HomeMy WebLinkAboutINS-15-100 - Public Engagement Strategy for Cycling Infrastructure Staff Rport
tic tl R Infrastructure Services Department wmkitchene►:ca
REPORT TO: Community and Infrastructure Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING: December 7th, 2015
SUBMITTED BY: Justin Readman, Director of Transportation Services,
519-741-2200 ext. 7038
PREPARED BY: Mattea Lanoue, Transportation Demand Management Student,
519-741-2200 ext. 7253
WARD(S) INVOLVED: All Wards
DATE OF REPORT: November 25th, 2015
REPORT NO.: INS-15-100
SUBJECT: Public Engagement Strategy for Cycling Infrastructure
RECOMMENDATION:
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
BACKGROUND:
Based on experiences gained through recent attempts to implement sections of the
cycling master plan priority network, staff has begun reviewing the public engagement
process surrounding the implementation of cycling infrastructure in order to improve
relations with citizens. In addition, Council approved the following motion on October
10th 2015:
WHEREAS the Government of Ontario has set out guidelines through the Ontario
Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 18, which governs the installation of bicycle infrastructure
across the Province; and,
WHEREAS the Cycling Master Plan was approved in 2010, providing for the strategic
implementation of bicycle lanes and other dedicated bicycle infrastructure throughout
the City to create a more bike - friendly' environment; and,
WHEREAS the Cycling Master Plan identifies an on -road bikeway (bicycle lanes)
priority network, which was recommended for completion within seven years; and,
WHEREAS Transportation Services staff recognizes the importance of public
engagement as a key aspect in successfully implementing the City's cycling network;
and,
***This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
IF1 - 1
WHEREAS based on the experienced gained through recent attempts to implement
sections of the priority network, Transportation Services staff has implemented a
working group to review its approach to public consultation and have initiated changes
to enhance the process;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that staff be directed to develop a comprehensive
process to inform and engage the public regarding the implementation of future bicycle
infrastructure addressing identified issues with respect to messaging, format of
consultation meetings and the means by which feedback can be provided; and,
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that staff be directed to report back with the proposed
engagement process prior to the end of 2015."
In order to follow up on the above resolutions, staff has conducted an extensive public
survey, engaging residents that were impacted by recent cycling infrastructure
implementation at the following locations:
• East Avenue
• Margaret Avenue
• Lorraine Avenue
• Westheights Drive
• Union Street.
This survey obtained feedback from the residents related to the City's public
engagement process, incorporating all aspects of the process (before, during and after
the public meeting).
Additionally, Transportation Services staff obtained feedback from an internal staff
team, consisting of staff from other work areas not directly involved in the public
engagement process. This provided further input from an unbiased perspective, helping
staff to confirm that public communication expectations are improved in the future.
REPORT:
The purpose of this staff report is to inform Council of the improvements that have been
made to the public engagement process surrounding the implementation of cycling
infrastructure in order to strengthen communication between the City of Kitchener and
its citizens as directed in the 2015-2018 Strategic Plan. The improved engagement
strategy is built upon information received from engaging citizens and internal staff in
order to understand the engagement process, the information being provided, and the
way in which staff receive feedback.
While staff has reviewed messaging and process improvement, one outstanding
challenge that will remain is the need to construct a complete cycling network (as
outlined in the Cycling Master Plan) with affected citizens not supporting the individual
projects during implementation. In order to improve the existing engagement process for
cycling infrastructure, staff consulted with citizens to ensure that the new process would
address as many issues as possible.
IF1 - 2
Staff reached out residents that live on roadways recently reviewed for implementation
of cycling infrastructure. A total of 1 ,242 surveys were sent out, with the number of
responses by each location outlined below:
• East Avenue — (144 surveys sent, 30 responses)
• Margaret Avenue — (346, 14)
• Lorraine Avenue — (358, 11)
• Westheights Drive — (274, 55)
• Union Street— (120, 26)
This equates to an 11% response rate. While this response rate is lower than typically
received for formal surveys, it must be recognized that the residents were providing
input on an overall process experience. The survey focused on 14 total questions and
not a specific recommended measure for their roadway. These responses, along with
input received from the internal staff focus group have been summarized as shown
below.
A copy of the survey that was sent to the above roadways can be found in Appendix A
of this document.
Results of the Engagement Process:
The engagement process can be separated into three categories: engagement before,
during, and after the public meeting.
Before the Meeting
Before the meeting citizens are sent a letter in the mail informing them of the purpose,
date, and time of the meeting. A sign is also posted on the roadway in either direction
of travel. In the survey citizens were asked whether or not they had been informed of
the public meeting. As seen in Figure 1, 82% of respondents indicated that they were
properly informed. Comments from respondents suggested that the mailed information
and signs on the road are satisfactory methods of notice.
Figure 1: Were you informed that a public meeting would
be taking place?
18%
uuu�Yes
No
IF1 - 3
When asked if the time and location of the meeting, the way in which they were
informed, and when they were informed was satisfactory, 64% either strongly agreed or
agreed (Figure 2). Some of the comments suggested that the letter should contain
more information regarding the project so that they are able to come prepared with
questions and feedback.
