An Analysis of Design and Techniques Used to Mitigate Inefficiency and Congestion

Case Study: Medicine Hat 6th SW and 16th Street SW Intersections

By Brad Irwin

A MASTER’S THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2017

Table of Contents

List of Figures ...... 3 List of Tables ...... 4 List of Maps ...... 4 List of Models ...... 5 Abbreviations and Notes ...... 6 ABSTRACT ...... 7 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 9 2.0 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ...... 17 3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 19 3.1 Highway Efficiency ...... 19 3.2 Highway Capacity ...... 20 3.3 Design and Cost ...... 23 3.4 Funding ...... 26 3.4.1 Federal Funding ...... 27 3.4.2 Provincial Funding ...... 30 3.5 Congestion ...... 32 3.6 Controls ...... 34 3.6.1 Traffic Control Lights ...... 34 3.6.2 Interchanges ...... 37 3.6.3 Innovative Designs ...... 39 3.6.4 Road Categories ...... 42 4.0 DATA AQUISITON AND ANALYTICAL METHODS ...... 46 4.1 Highway Efficiency ...... 46 4.2 Congestion ...... 48 4.3 Mitigation Techniques ...... 49 4.4 Policies ...... 50 4.5 Vehicle Capacity ...... 50 4.6 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW Recommendations ...... 51 5.0 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ...... 53 5.1 Dunmore Road ...... 53 3.8 Community Values ...... 55 3.8.1 Smart Growth Strategy ...... 55 3.8.2 Sustainability ...... 55 3.8.3 Transportation Goals ...... 56 5.2 Population ...... 59 5.3 Road design ...... 60 5.3.1 Shortfall Designs ...... 61 5.3.2 Qualifying Designs ...... 61 5.2.3 Trans-Canada Highway ...... 64 5.3.3 6th Street SW Intersection Design ...... 67

1 5.3.4 16th Street SW Intersection Design ...... 68 5.4 Road Capacity ...... 70 5.4.1 Trans-Canada Highway and 6th Street SW Capacity ...... 70 5.4.2 Trans-Canada Highway and 16th Street SW Capacity ...... 71 5.5 Vehicle Volume and Density ...... 72 5.6 Travel Time ...... 78 5.7 Funding and Cost ...... 80 5.8 SWOT Analysis ...... 83 5.9 Safety ...... 84 5.9.1 6th Street SW Intersection ...... 84 5.9.2 16th Street SW Intersection ...... 85 5.9.3 Pedestrian Safety ...... 86 6.0 DISCUSSSION AND CONCLUSION ...... 87 6.1 Trans-Canada Highway ...... 88 6.2 Innovative Designs ...... 90 6.2.1 ...... 90 6.2.2 Diverging ...... 91 6.2.3 ...... 92 6.2.4 Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI) ...... 92 6.2.5 Ring ...... 92 6.3 Frontage Roads ...... 93 6.4 6th Street SW Intersection ...... 97 6.5 16th Street SW Intersection ...... 99 6.6 Traffic Control Lights ...... 103 6.7 SWOT Analysis ...... 103 6.8 Funding and Costs ...... 105 6.8.1 Funding ...... 105 6.8.2 Cost ...... 106 7.0 Recommendations ...... 108 7.1 Models ...... 109 7.1.2 6th Street SW Intersection – Current ...... 110 7.1.3 6th Street SW Intersection - Interchange ...... 115 7.1.4 16th Street SW Intersection - Current ...... 120 7.1.5 16th Street SW Intersection – Interchange ...... 125 7.2 Model Summary ...... 132 8.0 REFERENCES ...... 133

2

List of Figures

Figure 1 Trans-Canada Highway...... 10 Figure 2 Dunmore Road Intersection ...... 12 Figure 3 Dunmore Road Interchange ...... 12 Figure 4 6th Street SW Streetview ...... 15 Figure 5 6th Street SW Aerial ...... 15 Figure 6 16th Street SW Streetview ...... 16 Figure 7 16th Street SW Aerial ...... 16 Figure 8 Conceptual Framework ...... 18 Figure 9 Construction Costs ...... 24 Figure 10 Peak Period Travel Time Index ...... 33 Figure 11 Contributions to Congestion ...... 35 Figure 12 Road Categories ...... 42 Figure 13 Frontage Roads ...... 44 Figure 15 ArcCatalog New Shapefile ...... 52 Figure 16 ArcCatalog New Shapefile ...... 52 Figure 18 Medicine Hat Concept ...... 62 Figure 19 6th Street SW Intersection - Aerial ...... 67 Figure 20 6th Street SW - Streetview ...... 68 Figure 21 16th Street SW - Aerial ...... 69 Figure 22 16th Street SW - Streetview ...... 70 Figure 23 Medicine Hat Federal Funding ...... 81 Figure 23 SWOT Analysis ...... 83

3

List of Tables

Table 1 LOS and Average Delay ...... 22 Table 2 Vehicle Capacities ...... 23 Table 3 Interchange Comparisons ...... 53 Table 4 Medicine Hat Demographics ...... 60 Table 5 LOS Medicine Hat Trans-Canada Highway Intersections ...... 72 Table 6 Travel Times ...... 78 Table 7 Interchange Costs ...... 82 Table 8 6th Street SW Intersection Collisions ...... 84 Table 9 16th Street SW Intersection Collisions ...... 85

List of Maps

Map 1 Trans-Canada Highway, Medicine Hat ...... 66 Map 2 Volume Capacity Ratio (VCR) ...... 74 Map 3 Peak Volume Per Hour (VPH) ...... 75 Map 4 Volume Capacity Ratio @ 75,000 Population ...... 76 Map 5 Peak Volume Per Hour @ 75,000 Population ...... 77 Map 6 Medicine Hat Travel Times ...... 79

4 List of Models

Model 1 6th Street SW ...... 110 Model 2 6th Street SW ...... 111 Model 3 6th Street SW ...... 112 Model 4 6th Street SW ...... 113 Model 5 6th Street SW ...... 114 Model 6 6th Street SW Interchange ...... 115 Model 7 6th Street SW Interchange ...... 116 Model 8 6th Street SW Interchange ...... 117 Model 9 6th Street SW Interchange ...... 118 Model 10 6th Street SW Interchange ...... 119 Model 11 16th Street SW ...... 120 Model 12 16th Street SW ...... 121 Model 13 16th Street SW ...... 122 Model 14 16th Street SW ...... 123 Model 15 16th Street SW ...... 124 Model 16 16th Street SW Interchange ...... 125 Model 17 16th Street SW Interchange ...... 126 Model 18 16th Street SW Interchange ...... 127 Model 19 16th Street SW Interchange ...... 128 Model 20 16th Street SW Interchange ...... 129 Model 21 16th Street SW Interchange ...... 130 Model 22 16th Street SW Interchange ...... 131

5 Abbreviations and Notes

Throughout this study, interchanges will be referring to unless otherwise specified. Many sources used these terms interchangeably for the same type of structure based on geographic location.

For the purpose of this study, all dollar values are in Canadian Dollars (CAD), and inflation has not been accounted for. For this reason, all values are approximate with some deviation. More accurate values may be calculated using an average inflation rate for Canada of 1.86, determined from Stats Canada from 1997-2016 (Government of Canada, 2017b).

Highway 1 Trans-Canada Highway NHS National Highway System Km/h & kph Kilometers Per Hour Sq. ft. Square Feet LOS Level of Service VPH Volume Per Hour VCR Volume Capacity Ratio NA Not Available NIC National Infrastructure Component PTIC Provincial-Territorial Infrastructure Component MDP Municipal Development Plan CSIF Canada Infrastructure Strategic Fund STIP Strategic Transportation Infrastructure BMGT Basic Municipal Transportation Grant SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Consequences, Threats

6 ABSTRACT

As a major road for Canada, the Trans-Canada Highway spans across the entire nation, and is the only direct route of travel from east to west. Classified as a National Highway System (NHS), the Government of Canada has specific requirements for the design and maintenance of the Trans-Canada Highway that ensures an efficient highway system across Canada. Many cities have planned road networks that allow for an efficient bypass around intersections along the

Trans-Canada Highway to avoid traffic stoppage, where as Medicine Hat has placed traffic control lights that result in inefficient traffic flow and congestion. The traffic control lights are placed not only across the highway, but also at the adjacent roads, resulting a multi-phased system to accommodate the traffic entering and leaving the highway system. The design of these intersections is inadequate at moving traffic, and causes travel delays between 66 and 114 seconds. There are multiple concerns with the traffic flow and efficiency of the current state of the Trans-Canada Highway at these intersections, and there are severe issues of congestion and poor travel time that need to be addressed.

This study focuses on the characteristics typically associated with interchange proposals, and ultimately, if Medicine Hat’s 6th Street SW and 16th

Street SW intersections along the Trans-Canada Highway have similar characteristics meeting the requirements to construct interchanges. The Trans-

Canada Highway section through Medicine Hat currently does not meet NHS standards, which states a requirement of 90 km/h with a 2- highway design, as well as free flow traffic. 6th Street SW intersection is operating at a level of

7 service (LOS) of E, and 16th Street SW at a LOS of F, representing severe congestion. Previous intersections in Medicine Hat have had similar issues and were addressed with interchanges to alleviate the congestion and aid in traffic flow. If fully funded by the province of Alberta, Medicine Hat would be capable of constructing diamond interchanges at these intersections for a projected cost between $14.3 million and $35.5 million, based on length and available land.

8 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The problem with Medicine Hat is we see a city that has grown out to its highway and river and divides the city in half. As the city sprawled, it resulted in congestion on the highway, and produced inefficiency along the Trans-Canada

Highway and associated intersections. Addressing this issue we need to look at techniques capable of mitigating congestion and improving highway efficiency, and ultimately decide which method is most practical for Medicine Hat’s 6th Street

SW and 16th Street SW intersections.

To determine the best possible solution, the road network around the two problematic intersections need to be considered, their designs, and how they influence the movement of traffic. They play an important role in the connectivity between surrounding neighborhoods and the highway, and the connectivity of the community needs to be maintained when addressing the congestion and efficiency issue of the highway and intersections. Many mitigation designs have shown success in addressing congestion and highway efficiency, however, most do not meet the requirements of the National Highway System, and therefore, will only be briefly discussed to provide alternative solutions not specific to Medicine

Hat. Interchanges will be a key technique discussed, as they are the common technique used to address transportation issues in Medicine Hat.

Canada, the second largest country by area in the world, holds the record for the longest national highway, spanning 7,281 kilometers (4,860 miles) east to west across the nation (see Figure 1) (TransCanada FoundLocally Inc., 2015).

The highway, called the Trans-Canada Highway, or Highway 1, runs through the

9 heart of many cities, big and small. As an essential feature to Canada’s

economy, it is important to upgrade and maintain the road to provide an efficient

means of transportation. The Trans-Canada Highway, seen as part of the

‘Alberta Advantage’ with its four-lane, interstate quality roads, provides fast and

efficient access to major markets (Government of Alberta, 2000).

Figure 1 Trans-Canada Highway

Source: (McLeod, 2014)

Established in 1988 by federal, provincial, and territorial transportation

ministers, the National Highway System (NHS) focused on the efficiency,

connectivity, and needs of Canada’s primary highway system (Government of

Canada, 2011b). Recent efforts by the federal government have examined the

efficiency of the Trans-Canada Highway with the demographic, social, and

10 economical changes over the past 15 years. Function planning studies throughout the provinces began in multiple cities on their road systems and how they were connected with the Trans-Canada Highway, and how they could be improved to meet the standards of the NHS. The study concluded that connectivity needs to be increased and congestion reduced due to demographic, social, and economical changes, and that major road networks allow traffic to move at a free flowing rate (Government of Canada, 2011b). Provincial governments used this as an opportunity to upgrade important intersections from controls to interchange systems.

Under Canada’s Constitution Act, provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over the building and maintenance of national highways. The federal government administers federal funds to assist with road infrastructure projects, and most of the funding comes from consolidated revenue, which is allocated across a budgetary process (Constitution Act, 1867).

Medicine Hat, Alberta, a growing city in Western Canada’s prairies, was selected for case study to analyze the issues with their 6th SW Street and 16th

Street SW intersections along Trans-Canada Highway, and determine the most effective technique to address these problematic areas. Established in 1883, it currently has a population just over 60,000. The municipality has a land area of

112 square kilometers, and is known throughout the country as ‘The Gas City’ due to its abundance of natural gas wells (Government of Canada, 2011a). For this reason, Medicine Hat draws people from neighboring locations and has a large oil and gas production and extraction employment sector.

11 After the federal review of the Trans-Canada Highway efficiency, Medicine

Hat proposed its first intersection upgrade from a traffic control light intersection along the Trans-Canada Highway and Dunmore Road to an interchange system to reduce the congestion of highway traffic (see Figures 2 & 3). Funded by

Alberta Transportation, the successfully eased congestion of east west traffic along the highway with its free flow design (Smith, 2013).

Figure 2 Dunmore Road Intersection

Source: Google Images, 2015; Dunmore Road intersection prior to interchange

Figure 3 Dunmore Road Interchange

Source: Google Images, 2015; Dunmore Road intersection interchange design

12 Currently in Alberta, there are six proposed projects linked to the Trans-

Canada Highway under review for highway functionality, addressing issues of

NHS standards, intersection congestion, and safety concerns (Government of

Alberta, 2011):

 Highway 1 & Highway 3

 Highway 1 & Highway 36

 Highway 1 & Conrich Road

 Highway 1 & 33

 Highway 1 & Rainbow Road

 Highway 1 and Highway 1A

 Highway 1 & Strathmore Intersection

The plan for the Trans-Canada Highway, being classified as a NHS, is to achieve freeway status (UMA Engineering Ltd., 2007). The current interchange proposals are assisting to make this transition from highway to freeway status by eliminating intersections and introducing a free flow traffic system.

This case study addresses the issues of Medicine Hat’s two major intersections situated on the Trans-Canada Highway, 6th Street SW and 16th

Street SW, which have seen no upgrade during the Trans-Canada Highway planning study. Congestion is a major issue at these intersections and is the primary route for day-to-day traffic. It provides the only access to the city’s light industrial area and outlying shops where much of the population works, and is the only route through the city. It is a key road to the Medicine Hat Regional

Hospital as well as many surrounding neighborhoods. The design of these

13 intersections is notorious for its inefficiency with access roads running parallel to the Trans-Canada Highway, causing confusing and exceptionally long stop times. Rush hour has a significant impact on these intersections, where the access roads are used as collector roads, creating large traffic delays in the nearby communities as well as increasing traffic stoppage on the highway.

Further problems occur with large semi-trucks, as a coulee is present on the west end of the 16th Street SW intersection, creating hazards as trucks struggle to climb the slope when they are forced to slow down due to congestion.

Aside from the local congestion problems and concerns for traffic passing through, Medicine Hat’s section of the Trans-Canada Highway does not meet

NHS standards. The NHS identifies its routes as roadways with a minimum posted speed of 90 km/h and no traffic signals (Stantec, 2008). The posted speed limit along Medicine Hat’s section for Trans-Canada Highway is 80 km/h, and has two traffic light intersections. Medicine Hat is hindering the Trans-

Canada Highway from becoming a freeway, and is not conforming to NHS standards. The scope of this study will focus on the current issues with the

Trans-Canada Highway and the 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections

(see Figures 4 through 7), and determine a cost-effective solution to mitigate the problem of congestion and its associated issues. It will examine the requirements of the National Highway System standards, and how to conform to the standards associated with being a national highway.

