Public Open House No. 3

Highway 63 Functional Planning Study From Township Road 642 to Highway 55

Date: September 17, 2013

Time: 5:00 pm

Place: Village of Boyle Community Centre 5002 3rd Street, Boyle, ObjectivesObjectives

• Review existing conditions, traffic operations and previous functional planning studies. • Develop a short- and long-term strategy for twinning Highway 63 that: – achieves the objectives of the Provincial Highway Network; and, – addresses the economic viability concerns of the Village of Boyle and . • Carry out a comprehensive public involvement process that: – addresses public and safety interests; and, – serves to build case for the selection of the recommended solution to enhance the Village of Boyle and Athabasca County’s desire for growth and prosperity. • Develop functional plans, right-of-way request plans and a final report documenting the study findings and recommendations. StudyStudy BackgroundBackground

November 28th 2012: Public Open House No. 1 • Approximately 100 persons attended. • CastleGlenn presented 3 new concepts utilizing Hwy 63 through Boyle. • Over 30 comment sheets and/or e-mails were received from residents. • The majority of residents favoured Option 3. January 23rd 2013: Public Open House No. 2 • Approximately 75 persons attended. • CastleGlenn presented the Consultant’s preferred Option 3-a and why. • Over 150 comment sheets and/or e-mails were received from residents. • Resident preference was split among Option 3-a and a “Railway” Option. Summer 2013: AT retained CastleGlenn to evaluate an East Option • Identify and evaluated alignment alternatives. • Identify and evaluate the location for an interchange in the vicinity of Boyle. • Compare the east alignment option to Option 3-a and make final study recommendations. • Conduct Public Open House No. 3 to present study findings. HighwayHighway 6363 ConceptConcept OptionOption BB--22

20102010 SolutionSolution (AMEC) HwyHwy 6363 ““InterimInterim”” ExpresswayExpressway StageStage

2.3km R 2200 curve with Average intersection 2.5% superelevation spacing along Hwy 63 at intersection is 3.0 km Hwy 63 intersection provides direct 2.7km 3.2km 3.2km connection to Hwy 831 An acceptable 3.6% super elevation is maintained on the rail structure Proposed service road network leaves no land locked properties R 2200 curve with 2.9km 2.5% superelevation at intersection

Twinning to the east avoids Fortis Utilities and allows for construction of new 4.5m NB Hwy 63 lane HwyHwy 6363 ““UltimateUltimate”” FreewayFreeway StageStage

Hwy 55 interchange is located 16 km north of Boyle interchange.

Purple lines illustrated service roads constructed at Expressway stage. Black lines depict service roads constructed at Freeway Stage.

Next interchange south is located 20km away at Twp Rd 640. CN structure accommodates service road below structure to provide access to Miller Western.

Interchange at Twp Rd 640 located 6.5 km south of Twp Rd 644. PreferredPreferred AlignmentAlignment –– LandLand UseUse AssumptionsAssumptions

10 14 9

15 40 10 40 15 2 7 7 32 ha 20 2 12 7 3 4 4 2 34 10 20 10 14 31 22 5

16 27 34 32 9 Potential Developable Area: 42 37 44 437 ha – Industrial 36 139 ha – Commercial 91 ha – Future TheThe PreferredPreferred OptionOption && Why?Why? Option “3-a” was preferred given that: • The future interchange avoids conflicts with major pipeline corridors; • A separation of 2.5 km exists between the future interchange and the CN railway corridor, enhancing constructability and design flexibility; • The design provides for: overall improved geometry and design consistency for the Hwy 63 corridor, a more direct connection and improved continuity between Hwy 63, Hwy 663 and Hwy 831; • Makes greatest use of existing Highway 63 corridor and infrastructure; • Has convenient interim access across Hwy 63 with an at-grade intersections; • Provides for ease of transition to a freeway standard when required; • Remains consistent with Village and County planning efforts and maximizes the economic benefit to the community; • A service road under the rail structure would connect Boyle to the north; and, • It was less expensive than other options. EastEast AlignmentAlignment OptionsOptions MethodologyMethodology Approach… • Segment the corridor north and south of Hwy 663. • Identify an interchange location. • Develop a new Hwy 63 alignment around the interchange. • Connect back to Hwy 63 south towards . North of Hwy 663: – The location, visibility and ease of access to/from the interchange is of critical importance to the Village of Boyle. – How close can an interchange be placed directly to the east of Boyle? – Where would the interchange go? – How would you get in and out of Boyle? – What would an alignment to the east of Boyle look like? – Assessment and evaluation to determine impacts. South of Hwy 663: – Identify alignment corridor options. – Locate a southern interchange (if needed). – Assessment and evaluation to determine impacts. Natural Gas Pipeline (406mm) The maximum achievable Nova Gas Transmission Line Skeleton Lake radius is R2400 to the north. Natural Gas Pipeline (60.3mm) Village of Boyle