Figure 2: Were You Satisfied With the Time, Location,
Method of Informing, and Time of Informing for the
Meeting?
60%
50% )�
40%
30%
20%
10% j........................................................................................... ui11 / .............
....lo ��� „,, IIIIIIIII,II IIIII,III,III,I. ....
0%
a �
During the Meeting
At the public meeting attendees are provided with an information package upon arrival.
During the meeting they are presented with the opportunity to view the information
displayed on panels and/or receive a formal presentation as well as ask questions and
provide feedback to the staff members in attendance. Many survey respondents
recommended that the meeting begin with a short presentation along with a question
and answer period and then progress to drop-in style where residents can review the
panels for more information and provide feedback. Both the drop-in style format and
the presentations produce some positive and negative outcomes. As such staff should
have the flexibility to choose one or a mix of both in order to maximize citizen
engagement. Keeping the Traffic Calming and Road Diet components separate from
the cycling infrastructure was also a key recommendation from citizens who found that
having them together made the purpose of the meeting confusing.
The information provided at a public meeting is vital to ensuring the project's success
and should encourage open dialogue between staff and citizens. There are three
important components to the information being presented that determines whether or
not the public will have a clear understanding of the plan: the first is pain language, the
second is a sufficient amount of information, and the third is information delivery.
According to the survey, only 36% of respondents stated they had a clear
understanding of the plan (see Figure 3 below).
IF1 - 4
Figure 3: You had a clear understanding of the plan
35%
30% U `.
25%
20%
15% ���y� ��j...........................
10%
0%
Po'oo ��t� �ZO
4 o
a �
J�
The focus group and survey responses identified that many of the terms are difficult to
understand and can cause confusion. The focus group rated their familiarity with
frequently used terms and suggested clearer alternatives for language. Comments from
the survey reaffirmed what the focus group said.
The survey revealed that 55% of respondents felt they did not receive enough
information at the meeting to provide valuable input and have a complete understanding
of the plan (Figure 4). Survey respondents noted that they would like to see more data
to support the rationale for decisions, the impact certain changes might have on
services, and more information on cycling infrastructure.
Figure 4: Do you feel that the public meeting provided
you with enough information
uua Yes
No
55%
IF1 - 5
The focus group also identified information delivery as a point of concern. When asked
to imagine a road design taking place in their own neighbourhoods, participants noted
that they would expect to receive information from flyers, letters, community meetings,
video tutorials on a website, and City of Kitchener staff. Survey respondents also noted
that they would like staff to present information in a way that did not make them feel like
the decision was already made. While this poses a challenge since the Cycling Master
Plan and other strategic city documents provide a mandate for the installation of cycling
infrastructure, two components can be improved. First, the information process can
clearly indicate that the engagement session is meant to inform citizens about the City's
intent to proceed with some form of cycling infrastructure installation. Second, there are
often opportunities to present alternative options to proceed and to receive citizen
feedback on these options.
A public meeting involves collaboration with citizens to ensure the project addresses
any issues that have been raised. Answering questions and receiving feedback are
important parts of a successful community engagement.
As shown in Figure 5, only 43% of respondents felt that staff had answered all of their
questions.
Figure 5: Were all of your questions answered?
uuu�Yes
No
57%
One of the most frequently noted points in the survey responses was that residents
perceived their feedback to be of no importance to staff. They felt that decisions had
already been made and their input did not matter. This can be addressed by informing
citizens at the beginning of the process that bicycle infrastructure is planned to be
implemented at this location following recommendations of the Cycling Master Plan and
staff is consulting them on the best way to implement the infrastructure.
After the Meeting:
After the meeting residents of the affected roadway are sent a letter informing them of
the council meeting and letting them know how to register as a delegation. 50% of
IF1 - 6
survey respondents said that they had not been informed of the council meeting (see
Figure 6 below) and some residents stated that having that information available at the
meeting might be more suitable.
Figure 6: Were you informed of how to attend and speak
at the committe/council meeting?
uuu�Yes
50%
No
Residents are also sent a letter advising them that work will be done on the roadway for
an expected duration with possible rain dates. As seen in Figure 7, only 40% of
respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they received enough information before
the implementation of the infrastructure.
Figure 7: There was enough information provided prior to
the implementation of the infrastructure
40%
350% U y
30%
25% J
20%
15%
10%
0% IILIIIJIII III ����.. �.....IILIILL.
a �
Staff Actions to Address Issues:
Based on the input received, as well as staff's experience with recent reviews, the
following outlines staffs intended process in the future.
IF1 - 7
1. Traffic Calming Projects with Cycling Master Plan Related Components
The City of Kitchener will separate the two components (Bicycle Infrastructure and
Traffic Calming) so that they are identified as clear and separate processes. The
engagement and installation of the cycling infrastructure will occur first and will be
followed by the traffic calming process which will then follow the traffic calming policy
process.