14 Figure 4 6th Street SW Streetview

Source: Google Inc., 2017

Figure 5 6th Street SW Aerial

Source: Google Inc., 2017

15 Figure 6 16th Street SW Streetview

Source: Google Inc., 2017

Figure 7 16th Street SW Aerial

Source: Google Inc., 2017

16 2.0 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The framework (see Figure 8) for this study centers on mitigation techniques, road design, location characteristics, and funding for determining the best solution for Medicine Hat’s congestion and highway inefficiency. As the city grew and sprawled towards the Trans-Canada Highway, the highway became a primary route for much of the population. Capacity of the road was reached and results in congestion and inefficiency along the highway and its corresponding intersections.

The first step is to determine what congestion and highway efficiency is, and furthermore, at what values of traffic density and traffic flow is a road considered congested. To determine traffic flow and traffic density, variables such as road capacity, population, and population growth will be considered.

Additionally, an analysis of funding and the support from municipal, provincial, and federal government will be used as an assessment on mitigation techniques and the planning process. Secondary issues of safety and emissions will be examined to determine correlation with road congestion, and furthermore, the effects some of the solutions have on these issues. The National Highway

System (NHS) standards will play a vital role in the study as a support for mitigation techniques and the national vision towards the Trans-Canada

Highway’s transformation to freeway status.

17 Figure 8 Conceptual Framework

Sprawl

Increased Highway Usage

Road Design

Highway Congestion Inefficiency

Transportation Mitigation Techniques

National Highway System standards

Funding

Location Characteristics

Highway Efficiency

18

3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1 Highway Efficiency

Academic research and data analysis from government organizations has frequently highlighted their concerns and visions to create an efficient highway system. A broad agreement among organizations has mentioned Canada’s major transportation system will not be capable of meeting the needs of citizens, communities, and businesses in the future (Western Provincial Transportation

Ministers Council, 2005). PROLOG Canada Inc. (2005) identifies concerns about the long-term health of our highway system and the level of congestion, and how the economy and mobile society is dependent on an efficient and safe road system.

The research of road conditions from Western Provincial Transportation

Ministers Council (2005) and PROLOG Canada Inc. (2005) shown similar outcomes in deferring infrastructure renewal resulting in lower economic growth, highway safety concerns, less competitive cities, and traffic congestion and pollution. The studies show as much as 1/5 of the National Highway System’s roads, including the Trans-Canada Highway, are in poor condition, and will increase in these conditions nearly 7% over 4 years (PROLOG Canada Inc.,

2005).

Research from government organizations have identified the impact road networks have on the economy, and further reasons to reach freeway status for

19 the Trans-Canada Highway. Road networks carry the majority of passengers and goods in Canada, and it is important for the transport of manufactured goods

(Minister of Transport, 2016). Approximately 10% of Canada’s GDP is produced from the transportation sector, and four-lane roads can provide fast, efficient, and safe access to major markets (Government of Alberta, 2014). Alberta’s infrastructure needs to be planned so it is at least competitive and comparable in efficiency to the United States interstate system, because there is a positive correlation between GNP and the efficiency of its transportation networks

(Berezanski, 2004). Berezanski (2004) further concludes freeways provide the basic infrastructure for flexible and efficient movement of goods and people, and proper freeway design aids in facilitating this movement in a safe, fuel-efficient manner. Van Horne Institute’s (2004) research describes the eroding highway transportation system and congestion could soon lead to costs in hundreds of millions of dollars in lost time and impede trade flow, and the Trans-Canada

Highway is critical to our economy yet remains underfunded.

3.2 Highway Capacity

Highway capacity is used to express the maximum hourly rate at which vehicles can reasonably be expected to traverse a point during a given period under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. Highway capacity embodies broader relations with highway characteristics, such as traffic composition, flow patterns, travel time, speed limit, traffic density, and degrees of congestion

(American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2001). The

20 capacity of a highway is categorized into the following six levels of service, and can be seen in Table 1 (Transportation Research Board, 2000):

. (A) Free Flow Traffic. Individual users are practically unaffected by the

presence of other vehicles on a road section. The choice of speed and the

maneuverability are free. The level of comfort is excellent, as the driver

needs minimal attention. The volume to capacity ratio is usually below 0.2.

. (B) Steady Traffic. The presence of other vehicles on the section begins to

affect the behavior of individual drivers. The choice of the speed is free,

but the maneuverability has somewhat decreased. The comfort is

excellent, as the driver simply needs to keep an eye on nearby vehicles.

. (C) Steady Traffic but Limited. The presence of other vehicles affects drivers.

The choice of the speed is affected and maneuvering requires vigilance.

The level of comfort decreases quickly at this level, because the driver has

a growing impression of being caught between other vehicles.

. (D) Steady Traffic at High Density. The speed and the maneuverability are

severely reduced. Low level of comfort for the driver, as he must

constantly avoid collisions with other vehicles. A slight increase of the

traffic risks causing some operational problems and saturating the

network.

. (E) Traffic at Saturation. Low but uniform speed. Maneuverability is possible

only under constraint for another vehicle. The user is frustrated.

. (F) Congestion. Unstable speed with the formation of waiting lines at several

points. Cycles of stop and departure with no apparent logic because

21 created by the behavior of drivers. High level of vigilance is required for

the user with practically no comfort. At this level the volume to capacity

ratio exceeds 1, implying that the road segment is used above design

capacity.

Table 1 LOS and Average Delay

.

Source: Transportation Research Board, 2010

Vehicle capacity plays an important role in road design and mitigation techniques. Table 2 shows the calculated number of vehicles per location where previous proposals were recommended. Results have shown on average, regardless of population, the number of vehicles operated in a community to create a congested intersection is 37,512 This was determined by multiplying the population during the time of construction, retrieved from census bureaus and other statistical sources, with the national average of vehicles per person retrieved from the International Organization of Motor Vehicles (2012 and 2013)

The outcomes were consistent among old data from1931 to new data of 2013.

22 Table 2 Vehicle Capacities

Sources: City of North Vancouver (2009), City of Chuzhou (2010), Corporation of the District of North Vancouver (2014), Smith (2013), Whitten (1931), Scott (2013), (Loewen & Baril (2012), Lalonde (2009), Churm (1987), Government of Canada (2011a), City of Surrey (2015) , City Data (2012, 2015), Ingerosec Corporation (2011), UNFPA (2012), International Organization of Motor Vehicles Manufacturers (2012, 2013)

3.3 Design and Cost

Design is an important factor in mitigation proposals, and affects the cost of construction drastically. Mingunang Road interchange, proposed at 1.41km long and 32.5 m wide, has a simplistic design, but is massive in size. It incorporates along the side for pedestrians, and is wide enough to accommodate bicycles. The overall project cost was $31 million, and was projected at five years for completion (City of Chuzhou, 2010). The sheer size of this project would expect the cost to be way above average, but because of its simplistic design, costs were kept at a respectable level. Online research has revealed many interchange proposals have shown similar costs; for example,

23 Thurston Way Interchange with a cost of roughly $36 million (Washington State

Department of Transportation, 2004). The City of Vancouver (2013) has shown some interchanges cost slightly higher, such as the Powell Street interchange, at

$53 million, while others cost lower, such as I-90 Evergreen Road Interchange, at

$21.8 million (Washington State Department of Transportation, 2004). After reviewing multiple proposals, the average cost of construction results in roughly

$30 million. Extremes well above $100 million are not uncommon, and are mainly seen in large cities, however, for a typical two to four-lane interchange the average cost is $30 million (Washington State Department of Transportation,

2004). Figure 9, from Washington State Department of Transportation (2014), shows some average costs per mile for various construction costs in multiple locations.

Figure 9 Construction Costs

Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, 2014)

24 The key goals for effectives transportation solutions are to expand capacity and enhance networks that support the movement of goods and improve the safety and flow of pedestrians and commuters (City of Vancouver,

2013). An increase in movement of goods results in an increase in economic growth (Shen, et al, 2013).

Proposals for interchanges are a result from multiple traffic issues. Studies have shown congestion, traffic flow, emissions, and safety of vehicles and pedestrians are the main issues behind proposals. Interchanges improve safety, reduce road congestion, improve community connections and traffic flow, as well as reduce idling time reducing air emissions of vehicles (Corporation of the

District of North Vancouver, 2014).

British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (2012) state the cost of a diamond, partial cloverleaf, trumpet, or directional interchange, in an urban environment is between $22.0 million to $35.3 million. Highway improvement strategies throughout Alberta suggest the average interchange cost on the Trans-Canada Highway $40 million (Stantec, 2008).

Eleven Media Group (2015) details some extreme costs of an interchange proposal that leads to a rejection. The data shows the need for government funding to cover costs is a must for the construction of a new interchange, and can be received at levels from private, to the federal government, as supported by Smith (2013) and Shafran and Strauss-Wider (2003). The Washington State

Department of Transportation (2004) and the Corporation of the District of North

Vancouver (2014) have concluded there are multiple factors that influence

25 interchange pricing, including soil type and site conditions. This data is valuable when comparing costs of interchanges when trying to relate one to another; however, it is a difficult factor to incorporate into comparisons because soil conditions are usually not explained in the cost during the proposals.

The Transportation Research Board (1991) states tight urban diamond interchanges are typically 250 feet to 350 feet in length, and urban diamond interchanges are on average 500 feet to 600 feet in length. The width varies, but is typically 97 feet wide, with 10-foot shoulders, making the total width 117 feet

(Transportation Research Board, 1991). In addition, typical costs for the highway right-of-ways are $5,000 per acre (McLeod, 2014).

3.4 Funding

According to Infrastructure Canada (2014), the Government of Canada is committed to investing in Canada’s infrastructure to reduce commuting time, enhance economic competitiveness, and strengthen trade corridors. The federal government recognizes infrastructure as the backbone of Canada’s economic productivity, and is vital to connect people and businesses to the world and reduce gridlock on the highways. The Trans-Canada Highway Act, as described by McLeod (2014), states the Federal Government shares the costs equally with provinces. However, Western Provincial Transportation Ministers Council (2005) have shown federal transportation investment is declining across Canada, and local and provincial governments have been forced to pick up the differing costs to keep up with the demand.

26 Funding ranges from private investors to federal government to help with the large cost of construction (Shafran & Strauss-Wieder, 2003). As seen from the Phillips interchange proposal, the project received funding from the

Canadian Federal Government, the Government of British Columbia, the North

Vancouver District, and private partners of Kinder Morgan (Corporation of the

District of North Vancouver, 2014).

Western Provincial Transportation Ministers Council (2005) identifies a shortfall of $57 billion in Canada’s total infrastructure, and in Western Canada,

40-45% of unfunded infrastructure needs are in roads, interchanges, and traffic controls. Furthermore, they state social programs consume the majority of government spending, and transportation projects must compete with other municipal projects for limited infrastructure funds.

3.4.1 Federal Funding

The Government of Canada supports highway improvement in multiple ways. Through Infrastructure Canada programs such as the Building Canada

Fund, federal investments support projects that improve the capacity and safety of core National Highway System routes, rehabilitate highway and assets and provide Intelligent Transportation Systems. Under the Major Infrastructure

Component of the Building Canada Fund, the core National Highway System is one of five national priorities, which includes the Trans-Canada Highway

(Government of Canada, 2012b).

2014 New Building Canada Plan

The 2014 New Building Canada Plan provides stable funding for a 10-year

27 period. It includes the Community Improvement Fund, consisting of the Gas Tax

Fund and the incremental Goods and Services Tax Rebate for Municipalities, which provides over $32 billion to municipalities for projects such as roads, public transit and recreational facilities, and other community infrastructure

(Infrastructure Canada, 2014).

Under the Gas Tax Fund, Alberta will receive $219.1 million in 2016-17, and $1.08 billion from 2014-15 to 2018-19. Currently, there is a $14 billion New

Building Canada Fund, which consists of a $4 billion National Infrastructure

Component (NIC) that will support projects of national significance. In addition, there is a $10 billion Provincial-Territorial Infrastructure Component (PTIC) for projects of national, regional and local significance. Of this amount, $1 billion is dedicated to projects in communities with a population of fewer than 100,000 residents (Infrastructure Canada, 2014).

Infrastructure Stimulus Fund

Announced in January 2009 as part of Canada's Economic Action Plan, the $4 billion Infrastructure Stimulus Fund supports over 4,000 projects as a short-term boost to the Canadian economy during a period of global recession.

Through this fund, Infrastructure Canada focuses on improving, renewing and rehabilitating existing infrastructure and new infrastructure projects. Investment categories include, water, wastewater, transit, roads, culture, parks and trails, and community services (Infrastructure Canada, 2011).

By providing up to 50 per cent in federal funding for projects, the

Infrastructure Stimulus Fund was able to leverage funding from other partners.

28 These include provinces, territories, municipalities and not-for-profit organizations, resulting in a greater boost for the Canadian economy.

To help provide sufficient time for some projects to be completed, the

Government of Canada extended the deadline for completion of Infrastructure

Stimulus Fund projects by one full construction season, to October 31, 2011.

Provincial –Territorial Base Fund (Infrastructure Canada, 2011)

The Provincial – Territorial Base Fund provides each province and territory with funding of $25 million per year, over seven years after submitting a capital plan containing a list of initiatives for federal cost sharing

The Canada Infrastructure Strategic Fund (CISF) (Infrastructure Canada, 2011)

The Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund provided $4.3 billion for large-scale infrastructure projects in support of sustaining the economic growth and enhancing the quality of life for Canadians. Investment categories include highways and railways, location transportation, tourism and urban development, water and sewage, and broadband telecommunications (Infrastructure Canada,

2011). The Government of Canada contributed up to a maximum of 50 per cent of total eligible costs. Projects were typically chosen according to regional and national infrastructure priorities, in consultation with provinces and territories.

Of the $4.3 billion originally allocated to the CSIF, approximately $50 million has been transferred to Parks Canada to support a high priority infrastructure project.

Infrastructure Canada Program (Infrastructure Canada, 2011)

The Infrastructure Canada Program provided $2.05 billion in funding for urban and rural municipal infrastructure projects that protect the environment and

29 support long-term community and economic growth. Local governments identified proposed projects for funding according to their priorities. To help meet local needs, funding was allocated to each province and territory based on each jurisdiction's population and unemployment rate. In most cases, the Government of Canada provided up to one-third of the cost of each municipal infrastructure project.

Building Canada Fund – Communities Component (Infrastructure Canada, 2011)

The Communities Component of the Building Canada Fund targets projects in communities with populations of less than 100,000. The Fund recognizes the unique infrastructure needs of Canada's smaller communities and focuses on projects that meet environmental, economic and quality of life objectives. Originally a $1 billion fund, Canada's Economic Action Plan expanded the Communities Component fund with a top-up of $500 million. The program has funded more than 1,400 smaller-scale projects that improve water, wastewater, public transit, local roads and other types of community infrastructure.

3.4.2 Provincial Funding

Despite government financial commitments, Alberta Infrastructure and

Transportation estimates that the percentage of provincial highways in poor condition will increase from 11.2 percent to 18.5 over 4 years (PROLOG Canada

Inc., 2005). With a focus on major cities such as Calgary and Edmonton, Alberta

Government has recently announced a one-time, $3.0 billion infrastructure capital spending program for Alberta’s municipalities, dedicating $1.0 billion each

30 for Calgary and Edmonton (PROLOG Canada Inc., 2005). Provincial and local governments have been forced to pick up an increasing share of transportation investment and, nominal spending has become stagnant. In Alberta, the 5-year investment requirement for highways, local roads and transit is $6.3 billion. $2.4 billion, or 40% of this, is unfunded (Western Provincial Transportation Ministers

Council, 2005).

