PRIORITIES COMMITTEE MEETING

Transcription

1 PRIORITIES COMMITTEE MEETING Meeting Date: June 17, 2014 Agenda Item #: 17.1 Capital Region Board Update Report Purpose To provide the Priorities Committee with a status report on the activities of the Capital Region Board. Council History Council has received regular Capital Region Board updates since its inception in Strategic Plan Priority Areas Economy: n/a Governance: Strathcona County, as a Specialized Municipality, works cooperatively with the Capital Region Board and its member municipalities to deliver services that may impact the success of our community and the region. Social: n/a Culture: n/a Environment: n/a Other Impacts Policy: n/a Legislative/Legal: Capital Region Board Regulation (MGA Appendix) Interdepartmental: Corporate Planning & Intergovernmental Affairs; Chief Commissioner; Transit; Planning & Development Services, Capital Planning & Construction, Transportation & Agricultural Services Summary recap The Board is now producing a Newsletter to provide Board members and their Councils with a recap of the Capital Region Board activities, such updates on Board, Committee and Task Force meetings, upcoming events, and updates on current issues. Enclosure I is the June 3, 2014 edition of the recap Newsletter. IRT Master Plan The project prioritization process for the report (Enclosure II) was undertaken by the Technical Review Committee (TRC). The Committee consisted of representation from CRB administration, Alberta Transportation and administration from six CRB member municipalities. Strathcona County was represented on the Committee by Capital Planning & Construction. The report was facilitated and prepared by ISL Engineering. The TRC s objective was to compile a listing of the Capital Region transportation construction, planning and transit priorities that would serve to coordinate the development of Capital Region transportation priorities over the short (3 year) term between the Capital Region Board member municipalities and Alberta Transportation. Document: Page 1 of 7

2 The Strathcona County projects identified in the report include the following Functional, Corridor Planning and Construction projects: 1. A study that will locate/site the new bridge crossing between Fort Saskatchewan and NE Anthony Henday Drive and identify impacts and needed upgrades on Highway 21 (Page 9 Item 3), 2. Highway 830 planning study (Page 9 Item 10), 3. Highway 21 free flow (e.g. add interchanges and restrict access) (Page 9 Item 11), and 4. The construction upgrade of Secondary Highway 628, NE Anthony Henday Drive to Highway 21 (Page 7 Item 6). The report is intended to be a living document which will be changed to meet and reflect changing conditions. The report was reviewed by Capital Planning & Construction, Planning & Development Services, Transportation & Agricultural Services and Transit and aligns with Strathcona County s three year transportation project priorities. Enclosures I re-cap Capital Region Board News II Prioritization of Regional Transportation Projects ( ) Author: Yolande Shaw, Corporate Planning & Intergovernmental Affairs Date: June 9, 2014 Director: Kelly Rudyk, Corporate Planning & Intergovernmental Affairs Chief Commissioner: Rob Coon Date: June 9, 2014 Document: Page 2 of 7

3 Enclosure I Capital Region Board News CRB members fully embrace "outstanding" Regional Symposium Mayor Camille Berube of Beaumont says it proved there is success for everyone when regional cooperation and collaboration replace regional competition - as "coop-etition". Strathcona Mayor Roxanne Carr tweeted that she appreciated its ability to bring regional issues from across Canada to the table for discussion. Sturgeon County's Mayor Tom Flynn called it a "great learning event about regional collaboration that all CRB councillors can benefit from in the future". "It" was the one-day Regional Symposium held in Niagara Falls May 29, hosted for a third time by CRB along with the Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP) and the Partnership of Manitoba Region (PMR). CRB participants proudly noted that about 70 percent of 100+ attendees represented the Capital Region. Entitled "Collaborating to Compete", the now-annual Regional Symposium brought together some of North America's leading practitioners and thinkers in the realm of regional local government. The Symposium theme echoed the direct experience of presenters Metro Denver and the Columbus Region; experiences that are shared with many emerging regional hubs like Document: Page 3 of 7