2. Clear Communications throughout the Process
Any communications will clearly state that a specific roadway was identified for the
inclusion of bicycle infrastructure through the adoption of the City of Kitchener Cycling
Master Plan and that staff are intending to proceed with the implementation at this
location. The purpose of community engagement will be to inform citizens and seek
feedback, where feasible, on the design and implementation (for example, if parking can
only be installed on one side of the roadway then citizens would be able to provide
feedback on which side). There are often competing space priorities and City of
Kitchener Staff are committed to collecting appropriate background data, presenting the
information, and making decisions in an easily understood format. In addition, staff
recommendations must reflect any Provincial and City of Kitchener Policy and Guidance
documents. These documents and policy directions will be clearly presented to citizens.
Further, Transportation Services staff has developed a public engagement process
which addresses the identified issues with respect to the format of the process, the way
feedback can be provided, and the information that is shared.
The amended engagement process, including methods of receiving feedback, is as
follows:
Engagement Process for Cycling Infrastructure
The purpose of this process is to clarify how and when citizens will be informed and
engaged during any component of the cycling master plan where the existing conditions
of the roadway are planned to be changed. This process does not apply to the
installation of signed bicycle routes since these occur on low traffic volume roadways
without the installation of new travel lanes or parking regulation changes.
1. Mailed notice at the beginning of the year.
Residents will receive a mailed notice informing them that their roadway has been
identified for bicycle infrastructure as per the Cycling Master Plan. It will be noted that
more information about the project and the public meeting will be provided closer to the
meeting date.
2. Mailed notice of the Public Information Centre
Notice of the Public Information Centre will be mailed to affected citizens a minimum of
three (3) weeks prior to the date of the meeting. The letter will include the date, time,
IF1 - 8
location, and format of the meeting (drop-in or a combination of presentation and drop-
in). In addition, the notice will state the City's intent and how citizens can connect with
staff. The City of Kitchener will distribute this letter to all properties that abut the study
area, with consideration to circulate to properties up to 400 metres away.
3. Meeting Information Signs Posted on Roadway
Signs detailing the date, time, location, and format of the public meeting will be placed
on the roadway in both directions of travel a minimum of two (2) weeks in advance.
4. The Public Information Centre
An information package will be provided to those who attend the meeting, and be
available on the City's website following the meeting. The information will include
details of the plan and outline how citizens can provide feedback. The meeting will
typically follow a drop-in style format where panels detailing the project are displayed for
residents to view and staff members will be available to answer any questions.
The panels will include information about the intent of the meeting, background policy
and guidance documents, existing conditions, a proposed layout (or layouts) of the
roadway, how the proposed alternative was selected, and answers to frequently asked
questions. Hard copies of the policy and guidance documents will be available for
residents to look over as required.
5. Follow up
Citizens will have three weeks to provide their input on the proposed changes and ask
questions. All questions from citizens will be answered within two weeks' time. Any
input received within the timeframe outlined above will be considered and summarized
within the report written for committee/council. Should new data or information come
forward at a public meeting that was not previously documented, then a second public
meeting may be necessary and would follow the above timelines.
6. Committee Meeting
A letter or email informing citizens of the upcoming committee meeting and how to
register as a delegation will be sent to those that directly abut the study area and any
citizen that has requested to be on the mailing list. Due to the timing of agenda setting
and the date of the committee meeting this letter will not meet the minimum two weeks
notification.
7. Implementation
Signage will be placed on the roadway and a letter or email will be sent to citizens
abutting the study area advising them that work will be done on the roadway from an
expected duration. Rain dates will also be provided if the work cannot be completed
due to poor weather.
IF1 - 9
Information to be presented at meetings
Transportation Services Staff reviewed the information presented at public information
centres to ensure that they address the issues that were raised in the focus group and
survey. Panels were adjusted so that information follows a logical sequence, rationale
for decisions is better explained, appropriate data is provided, and the next steps are
presented so that residents know what to expect and how to get involved in the process.
A panel displaying frequently asked questions about cycling will also be displayed at
public meetings to educate citizens about cycling and related issues.
A template that will be used to create panels for public meetings can be found in
Appendix B of this report. It is important to note that projects vary and the type of
information presented will vary from project to project.
Frequently Asked Questions panels can be found in Appendix C of this report.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
Strategic Priority: Open Government
Strategy: 1.3 Create more opportunities for citizen dialogue on community issues and
introduce new ways for people to get involved in decisions that affect them.
1.4 Introduce more convenient and effective channels for citizens to access city
information and services.
1.5 Strengthen a culture within the organization that puts the citizen first and improves
the quality of the customer service experience.
Strategic Priority: Sustainable Environment and Infrastructure
Strategy: 4.4 Develop a network of safe, comfortable and linked pedestrian and cycling
facilities and improve year-round maintenance on priority routes.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no financial implications within this report.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
Members of the community were able to provide feedback on the engagement process
for recent cycling infrastructure projects through a survey and a focus group.
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in
advance of the council / committee meeting.
CONSULT — A survey asking for feedback on the public engagement process was sent
to citizens of roadways that had recently received cycling infrastructure. These
roadways included East Avenue, Lorraine Avenue, Margaret Avenue, Union Street, and
IF1 - 10
Westheights Drive. The survey was sent out on October 27th, 2015 and completed
surveys were requested by November 20th, 2015 to be included within this report. In
total, 136 responses were received.