Alberta Transportation Capital Plan

The Alberta Transportation’s capital plan aims to invest over $9.3 billion over the next 5 years to build and repair roads and to help foster economic growth and transportation safety and reliability. This includes $1.3 billion for urban, rural and regional transit to connect communities and help the people of Alberta get where they want to go. In addition, the plan provides $305 million for municipal transit initiatives to support regional and urban transit

(Government of Alberta, 2017).

Alberta Municipal Infrastructure Program

The Alberta Municipal Infrastructure Program began in 2005 to assist municipalities in addressing their municipal capital infrastructure needs by providing financial assistance for core capital municipal infrastructure projects

(Government of Alberta, 2017).

Strategic Transportation Infrastructure Program (STIP)

Projects under the Strategic Transportation Infrastructure Program (STIP) allow municipalities to develop and maintain key transportation infrastructure to promote economic growth and improve mobility. A total of $35 million in

31 new funding for STIP is available for 2017-18 (Government of Alberta, 2017).

Factors that contribute to the rating of each project include: basic need, safety, functionality, implications for the overall transportation network, the current condition of the infrastructure, total traffic volumes, truck traffic volumes, cost effectiveness and efficiency, economic, social, environmental or innovation benefits, use of alternate sources to fund the project (Government of Alberta,

2017).

Basic Municipal Transportation Grant (BMGT)

The BMTG provides financial assistance for developing and maintaining capital transportation infrastructure requirements. It promotes economic growth, and improving quality of community life. The BMGT provides annual allocation- based funding for capital construction and rehabilitation of local transportation infrastructure including roads, bridges, and public transit for all Alberta cities, towns, villages, summer villages, counties and municipal districts (Government of

Alberta, 2017).

3.5 Congestion

Traffic congestion seems to be the leading issues for road design proposals; it is the root of all other problems. Reducing traffic congestion pairs with reducing emissions, increasing traffic flow by reducing delays, and creating seamless connections from location to location (Shafran, & Strauss-Wieder,

2003). Studies have shown congestion levels are on a rise, and have been for the past 30 years, and even the smaller locations are having difficulties keeping up with rising traffic demands (Federal Highway Administration, 2013).

32 Congestion was seen to be a major issue only during peak hours of the day, but the Federal Highway of Administration (2013) has found congestion is affecting multiple trips throughout the day, with still 40% longer trip duration during peak hours (see Figure 10). In the course of 30 years, the number of hours one might encounter congestion a day has doubled, from 3.5 hours to 7 hours a day (Federal Highway Administration, 2013).

Figure 10 Peak Period Travel Time Index

Source: Federal Highway Administration, 2013

Many cities are experiencing rapid growth, and this growth is increasing traffic volume and the cities are unable to move the capacity efficiently. Some cities will be experiencing a 60% increase in population over the next 30 years

(Lalonde, 2009). An increase in traffic compromises pedestrian and vehicle safety, and interchanges can provide separation between the two, limiting incidents (Lalonde, 2007). In addition, interchanges can provide increased safety for vehicles by reducing the likeliness of rear-ending someone due to differences in speed (Corporation of the District of North Vancouver, 2014). Interchanges reduce bottlenecking and reduce the proximity of vehicles, keeping a steady flow

33 of traffic and decreasing the likeliness of impacts (Shafran & Strauss-Wieder,

2003). On the other hand, Shen et al (2013) claim interchanges can cause an increase in incidents with larger trucks, in which collisions with structural support columns can occur.

The City of Vancouver (2013), Corporation of the District of North Vancouver

(2014), Whitten (1931), and Lalonde (2009) detailed specifics about the cost, location, funding, and future considerations for interchanges in various locations, and provide digital renderings for visualization. Their research agrees with Scott

(2013), City of Chuzhou (2010), Devex (2009) that the primary reasons for interchange proposals is congestion, traffic flow, and safety. The studies have linked traffic congestion with time of day, and further shown increased travel times into the future. Travel time is becoming unreliable because of congestion issues and causing an increase in fuel consumption, leading to an increase in gas emissions (Federal Highway Administration, 2013).

3.6 Traffic Controls 3.6.1 Traffic Control Lights

Traffic control lights can be an effective way to control an intersection, if used properly. The timing of traffic control lights can either make a smooth flowing intersection, or create an inefficient one and lead to accidents and congestion (Washington State Department of Transportation, 2015). If they are not programmed correctly, they can create unnecessary intersection delay, and cause drivers to avoid the intersection entirely (Arizona Department of

34 Transportation, n.d.). According to the Federal Highway Administration (2013), poor traffic light timing contributes to 5% of overall congestion (see Figure 11).

Figure 11 Contributions to Congestion

Source: Federal Highway Administration, 2013

Traffic control lights can benefit vehicle and pedestrian safety, as well as create issues. With the stopping and starting of vehicles, it increases the chances of rear-ending another vehicle (Arizona Department of Transportation, n.d.). On the other hand, traffic control lights have been known to reduce broad side collisions of vehicles (City of Regina, 2015). Traffic engineers tend to trade-off on increase in rear end collisions to more severe broad side accidents, however, if the intersection has no severe incidents, then the trade-off is for nothing, and traffics control lights can decrease the overall safety of that intersection (Arizona

Department of Transportation, n.d.).

35 Traffic control lights can increase pedestrian safety as they can stop high flows of traffic when they need to cross, making it safer (Arizona Department of

Transportation, n.d.). However, pedestrians increase the risk of being struck when the light turns yellow and they proceed to cross the same time a vehicle is trying to make the light before it turns red. Another concern with traffic control lights is turning right on red lights. If a high flow of pedestrians is crossing the street, this may inhibit vehicles to turn, resulting in a backup of traffic and increasing congestion (Federal Highway Administration, 2009).

Traffic control lights can contribute to congestion because of improperly timed lights and poor location choice (Arizona Department of Transportation, n.d.). Further studies mention traffic control lights a cause of congestion when vehicles yield to pedestrians on red lights. Vehicles would normally be able to proceed with a right hand turn, and high pedestrian flow can prevent the turning of traffic, leading to congestion (Washington State Department of Transportation,

2004). Traffic lights can benefit and decrease congestion in lower traffic areas, if correctly timed, and can be a relatively low cost alternative to interchange, at

$90,000 to construct (Arizona Department of Transportation, n.d). The sources above on traffic control lights have accurate data from multiple Departments of

Transportation, and have agreed on the difficulties and benefits of traffic light systems. The accuracy of traffic lights affecting collision type may be hard to determine, as lane numbers, traffic flow, road type, and multiple other factors such as distracted driving may be an influence.

36 Traffic control lights can result in issues such as traffic delay, traffic disobedience, and frequency of collisions when poorly designed, ineffectively placed, improperly operated, or poorly maintained (Federal Highway

Administration, 2009). A loss in efficiency and a lead to congestion and safety problems can develop when traffic control lights are situated on multi-lane highways or intersections (American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials, 2001).

Despite the negative opinions associated with traffic control lights, they can be valuable devices when used properly. One or more of the following are seen as advantages traffic control lights have at intersections (Federal Highway

Administration, 2009) provide orderly movement of traffic, increase traffic handling capacity, reduce frequency of certain types of crashes; especially right- angle collisions, and allow pedestrians to cross heavy traffic.

3.6.2 Interchanges

Research from Hampton (2005) describes interchanges as providing an interface on highways to help control congestion, safety, mobility, and improve highway efficiency. The criteria for interchange construction rely on safety, cost, operations, constructability, and environmental consideration (UMA Engineering

Ltd., 2007). Leisch and Morrall (2014) expand on this idea by mentioning the four considerations for interchange selection are location, road type, traffic volume, and right-of-way availability and cost.

37 Sources, such as Voigt (2012) and Corporation of the District of North

Vancouver (2014), agree interchanges improve vehicle safety, but are challenged by Shen, Quin, Wehbe, Pei, & Tigges (2013) who have noted the high risk in large truck crashes. Previous studies have determined reasons vary upon project, but all consider safety issues as a leading factor caused by high traffic, which in turn result in increasing issues of vehicle emission pollution

(Shafran and Strauss-Wider, 2003).

Van Horne Institute’s (2004) research support Western Provincial

Transportation Ministers Council (2005), Berezanski (2004), Hampton (2005), and PROLOG Canada Inc. (2005) studies by concluding adequate capital investment, road rehabilitation, and upgrades are directly related to interchanges, and analyses of provincial traffic accidents have shown vehicle collisions reduced by 44%.

Multiple sources agree with Smith (2013), and gained further support from

Lalonde (2009), City of Vancouver (2013), and Scott (2013) that congestion and traffic flow are a key factor for interchange proposals. The Government of Alberta

Ministry of Transportation (2014 & 2015) and the Government of Canada (2011b) agree with the sources about the requirements of interchange proposals relating to congestion and traffic flow. Information provided directly from the city is deemed as reliable, and is further supported from TransCanada Overpasses

(2010), which provides public opinion and justification for construction.

Interchanges range in design from simple to complex, and vary in length and width depending on their intended purpose. They range between two and eight

38 , and average 6 meters in vertical ground clearance. These numbers can differ greatly, and are often seen between ranges of 4.5 meters to 10 meters vertical clearances (Government of Alberta Ministry of Transportation, 2015).

3.6.3 Innovative Designs

Advanced Transportation Solutions (2017) has mentioned multiple ways to address traffic issues using innovative designs. Superstreets, diverging diamond interchanges, roundabouts, and continuous flow intersections are some innovative designs that are effective in different locations. The characteristics of the existing road network play an important role in deciding the appropriate design.

Superstreet: A is an intersection design that reduces signal phases and improves traffic flow for the major direction. In a Superstreet, the major roadway allowed to make all the movements directly at the minor roadway.

However, from the minor roadway, traffic will be forced to make a right turn onto the major roadway with no direct through or left turn movements allowed. To complete those movements, traffic will need to make a U-turn at a median opening of the intersection and then return to the minor roadway intersection to complete the desired movement. All movements are signalized in the

Superstreet. Operationally, superstreets have two major advantages. First, all traffic signals have just two phases. This allows a higher percentage of green time for each phase as well as a reduction of the overall cycle length. The second advantage is that signals in the eastbound direction are independent

39 from signals in the westbound direction. This results in each direction acting as one-way that can have “perfect” signal progression.

Diverging Diamond Interchange: The diverging diamond is another innovative design for transportation issues. From any direction, the design is symmetrical on all sides, as the highway enters the interchange; a right exit is provided for the "right turns". Then the highway crosses over or under the opposing traffic of the same highway, so that traffic is now on the left side of the road. After the crossover, a direct left exit is given for the "left turns". The highway then crosses over or under both directions of the cross highway. It then receives the "left turns" of the cross highway from a left entrance ramp. After receiving this traffic, the highway crosses over or under the opposing highway of the same highway again to get on the right side of the road. Lastly, the highway receives the "right turns" from the cross highway.

Roundabouts: Successful roundabouts come in all shapes and sizes.

Some have as few as three legs and others as many as six. There are small, simple mini roundabouts, and larger, more complex multilane roundabouts. However, regardless of size, circular shape, or number of legs, the fundamental and essential characteristics of all roundabouts include, counterclockwise flow, entry yield control, and low speed (U.S. Department of

Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 2017).

Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI): A continuous flow intersection is another design that provides location to the general problems of congestion and road efficiency. A CFI removes the left-turning vehicles from the main

40 intersection and directs them to a separate roadway running parallel to the main lanes. This design allows more green time for the major traffic flows (Texas A&M

Transportation Institute, n.d.).

Ring-roads: Ring roads are an increasingly common method used to address intersections issues associated with highway efficiency and traffic flow.

According to Focus Corporation (2011), ring roads are an excellent method to eliminate stop and go traffic, and release capacity of city roads. They re-route traffic around urban areas, typically near the boundaries of the city to allow for expansion. There design is a freeway status, with free flow traffic and posted speed limits appropriate for highway conditions. Ring roads are flexible in route selection, and aim to provide the best overall solution to meet traffic demands

(Focus Corporation, 2011).

Complete Streets: are a relatively new design approach in addressing multiple transportation issues. Smart Growth America (2017) describes complete streets as a design that integrates people and place in the planning, design, operation, and maintenance of transportation networks. This ensures streets are safe for people of all ages and abilities, and balance the needs of different modes, and support local land use, economies, cultures, and natural environments. The City of Calgary (2014) supports the use of complete streets and its effectiveness in creating more livable neighborhoods. They improve safety for all road users, provide infrastructure for a range of transportation, provide attractive streetscapes, and promote economic well being of both businesses and residents.

41

3.6.4 Road Categories

According to Eppell, Bunker, and McClurg (2011), roads can be categorized into four major categories based on function and design: arterial, sub arterial, collector, and local. They state arterial roads carry long distance through traffic external to specific areas; sub arterial roads carry through traffic between specific areas; collector streets provide connectivity between environmental cells and serve property access; and local streets provide direct property access.

Within these four functional categories, Eppell, Bunker, and McClurg (2011) sub categorize them based on management levels (see Figure 12): highway, arterial, arterial main, traffic distributor, controlled distributor, sub arterial main street, major collector, minor collector, access street, and access place.

Figure 12 Road Categories

Source: Eppell, Bunker, and McClurg, 2011

42 Alberta Infrastructure (1999) expands on the by stating traffic movement is a primary consideration on arterial roads, and direct access from private property and other roads is permitted, but controlled. Traffic movement and local access is of equal importance on collector streets. Lastly, for local streets, land access is the primary consideration, and traffic movement is secondary.

Frontage Roads

Frontage Roads are a major component to highways and other major arterial roads. They are used to control access to the , function as a street facility serving adjoining properties, and maintain traffic connectivity and circulation on each side of the arterial road (American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials, 2011). Frontage roads are most frequently used on along highways, where their primary function is to distribute and collect traffic between local streets and the highway. They not only provide a more favorable access for commercial and residential development, but also help preserve the capacity and reduce crashes. Typically, a minimum space of 50 meters between the arterial and is desirable in an urban area

(American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2011).

Despite the advantages of using frontage roads on arterial roads, they may become undesirable on relatively high roads with intersections. Along cross streets, the various through and turning movements can increase crash rates

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2011).

43 Multiple types of frontage road designs aim to address specific needs of a location. One-way frontage roads are much preferred than two-way from an operational and safety standpoint, and work well along arterials with slow-moving traffic (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,

2011). Two-way frontage roads are considered for partially developed urban areas, where the adjoining street systems are so irregular and disconnected that one-way operation would add travel distance and inconvenience.

Figure 13 Frontage Roads

Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2001

Under Alberta Infrastructure’s (2011) classification system, frontage roads are classified as a local road, which defines as land access a primary consideration, and traffic movement secondary. On the other hand, frontage roads defined by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials (2001) is to maintain connectivity and collect and distribute traffic.

Eppell, Bunker, and McClurg (2011) strengthen the American Association of

44 State Highway and Transportation Official’s argument saying frontage roads provide local property access, collect local traffic, and provide access to adjacent properties and local areas.

The literature has shown there are many methods to address transportation issues, and the most effective method is based on characteristics of the location and the overall intent of the road. In additional, funding influences the decision greatly, and can be collected from numerous federal and provincial programs. Lastly, population, road design, and total vehicles play an important role in road capacity, and are leading contributors to issues of congestion and highway inefficiency.