CN Rail Structure – Crossing at near 90o

Crude Oil Pipeline (559 / 609mm) Alberta Oil Sands Pipeline Ltd. The closer the interchange is Overburden from Rail Structure. pushed to the west, the tighter the radius becomes and more deficient. Deficient: The maximum (See green line with R1400) achievable radius is R1600. This is below the R2200-to-R3000 radius needed for freeway facilities. At- grade intersections can’t be

R accommodated along its length. 1 6 0 The distance between the 0 interchange and the rail structure R a d must be separated by 1.1-to-1.3km i u (500m from top of Rail Structure & 800m to s ramp) to meet sight line requirements from the top of the CN Rail structure to the beginning of the interchange ramp. An Interchange Alberta -1.6 km is illustrated An Interchange Oilsands Pipeline Ltd. Pump Station DirectlyDirectly EastEast ofof BoyleBoyle Site Radio Boyle Cell Tower

Alignment 60m east of RR 192 Major Design & Utility Constraints are Evident and 1.6km E of Hwy 831 AccessAccess toto thethe VillageVillage ofof BoyleBoyle

14.9 km to 14.8 km to Hwy 55 Skeleton Lake Hwy 55 R3000m Radius RR 194 RR West Ramp Terminal leads The distance between the directly into/out of Boyle. interchange and the rail structure Approx 400m extension. must be separated by 1.1-to-1.3km to meet sight line requirements from the top of the CN Rail structure to the beginning of the interchange ramp. -1.1 km is illustrated Length of Hwy 663 Realignment is approximately + 2.7km. R600 0.7 km

Wastewater Treatment Lagoons o Hwy 831 could be extended to the 85 Angle with northwest to connect back to the CN Rail Crossing Hwy 663 corridor.

0.7 km R2500m Radius 1.5 km 80o Angle with Alberta Rail Crossing Required. Oilsands Hwy 663E R600 Pipeline Ltd. Boyle Pump Station Site

Microwave Hwy 831 Tower Site Hwy 663E Cul-de- Existing Hwy 63 Corridor would be Sac’d on both sides Cul-de-Sac’d. HowHow wouldwould HwyHwy 663663 ConnectConnect toto HwyHwy 63?63?

Length of Hwy 663 Realignment is approximately 4.4km. Skeleton Lake RR 194 RR

R600 Radius Existing Rge Rd 192 Cul-de-Sac’d These alignments on either side of corridor to avoid (6.3km) would revert to intersection on curve. the County as they no longer serve a Possible Requirement for 2nd Highway purpose. Structure over Rail Corridor to connect Hwy 663 to interchange. 80o angle with Railway depicted.

New RR 192 intersection spaced between curve and CN railway would be approximately 0.8km. m k .4 2 Alberta Oilsands Pipeline Ltd. R650 Radius Boyle Pump Station 2.3 km Site 1.6 km o Microwave

80 angle with Railway necessaryHwy 831 Tower Site to assure crossing of creek in Hwy 663 E Cul-de-Sac’d to avoid viable locations. Creek intersection on curve. realignment may be necessary. SouthSouth AlignmentAlignment Hwy 663 ConceptsConcepts Boyle

il a R The south section of the alignments are south N of Hwy 633 and potentially make use of C sections of Hwy 831. All options tie back into A

Hwy 63 in the vicinity of the at-grade rail 63 Hwy Cone 1 crossing S of Twp Rd 624. • Numerous alignment possibilities were B identified. Cone 2 • The South Section was segmented into Athabasca County C three cones and unique alignments Thorhild County D developed internal to each cone (Options E “A” to “F”). Cone 3 F • The characteristics of each alignment were refined to develop a favored alignment within each of the coloured areas. Twp Rd 624 Hwy 831 Hwy SoilSoil TypesTypes Length (area) Through Various Soil Types (km) North of Hwy 663 – Option “F” Poorly- Well-Drained Roadway Segment Drained Soils Soils New Hwy 63 North of 663 0.89 3.63 Interchange Footprint 0.04 km2 0.38 km2 Hwy 663 (East of Hwy 63) 2.36 1.37 Hwy 663 (West of Hwy 63) 1.53 1.57 New Service Roads 1.9 6.07 South of Hwy 663 Roadway Fen Bog Poorly- Well-Drained 3-a Segment Soils Drained Soils Soils Option “B” 13.25 7.89 9.18 Option “D” 9.44 7.06 14.09 Option “F” 7.78 7.06 17.34

Option “F” offers the minimum intrusion through fen B bog soils and the maximum length through well- drained soils. D All three options involve 7-to-8 km of poorly drained

FF soils along Hwy 831. Organics could be as deep as 6-7 m in some areas. Earthworks costs for poorly-drained soils excavation could be in the order of $45M-to-$100M. WetlandsWetlands && KeyKey WildlifeWildlife

3.3 km andand BiodiversityBiodiversity ZoneZone

There are significantly more wetlands along Hwy 831 than Hwy 63 that would be impacted with twinning. Wetland compensation may be required at a ratio of 3:1 Hwy 63 Hwy (where 3 ha of equivalent wetland is restored for each hectare of natural wetland impacted). Route “F” traverses through 5.1 km of KWBZ. The Crown enforces restrictions associated with these zones, mainly a timing restriction on activity within the zone and limitations on road construction.