4 the Capital Region. Speakers relating their local experiences in designing and growing the "regional" approach for municipal growth and sustainability included: from Metro Denver - Tom Clark, CEO of Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation and Public Policy professor Dr. Allan Wallis, University of Colorado Denver, from the Columbus Region - Kenny McDonald, Chief Economic Officer and John O'Grady, Commissioner, Franklin County from the North American Strategy for Competitiveness (NASCO) - Tiffany Melvin, Executive Director In response to a breakout session question about how to evolve the regional network and move forward, participants agreed that the Regional Symposium format should continue, that it would benefit from including more sectors (e.g. business and industry) in future, and suggested creating a "platform for shared communications and information across regions". To follow-up, organizers are considering the launch of a regional website to capture all Regional Symposium presentations and data. Specific material from the Niagara Falls Regional Symposium is now being assembled for access on host websites in the near future. Watch recap for updates. Mayor Berube has also suggested a debrief of the Regional Symposium findings at an upcoming Board meeting. The next Regional Symposium will be held June 4, 2015 in the Capital Region, scheduled again to coincide with the annual meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) slated for Edmonton June 5-8, Note: Symposium venue to be determined. Housing Task Force forges ahead with 2014 plan In reviewing its 2014 workplan at the May 23 meeting, the Housing Task Force - comprising CRB members representing the six sub-regions of the Capital Region identified as: Edmonton, Lamont, Leduc, Parkland, Strathcona/Fort Saskatchewan and Sturgeon - opted to be proactive in completing a long-awaited Sub-Regional Housing Needs Assessment Framework. The Needs Assessment Framework is a standardized tool for analyzing current and future housing Document: Page 4 of 7

5 requirements. With two pilot assessment studies nearing completion in Leduc and Strathcona/Fort Saskatchewan, the Task Force passed a motion to have the Board Chair "work with the CRB to design and implement a strategy" if needed to secure the $90,000 needed to complete the assessments in the remaining four sub regions. Task Force Chair Councillor Dwight Ganske says the framework is key to understanding the housing needs of the region, which is the first step to making decisions about the Capital Region's growing housing issues. CRB Action Update Draft Terms of Reference for Economic Committee - Watch for the June 12 Board meeting agenda, including the first draft of Terms of Reference for a proposed Economic Development Committee, to be posted to the CRB website here by June 6. CRB Strategic Planning - The Board will wrap up its 4 year strategic planning process with a final workshop June 6, "to confirm strategic priority areas and identify key results for each priority area". Results will be brought forward in a report for the Board with final approvals set for the fall. Board Chair Nolan Crouse has accepted an invitation to participate in a panel discussion at AUMA's President's Summit on the MGA Review on June 18 at 12:45 p.m. in Calgary. He will join representatives of the CD Howe Institute, the Canadian Bar Association, the Alberta Chamber of Commerce, and the Alberta Professional Planners Association, and the Mayor of Grande Prairie. Topic is: Achieving Effective Governance at the Municipal Order of Government. recap Goes Public! - CRB's new regular information source - the recap newsletter - is now available to everyone online. Following a trial distribution to CRB members only, recap is now archived and resides on the CRB website here, where interested regional stakeholders and supporters can sign up to receive recap directly to their desktops - just as CRB members will continue to do. Document: Page 5 of 7

6 REF process changes July 1 Changes to the Regional Evaluation Framework (REF), including extending the appeal period from 14 to 28 days, take effect July 1. Also approved by the Board at its April meeting were clarifications to the REF procedure. To read the complete motion B see page 3 of the meeting minutes here To see the REF in detail click here Q: Is the Regional SmartCard sunk? A: In short - Not yet! Following initial rejection, a request for GreenTRIP funding for regional SmartCard technology will be the topic of an upcoming meeting between CRB's Transit Task Force and the Minister of Transportation. Transit Task Force Chair Councillor Wes Brodhead says the meeting is being requested to also update the Minister on CRB's other current priority projects and establish the status of GreenTRIP second round funding. "The SmartCard is a truly a regional project and if it is a no go for GreenTRIP funding as currently defined, then we must look at ways to change the criteria," says Chair Brodhead. The proposed regional fare system is the highest ranking CRB regional priority for GreenTRIP funding and would allow for the integration of municipal transit fares within the current transit operations of Edmonton, St. Albert and Strathcona County. Welcome to recap - your direct source for CRB news and activities Upcoming Events June 3 CRB Roadshow 6:30 pm, Wabamun June 5 Special Transit Task Force meeting re: Visioning Regional Transit 8 am, Edmonton Petroleum Club, Valley View Room June 6 Strategic Planning Workshop: Where do we want to go? 8 am, Chateau Nova Yellowhead Hotel, Grizzly Room June 10 CRB Roadshow 7 pm, Beaumont June 12 Capital Region Board 9 am, Chateau Louis Conference Centre, Grand Ballroom June 16 Governance, Priorities & Finance Committee 9 am, Edmonton Petroleum Club, Pembina Room June 17 CRB Roadshow 9:30 am, Parkland County June Document: Page 6 of 7