COLLABORATE — On July 28th, 2015 a focus group was held to identify preconceptions
of cycling engagement practices and terms. Feedback was received from seven
individuals with a variety of perspectives, opinions, and educational backgrounds.
Participants completed a workbook to record their thoughts prior to the meeting. The
meeting then allowed staff to work with members of the focus group in order to
understand their perception of the practices and terms used when engaging the public
on matters related to cycling infrastructure.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Hans Gross, Acting Deputy CAO
Infrastructure Services Department
Attach.
Appendix A — Letter and Survey Questions
Appendix B — Public Information Centre Display Panels
Appendix C — Frequently Asked Questions about Cycling
IF1 - 11
Appendix A— Letter and survey Questions
IF1 - 12
INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
Mattea Lanoue
Transportation Demand Management Student
200 King Street West
City Hall, P.O. Box 1118
Phone: (519) 741-2200 ext. 7253
Fax: (519) 741-2747
TTY: 1-866-969-9994
E-mail: mattea.lanoue @kitchener.ca
TO: Residents of
Dear Sir/Madam:
RE: Resident Feedback on Bicycle Lane Process
The City of Kitchener's Transportation Division recognizes the importance of public
engagement as a key aspect in successfully implementing the City's cycling network.
The City is asking for resident feedback on the engagement and installation process of Bicycle
Infrastructure. The feedback we receive will be used to evaluate our current practice and
inform potential changes to improve citizen engagement in the future.
The attached questionnaire provided below will be a starting point to receive your valued input
and use it to assess our engagement process. Please fill out the questionnaire to the best of
your ability and provide any additional comments you may have on or before Friday November
20th, 2015.
Please do not hesitate to contact me Monday to Friday between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. if you have any question, comments or concerns.
Sincerely,
M4�
Mattea Lanoue
Transportation Demand Management Student
IF1 - 13
Cycling Lane Process
c H =N =R Resident Feedback
WE NEED YOUR INPUT!
To help the City of Kitchener improve the community engagement process regarding bicycle
infrastructure we are requesting your input on the following questions.
Before the Meeting:
1. Were you informed that a public meeting would be taking place? ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. The way in which you were informed provided you with enough information to be able to attend
the meeting.
❑Strongly Agree ❑Agree ❑ Undecided / Neutral ❑ Disagree ❑ Strongly Disagree
Comments:
3. The time and location of the meeting was reasonable.
❑Strongly Agree ❑Agree ❑ Undecided / Neutral ❑ Disagree ❑ Strongly Disagree
Comments:
4. You were informed of the meeting well enough in advance.
❑Strongly Agree ❑Agree ❑ Undecided / Neutral ❑ Disagree ❑ Strongly Disagree
Comments:
During the Meeting:
5. The initial plans for the project were effectively communicated to you.
❑Strongly Agree ❑Agree ❑ Undecided / Neutral ❑ Disagree ❑ Strongly Disagree
Comments:
IF1 - 14
6. You had a clear understanding of the plan.
❑Strongly Agree ❑Agree ❑ Undecided / Neutral ❑ Disagree ❑ Strongly Disagree
Comments:
7. Were all of your questions answered? ❑ Yes ❑ No
8. Do you feel that any other information should be included at these public meetings?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, please indicate what you would like to see:
After the Meeting:
9. Did staff follow up on any questions or comments you provided? ❑ Yes ❑ No
10. Were you informed of how to attend and speak at the Committee/Council meeting?
❑ Yes ❑ No
11. There was enough information provided in advance of the actual implementation of the
infrastructure.
❑Strongly Agree ❑Agree ❑ Undecided / Neutral ❑ Disagree ❑ Strongly Disagree
Comments:
12. The installation of bicycle lanes has reduced motor traffic speeds?
❑Strongly Agree ❑Agree ❑ Undecided / Neutral ❑ Disagree ❑ Strongly Disagree
Comments:
13. The installation of bicycle lanes has improved the roadway for all modes of transportation?
❑Strongly Agree ❑Agree ❑ Undecided / Neutral ❑ Disagree ❑ Strongly Disagree
Comments:
IF1 - 15
14. How satisfied were you with the results of the changes that were made?
❑ Very Satisfied ❑ Satisfied ❑ Undecided / Neutral ❑ Dissatisfied ❑ Very Dissatisfied
Comments:
General Comments or Concerns:
Please provide your contact information so that we can follow up with your concerns if we
require.
Sincerely,
Mattea Lanoue Name:
Transportation Demand
Management Student
City of Kitchener Address:
200 King Street West
5th Floor, Berlin Tower
P.O. Box 1118
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Phone Number:
Phone: (519) 741-2200 ext.7253
Fax: (519) 741-2747 Email:
TTY: 1-866-969-9994
Email:mattea.lanoue @kitchener.ca
PLEASE RETURN YOUR COMMENTS BY FRIDAY NOVEMBER 20TH, 2015
As requested by the Ontario Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act, answers to these questions will only be used for statistical analysis.
Your anonymity is guaranteed.
