Corporate NO:  

__________

Report COUNCIL  
DATE:  __________

COUNCIL IN
COMMITTEE

TO: Mayor & Council DATE: June 7, 2006

FROM: General Manager, FILE: 7903-0444-00

Engineering XC: 5400-80 (15600)

SUBJECT: Closure of 156 Street

South of 40 Avenue,
Rosemary Heights
Central NCP

RECOMMENDATION

The Engineering Department recommends that Council:

Authorize the permanent closure of 156 Street south of 40 Avenue in accordance with the
Rosemary Heights Central NCP but that such physical closure not be implemented until house
construction in the subdivision at 156 Street/39A Avenue is substantially complete.

INTENT

To provide Council with background on the status of 156 Street south of 40 Avenue, the results
of community consultation, and additional Engineering evaluation.

BACKGROUND

The Rosemary Heights Central NCP was prepared in the mid 1990’s. As part of this process,
and in response to requests from the existing residents, Council directed that 156 Street, south
of 40 Avenue, 36 Avenue just west of 156 Street, and 156 Street between 34 and 36 Avenues, be
closed to through traffic. The road layout with the concept of 156 Street being a cul-de-sac was
included in the original NCP.
(See Figure 1).
 The timelines for changes to the 156 Street status are summarized in the following table.

DATE ACTION STATUS OF 156 STREET

1996 Original NCP approved Planned for Closure
1999 Amended NCP approved Planned for Closure (see Fig.
1)
2003 Early Council approved ‘Stop Up Planned for Closure
and Close’ By-law for 156 St
2003 May Engineering placed concrete Closed
barrier
2003 Summer Engineering temporarily Temporarily re-opened
removed the barrier due to
complaints of too much
construction traffic on
156A/B Street
2005 May Engineering reinstalled Closed
concrete barrier with
substantial completion of
development and the 156A/B
traffic calming
2005 June Council directed staff to Temporarily re-opened
temporarily re-open 156
Street pending further public
input and Engineering review
based on complaints and a
delegation from some
residents

In response to the many complaints along 156A/B Street, the City implemented a very
comprehensive traffic calming program along 156A/B Street in the summer of 2004.

Proposed development, Application 7803-0444-00, on the east side of 156 Street and south of
40 Avenue recently received Third Reading. This development application is for suburban
residential half-acre gross density, which is in compliance with the NCP. The proposed
subdivision layout, based on the NCP, would entail the construction of a cul-de-sac on 156
Street, and hence, physical closure of this street (See layout, in Red on Figure 2). The existing
stop up and close By-law #14529 is still valid for this closure.

Engineering Department staff sent a letter to potentially affected residents’ on June 22, 2005
seeking input on the possible closure of 156 Street. Summarized traffic study and survey data
showing traffic volumes, speeds and shortcutting traffic through the neighborhood were
presented at a Public Open House held on February 8, 2006.

DATA COLLECTION AND TYPICAL STREET CHARACTERISTICS

In June 2005, the Engineering Department undertook a comprehensive traffic operations and
safety study for both 156 and 156A/B Streets, including driving assessment, speed survey,
 traffic volumes count, license plate (short-cutting) survey, intersections geometry and physical
characteristics survey, and sightlines assessment/measurements. In addition, the staff reviewed
all the data collected before commencing the traffic calming implementation along 156A/B, as
well as the most recent as-built design drawings showing the streets’ vertical profiles, terrain,
and road geometry.

As proposed in the Rosemary Heights Central NCP, 156A/B Street is meant to function as a
collector road. This intended function is to both collect and distribute traffic between arterials,
other collectors and local roads in the area and provide access to fronting properties. Typical
characteristics of a residential collector road are:
traffic volume of 3,000-5,000 vehicles per 24 hours, up to 300-500 vehicles per hour,
design speed of 60 kilometres per hour (typically posted at 50 km/h),
passenger and service vehicles traffic,
possible transit service, and
bicycle lanes.

As proposed in the Rosemary Heights Central NCP, 156 Street is meant to function as a limited
local road. The intended function is to provide access to fronting properties. The main
characteristics of a typical limited local road are:
traffic volumes less than 1,000 vehicles per 24-hours with up to 100 vehicles in the peak hour, and
design and posted speed of 50 km/h.