B Freeways in KWBZ are generally to be avoided where possible. D Legend F Wetland 1.8 km Option “B”, “D” and “F” Option “3-a” Possible Interchange Site Hwy 831 Realignment Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zone RailwayRailway CrossingCrossing • Option “F” would require three 2-lane grade separated rail structures: – Two for the new 63 alignment; and – One for Hwy 663 since it would be required to cross the CN Corridor and must be realigned back to the interchange. Option “3-a”

Option Boyle “F” • Alignment “3-a” would require four l 2-lane grade ai R N separated rail C structures: Option – Two for the new “3-a” alignment; and Twp Rd 624 – Two for the l It is assumed that when ai R N crossing south of Hwy 63 would be C Twp Rd 624 and twinned to the south of Boyle that a new rail North of Twp Rd grade separated 622. structure would be Boyle required and the horizontal curves improved. Boyle

1 OptionOption ““FF”” UtilityUtility CrossingsCrossings Twp Rd 644

il a R N 2 C Option “F” south of Hwy 663 traverses Twp Rd 642

over 26 underground utilities 3 Old Twp Rd 640A Hwy 63 Hwy 1. Alberta Oil Sands Pipeline Ltd. Crude (559mm & 609mm) Twp Rd 640(Ellscott)

2. Alberta Oil Sands Pipeline Ltd. Crude (559mm & 609mm) 4 3. Vermilion Resources Ltd - Nat. Gas (114.3mm) Twp Rd 634 New63 Hwy 4. Apache Ltd. - Nat. Gas (114.3mm) Athabasca County Thorhild County 5. County of Thorhild - Nat. Gas (60.3mm)

6. Alberta Oil Sands Pipeline Ltd. Crude (559mm & 609mm) 5

7. Apache Canada Ltd. - Nat. Gas (114.3mm) 6 8. Enbridge Pipelines (Athabasca Inc.) Crude (762mm) 7

9. Apache Canada Ltd. - Nat. Gas (114.3mm) 8 9 10. Can. Nat. Resources Ltd.- Nat. Gas (Abandoned 88.9mm)

11. Can. Nat. Resources Ltd.- Nat. Gas (Operational 114.3mm) 12

12 & 13. Six Different Pipelines – Grouping 10 13 Twp Rd 622

11 Hwy 831 Hwy Boyle OptionOption ““FF”” ServiceService RoadsRoads Twp Rd 644 8 il a Athabasca County: 13.1 km (Minimum) R 10 N C Thorhild: 16.2 km (Minimum) Twp Rd 642

9 1. Thorhild: ES: TR 622 to RR 195 - 1.3km Old Twp Rd 640A Hwy 63 Hwy 2. Thorhild: ES: RR 202 Realignment -1.0 km Twp Rd 640(Ellscott) 3. Thorhild: WS: TR 621 to Old Hwy 63 - 2.2 km

4. Thorhild: WS: Interchange to TR 202 - 3.0km Twp Rd 634 New63 Hwy 5. Thorhild: WS: TR 624/RR 201 to RR 195A - 3.2km Athabasca County Thorhild County 6. Thorhild: ES: N Ridge Golf to TR 631A - 1.5km 11 7. Thorhild: ES: TR 621 to TR 622 - 1.7km Twp Rd 631A 8. Athabasca: ES: Hwy 633 to S of TR 640A - 9.2km 6 9. Athabasca: WS: Dwelling to TR 640A - 1.6km

10. Athabasca: WS: TR 644 to Fish Pond – 2.3km 5 11. Thorhild: WS: County Border to TR 631A – 2.3 km 4 ES = East Side of Corridor 2 1 WS = West Side of Corridor Twp Rd 622 Twp Rd 622 TR = Township Road 3 7 RR = Range Road Twp Rd 621 Hwy 831 Hwy Hwy 661 InterchangeInterchange SpacingSpacing Hwy 55

Alignment “3-a” results in more even interchange spacing with 4 interchanges spaced roughly evenly along the corridor. Interchange may be required at

Ellscott CNRail The desired design separation for rural interchanges is

8-to-16km. Boyle Option “F” results in an uneven interchange spacing: • Over 30 km between Boyle and the CN Rail Hwy 63 Hwy crossing to the south. It is likely that an additional Ellscott interchange will be needed at Ellscott mid-way. • There is only 6km separation between an interchange at the rail crossing and Newbrook. • Would likely result in an additional interchange, for a total of 5 interchanges between Hwy 55 and