45 4.0 DATA AQUISITON AND ANALYTICAL METHODS

The data acquisition and analytical methods for this project use a qualitative and quantitative approach. Road design and mitigation techniques are dependent on the variables of its location, and the determining factors are represented through statistics, case studies, and comparisons of results. This study focuses on road design and different techniques used to mitigate congestion and improve highway efficiency. Medicine Hat’s 6th Street SW and

16th Street SW intersections with be analyzed to determine which technique is most effective and will improve Medicine Hat’s highway efficiency and congestion problems.

This research uses multiple online sources ranging from public forums to census statistics, and a large number of interchange proposals. Gathering the information from ten cities located in Canada, United States, and around the world, this study compares population, vehicles per person, and traffic issues during the year of the city’s proposals. Supporting evidence of reasons behind interchange proposals from online articles span from 1931 to 2015. This analysis focuses on location, design, cost, purpose, and public opinion and relates this information with interchanges, traffic control lights, congestion, and highway efficiency.

4.1 Highway Efficiency

The first item to look at is highway efficiency. The following documents were gathered from municipal, provincial, and federal websites and examined the qualities of an efficient highway:

46  Alberta Transportation Advantage

 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

 Western Canada Transportation Infrastructure Strategy for an Economic

Network

 New Highway 1 interchange opens in Medicine Hat

 Transportation in Canada 2015

 City of Medicine Hat Roadway Systems Master Plan

 National Highway Policy for Canada

Case studies contributing to inefficient highways from various locations across the globe were reviewed and compared with one another to determine any pattern in highway congestion. A collection of interchange proposals and infrastructure maintenance documents from Canada, the United States, and other countries were the source of data regarding methods used to address congestion issues and promote highway efficiency.

Additional online sources such as Infrastructure Canada, Transportation

Association of Canada, Alberta Infrastructure, Alberta Budget, Canadian Council of Motor Transportation Administrators, and Transport Canada were used to determine costs and funding for infrastructure proposals such as an interchange.

Data gathered from Alberta engineering companies was used to help determine roadway construction prices, as well as maintenance costs and projected interchange costs. Data from the National Highway System (NHS) for the Trans-

Canada Highway was used to determine if Medicine Hat’s section of the highway

47 was in the requirements of a NHS, and further aided as support to address the issues of the two intersections.

4.2 Congestion

To identify congestion, online sources and case studies were used to quantify the following characteristics using the giving measurements:

 Traffic flow (vehicles per hour)

 Travel time (minutes and seconds from point A to B)

 Traffic density (vehicles per km)

 Highway capacity (cars per hour per lane)

 Road design (number of lanes, road type, speed limit)

 Vehicle capacity (vehicles per person)

 Population (persons)

 Population growth (% of population increase)

Each factor is vital in the study of congestion and the purpose of this research because no single variable is the cause for congestion, and some may be more influential than others. Many of these factors are related and a result of one another. Traffic flow and traffic density can be a result of road design and population. Highway capacity is a pre-determined factor and can play a pivotal role on travel time, traffic flow, and traffic density. Time of day must be considered to account for peak rush hour times, in which congestion can commonly be seen (Federal Highway Administration, 2013).

Studying these factors of roadways allow us to measure data and give particular values of vehicle capacity for highway congestion. Once the values

48 were calculated, an analysis of Medicine Hat’s roadway was completed, and the results were compared to determine if Medicine Hat’s Trans-Canada Highway intersections are congested. Statistics Canada and multiple government websites were used as sources for the collection of data for Medicine Hat for a consistent source throughout the years.

4.3 Mitigation Techniques

Interchanges, traffic lights, and innovative designs such as superstreets and roundabouts where analyzed on the effectives they provide any particular locations, as well as frontage roads and their design on how they impact the surrounding land use and connectivity.

Mitigation technique selection relies on the available land, surrounding context, cost, and characteristics of the location. Numerous types of mitigation techniques using online sources and proposals were studied to help determine the most appropriate technique for Medicine Hat’s two locations. The goals and visions of the Trans-Canada Highway for Medicine Hat, Alberta, and Canada were considered to aid in the best-suited type.

Highway data from the province of Alberta and engineering companies was used to determine Medicine Hat characteristics and which technique would best suit 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections. Analyzing traffic statistics, such has vehicle crash reports and incidents, vehicle flow, and vehicle volume, it provided a better understanding of Medicine Hat’s traffic characteristics and the functionality different mitigation techniques might have.

49 4.4 Policies

Government documents and legislature, such as Medicine Hat’s

Municipal Development Plan, Alberta Infrastructure Frameworks, and Transport

Canada Overview Reports were analyzed to determine any policies and land use.

A previous proposal for a similar interchange scenario regarding Medicine

Hat’s Trans-Canada Highway and Dunmore Road intersection was analyzed to understand the local procedures taken for the success of the previous interchange. Further comparisons of the Trans-Canada Highway and Dunmore

Road interchange, Trans-Canada Highway and 6th Street SW intersection, and

Trans-Canada Highway and 16th Street SW intersection provided data on the steps, procedures, and credibility of an interchange at the two problematic intersections.

4.5 Vehicle Capacity

A calculation was completed from gathered statistics on the capacity of vehicles at which mitigation proposals occurs and determined when congestion starts to form. The formula looked at the population during the time of the interchange proposal and multiplied it by the national average of vehicles per person for its location. Charts and graphs were created of this information and allows for comparison with Medicine Hat’s data.

Statistics from the years 2001 through 2016 were used to perform calculations for the year 2016. Total number of vehicles were calculated for the year 2016 using known variables of population, total vehicles, total households,

50 and vehicles per households and compared with the previous Dunmore Road and Trans-Canada Highway interchange. Analyzing the total vehicles for the year

2006 allowed us to determine Medicine Hat’s guidelines for an interchange proposal at a Trans-Canada Highway location. Comparing this will the calculated total vehicles for 2016 provided valuable information on the requirements and justification for interchange proposals for the 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW locations, as they are situated in similar settings along the Trans-Canada

Highway.

4.6 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW Intersection Recommendations

Once research was complete, a mitigation technique was selected that proved to be the most effective and opportunistic for Medicine Hat’s Trans-

Canada Highway and 16th Street SW, and Trans-Canada Highway and 6th Street

SW. Digitizing software and 3D modeling software was used to help visualize the data on a base map of Medicine Hat. Using ArcGIS software, specifically

ArcCatalog and ArcMap Pro, maps were created to show speed limit variations and travel times along the Trans-Canada Highway. Shapefiles as polylines and polygons were created for the different speed limits and lane directions, and digitized to the corresponding imagery of the Trans-Canada Highway (See

Figures 15 & 16). Google’s SketchUP was used to model current 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections, as well interchange concepts at each location.

Land use of the surrounding areas was included to provide further context of the area.

51 Tables, figures, and maps were created to better organize the data for simple comparison, as well as a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and

Threats (SWOT) analysis of the current intersections. The SWOT analysis was completed using previous case studies and online studies on issues that may arise if problems are not addressed, how mitigation techniques can benefit and impact the location, and the benefits and consequences of doing nothing at these intersections

Figure 14 ArcCatalog New Shapefile

Figure 15 ArcCatalog New Shapefile

52 5.0 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

5.1 Dunmore Road Interchange

Medicine Hat’s Dunmore Road and Trans-Canada Highway interchange was proposed in 2007. The census statistics reveal Medicine Hat’s population at this time was 56,997, with a total number of households of 23,641(Government of Canada, 2012b). In 2006, the total motor vehicles were recorded at 49,411, a

3% increase from 2001 census, with a rate of 2.09 motor vehicles per household

(Community Foundation of Medicine Hat & Southern Alberta, 2012). This suggests that Medicine Hat’s vehicle capacity at the time of the Dunmore Road and Trans-Canada Highway interchange proposal was 49,411. Population has increased by 9.05% over the course of 10 years, and as population increases, number of households increases, and number of vehicles increases

(Government of Canada, 2012b; Government of Canada, 2017a).

Table 3 Interchange Comparisons

Sources: Smith (2013), Revill (2014), Washington State Department of Transportation (2012)

53 Medicine Hat’s Dunmore Road interchange has turned up results comparable to other interchange proposals (see Table 3). Its design is a simple four-lane diamond interchange across the TransCanada Highway and Dunmore

Road, with a vertical height of 4.5 meters (see Figure 14) (Government of

Alberta Ministry of Transportation, 2015). Its key purpose was to decrease congestion on the TransCanada Highway and allow a more efficient flow of traffic in the east-west direction, with an inclusion of traffic lights adjunct to the ramps making it safer to cross below (Smith, 2013).

The city received provincial funding from the Government of Alberta towards the interchange project (Smith, 2013). The cost of the project was

$18.71 million, with additional costs for management totaling $23 million (Revell,

2014). The only significant difference with Medicine Hat’s interchange compared to others is a cheaper cost.

Figure 17 Dunmore Road Interchange

Source: Google Images, 2015

54

3.8 Community Values

3.8.1 Smart Growth Strategy

Medicine Hat focuses on three key principles of the Smart Growth

Strategy, adopted in 2007 (City of Medicine Hat, 2012):

 Encourage the design of compact, well-designed, mixed-use

neighborhoods.

 Support growth in existing residential communities while fostering unique

neighborhood identities.

 Foster alternative transportation options and infrastructure systems that

are sustainable including city streets, the public transit system, bike

paths and multiuser trails.

3.8.2 Sustainability

Medicine Hat visions sustainable transportation, and the community’s economic and social wellbeing depends on the transportation system to be safe, clean, and able to efficiently move people and goods. The key principles for sustainable transportation is to integrate transportation and land use planning, support economic development, plan cost effective project, and manage the supply and demand of transportation (Associated Engineering, 2013).

Principles of Medicine Hat’s Municipal Development Plan are as follows (City of

Medicine Hat, 2012):

 A great place to live

 A prosperous economy

55  A vibrant community center

 A connected community

 A beautiful community

 A healthy community

 A green and sustainable community

 A well-serviced community

3.8.3 Transportation Goals

Medicine Hat strives for a connected community capable of moving goods and people efficiently throughout the city and its region. Creating efficient major roadways to foster economic development, designing complete, safe and visually appealing streets for residents, and connecting people to the destinations that they need to reach are all vital to Medicine Hat (City of Medicine Hat, 2012). The

City of Medicine Hat (2012) outlines their goals for transportation in their most current municipal development plan:

Policy 5.4.1 General

(a) To achieve a well-connected city, land use planning, urban design and

transportation planning should be closely integrated.

(b) The planning and design of development across the city should be based

on supporting a transportation hierarchy that gives priority to passenger

transportation options in the following order:

(i) Pedestrians and cyclists;

(ii) Transit; and

(iii) Single occupant vehicles.

56 (c) The City of Medicine Hat should support initiatives that provide for the

mobility of all residents by ensuring that accessibility and inclusion are

considered in the planning and design of all urban transportation

facilities, including transit.

Policy 5.4.2 Complete Streets

(a) The City of Medicine Hat will plan, construct, operate and maintain the

roadway system in a manner that promotes safety for the user.

(b) Roads should be planned and designed as complete streets,

accommodating all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, public transit

and private vehicles, with priority placed on users in accordance with

Policy 5.4.1(b).

(c)In addition to any requirements of the Municipal Servicing Standards, the

following design elements may be considered for new roadways in

Greenfield Areas and when re-designing or re-developing existing

roadways:

(i) Provision for the safe and efficient movement of service and

emergency vehicles;

(ii) Optimizing building frontage (i.e. development facing the

roadway) to provide a safer and more attractive walking

environment for pedestrians;

(iii) Spacing of traffic lights that contributes to a safe pedestrian

environment;

(iv) Access points to residential neighborhoods that are highly

57 visible;

(v) Treed between sidewalks and traffic lanes that

separate pedestrians from the roadway; and

(vi) In commercial areas, reducing mid-block cuts for entry/exit

of vehicles to parking lots to improve pedestrian safety and

reduce road congestion.

(d) The Municipal Servicing Standards roadway hierarchy should be subject

to periodic review and adjusted where necessary as a result of urban

growth, innovations in technology, improvements in financing methods,

or changes in public requirements.

Policy 5.4.3 Major Roadways

(a) Appropriate noise attenuation methods should be used between major

roadways and adjacent residential areas.

(b) The requirements for truck movements to, from and within the city will

continue to be recognized in the planning and maintenance of the

roadway network. Designated truck routes should minimize, as far as

practical, negative influences on established residential areas.

Dangerous goods routes must balance the interests of the trucking

industry and businesses with those of the community and immediately

adjacent neighborhoods.

(c)The integrity of the TransCanada Highway through Medicine Hat should

be protected by controlling access pursuant to the Memorandum of

Agreement Between Alberta Infrastructure and the City of Medicine Hat

58 for the Transfer of Title for the TransCanada Highway (Highway 1) and

Crowsnest Trail (Highway 3) from the City to the Province.

(d) The City should continue to work with Alberta Transportation with the

objective that in matters dealing with the TransCanada Highway and

other provincial highways, provision is made for the safe, efficient and

effective transportation of people and goods, and provincial decisions

respect and help to implement this Plan, and other municipal plans.

Planning within the city’s boundaries will continue to take into account

the future TransCanada bypass, as depicted in Schedule B, and its

potential impacts on the city.

5.2 Population

Results calculated with census data (Table 4) have shown the total number of vehicles in Medicine Hat for the year 2016 is approximately 56,401.

This is significantly higher than the 2006 total of 49,411 total vehicles when the

Dunmore Road and Trans-Canada Highway interchange was proposed

(Community Foundation of Medicine Hat & Southern Alberta, 2012). The most recent average vehicles per household for Medicine Hat, which is 2.09, is higher than the province of Alberta’s, at 2.06 (Community Foundation of Medicine Hat &

Southern Alberta, 2012).

59 Table 4 Medicine Hat Demographics

Sources: Government of Canada, 2012b; Government of Canada, 2017a; Community Foundation of Medicine Hat & Southeastern Alberta, 2012

. Demographics in Medicine Hat have increased significantly over the past years; population has increased by 19% from 2001 to 2016, total vehicles increased 26%, and total households by 24% (Government of Canada, 2012b;

Government of Canada, 2017a; Community Foundation of Medicine Hat &

Southeastern Alberta, 2012).

5.3 Road design

Road designs are important when addressing transportation problems because they are dependent on location. Road designs will work different in various locations, and are based on the relative location of centers of population, commerce, industry, and transportation (Benson and Lay, 2017). Traffic between two centers is proportional to their populations and inversely proportional to the distance between them. Effective road designs consider road needs and transport options; planning a system to meet those needs; designing an economically, socially, and environmentally acceptable set of roads; obtaining the required approval and

60 financing; building, operating, and maintaining the system; and providing for future extensions and reconstruction (Benson and Lay, 2017).

5.3.1 Shortfall Designs

Research shows that many designs can aid in transportation. However,

Medicine Hat’s inefficient intersection and highway design need to meet the requirement of the National highway System, and the following innovative designs do not meet the requirements set by the federal government.

Superstreets do not provide free flow traffic. Roundabouts are not capable of producing the minimum 90 km/h posted speed limits. Continuous flow intersections do not allow free flow traffic.

5.3.2 Qualifying Designs

Ring Roads

Only one previous study done provides information on transportation through Medicine Hat. Associated Engineering (2013) has shown a concept of a ring road around the City of Medicine Hat to provide a bypass of the city and help disperse traffic on the Trans-Canada Highway (see Figure 18). The intent of the ring road was to get the City and the neighboring communities thinking about long-range roadway connectivity irrespective of City, Town or County

Boundaries. It is has not yet been presented to the public, and is a very conceptual work that will become more of a consideration in 50 to 100 years

(Associated Engineering, 2013).