7 In addition to the advantage of SmartCard's seamless fare structure for all riders, the Capital Region expects to benefit further from potential infrastructure and operational economies of scale. Other currently identified regional priorities include bus purchases and transit infrastructure in Beaumont, Fort Saskatchewan, Spruce Grove, St. Albert and Strathcona County. At its May 22 meeting the Transit Task Force postponed a discussion to review and confirm the Task Force's Vision and instead called a special meeting for it on June 5, 2014, coinciding with the City of Edmonton's introduction of its trial electric bus. Thorsby welcomes two new Councillors Following the Thorsby by-election Monday June 2, 2014, residents have elected Kenneth Beleshko and Bob Burnett to Village Council. Thanks to new rules, those unable to vote at a regular voting station on Election Day were able to vote by special ballot. Seven special ballots were cast in a total of 173 votes. The new Councillors will be sworn in June 10. AUMA President's Summit on the MGA Review Metropolitan Conference Centre, Calgary June 19 Land Use & Planning Committee 9 am, Edmonton Petroleum Club, Rainbow Room Regional Services Committee 1:30 pm, Edmonton Petroleum Club, Rainbow Room Your next recap is June 17 Contact Loreen Lennon or with your thoughts or story ideas CRB Housing Symposium REenvision Market Affordable Housing Date October 2 Save the REGISTRATION NOW OPEN Click here for details Document: Page 7 of 7

8 Enclosure II Capital Region Board Final Report April, 2014 Document:

9 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction Background Objectives Methodology Overview of Evaluation Process Evaluation Criteria Criteria Weighting Original Ten Year IRTMP Project List Project Prioritization Project Scoring Project Prioritization Conclusion and Recommendations Conclusions Action Recommendations Other Recommendations 11 TABLES Table 2.1: Evaluation Criteria... following page 2 Table 2.2: Evaluation Criteria Weighting... 3 Table 2.3: Ten Year Project List... 4 Table 3.1: Project Scoring... 5 Table 3.2: Project Priorities for Construction (d Prelim. Engineering or Design)... 7 Table 3.3: Priorities for Project Design... 7 Table 3.4: Priorities for Project Functional or Corridor Planning... 9 FIGURES Figure 1: Ten Year Roadway Project List... following page 4 Figure 2: Ten Year Transit Project List... following page 4 islengineering.com April 2014

10 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background The Capital Region Board (CRB) approved the (IRTMP) in September The Plan defines key elements of the Capital Region s future transportation system over a thirty five year time frame. The IRTMP builds upon and supports the policy framework established in the Capital Region Boards Growth Plan s land use and transit components. The IRTMP also lists the ten-year roadway and transit investment priorities throughout the region. Following approval of the IRTMP by the Capital Region Board in September 2011, the Plan was submitted to the Government of Alberta with a request for its approval and incorporation into the overall Capital Region Growth Plan (CRGP). In Spring of 2013 The Minister of Municipal Affairs advised that the IRTMP will be included as an Addendum to the CRGP and adopted by Ministerial Order. In addition, the Minister indicated that Alberta Transportation considers the IRTMP to be a policy document that will guide future planning and development of transportation infrastructure in the Region. The Minister recommended that CRB continue to work with provincial staff to align provincial and regional developments. Following provincial approval of the IRTMP, the Capital Region Board decided to begin implementing the IRTMP by developing a shorter term prioritization of the ten year roadway and transit project list. The development of such a regional priority list was to foster coordination of regional transportation initiatives between municipalities, as well as enable better alignment of regional and provincial transportation priorities. 1.2 Objectives The objectives of the IRTMP Implementation Project are: 1. To compile a listing of the Capital Region s transportation priorities that would serve to coordinate the actions of member municipalities and the Province over the short (3 year), term towards the longer term objectives of the CRGP. 2. To include provincial transportation staff in the development of regional priorities to achieve better alignment of municipal, regional and provincial capital plans. 3. To develop a set of action recommendations that will focus municipal and provincial attention and action on priority transportation initiatives by municipalities and the province in its 3 Year Capital Plan. 4. To enable timely and rolling updates of regional priorities as conditions evolve over time. This document is intended to be a living document which will be changed and improved in the future to meet and reflect changing conditions. islengineering.com April 2014 Page 1