IF1 - 16
Appendix B - Public Information Centre Display Panels
IF1 - 17
The Corporation Of The
CITY OF KITC EVER g IVp Yry
Example: EAST AVENUE
t
FREDERICK STREET
TO
BORDEN AVENUE
Date
eThe meeting today is drop in format
*Please take some time to review the
information presented
oThere are City staff available to answer any
questions you may have
*Please take an information package, and
complete time comment form at the back of the
package.
IF1 - 18
j pose
The purpose of the meeting today is to inform
y,
you
cf the City's intent to proceed with the
installation of bicycle lanes on East Acnue.
As the plan moos forward, staff would llilo to
understand whether, we have captured the
eexisting conditions appropriately.
Staff wound also lino to capture your concerns
to sec if any changes can be made to improve
the proposed design.
____ ........ ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......................................... .......................
rffic Cialming (Optional�)
This location has also been identified to he
evaluated for traffic calming.
Once the bicycle infrastructure (process is
complete the City of Kitchener will initiate the
traffic calming process.
IF1 - 19
' ,ddy Are
1 y
V,�wvI^4y,
j Nr
a ( 4 b
cvChing
Study Area
EastAve
4
� � s
i
K Between�
VS
� II HedeNick St
it @ rvr m&u� Io r� rn r ": an
V, �. .,�' y wI m w r u�x�rpxlwa¢�i.p��xiu9�¢u�uiGE�iy�q��, s�, Borden Ave
nth
V�
Rt, %
City of Kitchener staff have a policy mandate to
implement an -road cycling network through
Council approval of a number of Ip�o�licy and strategy
documents.
........................_................................_ ........................................................................ .......
man," ade o,. „w ow:, eaa nom,; r,w r�, �uwurro� e,rtm�ws c or uc �d moj
r�mc. nw�nuu- muu ruu um�
p
I rinspartation,Mwfror Mare rAl!g�VYmwe�i im'�'�a�uxii
' Wtlu�v�U cmm�m '
w
I%
IF1 - 20
icy Direction :
f "1
Kitchener Strategic Plan
The City, of Kitchener will develop e network of' safe,
comfortable and liinked pedestrian and cycling
facilities and improve year round maintenance on
priority routes,.
Transportation Master Ilan
The a ueiin goal of the Transportation Master Plan is:
"To plan a transportation system that reduces
dependence on the private automobile in Kitchener
Iby 2031 I'll
To achieve this, goal, vilable alternatives to
itscontinued private auto use must, be provided in
Kitchener over the next 20 gears, in response to
local commuunity content and needs. The alternative
travel modes must provide levels of service (i.e.
colst„ time, comfort) that compete effectively with
au.uto us,e.
IF1 - 21
__________
y Direction :
Cycling Master Plan
Key Objectives:
Attract new cyclists
■ Strengthen bicycle policies
■ Create a bikeway network on City streets
0 Increase bicycle parking
IF panel programs to support cycling
Increasing funding for bicycling facilities
Create a sustainable culture of cycling development.
The Council approved Cycling Muster Plan has identified
on-street cycling facilities for East Ave, which is part of
the priority cycliinig network.
�n Guideline:
r Srio Traffic Manual Book 18
BONN"
/ Provincial gu i:delirues foir
bicycle infrastructure
selection will inform
r bicycle infrastru tu!�r
f ,
cycling t rlpa and design.
Fcs
IF1 - 22
Should the Infrastructure
Generally the population can be Ir+IrM"M down into 4
cycl�ing categories:
1% Strong and 7% Enthused and Confident:
Fearless Attracted to cycling as a result
Comfortable riding of bikeway nets, ork
with! traffic regardless
of road conditions. irn rovements
60 Interested but
Concerned:
Not interested . ,, Like cycling but,afraid to
ride wiith traffic. Would
or not capable of ride more if they felt
cycling safer.
Bicycle infrastructure; should be designed for the
"Interested but concerned" indi' ideal this would)
accommodate the majority f cyclists.._._.... ......... ......... ......... ........................................ ...........................................................................
............................. ...........................
u pIe of a Similar Project
In 2000/2001 , Strasburg Road was reduced from four
Il nos to two and dedicated parking Il nos and cycling
,y r lanes were added,d. after the changes were made,
volumes (remained consistent and speeds were Ired'uced,
Volume Sped (kir 1h) ,
Before
10,460 8
9239
,f ear
10,035
1 '
i
IF1 - 23
Volumes, Ss,
rking
A 58 km/h
3298 38
B 63�n
i Y
'Q kr "l vhfd "y Nkes/day
w 3632 4'3
C 6O km/h
C h/d �uiulk s/day
ra.
l,r� %/l�11
80 Spaces 30 Spaces
s "l
M
sing the Facili r y e
Step 1.