61 Figure 18 Medicine Hat Ring Road Concept

Source: Associated Engineering, 2013

Interchanges

Research has shown interchanges provide an excellent solution in addressing the issues of the 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections along the Trans-Canada Highway. They are capable of meeting the requirements of the National Highway System, and have multiple designs to meet the specifications of Medicine Hat’s 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections.

Complete Streets

Medicine Hat’s streets around 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW, specifically the frontage roads and highway, are not complete streets as

62 described by Smart Growth America. They do not provide a balance of safety for all people, accessibility, or support local land uses and the economy in an efficient way. The absence of pedestrian cross walks makes it dangerous to cross the highway, and make it impossible for any individual with a disability. The complex and time consuming intersections negatively impact the surrounding land use by making it difficult to get to any destination, and decrease the efficiency of the highway with long delay times.

Frontage Roads

An analysis of the frontage roads along the Trans-Canada Highway at the 6th

Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections shows the complex designs of each road and their corresponding intersection. The following list shows the characteristics of the frontage roads and corresponding intersection:

 6th Street SW and Trans-Canada Highway

o Redcliff Drive SW: 2-way frontage road with 2-way stop prior to

multi-phased traffic control lights, access to commercial land use

o Red Deer Drive SW: 2-way frontage road and collector street, multi-

phased traffic control lights, no access to few commercial

properties

 16th Street SW and Trans-Canada Highway

o Bomford Crescent SW: 1-way and 2-way frontage road, limited

access to surrounding area, multi-phased traffic control lights

63 o Bullivant Crescent SW: 2-way frontage road / collector street / local

road, direct access to residential communities, multi-phased traffic

control lights

5.2.3 Trans-Canada Highway

The Trans-Canada Highway section that runs through Medicine Hat is a four-lane divided highway spanning 13.4 km (Map 1) (Stantec, 2008). Within the city limits of Medicine Hat, the posted speed limit is 80 km/h (Stantec, 2008).

Heading west towards the town of Redcliff the speed limit increases to 100 km/h, before reducing back down to 80 km/h when driving through Redcliff. Heading east towards the hamlet of Dunmore the speed limit increases to 110 km/h outside Medicine Hat’s city limits. Once Dunmore is reached, the speed limit reduces to 80 km/h. Outside the urban areas the designed highway speed is 130 km/h, with a posted speed limit of 110 km/h (Stantec, 2008).

The Trans-Canada Highway is classified as a national highway system

(NHS), which has specific standards set by the Federal Government of Canada to support inter-provincial and international trade and travel by connecting, as directly as possible, a capital city, or major provincial population or commercial center (Government of Canada, 2011b). The National Highway Policy Steering

Committee (1988) lists the following standards for a NHS:

 Design Minimum: 2-lane arterial undivided with full shoulders and a

100km/h design speed

 Design Maximum: 4-lane rural divided arterial with a 130 km/h design

speed

64  Serviceability (Capacity): provide a minimum operating speed of 90km/h

under free flow conditions (no traffic control lights allowed)

 Structural Adequacy (Strength): be capable of providing all weather

service (no seasonal load restrictions) and be capable of carrying the

national standards in vehicle weights and dimensions.

 Rideability (comfort): provide a riding comfort index (RCI) of 6.0 or greater.

Medicine Hat’s section of the Trans-Canada Highway currently does not meet the serviceability (capacity) of a minimum operating speed of 90 km/h, as well has the free flow standards with no traffic control light intersections (Stantec,

2008). Furthermore, the posted speed limits and traffic control light intersections are preventing the Trans-Canada Highway in reaching its freeway status goal

(UMA Engineering Ltd., 2007).

65 Map 1 Trans-Canada Highway, Medicine Hat

66 5.3.3 6th Street SW Intersection Design

The Trans-Canada Highway and 6th Street SW intersection is a signalized intersection with designated left-turn lanes off the highway (see Figures 19 & 20).

The highway has service roads adjacent to it that increase the number of traffic movements at the intersection (Associated Engineering, 2013). The design results in the traffic control lights being multi-phased to accommodate the additional traffic lanes from the service road. The outside north of the intersection operates as a makeshift right turning lane in the southeast bound direction on the Trans-Canada Highway (Associated Engineering, 2013).

Figure 19 6th Street SW Intersection - Aerial

Source: Google Earth, 2010

67 Figure 20 6th Street SW - Streetview

Source: Google Earth, 2010

Traffic exiting this intersection primarily accesses the residential area and hospital east of the highway, and the commercial area southeast of the highway

(Associated Engineering, 2013).

5.3.4 16th Street SW Intersection Design

The Trans-Canada Highway and 16th Street SW intersection is a signalized intersection with designated left turns off the highway (see Figures 21

& 22). A service road runs adjacent to the highway, with multi-phased traffic control lights similar to the 6th Street SW intersection (Associated Engineering,

2013). The east leg of the intersection services the Kensington residential area,

68 and the west leg accesses the light industrial area. The service road intersections at 16th Street SW in close proximity with the highway intersection results in one complex signalized intersection (Associated Engineering, 2013).

Figure 21 16th Street SW - Aerial

Source: Google Earth, 2010

69

Figure 22 16th Street SW - Streetview

Source: Google Earth, 2010

5.4 Road Capacity

5.4.1 Trans-Canada Highway and 6th Street SW Capacity

The following list from Associated Engineering (2013) shows the operating capacity of 6th Street SW and the Trans-Canada Highway intersection with their corresponding road networks:

 Highway 1 southeast bound through (LOS E)

 Highway 1 southeast bound right turn to 7th Street SW (LOS D)

 Highway 1 southeast bound left turn to 6th Street SW (LOS E)

 Highway 1 northwest bound through (LOS E)

 Highway 1 northwest bound right turn to 6th Street SW (LOS D)

 Highway 1 northwest bound left turn to 7th Street SW (LOS E)

70  7th Street SW through to 6th Street SW (LOS F)

 7th Street SW left to northwest bound Highway 1 (LOS F).

Results have determined the Trans-Canada Highway and 6th Street SW intersection is operating at an average LOS of E, with a total delay of 66.1 seconds (Associated Engineering, 2013).

5.4.2 Trans-Canada Highway and 16th Street SW Capacity

The following list from Associated Engineering (2013) shows the intersection and lanes of the Trans-Canada Highway and 16th Street SW traffic and their operating capacity:

 16th Street SW westbound through (LOS E)

 Highway 1 southeast bound through (LOS F)

 Southeast bound Highway 1 to east bound Bullivant Crescent left turn

(LOS D)

 Northwest bound Highway 1 to westbound 16th Street SW left turn (LOS

E).

Results show the Trans-Canada Highway and 16th Street SW intersection is operating at an average LOS of F, with a total delay of 114.4 seconds. Due to the vicinity of the service roads to the highway, it results in the worst performing intersection in the city from a capacity, and travel time/delay perspective

(Associated Engineering, 2013).

Summarizing the level of operating service (LOS) for the Trans-Canada

Highway, we can see both 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersection are operating at unacceptable capacity levels with high delay times (Table 5).

71

Table 5 LOS Medicine Hat Trans-Canada Highway Intersections

Sources: Associated Engineering, 2013

5.5 Vehicle Volume and Density

In 2010, the population of Medicine Hat was near 60,000 people

(Government of Canada, 2012b). Majority of the roads were operating within capacity, as indicated by a volume to capacity ratio (VCR) less than 0.6.

Locations nearing capacity have a VCR greater than 0.85, and include the Trans-

Canada Highway and 16th St SW intersection (Map 2).

The peak volume at the Trans-Canada Highway and 16th Street SW intersection is greater than 2000 vehicle per hour (VPH), and 1001-1500 VPH at

6th Street and Trans-Canada Highway intersection (Map 3) (Associated

Engineering, 2013). The 6th Street SW intersection is not depicted on the road network map, but shows signs of congestion that need to be monitored

(Associated Engineering, 2013).

As Medicine Hat approaches a population of 75,000, the peak volume near 16th St SW expands significantly along the Trans-Canada Highway, and the

72 6th Street SW intersection VPH raises to 1501-2000 (Associated Engineering,

2013) (Maps 4 & 5).

Traffic volumes on the Trans-Canada Highway is 8,650 vehicles per day

(VPD) west of the Town of Redcliff, and increases significantly inside the City of

Medicine Hat peaking at College Avenue with 32,400 before reducing to 6,550

VPD east of the Hamlet of Dunmore (Stantec, 2008). This suggests that the

Trans-Canada Highway is used for local travel in the Medicine Hat region.

The Trans-Canada Highway has had an increase in traffic both west and east of Dunmore Road. West of Dunmore Road there was an increase of 25% in traffic between 2001 and 2007. East of Dunmore on the Trans-Canada Highway traffic increased over 42% between 2001 and 2007 (Community Foundation of

Medicine Hat & Southeastern Alberta, 2012).

73 Map 2 Volume Capacity Ratio (VCR)

Source: Associated Engineering, 2013

74 Map 3 Peak Volume Per Hour (VPH)

Source: Associated Engineering, 2013

75 Map 4 Volume Capacity Ratio @ 75,000 Population

Source: Associated Engineering, 2013

76 Map 5 Peak Volume Per Hour @ 75,000 Population

Source: Associated Engineering, 2013

77 5.6 Travel Time

Table 6 shows the travel times from the Box Springs Road turnoff to 13th

Avenue, an intersection that connects routes to the inner city and southern neighborhoods. Map 6 shows the average travel times with the current state of

6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections at 11.6 minutes in the eastern direction, and 10.4 minutes in the western direction (Associated Engineering,

2013). A scenario from Associated Engineering (2013) was ran and concluded the closing of the 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections and allowing free flow traffic would result in a decrease in travel time by 1.0 to 1.3 minutes.

Table 6 Travel Times

Source: Associated Engineering, 2013 (pg 3-11)

78

Map 6 Medicine Hat Travel Times

Source: Associated Engineering, 2013

79 5.7 Funding and Cost

The cost of upgrading current intersection designs and road infrastructure vary with the projects purpose and characteristics of the location. Canada’s infrastructure, being the backbone of the country’s economic productivity, receives funding from the provincial and federal levels of government

(Infrastructure Canada, 2014). Efficient road and highway infrastructure helps goods get to the markets, connect people and businesses with the world, and reduce gridlock on our highways (Infrastructure Canada, 2014).

According to the Infrastructure Canada projects, since 2002 Medicine Hat has received no federal funding for the analysis or mitigation technique to deal with the intersections of 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections with the

Trans-Canada Highway (Government of Canada, 2017c). In 2011, $2.4 million of the total cost $4.8 million was funded by the federal government for Trans-

Canada Highway rehabilitation, as well as $400,000 out of a total cost of

$850,000 for resurfacing (Government of Canada, 2017c). In addition, $51,000 out of a total cost of $153,800 was funded for traffic control light synchronization in 2007 (Government of Canada, 2017c). In total, Medicine Hat has received $20 million in federal funding, divided among 14 projects. As depicted in Figure 23, highways and roads only see 30% of the incoming funds, with majority focused on sports (Government of Canada, 2017c).

80

Figure 23 Medicine Hat Federal Funding

Source: Government of Canada, 2017c

In 2011 and 2012, Medicine Hat received $3,711,073 each year through the Basic Municipal Transportation Grant (BMGT) (Government of Alberta, 2011 and Government of Alberta, 2012). There was a slight increase in grant funding for the year 2013, with the BGMT funding Medicine Hat $3,716,053 (Government of Alberta, 2013).

Medicine Hat’s most recently constructed interchange systems allowing free flow traffic at the east end of the Trans-Canada Highway were constructed in

2004 and 2013. The 2004 interchange at the intersection of 13th Avenue SE was completely funded by the Alberta Government, with a cost of $10 million (Smith,

2004). The 2013 interchange constructed at the Dunmore Road intersection was funded and delivered by Alberta Transportation, with a cost of $23 million (Smith,

81 2013). The cost of the diverging diamond interchange was $18.71 million, with additional management costs of $4.29 million (Revell, 2014).

Construction costs on the Trans-Canada Highway average about $5 million per kilometer when beyond the Kin Coulee valley, with bridge construction costs of $5,000 per square meter. Right-of-way cost is roughly $5,000 per acres, and $500,000 per direct development impact (Stantec, 2008). Table 7 shows the projected costs based on average construction rates in Medicine Hat.

Table 7 Interchange Costs

Sources: Stantec, 2008 and Transportation Research Board, 1991

Using data on construction costs and interchange dimensions, the projected cost for Medicine Hat to construct interchanges at 6th Street SW and

16th Street SW would be between $14,357,549 and $34,458,026 each. The tight urban diamond interchange with the minimum average 250-foot length produces the least cost, and the diamond urban interchange with a maximum average length of 600-feet cost the greatest.

82 5.8 SWOT Analysis

Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis was created for the 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections with the Trans-

Canada Highway (Figure 24). The strengths and weaknesses categories focus on the characteristics of the current state of the intersections and highway, and the opportunities category centers on the benefits an interchange may provide at these locations. The threats category focuses on the limitations and potential an interchange may have on the surrounding area. The analsyis looks at characterstics associated with highway effeciency, congestion, costs, policies, and safety.

Figure 23 SWOT Analysis

 Extreme congestion  Vehicle collisions  Little Maintenance  Pedestrian Safety  No additional costs  Vehicle emissions

SWOT

 Increased economic activity  Prioritization of government  Reduced collisions funding  Pedestrian accessibility &  Increased maintenance costs safety  Re-routing traffic for  Emissions control construction  NHS freeway status

83 5.9 Safety 5.9.1 6th Street SW Intersection

The intersection of the Trans-Canada Highway and 6th Street SW produces 13.3 collisions per year. 49% of these collisions are rear-ends, which is associated with traffic congestion in the lanes (Associated Engineering, 2013).

Over the course of 7 years, 106 collisions have occurred, varying in collision type. Table 8 depicts the collision types and number of occurrences each year

(Associated Engineering, 2013). There has been no significant change in the total number of collisions through the years 2003 and 2010, and the dominant collision types tend to remain consistent.

Table 8 6th Street SW Intersection Collisions

Sources: Associated Engineering, 2013

84 5.9.2 16th Street SW Intersection

The intersection of 16th Street SW and the Trans-Canada Highway results in 15.6 collisions per year. The most occurring types of collisions are rear-ends, representing, 40% of the total collisions, right angle representing 10%, and sideswipes representing 8% (Associated Engineering, 2013). The rear-end collisions are symptomatic of traffic congestion in through-lanes (Associated

Engineering, 2013). Table 9 shows over the course of 7 years from 2003 to 2010, a relatively constant 125 collisions have been reported at this intersection

(Associated Engineering, 2013).

Table 9 16th Street SW Intersection Collisions

Sources: Associated Engineering, 2013

85 5.9.3 Pedestrian Safety

Crossing the Highway at the intersections of 6th Street SW and 16th Street

SW as a pedestrian is problematic. Neither intersection has a crosswalk nor is there a safe way to cross the intersection. A pedestrian bridge is situated near

6th Street SW and allows some public to cross the highway, but accessibility is limited with stair access only.

86 6.0 DISCUSSSION AND CONCLUSION

This study was intended to show effective solutions for Medicine Hat’s 6th

Street SW intersection and 16th Street SW intersection with the Trans-Canada

Highway to help alleviate the congestion and highway efficiency issues. The literature reviewed provides multiple techniques as an effective solution to help mitigate congestion at intersections, and further help improve highway efficiency

(Scott, 2013).