11 2.0 Methodology 2.1 Overview of Evaluation Process The project prioritization process was undertaken by a Technical Review Committee with representation from the following jurisdictions: City of Spruce Grove City of St. Albert City of Edmonton Strathcona County Leduc County Sturgeon County Alberta Transportation Following is a summary of the various stages of the regional transportation project prioritization, as utilized in this process: 1. Reviewed the Ten Year Roadway and Transit Priorities Project Lists Project must be part of IRTMP Roadway or Transit Network Roadway projects needed to be regionally significant Defined project status 2. Defined Evaluation Criteria Specific criteria that related to the IRTMP and CRGP. 3. Determined Weighting of Evaluation Criteria (Using Pair-wise Analysis) 4. Each project was scored against the agreed upon criteria and their weights 5. Determined project urgency; high, medium or low 6. Adjusted project scoring Assigned numerical value to project urgency Applied project urgency rating to project score to arrive at adjusted score 7. Prioritized Regional Projects by project status category Sorted project list by adjusted score to arrive at project ranking 2.2 Evaluation Criteria In collaboration with the Technical Review Committee, a set of criteria were developed to help identify project priorities and select a list of projects that will be deemed to be of highest priority for the Region. The evaluation criteria defined in Table 2.1 correlate directly with the Policies and Principles of the IRTMP and are in alignment with the Vision of the Capital Region Board: Page 2 April 2014

12

13 2.3 Criteria Weighting Since the project selection criteria have differing levels of importance, a criteria weighting exercise was undertaken. To determine the weight of each criterion, a pairwise comparison of the criteria was carried out with the participation of the Technical Review Committee members, and resulted in a set of weighted criteria that reflect regional, municipal and provincial interests. Table 2.2 identifies the weighting of each criterion/sub-criterion. Table 2.2: Evaluation Criteria Weighting Criterion % Weight * Rank Maximize Use of Existing Infrastructure 27 1 Supports the Region s Economy 21 2 Provides Viable Alternatives to the Private Automobile 17 3 Supports Growth in Priority Growth Areas (PGA's) 15 4 Supports Multi-Modal Transportation Facilities 11 5 Coordination Between Jurisdictions-Agreement in Place 6 6 Project Reduces Environmental Degradation 4 7 *Rounded to nearest full percent 2.4 Original Ten Year IRTMP Project List The original Ten Year project listed in the IRTMP is presented in Table 2.3. Projects that have been implemented or commenced since the completion of the IRTMP have been excluded. In an addition to project type, Table 2.3 has assigned a status designation to each of the projects. The three status designations are: Strategic,, Prelim Engineering/Design. Projects that are at the strategic planning stage have typically been defined in a longer range strategic plan such as a transportation master plan; they have typically not undergone any type of engineering to confirm feasibility, alignment or specific configuration. These projects require significant planning and engineering work before they can be implemented. Projects that are at the functional plan stage (or concept plan in Edmonton) have undergone the initial stage of planning and engineering which establishes basic feasibility, alignment, configuration, property requirements and planning level construction cost estimate. Projects that have undergone preliminary engineering / design are the closest to being ready for implementation. This stage of planning and engineering entails considerable investigation and detail including geotechnical, hydrotechnical, structural and the preparation of construction contract packages that include drawings and specifications. In some instances, some projects were in several stages of planning and engineering. To streamline and simplify the project prioritization, these projects were split into separate pieces that correspond to a unique project status. The Ten Year Roadway and Transit Projects are depicted in Figures 1 and 2. islengineering.com April 2014 Page 3