Nomograph r Criteria
tlmA'dxr ar jete`rrtirmir7 Lriit�rp ;�
urbm wCYde weauacenomnrniaMr�
•85th IpmercerntiBe motor vehicle
a
pP'
operating,speeds
eu�eaaw iii%r�/ftii�u iu �� �, �N w.Motor"!Jehrcle volumes
r/sir%ooiii �
•Function of:Street,road or highway
Vehicile mix
// a C01luaiorr history
Consider rs w a a * vaHable space
Cycling Ove�rarnprg$wract
r V'UT1iIIP1illlr'4 ..criteiria
._..,.�..., ......gym m„,..,,..,..
z�
+Arrtpcipmated users
•Level of bicycle use
Costs
•Function of route within bicycle
Step : Finial Decision facihtyd network
•Type of Roadway improvement
In this step,the resuu0ts from both Ste pt and Step 2 are project
evaluated to deternflne,the facifitses that vrrrwId hest tut ''Orr street par kin g
the roadway in uts Cautt'o'ermt Mate
tr erpue nryr of intersections
s
IF1 - 24
� It for East Avenue
Step 1: Nomograph Step . Other Criteria
Idvo!mliratatlrm WA^gm6w ywatillkq H'rra sew twra9rer, %? �,
OR ,�atpGder yrldtpand Spa In the
85 Speed am aid'-ratan r50 to 69 tmr�of,,,.mr9de sd!hcwaruy,r^ bicY de
anti,�w�a kutiwlYaJ Ian p,nrs. parat faclvlltev
Man mcderat"alllune CorIVwd acy cl Win to
(6 en'.d ie conmm ded td this oe aa'
and tP.UrOijV wpd)i 't'�^�'ved a shoulder Ny be Irw,�udir-, etv
;N p�Nt'r�dr9 "ncualder m"nrc�y�be r,»aa7�luctler.
dP�p rmklmuaG aarram Function 4trm~c .nraUc+,mla�RmrdrM.d wa""hisabnc�cdelan r cerparated
I almVh".ati'hd �„aul;;pn dune rp ,atare�
rrll�sue ramna
Damrqn'd4,aC4!uUtEesQn lfTUan7nMk':eal'a"di
I
war mgr 'I lehidY tuNew PJ'ra t uek uut d mVead+p mark cmoniti at aueae at slop
GRT bus one
3Ocatimj
n,„ .�aaf crd",-.0
e w Irt's to�vza7rakrde r#ec?askrnb6µf rrMsp¢'Natwaa^�d"ar+ce 4o
Space 7amul yllte ndrs h accnnlanr date drtrmlfe Ila^me+s
cycltota and
nur„rtrsuriirR'm
t p lr1 I R 4 r11 M araHal ..dtteet Kee'dr dwadmw+dla spaces th malnUmn Ifie
Ndur-Street gw+rk Ing is expininng on Oreet palaalrkng u6mard,
GcdurkNnn[d Ireamaaat eW In 4;.mn"weenbrv�nt darWe lainea rnaaat rumcwe
Iocatiraed areas dill rcwtt;nee roadhway Nariddl uc likely
Both step 1 and step 2 Suggest that aI dedicated drddg tmle=te to wary.
knncycle Mane would be time rnlcrst, a ppropt-liatte rtu enaa
aulan 5n 5ia
Ilittr ''.r'4l LtlLdd"'w'"t".'ll"Ed''S'd'Avenue FlrequenmyaT ...intemmbonsand "msel^urm du°eord°olre✓b4aq"cpthffe
larm'CfL""'d!'ITIfR9 ''... A'C1M@ dm�aAl'a'De tdaMaA'tl fde['la!NGfllpeq,nM'aLVtlaNYraNd MSHII4C1PYthdm'e
f.dt k�Nrrrdry'9IwR'e
are Sreque+rlt Ndn'vewnya
id^YYmu!nIev'ed
.....__............................................ ......... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................
ork Context
.l i �
a.i;i .M-s
connect l to il t � 9 w ed cYdl*Pfl � r a
x a
network, A nlcalmber of Y s� f ro r yaw,tg
r
"aLhlaparks,and dj4t T
commercW destunl dons are f� `� tea �w �a
1 close I ra�aa6>rtllitt'yF to,this � v° P
"
>de 'tk ara Sir a",w`
location
on � pry.
Propo,,e
cycfing
f 4
(Vt +u9'k. 0 .
lou wr uw wr a'u wiawiawi �k,p a 'n" #
d
" " '' " ' IM.hk'91aur tipiloa ,lal,dd ,uadkldmurPpap7n a+av
k;�ust n a
cfir9
,Y a �W riam .
a � e
Network �r� lr r Intrmxffdatter ul sta a � ��� �
WO
!cam sum d d,dwar,eirvabxrn
Study Area 0
It RV �ueq�s� �y ���a Wum � '
School '� + �d ��ce I �u wn- ���Gard*;;
a areal sfltl r lYd as wtdrt i�91
in approxlrri�te miln ute bike,Aide
IF1 - 25
rent Lane Designation
-W........................................................................................................... ....................................................
W
Plains View:
Thp Current, paverilennt vvidth is 12 meters wide with tvio 3 avetrrir wide lean es in either direc;ticrn
on 1 : Parking on East Side,
.... "J pt,�.