Population growth is directly correlated with vehicle congestion; the more people, the more vehicles (Downs, 2004). With Medicine Hat’s population at a growth of over 1% per year, combined with their high vehicle ownership rate of

2.09 per household average, they are well past the typical requirements for typical mitigation proposals to alleviate traffic congestion at intersections

(Government of Canada, 2011a and Community Foundation of Medicine Hat &

Southern Alberta, 2012).

Comparing vehicle capacity among cities, the total number of vehicles in

Medicine Hat’s is substantially higher. The average number of vehicles in a city that result in congested intersections along major roadways is 37,512, and

Medicine Hat’s current vehicle capacity is approximately 56,401 (Community

Foundation of Medicine Hat & Southern Alberta, 2012). At the time of their most recent interchange proposal in 2006, Medicine Hat was still greatly above average, at a total of 49,411 vehicles. Based on population and vehicle capacity data, Medicine Hat’s 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections with the

Trans-Canada Highway have the characteristics suitable for an interchange.

87 6.1 Trans-Canada Highway

The Trans-Canada Highway, as a national highway system (NHS), has specific standards and design requirements it must meet. Medicine Hat’s section of the Trans-Canada Highway meets the required design lane minimum, which is two lanes. However, the Government of Canada (2011b) states the minimum design speed of a two-lane highway is 100 km/h, with a minimum operating speed of 90 km/h with free flow traffic. The Medicine Hat section of the Trans-

Canada Highway does not meet the design requirements set by the Federal

Government of Canada as a national highway.

The posted speeds of the Trans-Canada Highway throughout Medicine

Hat and surrounding area are random. Driving to Medicine from the outskirts of the town of Redcliff and hamlet of Dunmore the speed limit is 110 km/h, which is that standard speed limit across the country (Government of Canada, 2011b).

Inside these areas, the speeds vary from 100 km/h, to 80 km/h, and 110 km/h; it can be confusing and affects traffic flow from the sudden changes in speed.

Not meeting the requirements of a national highway system provides further reason to address the 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections.

Addressing Medicine Hat’s congestion issue at these intersections by constructing interchanges allows the city to meet the requirements a NHS, and furthermore, aid in the process of the Trans-Canada Highway reaching freeway status (UMA Engineering Ltd., 2007).

The transport of goods and services, as a key priority for Canada’s economy, relies greatly on the efficiency of the Trans-Canada Highway

88 (Government of Canada, 2012c). The difficultly for large trucks to stop and start when traffic is congested increases the congestion even further at a substantial rate. Furthermore, because of the proximity of these two intersections, extreme congestion can span from 6th SW Street to 16th Street SW.

Travel times of the Trans-Canada Highway are relatively slow when compared with the distance and speed limit of the highway. Heading east through 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW, studies from Associated Engineering

(2013) show over the course of 13.8 km, with a posted speed limit of 80 km/h, it takes 11.6 minutes heading east; heading west it takes 10.4 minutes. This converts to an average speed of 71.5 km/h going east, and 79.7 km/h going west, below the 80 km/h posted speed limit going east, and well below the minimum 90 km/h requirement speed limit from the National Highway System

(NHS) (Government of Canada, 2011). If the intersections were completely closed off to create free flow traffic on the highway, it would reduce the travel times by 1 to 1.3 minutes, which would make the average speed limit 91.4 km/h west and 80.7 km/h east, with a posted speed limit of 80 km/h; a significant increase.

As impracticable as closing the intersections are because it means no access to the surrounding land use, it is an important study to show the impact free flow traffic can have on the highway in these locations. The associated

Engineering (2013) scenario has shown Medicine Hat’s traffic can reach, and surpass, the posted speed limit if the highway is converted to free flow. This means increasing the posted speed limit to 110 km/h would be an efficient way to

89 move traffic knowing the speed could be reached, and the use of an interchange could provide access to surrounding land use. Furthermore, the requirements of free flow traffic with a minimum posted speed limit of 90 km/h by the NHS would be met.

To summarize the characteristics of Medicine Hat’s Trans-Canada

Highway section, there is one major factor that needs to be addressed; it does not meet the requirements of the National Highway System (NHS). The Federal

Government of Canada has created these standards, and categorized the Trans-

Canada Highway as a NHS because it carries the majority of passengers and goods in Canada (Minister of Transport, 2016). The highway has a significant impact on the economy of Canada, and requires fast, efficient, and safe access to markets (Government of Alberta, 2014). Hundreds of millions of dollars are lost due to lost time and impeded trade flow from eroding highway transportation systems and congestion (Van Horne Institute, 2004). It is vital for Medicine Hat to address the issue of their Trans-Canada Section for the betterment of not only the local economy, but also provincial and federal economy.

6.2 Innovative Designs

6.2.1 Superstreets

This issue with this design of superstreets for Medicine Hat is that traffic control signals are located on this segment of the roadway, which does not meet

National Highway System standards. In addition, the superstreet design creates an issue with the surrounding neighborhoods by not allowing left hand turns on to the major road, reducing connectivity. If the design followed NHS standards, a

90 superstreet would be a plausible solution to Medicine Hat’s 6th Street SW and

16th Street SW intersection issues.

6.2.2 Diverging Diamond Interchange

The innovative design of a diverging diamond interchange is a plausible solution to Medicine Hat’s 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW congestion and highway efficiency problems. It requires less right-of-way than other designs, less bridge structure, and fewer lanes than other interchange forms. 95% of drivers felt that there was less congestion using this design than previous diamond interchange designs (Advanced Transportation Solutions, 2014). The issue with the diverging diamond interchange that makes it difficult to suggest is the unfamiliar design in the Canadian road system. Steel, Schmidt, and Miller (2014) explain there are currently no standards for the diverging diamond interchange design and no experience in the Canadian context. The first proposal of a diverging diamond interchange is in 2014 in the province of Saskatchewan.

There are possible issues with driver unfamiliarity, costs, and overall success for

Canadian road systems (Steel, Schmidt, and Miller, 2014). Medicine Hat has shown the success and relatively low costs for tight urban diamond interchanges, and they are seen in multiple locations throughout Canada. They have shown great success in previous locations in Medicine Hat. For this reason I suggest the diverging diamond interchange as a possible alternative once more is known about them in the Canadian road system.

91 6.2.3 Roundabouts

As successful as roundabouts may be in certain situations, the design does not meet the requirements of 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections. The low speed is not ideal for larger vehicles, as well as does not meet the National Highway System standards of a minimum posted speed of 90 km/h. Although a good design, it is not a solution for Medicine Hat’s issues.

6.2.4 Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI)

Although an efficient innovative design that targets major intersection congestion due to left hand turn, it is not a viable option for Medicine Hat because it does not meet the National Highway Standards of free flow traffic. In addition, re-routing the left hand turning traffic causes connectivity issues with the surrounding land uses, and may further lead to transferring the congestion issue to another intersection. The design of the highway and road networks make this design difficult in addressing the issues, and because the intersections are complex with the multi-phased lights, the adjacent service roads will still require traffic to stop, not addressing the problem of highway efficiency.

6.2.5 Ring Roads

Although increasing in popularity due to success in many Canadian cities, a ring road is not a possible solution for Medicine Hat’s 6th Street SW and 16th

Street SW because of Medicine Hat’s surrounding landscape. The only possible route would be beyond the southern city limits, as there is a Canadian Forces

Base that occupies land to the north of the city. The road would need to be built a

92 fair distance from the city limits to allow for city growth because Medicine Hat is currently nearing the southern boundary with new residential neighbourhoods.

Furthermore, a ring road would require construction of a bridge over the South

Saskatchewan River in any route chosen. The construction costs would far exceed any other design, and therefore, is not a practicable solution for Medicine

Hat.

6.3 Frontage Roads

The issue with Medicine Hat’s complex intersection design has to do with the frontage roads, also known as access roads, adjacent to the Trans-Canada

Highway. It is difficult to categorize many of the frontage roads around 6th Street

SW and 16th Street SW, because it is unclear on their primary purpose and functionality. Currently, the frontage road intersections phased with the Trans-

Canada Highway are operating at, or near, congestion entering and exiting the highway (Associated Engineering, 2013). This contributes to the overall highway congestion and highway efficiency. The frontage road intersections negatively impact the connectivity from surrounding land use with long delays and confusing networks.

The roads frontage adjacent to Medicine Hat’s Trans-Canada Highway are difficult to get to. They require waiting at an intersection for a green light, and because of the multi-phased control light design with the frontage road intersection, there are no right hand turns on a red light. Coming from the frontage roads to the highway is similar, where drivers must wait for a green light to proceed in any direction. The purpose of frontage roads, according to the

93 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (2011) is to maintain connectivity and collect and distribute traffic, which Medicine Hat’s do not do efficiently.

The frontage road on the southern end of the Trans-Canada Highway at the 6th Street SW intersection is the most functional frontage road. This frontage road, named Redcliff Drive SW, serves a commercial area and moves traffic efficiently and safely coming off the highway. However, it can be confusing when attempting to get on to the Trans-Canada, with its 2-way stop directly before the traffic control lights. This causes traffic to back up on the frontage road, as well as the street heading south from the highway when trying to get through or on to the Trans-Canada Highway. Furthermore, when the intersection has a green light, traffic from both directions at the frontage road intersection are still required to stop at the stop sign directly before the intersection, greatly reducing the amount of traffic capable of making the green light. However, despite its problematic 2-way stop, it is the only road I would categorize as a frontage road due to its acceptable functionality.

The frontage road on the northern side of the Trans-Canada Highway at the 6th Street SW intersection is a complex design that proves to be inefficient at moving traffic and creating connectivity between surrounding land use and the highway. The frontage road, named Red Deer Drive SW, like the others, is connected to the Trans-Canada Highway intersection in a multi-phased control light system. This frontage road provides no direct access to the few stores situated along it, and is more used as a collector street for the residential

94 neighborhood nearby. However, because of its poor design phased with the

Trans-Canada Highway, it seldom gets any use, and drivers tend to drive a few blocks north to have access to an arterial road or a different collector street as a different, more effective route.

The frontage roads of 16th Street SW intersections are so complex, it is difficult to categorize them as frontage roads, or any other hierarchical road.

Bomford Crescent SW, the southern frontage road, switches between a 1-way and 2-way road design, at two different locations. The northern end of the frontage road is 1-way heading south, then switches to 2-way until 16th Street

SW intersection, then shortly after the intersection it switches back to 1-way, and turns into a merge ramp for the highway. The road provides little access to any adjacent land use and commercial buildings. The surrounding land uses are accessed by the many different collector streets and arterial road situated nearby. There are multiple collector streets to the east of this frontage road that majority of the traffic uses simply so they can avoid the intersection at 16th Street

SW when trying to get on to the highway. This frontage road provides no efficient connectivity to the highway or surrounding area, and decreases the intersection and highway efficiency by stopping traffic in every direction when a vehicle is at the 16th Street SW intersection on this road. This is unnecessary because vehicles can make a quick turn prior and get to a collector or arterial road and have direct access to a highway merge ramp, or wait at a slightly less negatively impacting control light if heading west. There is no need for this frontage road, as it provides little functionality and has negative impacts.

95

Lastly, the frontage road on the northern side of the 16th Street SW intersection is difficult to categorize as a frontage road because of its primary use. This road, called Bullivant Crescent SW, runs directly adjacent to the highway, as well as is the primary road of a residential neighborhood. Directly across from the intersection is a block of houses, and exiting the houses driveways the vehicle would be in the middle of the frontage road intersection. Bullivant Crescent SW I would classify as a collector street based on primary function, but it is also a local road for the residents. The planning design makes it appear the original intent of this road was not as a frontage road, but now serves as one as well as multiple other purposes. It functions as a frontage road / / local road sufficiently, but does not contribute much in terms of connectivity or traffic flow, as it is still phased in with the Trans-Canada Highway traffic control lights. Similar to some of the other frontage roads, it tends to be avoided to do its situation with the Trans-Canada Highway intersection.

After the analysis of the frontage roads in Medicine Hat along the Trans-

Canada Highways 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections, an interchange could help improve the frontage roads by increasing the functionally of them by incorporating them into an interchange. It would allow for more free flow connectivity between highway and surrounding land use, and a potential dispersal of vehicle traffic from these areas. As the city sprawled out to the highway and beyond, drivers tended to find the path of least resistance to get to their destination.

96 6.4 6th Street SW Intersection

The design of the 6th Street SW intersection and connecting roads decreases the efficiency of the highway. The leading contributor to this is the traffic control lights and their inability to move the amount of traffic at a reasonable rate due to intersection design. The access roads on either side prevent right hand turns off the highway, which back up traffic significantly. In additional, there are no right hand turning lanes, so the backed up traffic queues in the through-lanes. Many residents use the shoulders as make shift turning lanes, but law enforcement has started giving traffic violations for this purpose

(Associated Engineering, 2013. Overall, the 6th Street SW intersection design has a major flaw for the efficient movement of traffic.

The operating capacity of 6th Street SW and Trans-Canada Highway has been calculated as an average level of service (LOS) of E, with a total delay of

66.1 seconds (Associated Engineering, 2013). The lanes vary from a LOS of D to F, which represent steady traffic at high density (D), traffic saturation (E), and congestion (F). The average LOS for the intersection is defined as low but uniform speed, maneuverability possible only under constraint of another vehicle, and often the user is frustrated (Transportation Research Board, 2000). With increasing population and vehicles in Medicine Hat, it may not take long for the lanes and average intersection LOS to reach an F. Furthermore, as the traffic increases at 6th Street SW, it trickles down to 16th Street.

The most recent data shows 6th Street SW has between 1001-1500 vehicles per hour (VPH) (Associated Engineering, 2013). At this VPH, congestion

97 is a concern for the intersection. With an average increase in highway traffic by

5% every year, the VPH rapidly rises and increases congestion. At this rate, the intersection will be at a LOS of F in the near future, if not already. A major concern for this intersection worsening any further is it is a primary route to the

Medicine Hat Regional Hospital. If congestion occurs, emergency vehicles struggle to get passed the queued traffic and through the intersection. The issue should be priority for the city because many emergency situations rely on transporting patients efficiently and safely to the hospital. The underlying issue with this major issue is the emergency vehicles drastically increase congestion; as the vehicles scramble and attempt to make way for the emergency vehicle, chaos occurs. Delay is increased as vehicles trying to get back into an orderly fashion, as well as traffic delayed from all sides of the intersection due to complete intersection stoppage.

On the Trans-Canada Highway at 6th Street SW, 13.3 collisions occur per year, with the majority being rear-ends associated with traffic congestion

(Associated Engineering, 2013). With studies finding interchanges reduce rear- end collisions due to differences in speed, Medicine Hat could see a reduction in number of incidents a year (Corporation of the District of North Vancouver,

2014). In addition, interchanges reduce bottlenecking and the proximity of vehicles, keeping a steady flow of traffic and decreasing the likeliness of impacts in general (Shafran & Strauss-Wieder, 2003).

98 6.5 16th Street SW Intersection

The 16th Street intersection is notorious for its faulty design. The north side of the highway is a residential community, and the south side a light industrial, with an access road and residential road adjacent to the highway. Similar to 6th

Street SW, traffic control lights inefficiently manage the traffic at this intersection.

Right hand turns are restricted unless on a green light, and the adjacent roadways create exceptionally long delay times for through traffic. Traffic coming from the residential area must wait for a green light to enter the Trans-Canada

Highway in either direction, as well as to proceed through the intersection. Traffic coming from the light industrial area varies, depending which street you come from. 16th Street SW, the main road through the light industrial allows some traffic to turn onto a merge ramp to enter the highway going east; going west you must wait for a green light. Coming from any other street west of 16th Street SW, you need to navigate uncontrolled intersections and proceed to 16th Street, along with the majority of other vehicles to enter the highway, which becomes congested and ends up blocking traffic from the merge ramp. The other option is to use the adjacent access road, which you have to wait at a traffic control light and precede to the merge ramp once green. This is for eastern bound traffic only, heading west you must wait at the already congested traffic control light. The traffic in the eastbound left turning lane is usually the most queued lane of the intersection.