DISCUSSION

The implications of the 156 Street closure can be separated into seven distinct categories:
interconnectivity, Park considerations, safety, impact to 156 Street residents, impact to 156A/B
residents, broader public input, and adherence to the NCP. Each of these categories needs to be
considered in the final decision on the 156 Street closure.

1. Interconnectivity

The Engineering Department typically stresses the importance of interconnectivity of roadways.

There are definite advantages to a tighter network for access, distribution and emergency
response. However, in this case, based on low volumes and relative ease of access via 36
Avenue and 156A/B Street, keeping 156 Street open is not critical for this neighbourhood.
Bicycle and pedestrian connectivity is maintained with the closure option.

In relation to “interconnectivity” leaving 156 Street open is marginally better in

comparison to closing 156 Street.

2. Safety

Stopping distance is adequate for the posted speed limit of 50 km/h on both roads.

In the period of 2002 to 2004, ICBC recorded the following number of collisions:

156 Street / 40 Avenue: 6

 156B Street / 40 Avenue: 1

Based on this collision history, the probability of being involved in a collision at 156 Street and
40 Avenue is higher than at 156B Street / 40 Avenue.

In relation to “safety” the closure of 156 Street is preferred to leaving it open.

3. Impact to 156 Street Residents

Since being re-opened at 40 Avenue, 156 Street has exhibited the following (full details on all
traffic operations data in this report are available in Appendix A):

Volume
Two- way 24-hour average volume: 538 vehicles per day
Two-way PM peak hour average volume: 55 vehicles per hour
Speed
85th percentile speed: 51 k/hr (85% of drivers traveling at or below the speed)
Shortcutting
Very little shortcutting - AM Peak: 3 vehicles, PM Peak: 3 vehicles

Clearly closing 156 Street would be preferred by the owners of properties along 156
Street.

4. Impact to 156A/B Street Residents

156A/B Street exhibited the following characteristics with 156 Street closed before
implementation of traffic calming:
Two- way 24-hour average volume: 1,391 vehicles per day, and
85th percentile speeds: 62 km/h.

156A/B Street exhibited the following characteristics after traffic calming was installed and 156
Street was opened at 40 Avenue.

Volume
Two- way 24-hour average volume: 863 vehicles per day
Two-way PM peak hour average volume: 93 vehicles per hour
Speed
85th percentile speed: 39 k/hr (85% of drivers traveling at or below the speed)
Shortcutting
Very little shortcutting - AM Peak: 3 vehicles, PM Peak: 6 vehicles

Although constructed as a collector road, 156A/B Street currently functions at speeds and
volumes similar to a through local road. Even with the closure of 156 Street, the combined
average daily traffic along 156B Street would be approximately 1,440 vehicles per day, which is
50 percent below the lower range of a typical collector road (please see Figure A3). Speeding
has been virtually eliminated along 156A/B by the successful traffic calming program.
 As this road was planned and built to a Collector Road standard and the volumes and speeds
will be well below a typical collector road whether or not 156 Street is closed, the Engineering
Department considers the closure of 156 Street to have a moderate impact on 156A/B Street.
However, from the perspective of the owners of property along 156A/B Street it would be
preferable to leave 156 Street open.

5. Public Input

This process started as a result of a petition and delegation to Council requesting the City re-
open 156 Street to 40 Avenue. Council then directed that 156 Street be temporarily re-opened
and staff seek public input prior to a final decision on the issue.

Staff subsequently received a petition and letters to close 156 Street and construct the cul-de-
sac, as planned in the Rosemary Heights Central NCP.

In seeking broad public input from the Rosemary Heights Central area residents, staff
conducted a public open house on February 8, 2006. The open house was advertised in the
local newspapers and invitation letters were sent to the residents directly affected by the status
of 156 Street at 40 Avenue. Information display boards were created from all the figures
contained in this report.

The following is a synopsis of the results of the Open House:

62 people attended
94 separate households submitted comment forms
63% or 22 of 35 households along 156A/B Street (40 Avenue to 37A Avenue)
responded.
56% or 9 of 16 households along 156 Street (40 Avenue to 37A Avenue) responded.