14 Table 2.3: Ten Year Project List Project Number / Name Project Type Project Status Central Sector 2 Manning Drive (137 Avenue - Anthony Henday Drive) Widening 3 97 Street (167 Avenue - Anthony Henday Drive) Widening Strategic 4 Yellowhead Trail (156 Street to 66 Street) Upgrade to Free Flow Strategic/ 5 Whitemud Drive (75 Street to 34 Street) Widening Prelim. Eng Street (Whitemud Drive to Yellowhead Trail) Upgrading Strategic/ 7 50 Street (Ellerslie Road to 41 Avenue SW) Widening 8 Terwillegar Drive (Whitemud Drive to Anthony Henday Upgrade to Free Flow Strategic/ Drive) 9 Heritage Valley Regional Park and Ride Park & Ride Prelim. Eng. 11 W-LRT (Downtown - Lewis Estates) LRT Extension Prelim. Eng. 12 S-LRT (Century Park - Ellerslie) LRT Extension Prelim. Eng. West/Northwest Sector 14 Highway 60 (Highway 16A to Highway 16) Twinning Design complete 15 Highway 627 (Anthony Henday Drive St) New Link Concept 16 Whitemud Drive / Highway 628 (Anthony Henday Drive to Upgrading 231 Street) 17 Whitemud Drive / Highway 628 (231 Street to Highway 60) Twinning 18 Ray Gibbon Drive (Anthony Henday to Villeneuve Road) Twinning Street (Anthony Henday Drive to St. Albert New Link Strategic/ Trail/Highway 2) 20A Highway 16 Spruce Grove to 97 St - HOV/Tansit Priority HOV / Transit Priority Strategic 20B Highway 16 (Bremner to Manning Fwy) - HOV/Tansit Priority HOV/ Transit Priority Strategic 21 Spruce Grove Regional Park and Ride Park & Ride Strategic South Sector 23 QE2 65 Avenue (Leduc) Interchange & Arterial (QE2 to Hwy New Interchange & Strategic/ 39) Arterial 24 Highway 19 (QE2 Highway to Highway 60) Twinning Design Ongoing 25 Highway 625 (Nisku to Highway 814 Beaumont) Twinning Street (Anthony Henday Drive to 41 Avenue SW) Upgrading Street (41 Avenue SW to Highway 19) Extension New Link Strategic 28 Nisku Spine Road (Twp Rd 510 to Highway 625) Widening/New link Strategic 29 QE2 (65 Avenue - Ellerslie Road) HOV/Transit Priority Lane HOV / Transit Priority Strategic East/Northeast Sector 32 Highway 21 (Highway 16 to Highway 628) Upgrade to Free Flow Strategic 33 River Xing; Hwy 21 to15 and connecting roads: Hwy 21 New Link Strategic (Hwy 16 to Twp. 540); Twp. 540 (Hwy 830 to Hwy 21) 34 Highway 628 (Anthony Henday Drive to Highway 21) Twinning Twinning 35 Highway 830 (Highway 16 to Highway 15) Widening 37 Baseline Road/98 Avenue - HOV/Transit Priority HOV /Transit Priority Strategic 38 Wye Road/Sherwood Park Fwy/Whyte Avenue - HOV /Transit Priority Strategic HOV/Transit Priority 39 Fort Saskatchewan Regional Park and Ride Park & Ride Strategic 41 Highway 28 (Anthony Henday Drive to Highway 63) Twinning 42 Highway 28A (Highway 15 to Highway 28) Twinning Strategic 44 Highway 15 - HOV/Transit Priority HOV/ Transit Priority Strategic Page 4 April 2014

15 Wabamun WABAMUN I.R. 133A/B 39 Map Date: March 13, 2014 Duffield Keephills Warburg 43 Alcomdale 44 Mearns ALEXANDER I.R. 134 Riviere Qui Barre 642 Pine Sands Calahoo Villeneuve Airport Villeneuve Carvel 16 Spruce Grove 16A Stony Plain STONY PLAIN I.R. 135 PARKLAND COUNTY 60 Devon Telfordville 39 Thorsby Buford Calmar Sunnybrook LEDUC COUNTY Legal Morinville STURGEON COUNTY Cardiff Carbondale Bon Accord Gibbons 42 28A Redwater Alberta's Industrial Heartland Bruderheim 45 St. Albert CFB/ASU Edmonton Edmonton 4 Namao Lamoureux Fort Saskatchewan 36 STRATHCONA COUNTY Twp Rd Josephburg E.I.A Nisku Beaumont Sherwood 216 Park Ardrossan Looma Half Moon Lake 629 Collingwood Cove South Cooking Lake Antler Lake North Cooking Lake Hastings Lake Ave Leduc 814 Rolly View New Sarepta 2 2A Kavanagh KILOMETRES St. Michael Wostok Star 831 Lamont 29 LAMONT COUNTY 15 Hilliard IRTMP IMPLEMENTATION for discussion purposes (March 2014) Figure 7 1 Ten-Year Roadway Priorities Existing Roadway Roadway Improvement* Roadway Project Number Railway International Airport Other Airport Priority Growth Area Major Employment Area Future Major Employment Area Federal Jurisdiction *NOTE: All roadway alignments are conceptual and subject to further engineering and technical review. 855