Vehicles waiting to turn into the light industrial area becomes congested and affects the left hand through-lane. This results in the highway turning into a single lane for through traffic, greatly increasing travel times.

99 This intersection becomes very problematic for large vehicles transporting goods and services. East of 16th Street SW intersection is a dip in the highway that crosses Kin Coulee, creating a fairly significant slope. Not of concern to average size vehicles, but large transport vehicles have issues stopping and starting when traffic is badly congested, and worsens in the winter when roads are icy. The amount of time it takes large vehicles to stop and start impacts congestion greatly, as well as increase the travel time for deliveries of goods and services.

Similar to 6th Street SW intersection, the lanes vary in LOS for 16th Street

SW. However, the 16th Street SW intersection operates at an average LOS of F, representing unstable speed with the formation of waiting lines. A cycle of stop and departure with no apparent logic, and high vigilance is required for the user with no comfort; the road segment is above the design capacity (Transportation

Research Board, 2000). The delay time for this intersection is 114.4 seconds, and is the worst performing intersection in the city (Associated Engineering,

2013). With a title of the worst preforming intersection in Medicine Hat, and classified as a National Highway System which depends on efficiency of the highway, it is vital to address the major congestion problem and should be a priority for the city and province.

Data collected from Associated Engineering (2013) has shown 16th Street

SW intersection has more than of 2000 vehicles per hour (VPH). The intersection is already at a LOS of F, and an increase in VPH will further back up traffic down the highway and start affecting traffic to a greater extent east and west along the

100 highway. A delay in addressing this intersection will have increased negative effects on highway efficiency, and become an increasing concern for vehicle safety. As the intersection worsens and traffic becomes more congested, drivers may attempt to find alternative routes and attempt to bypass this intersection through the city and merge back onto the highway. This may result in other intersections to become congested from road design and intersection design unable to efficiently move the new amount of traffic.

16th Street SW and the Trans-Canada Highway intersection sees an average of 15.6 collisions per year, with the top collisions types as rear-ends, right angles, and sideswipes. Collisions at this intersection create significant problems with traffic flow and congestion because they turn the highway into single lane as result of safety measure for the accident. A key contributor of collisions, aside from congestion, is road design, and 16th Street SW is symbolic of bad road design (Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, 2016).

The complex intersections major flaw is the multiple adjacent traffic control lights correlated with the highway’s traffic control lights, creating numerous, and long, stoppages. A solution to this issue is addressing the road network, which would require a complete re-design of the intersection and its adjacent roads. Ideally, an interchange would address all issues as well as aid in meeting the requirements of the NHS. Closure of this intersection and rerouting traffic is an alternative solution, but is impracticable as it takes away a major access point to a residential neighborhood and busy employment sector.

101 Lastly, 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW are exceptionally dangerous for pedestrians; there is no way for a pedestrian to cross the road safely at either intersection. With a residential area adjacent to 16th Street SW, and a residential area respectively close to 6th Street SW intersection, there should be some way to cross the highway at these intersections to safely get to destinations across the highway. There is a pedestrian bridge roughly 100 meters form 6th Street SW, but is difficult to get to, and provides poor accessibility with stairs only; no method for individuals with disabilities. An interchange could provide increased safety by allowing pedestrians to avoid the high speeds of highway traffic.

To summarize the characteristics of the 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections, they are within the average, as well as above, the variables multiple other cities have shown at the time of interchange proposals. As of the year 2013, they are operating at a LOS of E (6th Street SW), and a LOS of F (16th

Street SW). According to the Transportation Research Board (2010), these levels of service are characteristic of congestion and long delays. Medicine Hat’s population is comparable with many cities population when they felt the need to construct interchanges, and Medicine Hat’s vehicles per household is above the average of the province of Alberta (Community Foundation of Medicine Hat &

Southern Alberta, 2012). There has been success with Medicine Hat’s most current Dunmore Road interchange, and is likely 6th Street SW and 16th Street

SW with see identical results:

“The Dunmore Road interchange provides a critical link for local

businesses and residents, meaning safer access to the surrounding

102 communities and commercial businesses. It is an outstanding example of

collaboration between Alberta Transportation and the City. The new

interchange offers safer, free-flow travel while supporting the east-west

trade corridor.” – Mayor Ted Clugston (Government of Alberta, 2014)

6.6 Traffic Control Lights

With interchanges reviewed as a solution to help control congestion, safety, mobility, and improve highway efficiency, they are a viable solution to address Medicine Hat’s 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW congestion issues

(Hampton, 2005). The traffic control lights situated at these intersections are a leading cause of the problem, and altering the properties of the traffic control lights, such as timing, will not solve the issues. The traffic volume is far too great at 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections. The adjacent roads resulting in additional traffic control lights have a significant negative impact on the highway intersections, and mitigation techniques such as removing these traffic control lights is not a feasible option without completely re-designing the adjacent roads and re-routing traffic. The most viable option that addresses the issues of congestion and meets the requirements of the National Highway System an interchange at each location.

6.7 SWOT Analysis

As seen in the SWOT analysis, there are few advantages to leaving the 6th

Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections as is. The strengths only take affect if nothing is done with the intersections. If the issues are not addressed, there

103 would be no major costs and little maintenance to be done, however, congestion would still occur, and the highway would remain inefficient.

The weaknesses are the congestion located at each intersection, the amount of vehicle collisions, pedestrian safety, and vehicle emissions. Vehicle emissions are directly related with congestion, and interchanges have shown to decrease air emissions by reducing idle times of vehicles (Corporation of the

District of North Vancouver, 2014).

The opportunities that can become of the 6th Street SW and 16th Street

SW if an interchange is constructed could be increased economic activity, reduced collisions, pedestrian safety, emissions control, freeway status, and temporary employment for construction. The overall result is an efficient highway that can move traffic through the city and provide easy access to adjacent land uses.

Some threats will need to be considered with an interchange proposal.

First off, the costs to maintain the structures are greater than traffic control lights, and there are additional costs to address road conditions through seasonal changes, such as icy bridges often seen in Medicine Hat (Voigt, 2012). Second, if an interchange proposal is approved re-routing traffic will cause major issues for traffic flow. The Trans-Canada Highway will need to remain open for large trucks to deliver goods, as it is the only trucking route though the city east-west bound.

This would mean closing down one side of the highway at a time and constructing the interchange, reducing traffic to single lane, reducing speed, and increasing travel time. Lastly, and the greatest threat, is government funding. If a

104 proposal was created it still relies heavily on funding from the government, and it is ultimately the provincial governments decision to determine its priority and whether to fund (Infrastructure Canada, 2014).

6.8 Funding and Costs 6.8.1 Funding

The major limitation for construction of interchanges at 6th Street SW and

16th Street SW on the Trans-Canada Highway is the available funding for the projects, and moreover, the priority of the projects as seen by the Government of

Alberta. Today, most highway and road construction is a provincial responsibility; provinces decide on the design, construction, safety standards and financing of highways under their jurisdiction (Government of Canada, 2012a). The previous

Dunmore Road and Trans-Canada Highway interchange was completely funded by the provincial and federal government, which cost a total of $23 million (Smith,

2004). Alberta Transportation and the Alberta Government viewed this project as a top priority to better Canada’s economy through efficient roads and infrastructure (Infrastructure Canada, 2014). Currently, there has been no funding towards research and analysis for interchange proposals at 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections. $20 million has been giving to Medicine Hat from the provincial and federal governments, but this was divided among 14 projects, none towards the two intersections (Government of Canada, 2017c).

The provincial government often overlooks Medicine Hat’s issues, and respectively, there are many projects across Alberta that need equal attention.

The two largest cities in Alberta, Calgary and Edmonton, are higher in priority

105 than Medicine Hat. Their roads and highways move greater amounts of people, have a significantly higher population, and have a greater impact on Alberta.

Recently, the Alberta Government has given Calgary and Edmonton $1 billion each out of a total of $3 billion from their infrastructure capital-spending program, leaving the remaining municipalities in the province to split the remaining $1 billion (PROLOG Canada, 2005).

The provincial and federal governments have multiple funding programs to assist municipalities in road and infrastructure upgrades. The Basic Municipal

Transportation Grant is the primary source of funding for the City of Medicine

Hat. The average amount received in recent years was $3.7 million a year, none of which been spent towards 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections

(Government of Canada, 2017c).

6.8.2 Cost

The decision by Medicine Hat to not focus on 6th Street SW and 16th

Street SW and the Trans-Canada Highway may be a result of lack of funding.

Some funding was received, but the cost of interchanges may be greater than the amount of funding received.

The typical diamond interchange in an urban environment, which is the type Medicine Hat has used previously, is between $22,050,000 and

$35,300,000 (British Columbia Ministry of Transportation, 2012). Stantec (2008) suggests the average interchange cost on the Trans-Canada Highway is $40 million. The Dunmore Road intersection at the east end of the Trans-Canada

Highway shared similar traffic characteristics with 6th Street SW and 16th Street

106 SW intersections, and the resulting diamond interchange ended up costing $23 million, at the low end of the average interchange cost (Smith, 2004). It is acceptable to argue a similar designed interchange at 6th Street SW and 16th

Street SW would be comparable in price.

Using data from Stantec (2008), projected interchange costs were created for the construction of a 2-lane diamond urban interchange similar to Medicine

Hat’s previous Dunmore Road interchange. Cost analysis were studied using variable lengths of 250 feet, 350 feet, 500 feet, and 600 feet, which was considered the average length of interchanges (Transportation Research Board,

1991). The minimum projected cost Medicine Hat could build an interchange is

$14,357,549, which would result in a 250-feet interchange. The more expensive option is a 600-foot interchange, costing roughly $34,458,026. Depending on the exact dimensions required for interchanges at these intersections, all the projected cost options are within the average of interchange proposals, and furthermore, comparable to Medicine Hat’s previous Dunmore Road interchange.

With the total available funding for Medicine Hat being $20 million, it would take a majority of the funding focused towards one of the intersections to construct a diamond interchange (Government of Canada, 2017c). Two years of funding directed towards 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW would result in the possibility of interchanges at both locations. However, because it is not practical to use all the funding towards one project, as there are many other important issues as well, further funding would be ideal. A smaller and cheaper interchange, if possible, may be a better solution.

107 7.0 Recommendations

After analysis of 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections on the

Trans-Canada Highway, my recommendation is the proposal of a 500-foot interchange at each location, if the funding is available. Otherwise, I continue to suggest an interchange, but one of smaller length, lowering the cost. The projected cost would be roughly $27 million, and require 58,500 square feet, which would require complete road re-design, but achievable with the available space (Transportation Research Board, 1991).

The construction of this interchange would greatly reduce congestion and allow traffic to merge off ramps to the surrounding land use. The NHS standards would be met with a minimum posted speed of 90km/h, as well as provide free flowing traffic, allowing faster travel times and a more efficient highway.

Models have been created for 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW to illustrated possible interchange proposals based on this study. Models 1 through

5 show a model of the current highway and 6th Street SW intersection, and

Models 6 through 9 show models of an interchange concept. Models 10 through

15 show a model of the current 16th Street SW intersection and the Trans-

Canada Highway, and Models 16 through 22 show an interchange concept. Land use of the surrounding area is also depicted in the models.

108 7.1 Models

The following models were created using Google’s SketchUP program.

The interchange concepts are to be used for visual aid only, and are not actual representations of interchange proposals.

109

7.1.2 6th Street SW Intersection – Current

This model shows the current 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses in aerial view.

Model 1 6th Street SW

110

Model 2 6th Street SW

This model shows the current 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from the south-east.

111 Model 3 6th Street SW

This model shows the current 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from the south-west.

112 Model 4 6th Street SW

This model shows the current 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from the north.

113 Model 5 6th Street SW

This model shows the current 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from the west.

114 7.1.3 6th Street SW Intersection - Interchange

Model 6 6th Street SW Interchange

This model shows an interchange at 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses aerial view.

115 Model 7 6th Street SW Interchange

This model shows an interchange at 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from the south-east.

116 Model 8 6th Street SW Interchange

This model shows an interchange at 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from the south.

117 Model 9 6th Street SW Interchange

This model shows an interchange at 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from south-west.

118 Model 10 6th Street SW Interchange

This model shows an interchange at 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from the west.

119 7.1.4 16th Street SW Intersection - Current

Model 11 16th Street SW

This model shows the current 16th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses in aerial view.

120 Model 12 16th Street SW

This model shows the current 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from the south-east.

121 Model 13 16th Street SW

This model shows the current 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from the south-west.

122 Model 14 16th Street SW

This model shows the current 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from the west.

123 Model 15 16th Street SW

This model shows the current 6th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from the east.

124 7.1.5 16th Street SW Intersection – Interchange

Model 16 16th Street SW Interchange

This model shows an interchange at 16th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses aerial view.

125 Model 17 16th Street SW Interchange

This model shows an interchange at 16th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from south-east.

126 Model 18 16th Street SW Interchange

This model shows an interchange at 16th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from south.

127 Model 19 16th Street SW Interchange

This model shows an interchange at 16th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from south-west.

128 Model 20 16th Street SW Interchange

This model shows an interchange at 16th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from north-west.

129 Model 21 16th Street SW Interchange

This model shows an interchange at 16th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from north.

130 Model 22 16th Street SW Interchange

This model shows an interchange at 16th Street SW Intersection, frontage roads, and surrounding land uses from east.

131 7.2 Model Summary

The conceptual models above were a creative attempt to show urban interchanges for 6th Street SW and 16th Street SW intersections and the Trans-

Canada Highway. The current intersection models aim to help visualize the complex intersection and road design, and how traffic moves throughout the intersections and adjacent land use. Arrows on the roads help show traffic direction, and traffic signal controls are accurately depicted in the intersections.

The models of the interchanges were to show the potential impact an urban interchange may have situated at these locations. It attempts to show free flow traffic and connectivity to the adjacent land use, as well as arrows on the roads to depict an efficient solution of traffic movement.