Newbrook. 831 Hwy

Insufficient interchange spacing. Newbrook DirectDirect AlignmentAlignment ComparisonComparison

Comparison of Option “F” to “3-a” Option Option Difference [Hwy 55 to Twp Rd 621:1.6 km N of Hwy 661 Newbrook] “F” “3-a” (“F” minus “3-a”) Length of new 4-lane alignment (km) 48.7 53.0 4.3 km Distance between Boyle interchange and Hwy 55 interchange (km) 14.0 14.0 0 km Is Boyle visible for northbound traffic? No Yes - Distance to next interchange to south (km) 31.11 20.02 11.1 km Number of interchanges required over alignment length 34 1 Number of 2-lane rail grade separations required 43 -1 Number of creek crossings required 6 or 7 3 + 1B 4 Length of Hwy 663 realignment (km) 7.5 n/a4 7.5 km Length of old highway that would revert to Athabasca County (km) 9.5 4.8 4.7 km Length of old highway that would revert to Thorhild County (km) 8.3 7.7 0.6 km Length of existing Hwy 831 & Hwy 63 incorporated into design (km) 24.2 32.3 -8.1 km Area through farmland (acres) 66 236 -170 ac Area through wetlands (acres) 2157 1918 24 ac Area through organic/poorly-drained soils (acres) 7197 4478 272 ac Length through key wildlife and biodiversity zone (km) 6.6 0 6.6 km Total conceptual level costing ($M) $597M5 $434M6 $163M 1. Assumes new interchanges are located S of Twp Rd 652 (Boyle), Twp Rd 624 (near rail crossing) and Hwy 661 (Newbrook). 2. Assumes new interchanges are located S of Twp Rd 652 (Boyle), Twp Rd 640 (Ellscott) and Hwy 661 (Newbrook). 3. A 31 km separation without access to Ellscott would likely require a 4th interchange in any case. 4. Hwy 663 not required under Option “3-a” until ultimately warranted whereas with Option “F” Hwy 663 realignment is required immediately. 5. Includes Interchanges at Boyle & Twp Rd 624 near the rail crossing (to link Hwy 831 realignment to Old Hwy 63.). 6. Includes Interchanges at Boyle & Twp Rd 640 and 11.5 Km extension between the new rail structure and Twp Rd 621. 7. Includes Hwy 63, Hwy 663 and Hwy 831 realignment, plus interchanges at Boyle and at Hwy 831. 8. Includes Hwy 63 alignment, plus interchanges at Boyle and Ellscott. ConstructionConstruction CostsCosts ComparisonComparison

From Highway 55 to Twp Rd 621 (1.6 km N of Hwy 661 Newbrook)

Option Option Option Criteria “B-2” “F” “3-a” (AMEC Solution) Highway 63 $429M $513M $416M Highway 663 $0M $30M $18M Highway 831 $0M $54M $0M Total Cost $429M1 $597M2 $434M3 1. Includes interchanges at Boyle, Ellscott and Newbrook. 2. Includes interchanges at Boyle, Ellscott, Hwy 63/Twp Rd 624 (to link Hwy 831 realignment to Old Hwy 63) and Newbrook. 3. Includes interchanges at Boyle, Ellscott and Newbrook.

All options were designed to meet desirable freeway standards. All costs represent the “ultimate” freeway configuration. Options “3-a” and Option “B-2” continue to represent the least expensive options in terms of construction costs. ComparisonComparison SummarySummary

Comparing Option “F” to Option “3-a”, Option “F”: • would not provide a view of Boyle for northbound traffic; • does not provide for sufficient interchange spacing (It is over 30km between the Boyle Interchange and the theoretical interchange near the railway crossing needed to tie old Hwy 63 back to the new alignment.); • has roughly double the amount of creek crossings (6 or 7) requiring bridge structures; • requires the realignment of Hwy 663 east at the time of the interchange and not when Hwy 663 volumes would warrant the realignment sometime in the far future; • requires the new grade separated rail structure upon opening; • requires Athabasca County to assume 4.7 more km of existing highways (since they no longer serve a highway function); • incorporates only about 24.2 km of existing Hwy 831, compared to 32.3 additional km of Hwy 63 with Option “3-a”; and, • goes through roughly 300 acres more of organically/poorly drained soils and 6.6 km more wildlife and bio-diversity.

Considering all alignments evaluated, CastleGlenn Recommends Option “3-a” as the preferred Hwy 63 alignment. ThankThank you!you!

• For your interest and involvement in the study;

• For your comments, concerns and issues raised; and

• For the opportunity to familiarize you with the mandate and scope of this project.