Road Corridor Planning and Design Guidelines

- Urban and Village Collectors

- Rural Arterials and Rural Collectors

lignes directrices de Planification et de conception des couloirs routiers

- routes collectrices PRINCIPALES en zone urbaine et dans les Villages

- Artères et routes collectrices PRINCIPALES en zone Rurale

ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0003 CITY WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Appearing before Committee to answer questions on the aforementioned item were the following:

· Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager, Planning, Transit and the Environment (PTE)

· Colin Simpson, Planner II, Transportation, Planning Branch, PTE.

· Ron Clarke, Delcan, Consultant.

After a brief discussion and questions from Councillor Cullen, the Committee heard from the following delegation:

Tom Trottier, Citizens for Safe Cycling (CfSC) Representative on the City of Ottawa Roads & Cycling Advisory Committee (RCAC).

Mr. Trottier submitted the following comments, copy of which is on file with the City Clerk:

In Copenhagen 35% of vehicle trips are made by bicycle. For them, this is not enough. They are planning to raise it to 40% by increasing the cyclist infrastructure. In Ottawa it is 2%.

We did comment on these Guidelines last May and June, and two of our suggestions have been adopted, which we applaud for increasing cyclist safety:

· Paved shoulders

· Providing cycling facilities alongside the road rather than in a recreational path with many road intersections.

Introduction

Our first comment is that there's something missing. These are "transportation corridors" - but really, they're mainly corridors for cars and trucks. We have to consider how to encourage active transportation - reaching locations by foot and bike.

In other words, when there is a plan for a subdivision, or to extend our transportation network, the first and last questions should be, "How do we encourage people to walk and bike, use transit, and not use cars?" There should be a pathway network plan created, with paths that go places more directly than current suburban spaghetti plans.

More cycling means better health, a better environment, less traffic, fewer accidents, and lower road costs.

Now we have some detailed comments.

5.3 - Road Edge

There is a section missing promoting bike parking. The City should encourage cycling by providing post and ring parking and other facilities that provide a place to lock up bikes near commercial properties, churches, transit stations, and so on.

5.4.1 - Roadway - Cycling

In general CfSC thinks bike lanes are only desirable on fast roads. Bike lanes improve safety between intersections, but lead to dangerous conflicts at intersections. Motorists turn across them without looking or seeing. Cyclists wait too long to move to the left lane to make a left turn. Bike lanes do encourage more people to cycle. Please see our policy at http://www.safecycling.ca/policies/bikelanes.html

5.4.1.1 – Accommodating cyclists

Cyclists should be accommodated everywhere, not just on “bike routes”.

5.4.1.2 & 3 – Bike lanes vs shared lanes

Approve bike lanes only when the speed limit exceeds 50kph; wide shared lanes are safer for lower speed limits.

5.4.1.4 – bike lanes next to parking lanes

Bike lanes should NEVER be next to parking lanes - a wide shared lane is preferable. Otherwise, cyclists are led into opening truck doors.

5.4.1.5 – drains & covers not to be in cyclist line of travel

We heartily approve!

5.4.2 - Roadway - Travel lanes

5.4.2.2 & 3 – Narrow lanes

We recommend narrow lanes only if there are wide paved shoulders or a bicycle lane. Otherwise, the right lane should be of shared width, 4.25m.

5.4.2.3 - Right turn lanes

There should be a bicycle pocket (short lane) to the left of all right turn lanes.

5.4.4 Roadway Medians

Medians are not just to separate cars. They also serve as a safe waystation for pedestrians, and cyclists walking their bike, to stop at when crossing a wide street. This makes it safer for slower walkers, e.g., seniors and parents with small kids.

5.5 Intersections, Driveways & Turning Lanes

5.5.3

There should be few, if any, driveways onto Collector roads It would be better to use alleyways for motorist access. Driveways are a prime source of accidents for cyclists, Drivers find it very hard to see cyclists and pedestrians while backing out.

5.5.5

There should be a bicycle pocket (short lane) to the left of all right turn lanes.

5.6.5 Roundabouts

CfSC supports single-lane roundabouts with "sharrows" or cyclist silhouettes showing cyclists where to position themselves (in the middle of the lane).

Multiple-lane roundabouts lead to too many cyclists being run over – a signaled intersection is better.

We do not support separate pathways. They are too slow, fiddly, and dangerous.

5.9 Retrofitting Measures and Road Diets

We applaud moving existing collectors to a “green street”design, replacing a motorist lane with a bicycle lane and wider sidewalks.

6.5 Rural Conditions – Paved shoulders

We applaud this move to pave shoulders. As well as being safer for cyclists, it:

· Saves maintenance because wear is spread rather than concentrated and shoulders are less eroded.

· Safer for motorists – more room to go by trucks or farm machinery, less stress.

See http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/reports/pavedshoulder.pdf for a study of paved shoulders in several northern states.

6.6 Rumble strips

Ordinary rumble strips are dangerous for cyclists because rumble strips

· reduce shoulder width

· can cause cyclists to fall, especially when going at a high speed, for example, downhill.