16 Wabamun WABAMUN I.R. 133A/B 39 Map Date: March 13, 2014 Duffield Keephills Warburg 43 Legal ALEXANDER I.R. 134 Pine Sands 779 Calahoo Villeneuve Airport 44 Villeneuve Alcomdale 44 Mearns Riviere Qui Barre St. Albert Morinville STURGEON COUNTY Cardiff Carbondale Namao CFB/ASU Edmonton Edmonton Bon Accord 37 Gibbons A 825 Lamoureux Redwater Alberta's Industrial Heartland Bruderheim 15 Fort Saskatchewan Josephburg STRATHCONA COUNTY 45 Carvel Stony Plain PARKLAND COUNTY Spruce Grove A STONY PLAIN I.R Devon 20A 20B E.I.A Nisku Beaumont 216 Sherwood Park Ardrossan Looma Half Moon Lake 629 Collingwood Cove South Cooking Lake Antler Lake North Cooking Lake Hastings Lake Telfordville Thorsby 39 Buford Calmar 30 Leduc 814 Rolly View New Sarepta Sunnybrook LEDUC COUNTY A Kavanagh KILOMETRES St. Michael Wostok Star 831 Lamont 29 LAMONT COUNTY 15 Hilliard IRTMP IMPLEMENTATION for discussion purposes (March 2014) Figure 8 2 Ten-Year Transit Priorities Existing LRT LRT Extension Transit Priority Corridor Park & Ride Transit Project Number Existing Roadway Railway International Airport Other Airport Priority Growth Area Major Employment Area Future Major Employment Area Federal Jurisdiction 855

17 3.0 Project Prioritization 3.1 Project Scoring The initial phase of project prioritization involved the scoring of each project against the evaluation criteria outlined in Table 2.1, together with the criteria weights outlined in Table 2.2. The results of this scoring exercise are depicted in Table 3.1 below. Table 3.1: Project Scoring Project Number / Name Project Type Project Status Weighted Score Central Sector 2 Manning Dr (137 Avenue - Anthony Henday Drive) Widening Street (167 Avenue - Anthony Henday Drive) Widening Strategic 43 4 Yellowhead Trail (156 Street to 66 Street) Upgrade to Free Flow Strat/ Func Whitemud Dr (75 Street to 34 Street) Widening Prelim. Eng Street (Whitemud Dr to Yellowhead Trail) Upgrading Strat/ Func Street (Ellerslie Road to 41 Avenue SW) Widening 36 8 Terwillegar Drive (Whitemud Dr to Anthony Henday Dr) Upgrade to Free Flow Strategic/ Functional 31 Plan 11 W-LRT (Downtown - Lewis Estates) LRT Extension Prelim. Eng. 55 West/Northwest Sector 14 Highway 60 (Highway 16A to Highway 16) Twinning Design Highway 627 (Anthony Henday Drive St) New Link Whitemud Dr / Highway 628 (Anthony Henday Dr to 231 St.) Upgrading Whitemud Dr/ Highway 628 (231 Street to Highway 60) Twinning Ray Gibbon Dr (Anthony Henday Dr to Villeneuve Rd) Twinning Street (Anthony Henday Dr to St. Albert Trail/Highway 2) New Link 13 20A Highway 16 Spruce Grove to 97 St - HOV/Tansit Priority HOV / Transit Priority Strategic 66 20B Highway 16 (Bremner to Manning Fwy) - HOV/Tansit Priority HOV/ Transit Priority Strategic Spruce Grove Regional Park and Ride Park & Ride Strategic 60 South Sector 23 QE2 65 Avenue (Leduc) Interchange & Arterial (QE2 to Hwy 39) New Interchange & Strat/ Func. 45 Arterial 24 Highway 19 (QE2 Highway to Highway 60) Twinning Design Ongoing Highway 625 (Nisku to Highway 814 Beaumont) Twinning Street (Anthony Henday Drive to 41 Avenue SW) Upgrading Street (41 Avenue SW to Highway 19) Extension New Link Strategic Nisku Spine Road (Twp Rd 510 to Highway 625) Widening/New link Strategic QE2 (65 Avenue - Ellerslie Road) HOV/Transit Priority Lane HOV / Transit Priority Strategic S-LRT (Century Park - Ellerslie) LRT Extension Prelim. Eng. 55 islengineering.com April 2014 Page 5