.ri
d
I °
'Fit,
Plan Viem
Option 'a. suggest est a 2.5 ai ter parking g buy cm the East side of the road. lfherra milAdil be one 3
rrueteic trav p Ilarle in each direction vvith a 1.5 mileterr hiicycpe lAn e, on eirtlhnen �ide. A O.'S irn ete'r bUffeIr
wva-Uld be pna,nnnt d between n tfr parking lane and the bicycle panne tu7 p protect cycplst,ifirom getting flit
by an i opening duaon This option would have 30 parking spots and 9 conflict p olints.
IF1 - 26
on 2: Parking on West S,ide
f
'AM,,
Mai
Plan V�evv:
(Dpatio n 2 suggest a 2.5 meter parking king pray jinn the West sidle of the road, There would be one 3
uniet+ar drawee'Varna prr,each dhectiicrrn vadiith a 1.S rnnetor bicycpe, fame on either slide. A OV.:5 r ewe, lbuf eii
wouulld be l (between the parking,panne an d the bicycle panne,to protect cycllrvts fronnn getting(hit
by an openjing door This option,would have 30 pad(ing spots arid 9 coniflpa:t points.
Alternating Parking
jPlan View
Option 3 suggest a 2,5 rrnet r parking bay on alternating sides of the road in order to ma�xlinnpz
avaiipablle parking.. There viou lld be one 3 rneter traveI panne in each, dk ctio n with a 1.5 rn t r
bicycle Marne one Pii Pir side. A 0,5 meter buffer vwmIlld be painted between the parked car and the
bicycle panne to puncutect cyclists fronln geWng hit by an rrp erij!in door. This option would have, 50
pairking spots and 10 conflict p oiI nts.
IF1 - 27
�%rill
i r ,
uation
, I I i /o%%//','i
I Parking can East Parking on Afterim to g
Side_ �s t.�....��I ���irkm
g
Speed Reduction
...... ................._1 ..... ...
c#Gst .................................1 '............................... 10 10
Emergency Reslpons 10 10 10
Potential Collision 110 10 10
Resident, ccessbiliity 110 110 10________
5 •Medi umi Implact On-Surest Park'ng 5 5 l�
10 Low Impact Eduicaflon 10 10 10
Requirements
impact to other
Neighbourhood 5 5
Streets
Ccmf6Vct Points 10 I 10
Cut 6 Cost 10 10 10
Grmgausct am 1 10 1
Maintenance Costs
__._...__. _._.... -----------------.._.._._._._._..............----._._._._._.._ ..........
TOTAL 95, 95 105
Option
Based on the evaluation hoe and the Ontario Traffic
Manual Beck 18 results, the recommended l option fer
rai/,r
fast Aire is Option 3: Alternating, Parking.
0 2.5 meter parking hair on alternating sides of the
�I road.
S 3 meter travel lane in each direction
0 1.5 meter bicycle lame on either side.
0.5 meter buffer painted) between the parked ear
and the bicycle lane
0 50 parking spats
0 conflict points.
IF1 - 28
Ste s
Follow up
Please provide input on the proposed changes within three weeks time.
As the plan moves forward, staff would like to understand whether we
have captured the existing conditions appropriately and determine if
any changes can be made to improve the proposed design
Any input received within, the tirnefrarne outlined above will be
su m ma ri red within the cam m i ttee/ccu nc il report.
Committee Meeting
letter or email informing you of the upcom,inig committee meeting and
how to register as a delegation w ill be sent to residents whose homes
border the study area as well as any other citizens that have requested
to be on the project mailing list
Implementation
i na a will be placed on the roadway and a Metter will be mailed to
citizens who abut the study area advising them that bicycle lanes will be
installed (subject to comimittee/council appror val) fear, an expected
duration. Fain dates will also be prcawrided..
You
Thank you for attencling this Plu Iic Information
Centre. Please contact the project manager:
(Name),
at
I hone:
J
Email:
In person -- -------
With any questions, you may have. This contact.
information is also included in your information
package from today's meeting.
IF1 - 29
Appendix C - Frequently Asked Questions about Cycling
IF1 - 30
Aire (*° dIlsf:s beg�ttlk"ny!"a Iloid Il.,wilrnlls,:ahi,
Bicycles are recognized aS va.,bauCbas
aaradar the (;?uat<aruroa Highway 3rairfre Act,
Cyclists are prrn'iutt d to ride on,almost
all irraalr ways oua Kitchener eves of tbaara�O//,///////%//�/1/
are no 4:'y'CpIIIng fr7,4:11pt1es provided.