132 8.0 REFERENCES

Advanced Transportation Solutions. (2014). Benefits of Diverging Diamond interchange. In Diverging Diamond Interchange. Retrieved from http://www.divergingdiamond.com/benefits.html

Advanced Transportation Solutions . (2017). Innovative Designs. In Advanced Transportation Solutions / American. Retrieved from http://www.ats- american.com/category/innovative-designs/continuous-flow-intersection/

Alberta Infrastructure. (1999). Highway Geometric Design Guide. In Alberta Infrastructure. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/951.htm

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2001). A Policy and Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://nacto.org/docs/usdg/geometric_design_highways_and_streets_aash to.pdf

Arizona Department of Transportation. (n.d.). Pros and Cons of Traffic Signals. In Arizona Department of Transportation. Retrieved from http://azdot.gov/business/engineering-and-construction/traffic/faq/pros- and-cons-of-traffic-signals

Associated Engineering. (2013, April). Assessment of Alberta Transportation Highway 1 and 3 Proposed Improvements. In The City of Medicine Hat. Retrieved from http://www.medicinehat.ca/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=50 78

Benson, F. J., & Lay, M. G. (2017). The Modern Road. In Enyclopaedia Brittanica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/technology/transportation-technology

Berezanski, J. (2004). Best Practices for Planning and Design of Freeway Facilities. InAlberta Transportation. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType233/Production/free wyfclty.pdf

British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. (2012). CONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION COST GUIDE. In Province of British Columbia. Retrieved from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/driving-and- transportation/transportationinfrastructure/contracting-with-the- province/documents/costguide-2012.pdf

133 Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators. (2016). Canada's Road Safety Strategy 2025. In Tranport Canada. Retrieved from http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/menu.htm

City Data. (2012). Lubbock, TX - Demographics. In City Data. Retrieved from http://www.city-data.com/zipmaps/Lubbock-Texas.html

City Data. (2015). Aynor, South Carolina. In City Data. Retrieved from http://www.city-data.com/city/Aynor-South-Carolina.html

City of Calgary. (2014). Complete Streets Policy. In The City of Calgary. Retrieved from http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/DirectDownload.aspx?target=http%3 a%2f%2fwww.calgary.ca%2fCA%2fcity-clerks%2fDocuments%2fCouncil- policy-library%2fTP021-Complete-Streets-Policy.pdf&noredirect=1&sf=

City of Chuzhou. (2010). Design Proposal of Overpass Bridge of Mingguang Road. In City of Chuzhou. Retrieved from http://en.lyq.gov.cn/DocHtml/488/2010/8/28/2725782012969.html

City of Medicine Hat. (2012). Municipal Development Plan. In City of Medicine Hat. Retrieved from http://www.city.medicine- hat.ab.ca/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=2715

City of North Vancouver. (2009, October). City of North Vancouver 2009 Community ProfileRelease 1 - Data Inventory. In City of North Vancouver. Retrieved from http://www.cnv.org/~/media/2ECEB6CBF2204BB4814EDCD1E26530D8.p df

City of Regina. (2015). Traffic Lights. In City of Regina. Retrieved from https://www.regina.ca/business/roads-traffic/traffic-lights-signals- sign/traffic-lights/

City of Surrey. (2015). Population Estimates & Projections. In City of Surrey. Retrieved from http://www.surrey.ca/business-economic- development/1418.aspx

City of Vancouver. (2013, June 5). Powell Street Overpass project. In City of Vancouver. Retrieved from http://vancouver.ca/home- propertydevelopment/powell-street-overpass-project.aspx

Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, § 92, http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1867.html.

134 Community Foundation of Medicine Hat & Southeastern Alberta. (2012). Medicine Hat Vital Signs 2008. In Community Foundation of Medicine Hat & Southeastern Alberta. Retrieved from http://cfsea.ca/new/wp- content/uploads/2012/04/Vital_Signs_Online-Version-20081.pdf

Corporation of the District of North Vancouver. (2014). Proposed Philip Avenue Overpass. In District of North Vancouver. Retrieved from https://www.dnv.org/upload/pcdocsdocuments/141jt01!.pdf

Devex. (2009, October). Proposed Heilongjiang Road Development II Project (Yichun-Nenjiang) In China: Yichun-Beian Section Civil Works And Beian- Wudalianchi Section Bridge Construction. In Devex. Retrieved from https://www.devex.com/projects/tenders/proposed-heilongjiang-road- development-ii-project-yichun-nenjiang-in-china-yichun-beian-section-civil- works-and-beian-wudalianchi-section-bridges-construction/55

Downs, A. (2004). Why Traffic Congestion Is Here to Stay.and Will Get Worse. In UC Transportation Center. Retrieved from http://www.uctc.net/access/25/Access%2025%20-%2004%20- %20Traffic%20Congestion%20is%20Here%20to%20Stay.pdf

Eleven Media Group. (2015). Japan says no to overpass proposal over high cost. In Eleven. Retrieved from http://www.elevenmyanmar.com/local/japan- says-no-overpass-proposal-over-high-cost

Eppell, V. A., Bunker, J. M., & McClurg, B. A. (2001). A four level road hierarchy for network planning and management. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/2349/1/2349.pdf

Federal Highway Administration. (2009). The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. In US Department of Transportation. Retrieved from https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009/mutcd2009edition.pdf

Federal Highway Administration. (2013, December 5). Traffic Congestion and Reliability: Linking Solutions to Problems. In U.S. Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved from http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion_report_04/executive_summary.ht m

Focus Corporation . (2011). Calgary Southwest Ring Road Functional Planning Study. In Alberta Transportation. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType490/Production/CSW RR/Communities_workshop_1.pdf

Google Earth V 6.2.2.6613. (June 22, 2010). Medicine Hat, Alberta.17° 50o 01’ 59.14” N, 110° 42’ 24.78” W, Eye alt 1.22 km. SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy,

135 NGA, GEBCO. TerraMetrics 2012, DigitalGlobe 2012. http://www.earth.google.com

Google Images. (2015). Medicine Hat Dunmore Road Overpass. In Google Images. Retrieved from https://www.google.ca/search?q=medicine+hat+dunmore+road+overpass &client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=9cWJVcivGMWy -AHQqZyYDA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAw&biw=945&bih=625, 2012]

Government of Alberta. (2000). Alberta's Transportation Advantage. In Alberta Transportation. Retrieved from https://www.transportation.alberta.ca/2256.htm

Government of Alberta. (2011). Basic Municipal Transportation Grant (BMTG) Allocation Table 2011. In Alberta Transportation. Retrieved from https://www.transportation.alberta.ca/5407.htm

Government of Alberta. (2012). Basic Municipal Transportation Grant (BMTG) Allocation Table 2012. In Alberta Transportation. Retrieved from https://www.transportation.alberta.ca/5407.htm

Government of Alberta. (2013). Basic Municipal Transportation Grant (BMTG) Allocation Table 2013. In Alberta Transportation. Retrieved from https://www.transportation.alberta.ca/5407.htm

Government of Alberta. (2014). New Highway 1 interchange opens in Medicine Hat. In Alberta Government. Retrieved from https://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=36919810219A6-9E8B-68F4- 24FDB920EE4DB320

Government of Alberta. (2017). Budget 2016 Highlights. In Alberta Transportation. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/5141.htm

Government of Alberta Ministry of Transportation. (2014). Alberta Provincial Highway Projects. In Alberta Transportation. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/projects/

Government of Alberta Ministry of Transportation. (2015, February 4). In Transportation Alberta. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType260/Production/teg0 05.pdf

Government of Canada. (2011a). Census agglomeration of Medicine Hat, Alberta. In Stats Canada. from https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-

136 recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-cma- eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GK=CMA&GC=805

Government of Canada. (2011b). National Highway System. In Transport Canada. Retrieved from https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/acg-acgd-menu- highways-2149.htm

Government of Canada. (2012a). The Trans-Canada Highway: Backgrounder. In Transport Canada. Retrieved from https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/acg- acgd-menu-highways-2153.htm

Government of Canada. (2012b). 2011 Census. In Statistics Canada. Retrieved from https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs- spg/Facts-cma-eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GK=CMA&GC=805

Government of Canada. (2012c). Infrastructure Spotlight: Canada’s Highway System: Backbone of a Strong Economy. In Infrastructure Canada. Retrieved from http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/pub/infra/hwy-route/hwy- route-eng.html

Government of Canada. (2017a). 2016 Census. In Statistics Canada. Retrieved from https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp- pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=POPC&Code1=0523&Geo2=PR &Code2=48&Data=Count&SearchText=Medicine%20Hat&SearchType=B egins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&G

Government of Canada. (2017b). Consumer Price Index, historical summary (1997 to 2016). In Stats Canada. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/econ46a- eng.htm

Government of Canada. (2017c). Infrastructure Canada projects since 2002 – Medicine Hat, Alta. In Infrastructure Canada. Retrieved from http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/map-carte/ab-list- eng.html?municipality=medicine-hat

Hampton, M. (2005). Highway Interchanges, Transportation and Land Use: An Exploration of Changes in Transportation Volumes and Land Use Factors within Interchange Catchments. In Portland State University. Retrieved February 18, 2017, from http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context =geog_masterpapers

Infrastructure Canada. (2011). Funding Programs. In Government of Canada. Retrieved from

137 http://http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/prog/ptbase-finbasept- eng.html/site/altformat/pdf/pdf-ptic/NBCP-NPCC-20160505-eng.pdf

Infrastructure Canada. (2014). 2014 New Building Canada Fund. In Government of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/site/alt- format/pdf/pdf-ptic/NBCP-NPCC-20160505-eng.pdf

Ingerosec Corporation. (2011). Preparatory Survey on the Project for Improvement of Transport Capacity in Dar es Salaam,Tanzania. In Ingerosec. Retrieved from http://www.ingerosec.com/en/list_achievements_en/list_road_infrastructur es_en/544.html

International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers. (2013). Total World Vehicles in Use. In OICA. Retrieved from http://www.oica.net/wp- content/uploads//total-inuse-2013.pdf

International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers. (2012). Total World Vehicles in Use. In OICA. Retrieved from http://www.oica.net/wp- content/uploads//total-inuse-2012.pdf

Lalonde, V. (2009, November 30). City of Surrey - Corporate Report. In City of Surrey. Retrieved from http://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcouncillibrary/R221-FA05.pdf

Leisch, J. P., & Morrall, J. (2014). Evolution of Interchange Design in North America. Retrieved from http://conf.tac- atc.ca/english/annualconference/tac2014/s-30/morrall.pdf

Loewen, E. B., & Baril, M. (2012). Chief Peguis Trail Extension - Rothesay St. Overpass. Retrieved from http://conf.tac- atc.ca/english/annualconference/tac2012/docs/session11/loewen.pdf

McLeod, D. (2014). THE TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY – A Major Link in Canada’s Transportation System. Retrieved from http://conf.tac- atc.ca/english/annualconference/tac2014/s-32/macleod.pdf

Minister of Transport. (2016). Transportation in Canada 2015. In Transport Canada. Retrieved from http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/menu.htm

National Highway Policy Steering Committee. (1988). National Highway Policy for Canada. Retrieved from http://www.comt.ca/reports/nhp2.PDF

PROLOG Canada Inc. (2005). The Transportation Sector in Alberta: Present Position and Future Outlook. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType56/Production/AEDA

138 2005.pdf

Rawlinson, J., & Scott, P. F. (1963, January 29). The Hammersmith Flyover. In Ramboll. Retrieved from http://www.ramboll.com/~/media/Files/RUK/ICE%20Proceedings/Hammer smith%20Flyover_Rawlinson%20and%20Stott.pdf

Revell, P. (2014, December 17). Overpass Completion a Highlight of 2014. In Medicine Hat News. Retrieved from http://medicinehatnews.com/news/local-news/2014/12/27/overpass- completion-a-highlight-of-2014/

Scott, L. L. (2013, January 13). Woodrow Road overpass proposal unveiled. In Lubbock Avalanche Journal. Retrieved from http://lubbockonline.com/local-news/2013-01-17/woodrow-road-overpass- proposal-unveiled#.VX8p1vlVhHw

Shafran, I., & Strauss-Wieder, A. (2003). Financing and Improving Land Access to U.S. Intermodal Cargo Hubs. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?id=gIWv4mxFS2cC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44& dq=benefits+of+an+overpass+over+traffic+lights&source=bl&ots=HrNUznf JLu&sig=cJmcOmHVP9jYj1QemslHud_2Jo4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CE4Q6 AEwCGoVChMIx

Shen, Z., Qin, X., Wehbe, N., Pei, S., & Tigges, B. (2013, May 7). Evaluation and Mitigation of Vehicle Impact Hazards for Overpasses. Retrieved from http://www.gis-t.org/files/cA1tk.pdf

Smart Growth America. (2017). What are Complete Streets?. Retrieved from https://smartgrowthamerica.org/resources?resource_type=fact- sheet&authors=&category_name=complete-streets&s=

Smith, R. (2004). New interchange makes highway travel more safe and efficient. In Government of Alberta . Retrieved from https://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=173633E4AFA59-6742-476D- 9833EE063EF46E87

Smith, S. J. (2013). Highway 1 and Dunmore Road Bridge Construction Update. In City of Medicine Hat. Retrieved from http://www.medicinehat.ca/index.aspx?page=30&recordid=816

Stantec. (2008). Highways 1 & 3 Network Functional Planning Study. In Alberta Transportation. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/projects/assets/Area_8_South/Hwy% 201%20Medicine%20Hat/Executive%20Summary.pdf

139

Steel, P. H., Schmidt, T., & Miller, B. L. (2014). Consideration of a Diverging Diamond Interchange in Saskatchewan. Retrieved from http://conf.tac-atc.ca/english/annualconference/tac2014/s-14/steel.pdf

Texas A&M Transportation Institute. (n.d.). Continous Flow Intersections. In Mobility Investment Priorities. Retrieved April 7, 2017, from https://mobility.tamu.edu/mip/strategies-pdfs/systemmodification/technical- summary/cfi-intersections-4-pg.pdf

TransCanada FoundLocally Inc. (2015). Highway Overview on Trans-Canada Highway. In Trans-Canada Highway. Retrieved from http://transcanadahighway.com/General/transcanadahighway.htm

TransCanada Overpasses (2010). In Medicine Hat Media. Retrieved from http://www.medicinehatmedia.com/2010/08/transcanada-overpasses/)

Transportation Research Board. (1991). Single Point Urban Interchange Design and Operations Analysis . In Google Books. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?id=t0jfX9fK5oUC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq =average+overpass+length&source=bl&ots=LZInQNylcb&sig=q6CbQkhD qhw5qrFUix0M8MFBhsw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqntmtwMXSAhXL xFQKHdc1BKQQ6AEII

Transportation Research Board. (2000). Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Retrieved from http://www.gsweventcenter.com/Draft_SEIR_References%5C2000_TRB.p df

Transportation Research Board. (2010). Highway Capacity Manual 2010. Retrieved from http://hcm.trb.org/?qr=1

UMA Engineering Ltd. (2007). Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation. In Alberta Transportation. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/projects/south.aspx

UNFPA. (2012). More people move to urban areas as Tanzanian population gallops. In UNFPA Tanzania. Retrieved from http://countryoffice.unfpa.org/tanzania/2013/04/19/6599/more_people_mo ve_to_urban_areas_as_tanzanian_population_gallops/

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. (2017). Roundabouts and Mini Roundabouts. Retrieved from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/innovative/roundabouts/

140 Van Horne Institute. (2004). The Transportation Sector in Alberta: Present Position and Future Outlook. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType56/Production/AEDA 2004.pdf

Voigt, N. R. (2012). Transportation Depth Reference Manual. Belmont, CA: Professional Publications, Inc. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?id=mmu49t4tIREC&pg=SA4- PA43&lpg=SA4- PA43&dq=benefits+of+an+overpass/underpass&source=bl&ots=UBxJlqHy 2i&sig=mzTrjuP0STJTCQnt9mo97ZOiHrY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o4ZoVeKSDZ LooATusYCAA

Washington State Department of Transportation. (2004, July 12). Are WSDOT’s highway construction costs in line with national experience?. In Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.vtpi.org/WSDOT_HighwayCosts_2004.pdf

Washington State Department of Transportation. (2015). Traffic Signals. In Washington State Department of Transportation. Retrieved June 22, 2015, from http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Operations/Traffic/signals.htm

Western Provincial Transportation Ministers Council. (2005). Western Canada Transportation Infrastructure Strategy for an Economic Network. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/content/doctype56/production/wtm- strategy.pdf

Whitten, R. (1931, December 28). Report to the Selectmen of the Town of Brookline by the Planning Board and Report to the Planning Board. In High Street Hill. Retrieved from http://highstreethill.org/?page_id=1299

141