· Gather debris

· Force cyclists to steer down a narrow strip, which is very dangerous when going fast.

http://www.bccc.bc.ca/rumblestrips.html

“Henry Berkenbos is injured while participating in a BC Randonneurs event after being thrown out of control by a shoulder rumble strip installation. Berkenbos is a long-time competitive cyclist who regularly cycles over 20,000 km per year and has ridden 35 years without a serious crash.”

“While attempting to avoid debris on the shoulder, Norman Marcy hits a shoulder rumble strip installation and the vibration causes him to lose control of his bike. He is thrown against a guardrail, subsequently flipping. The force of the impact broke his helmet, and he suffered numerous lacerations and abrasions.”

…

“I had the bad experience of riding down the Malahat in the dark a few weeks ago. The start of rumble strips are difficult to see in the dark, and when riding to the right of the rumble strip, the cyclist has little room to deal with any problems with the roadway. In the case of the Malahat, the shoulder is not cleaned very often (I have seen small pieces of lumber on all three of my descents during April and May, and for all I know, they are the pieces I hit in May 2002 when I damaged a rear wheel) and the road is steep, requiring the cyclists to be applying their brakes far more often than normal. This can cause a blowout or other bike handling problems. The road felt much safer to cycle without rumble strips as I could pick a proper line on the descent and avoid debris.”

http://www.bccc.bc.ca/srs/srs_injuries.html

See http://www.bicyclewatchdog.org/bestpractices.php

A bike-friendly rumble strip design has been developed.

“Key features of this type of facility is the gap in the strip to allow bicycle movement out of the lane, the divots are shallower and there is a white stripe on both sides of the rumble strip.”

http://bcgp.blogspot.com/2008/01/bicycle- compatible-rumble- strips.html

“Based on the results of the bicycle testing and the motor vehicle testing, two new "bicycle-friendly" rumble patterns are recommended for implementation along non-freeway facilities.”

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ind/ijvd/2003/00000033/00000004/art00008

However, CfSC, like many other cycling groups, is opposed to all rumble strips. They have a use on boring freeways, but not on City roads.

8.1 Green Street designs

We thought that separate recreational paths had been deleted, but the diagram here on page 33 still shows them. (The textual reference has been deleted.)

CfSC is opposed to recreational paths alongside roads which have frequent intersections with other streets and roads. Each such intersection is an opportunity for disaster. Recreational paths are great alongside natural features like rivers which have few or no intersections with streets.

In the US, there is a “complete streets” movement which tries to make roads cyclist- and pedestrian- friendly. We support green streets with slow traffic which is friendly to cyclists and pedestrians.

Diagrams - Pages 42 to 53

We applaud the revised diagrams on this page. It shows cyclists in the middle of narrow lanes, (rather than squeezed between narrow lanes of cars), and to the right on wide lanes.

In summary…

We applaud the revised Guidelines. The adoption of paved shoulders and integrated cycling facilities is a great leap forward.

However, the Guidelines could be improved.

· Rumble strips should be banned.

· Bike lanes should be used only on fast roads, otherwise wide lanes.

· Roundabouts should be limited to single lanes and paint used to show cyclists to take the lane

· Providing bike parking in commercial areas

With these revisions, the guidelines would be even better.

More importantly, the Guidelines should live up to their very first objective,

“Build a transportation system that emphasises transit, walking and cycling” (4.1)

We need pathway networks going through blocks rather than along streets.

We need create ways to encourage more “active” transportation, not more traffic.

In response to questions from Councillor Wilkinson, staff and the consultant provided the following clarifications:

· Page 22, Guideline 4 specifically deals with burial of utilities; Guidelines 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 all deal with that aspect. Burial of utilities and electrical services within the urban area for new roads and new developments is recommended.

· There are exceptions to the rules of burying hydro lines, those being lands being zoned within industrial areas.

· The exceptions would be where existing overheads services are already in place and where heavy electrical trunk services cannot be buried and need to be above ground.

· Certainly the focus is towards mixed-use centres and town use centres but everywhere within the urban area is being recommended.

· This is a very high level document that provides visioning for the environmental assessment and functional design works that would follow. It is not a standard; these are just guidelines to ensure the property corridor width is protected to ensure that the width is there and to ensure that the proper size of the sidewalk could be allocated.

· The starting point was the direction given by the Official Plan which dictates that sidewalks be provided on both side of the streets on collector roads.

· There is a lot of science and research done on these width and the option of 2 meters is favoured because it provides a wide enough walkway for a person to pass another person in a wheelchair or a scooter.

· More and more municipalities are embracing that 2 meters; staff is aware that the 1.8 meters is still standard and it is just a little tighter and there may be instances in the City where that is an appropriate number too.

· The City will look at all of its design standards.

Acting Chair Leadman then suggested that Councillor Wilkinson address her concern when reviewing the Official Plan.

The Committee then approved the following report recommendation as presented:

That Transportation Committee recommend Council approve the Road Corridor Planning and Design Guidelines as detailed in Document 1.

Que le Comité des transports recommande au Conseil d'approuver les lignes directrices de planification et de conception des couloirs routiers tel qu’il est expliqué en détail dans le Document 1.

CARRIED