18 Project Number / Name Project Type Project Status Weighted Score 9 Heritage Valley Regional Park and Ride Park & Ride Prelim. Eng. 60 East/Northeast Sector 32 Highway 21 (Highway 16 to Highway 628) Upgrade to Free Flow Strategic River Xing; Hwy 21 to15 and connecting roads: Hwy 21(Hwy 16 to Twp. 540); Twp. 540 (Hwy 830 to Hwy 21) New Link Strategic Highway 628 (Anthony Henday Dr to Highway 21) Twinning Twinning Highway 830 (Highway 16 to Highway 15) Widening Strategic Township Road 540 (Highway 21 to Highway 830) Upgrading Strategic Baseline Road/98 Avenue - HOV/Transit Priority HOV / Transit Priority Strategic Wye Road/Sherwood Park Fwy/Whyte Ave - HOV/Transit Priority HOV / Transit Priority Strategic Fort Saskatchewan Regional Park and Ride Park & Ride Strategic Highway 28 (Anthony Henday Drive to Highway 63) Twinning Highway 28A (Highway 15 to Highway 28) Twinning Strategic Highway 15 - HOV/Transit Priority HOV / Transit Priority Strategic 67 * Strat/Func. Plan = Strategic/ 3.2 Project Prioritization Following completion of project scoring, the list of projects was subjected to an additional round of scoring to reflect the urgency of each project; high, medium or low. The project urgency rating was assigned a numerical value: high = 3; medium = 2; low = 1. Each project s weighted score was then multiplied by the project urgency rating to arrive at an adjusted score for each project. The project list was then refined to reflect only the three main project status categories; strategic, functional plan and prelim engineering/design. The list was then organized into three sections corresponding to project status and sorted by the adjusted score from highest to lowest. The resulting lists by project status are depicted in tables 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 below. Page 6 April 2014

19 Table 3.2: Project Priorities for Construction (d Prelim. Engineering or Design) Projec t Rank Adjusted Score Project No Project Project Type Rationale Heritage Valley Regional Park and Ride Highway 19 (QE2 Highway to Highway 60) S-LRT (Century Park - Ellerslie) W-LRT (Downtown - Lewis Estates) Highway 28 (Highway 28A to Highway 63) Highway 60 (Highway 16A to Highway 16) Whitemud Dr. (75 Street to 34 Street) Highway 628 (Anthony Henday Dr. to Highway 21) Park & Ride Twinning LRT Extension Lease at Century Park Expiring Safety/ Congestion/ Development/ Redundancy Support growth and promote mode shift Next Steps/ Actions Design, Construct Resolve 3rd EIA Runway/ Design/Construct Design LRT Extension Support growth and promote mode shift Design Highway Congestion/ Design/ Upgrading Safety Construct Twinning Congestion/ Land Development Acquisition/ Construct Widening Congestion/ Safety Design Twinning Congestion Design/ Construct islengineering.com April 2014 Page 7

20 Table 3.3: Priorities for Project Design Project Rank Adjusted Score Project No Project Project Type Rationale Nisku Spine Road (Twp Rd 510 to Highway 625) Yellowhead Trail (97 St to 50 Street) New Link Upgrade to Free Flow Congestion/ Development/ Redundancy Congestion/ Development Pressures Next Steps/ Actions Design Design Yellowhead Trail (156 Street to St Albert Trail) 50 Street (Ellerslie Road to 41 Avenue SW) Whitemud Drive / Highway 628 (Anthony Henday Drive to 231 Street) 170 Street (Anthony Henday Drive to 41 Avenue SW) Terwilllegar Drive (Whitemud Drive to Anthony Henday Drive) Highway 28A (Highway 15 to Highway 28) Whitemud Drive / Highway 628 (231 Street to Highway 60) Highway 625 (Nisku to Highway 814 Beaumont) Ray Gibbon Drive (Anthony Henday to Villeneuve Road) Highway 627 (Anthony Henday Drive St) Manning Drive (137 Avenue - Anthony Henday Drive) 127 Street (Anthony Henday Drive to St. Albert Trail/Highway 2) Upgrade to Free Flow Congestion/ Development Pressures/ Goods Movement Design/Land Aqu. Construction Widening Congestion Design Upgrade on new alignment to correct road condition Widening as necessary Upgrade to Free Flow Development Pressures/ Regional Link Development Pressures Congestion/ Development Pressures Design Design Design Twinning Development Pressures Design Upgrade on new alignment to correct road condition Twinning Development Pressures/ Regional Link Congestion/ Development Pressures/Goods Movement Design Design Twinning Congestion Design New Link Development Pressures Design/Network Analysis for New SW River Crossing Widening Development Pressures Design New Link Development Pressures Design/ in Edmonton Page 8 April 2014

