs were lowest for the demand management strategies, higher for the strategies containing supply features, and highest for the Cherry Point/Moses Point Bridge.
The benefit cost ratios shown in the last column of Table 1 show very high ratios for demand management strategies and the very low ratio for the Cherry Point/Moses Point Bridge. Except for the Royal Oak/Colwood Connector and the Cherry Point/Moses Point Bridge, all supply alternatives showed a benefit cost ratio greater than 1.
Multiple Account Analysis
The multiple account analysis brings in other factors involved in making a decision of acceptance or rejection of a strategy. Four accounts, together with the financial account, are compared in Table 2. Strategies are rank ordered in the table for each account. In this instance, partnering opportunities have been added to the economic analysis to produce the financial account rankings.
Not unexpectedly, the larger capital cost projects, don't perform well in the environmental and social analysis. On the other hand, the demand management alternatives, faired extremely well on the environmental and social side but did little for customer service. It is significant from the standpoint of customer service that none of the strategies when considered alone, eliminated congestion. In each instance, the single improvement attracted traffic from other roads and became congested itself. (The network analyses were accomplished using the CRD, EMME/2 transportation planning model).
Table 2 Summary of Rank Orders by Account
| Alternative Strategy | MAE Account | ||||
| Financial | Customer Service | Environment | Economic Development | Social/Community | |
| No Action | 4 | 12 | 1 | 9 | 1 |
| Mixed Land Use | 1 | 10 | 1 | 7 | 1 |
| TDM/Transit | 1 | 10 | 3 | 9 | 3 |
| HOV/Highway No.17 - Six Lanes at Grade | 7 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 4 |
| HOV/Highway No.17 - Six Lanes Grade Separated | 7 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 7 |
| Highway No.17A Arterial | 11 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 6 |
| Mid Peninsula | 4 | 6 | 8 | 4 | 9 |
| Highway No.17 - Six Lanes | 7 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 4 |
| Highway No.17 - Grade Separation | 7 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 7 |
| Prospect Lake Corridor | 3 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Royal Oak/Colwood Connector | 6 | 10 | - | 9 | - |
| Cherry Point/Moses Point Bridge | 12 | 2 | - | 1 | - |
Recommendations
The findings described above led to the packaging of strategies into three packages for consideration by the Ministry during the Region's process to adopt a growth strategy. These are detailed in Table 3. The alternatives favour HOV lanes on Highway 17 and provide two alternatives to the option of all resources being allocated to Highway 17. The final package for each strategy included the demand management options.
Table 3 Reccommended Strategy Elements
| Strategy | Elements |
| Highway No.17, Four Lanes, Grade Separated with the Mid Peninsula Corridor |
|
| HOV/Highway No.17, Six Lanes, At Grade with the Mid Peninsula Corridor |
|
| HOV/Highway No.17, Six Lanes, Grade Separated |
|
Costs for each package came out to be approximately the same, i.e. $86 - $90M dollars for scaled down interchanges, referred as "mini changes" in the report. An example of a "mini change" is the interchange at Wain Road on Highway 17 near Sidney.
The principal, short-term recommendation from the study was to take actions that did not preclude the implementation of any package of strategies. Principal among such actions was access management where freeway standards do not exist on Highway 17. A second and equally important recommendation was the need for municipalities and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to work together to produce an optimum network of roads. This would require a funding program that provided partial support to municipalities for building their share of the road system that carries local trips and consequently benefits Highway 17. A third and important recommendation was the recommendation to consider the Mid-Peninsula Corridor rather than Highway 17A as the principal supporting road to Highway 17 for north/south traffic in the Peninsula.
Epilogue
Techniques to do strategic or long range planning, that include environmental and social impacts, are in their infancy. Multiple Account Planning works well with project level analyses where sufficient preliminary engineering can take place. Likewise costing is easier. For long-range studies, where projects are unlikely to be programmed in a 5-year period. Long range planning must depend upon techniques using the opinions of experts. Rules of thumb based on experience become important.