Regarding 156 Street Closure:

From responses from all attendees:

49 households favoured closing 156 Street
45 households favoured leaving 156 Street open
From responses excluding directly affected households (156 Street and 156A/B Street
from 40 Avenue to 37A Avenue):
39 households favoured closing 156 Street
24 households favoured leaving 156 Street open

Frequent comments included:

Keep roads open to disperse traffic,

Open 36 Avenue and all cul-de-sacs;
The City should not betray residents by changing the NCP;
Close 156 Street as planned;
Purchased home relying on NCP;
The City should keep (NCP) promises; and
Keep the proposed park intact.
 Regarding the Park Plans:

87 comment sheets submitted

84% approved of the plans displayed at the open house
2% were unsure or neutral whether the park should proceed
14% strongly opposed the development of the proposed park
Of those opposed to the park plan, the most common reason was that they wanted 156
Street opened and believed that if the Park went ahead, 156 Street would be closed south
of 40 Avenue.

While the overall results indicated that the public was generally split on the closure of 156
Street, the general community (excluding owners of properties along 156A/B and 156 Street
from 40 Avenue to 37 Avenue) favoured (63%) closure of 156 Street. This includes those who
could benefit from access via 156 Street/40 Avenue. The broader neighbourhood favours the
closure of 156 Street

6. Rosemary Heights Blueways Park

The closure of 156 Street offers some benefit to the park as it increases the area of green space
and eliminates a road crossing for trail users. However, as the traffic from the perspective of
volumes will be relatively low even with 156 Street open, the overall benefit to the Park from
the closure is nominal. (Please see Figure 2)

In relation to the “Park” the closure of 156 Street is preferred.

7. Adherence to the original NCP

NCP’s are important documents as they combine sound land use, Engineering Planning and
public input into a comprehensive concept plan to guide development in an area. From time to
time the City must modify NCP’s to reflect new circumstances or to accommodate new goals.

Residents of Morgan Creek predating the NCP approval process may have supported the NCP
plan on the basis of road network plans (e.g. closure of 156 Street) and new residents will have
purchased homes based on the transportation plans shown in the NCP. The NCP process is
intended to provide some level of certainty to individuals considering a purchase within an NCP
area.

The NCP favours the closure of 156 Street since that was the decision made during process
of preparing the NCP. The NCP has been largely developed with no significant land use
changes.
SUMMARY

From the extensive analysis that has been completed, the decision regarding the closure of 156
Street is not “black and white”. Engineering has evaluated the seven key considerations
associated with the closure of 156 Street and have noted in the following table those that favour
leaving 156 Street open and those favour the closure of 156 Street.

Issue Favour leaving 156 Favour Closing 156

Street open Street

1. Interconnectivity X
2. Safety X
3. Impact to 156 Street X
Residents
4. Impact to 156A/B X
Street Residents
5. Public Input X
6. Rosemary Heights X
Blueways Park
7. Adherence to the X
original NCP
Total 2 5

Based on the considerations discussed in this report, the Engineering Department has concluded
that the advantages of closing of 156 Street outweigh the disadvantages.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above discussion, it is recommended that Council authorize the permanent closure
of 156 Street South of 40 Avenue in accordance with the Rosemary Heights Central NCP. In
order to minimize the inconvenience to the neighbourhood during local construction it is further
recommended that 156 Street not be physically closed until house construction in the adjacent
subdivision is substantially complete.

Paul Ham, P. Eng.

General Manager, Engineering

VL/JB/MP/rdd/brb/kd2

Attachments
FILENAME \*Lower\p \* MERGEFORMAT g:\wp-docs\2006\administration\06061217ph.doc
USERINITIALS \*Upper \* MERGEFORMAT K DATE \@ "M/d/yy h:mm am/pm" \* MERGEFORMAT 6/8/06 11:27 AM
 Appendix A

(includes Figures A1, A2 and A3)

FILENAME \*Lower\p \* MERGEFORMAT g:\wp-docs\2006\administration\06061217ph.doc

USERINITIALS \*Upper \* MERGEFORMAT K DATE \@ "M/d/yy h:mm am/pm" \* MERGEFORMAT 6/8/06 11:27 AM

- PAGE7 -