21 Table 3.4: Priorities for Project Functional or Corridor Planning Project Rank Adjusted Score Project No. 20A 20B Project Project Type Rationale Regional HOV Transit Priority Study ( Hwy 16, Baseline Rd./98 Ave, Wye Rd./ Sherwood Pk. Fwy./ QE2 Hwy to Leduc) QE2 65 Avenue (Leduc) Interchange & Arterial west of QE2 Hwy. River Xing; Hwy 21 to15 and connecting roads: Hwy 21(Hwy 16 to Twp. 540); Twp. 540 (Hwy 830 to Hwy 21) Yellowhead Trail (St. Albert Trail to 97 Street) Fort Saskatchewan Regional Park and Ride Spruce Grove Regional Park and Ride 170 Street (41 Avenue SW to Highway 19) Extension 75 Street (Argyll Road to Yellowhead Trail) 97 Street (167 Avenue - Anthony Henday Drive) HOV Lane/ Transit Priority New Interchange New Link Upgrade to Free Flow Park & Ride Park & Ride New Link Widening Widening Congested highway sections impede transit effectiveness and reliability; CRGP mode shift policy implementation Relieve Access constraints for City of Leduc and Edm. Int. Airport Congestion and lack of river crossing capacity Congestion/ Development Pressures/Goods Movement Support Increased travel choice and mode shift Support Increased travel choice and mode shift Support Growth/ Create parallel route to QE2 Hwy to EIA, Congestion/ Goods movement accommodation Development pressure Next Steps/ Actions Undertake Regional HOV/Transit Priority Study Develop Corridor Study to define alignment and configuration Highway 830 (Highway 16 to Highway 15) Highway 21 (Highway 16 to Highway 628) Widening Upgrade to Free Flow Development/ alternate route to Industrial Heartland Development pressure Review Highway 28 (195 Avenue to Highway 28A) Twinning Congestion/ Goods movement islengineering.com April 2014 Page 9

22 4.0 Conclusion and Recommendations 4.1 Conclusions The Ten Year Roadway and Transit project lists included in the IRTMP have been successfully prioritized in a manner that reflects both the policy goals of the Capital Region Growth Plan, as well as on-the-ground challenges and imperatives. Implementing any long term strategic such as the IRTMP and The Growth Plan, requires an ongoing commitment to planning, design and construction that is reasonably true to the underlying policy objectives. As such, the process for arriving at regional transportation priorities identified priorities in three categories: construction, design and functional planning. The regional project priorities listed in Tables 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 include a mixture of project types that respond to urgencies throughout the Capital Region. More importantly, the priorities were arrived at collaboratively between a mix of municipal and provincial representatives. The prioritized lists should serve to inform municipal and provincial priorities over the next three years and help the region coordinate and align its infrastructure investments with a better understanding and respect for differing interests. 4.2 Action Recommendations The following recommendations are made to advance the implementation of regionally important transportation projects: R1 That the recommended regional transportation priorities reflected in Tables 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 be approved by the CRB. R2 That the CRB approve a motion to encourage its members to work to align their local capital programs with regional priorities to the greatest extent possible. R3 That the CRB forward the regional priorities expressed in this report to the Government of Alberta for active consideration in their 2014 Three Year Capital Plan Page 10 April 2014

23 4.3 Other Recommendations The project priority lists contain several projects where the CRB should take a coordinating or lead role. These projects are: R4 A Regional HOV/Transit Priority Study- this study would explore the type and extent of transit priority improvements that should be implemented on approach highways to Edmonton along Highway 15, Highway 16, QE2 Highway and along Baseline Road/98 Avenue and Wye Road/ Sherwood Park Freeway. This project should include representation from the province and the municipalities who operate transit service on the roadways in question. Funding for such a project could be shared amongst these municipalities, the province and CRB, or in some other mutually agreeable manner. R5 A high priority project in need of functional planning work is the proposed new river crossing connecting Township Road 540 and Highway 21 in Strathcona County with Highway 28A within the Horsehills area of Northeast Edmonton. This project is of high importance to the regional transportation network as a result of a severe lack cross-river capacity in an area of the region that will experience significant economic growth within the next 5-10 years. As this project will be of interest to multiple jurisdictions, CRB should consult with the affected parties to determine if there is a will to undertake a joint study, with CRB having a coordinating role. R6 The LRT network within Edmonton has been substantially planned out within the City s current boundaries. With a funding strategy for the Downtown to Southeast LRT line now largely in place, attention needs to turn towards the next LRT extension priorities. Table 3.2 shows the west and south LRT extensions rated highly as the next priorities. It is however unclear as to which of the two lines should be advanced and it is certainly not very plausible that either line could be constructed within the same timeframe as the Southeast LRT line. It is recommended that further detailed work on LRT priorities be carried out with CRB as a key participant in order to clarify priorities and related funding needs. islengineering.com April 2014 Page 11