1"ha l,UrltcaruCro Kghwaay Traffic Act states
that a driver of a bicyclle has the sauTie
rights and responsibilities as a driver of
a,motorized ve Ncle
B Ut '9 ereib 't riimds bui t for a'all w.a a,tll' d vntcrt I (":ydlll rig a viable nara urw of tll°ai:nsi porta-
Nkes"? IV:?
mode of transportation is
rrue.ea roads pr e ci ate e.VEm the car, it
defined as a uaaaaarus by wtrrchi
can he said that roads are batuitt for ��%/0�M people or roods are ca�r� dI from
trainsparartaation and rant for any or)e �� qurarrit /� tr paraurat uuaea there
raarade, bra fact, the irnparoveraaerat of �� are paarutala in Kitchener baaruar vwhrr
ioaad�s° was punt Iproaid for by Syr urr a rrr�arrisa�aturroras. j��� �" degaeuar� ar°u their bicycles to as
f ya�lhsts lobbied for befteu road surfaces for a'ti f'abll p3ED ��,'% firr�uaa aria paraurat tta� arurathrar every
years hafara raaar vebbcfa organisations dud the sarrra % i
day, rnycblraut is a vuaErpa a°n�suda of
�(The Good Roads Mill veraerat), tra�uasprrortahoin
W iciita't it I1l)e expm.,ulnlyaavie u), bllffldll �.wr um"f fll()U)TlStS sttbSidize ychsts?
finlrastructure foircyclist' ' It M,, a �.4„pfaaV�r4;n rVrfis+c:4�ncel71[ion that motorists al�klre
j f cover the costs of city road corustrart on and
lhra City of Kitchener rr aEroar°rtt arlfaparraarrc�ataby j rnwritenaance thfOlrr h gas taxes and ficen e liars The
300,0100 on tiara ueracl baueyVe infraastraucturra ilia l
' traath bs that the rrrone far rnarrutaorauuag and operating
20115.. tt.rsuraipaare that to$27 raaublllpr�arr in,20115 for ���� y 1
� euty roads earaaas from i
���
road reconstruction,tlra and resurfacing a l�t hr III residential property taxes as �rr000
aI:piaxtuaaateby 11 f% of read related spending and abll as provincial and % �
rourihby translates to the aaveralll ra ucuraaat share rat /
federal grants. TIaa he�leu�ub
cycling trulpas The benefits associate with rya:ing also 6 y
Gas Tax makes u.a�a aU as
save the city raaerrae',y, small portion of that funding.
IF1 - 31
Won't nvoirie "addkilEws on the oad tir a iris�ate Just becau[sliEl", vtiwks win ot1her,
it'iito, kris iretaH w,ictiivIdty? cities ('11c)esn't it Mdl woirl�, her'lia
A study conducted by the Unrversity /
Each city does differ' however, cifizeins of
of Waterloo flound that shopj")ers who, Ig the (' jry of Kitctiener will stifl have sirriflar
arrive by bike to Uptown Waterloo npedS to people frOffli around the world. In
............. M
spend comparable aniounts, make every city there are peopiie who need to get
to and from work, there is a need for clean
more frequent trips, and visit a Mder
IL
i'ange of bUSInesses than fli who, aiir,people are conceiried about their heafth,
arnve by car and there as as need to support businesses Nnivesting in
cychng infras4ucturp Js as me-aims to nx*t those needs,
Why clo, �,,(ou want to fome ,,aeq,,)[,e to get Itthat we i�,h e ['j,e r i e f i ts of It ic sir G i
o t I t 0 f t 1l t e i 11, c":a I'? t a n s p,')r�it a it i o in"?
By impiiemenfing bicycile infrastructure, the City oif .........../ Reduced Traffic Congestion and
Kitclhener Js n�o,t tryirq to force people out of thew cars. Parking Demand
In fact the City li s prov116ng the opporluniJity for
........i hripfoved Health and Wellness
indivickiails who dio not wish to a;iways travell lby cair or,
are not abIle to, dinve, to be abIle to seanAessly travell Affordahii1lifty
throughout the city
j Creating V&ant Urban a reap s
VIN'..... -1010
I rN ILower IEnOrcmnermtM Impact
1/0000101'Iftem ,FOR a
s
IFI 32
li!G""� nlnlrli @e [nIllwlww l�annijcj'q, "" VtVo IIIe l"IInl'"ail"!�,
ttntntt° mtil cNicleIlnit
C°wtlore 'bake Panes and an increase in
s
thue rua,uunhaer of cyclists wiffl actually
lead to Pels en acwndelrMotorists vull become rmCre aernsteaer to
�marrm� the roocl with cyclists arm/, �� '
wIiP'0' know more people wwwlmlaa cycle,
which will encourage tlh�ernm to be
MiNe csa�ultVouas aaurrt resgaec:ttuull.
i l " C.'tol"t't aH uukst t lde fe ;dessl arid tf w an "f lay �u t a n�u t t � aAa
u n lPcm<<<rvat �y
Ilt��t�l� ttlr""� u,,.,l�tUl ,�;
Riding y y � � Just Vuke motorists, most cyclist
N�ncfunt your bicycle on tV�me sidewalk u� � 1��,,
not only against ttae Ilea but it is alls;o, ��%fir j �e
���ii � � .., " e rrw,
foNV+ray^the Hales of the rcrarf an
daungerouus. Sidewalks are mten ed �` ��� on�aa restaer tfaal rnu�anner; hovweve-r,just
to Ilarovarfe faertestrbarus with a safe ' ���/ Irke rnlotornsts', saanne cyclists do drive
Mace free from larder and faster �°� rerkles,ly When Vrnfrastraactrrre is —
MOVJag vehliides irmcVuadrng Ncycles. Ilacking sorne cydists Irrralke uurnpre ictkabte choices.
Collrsmn s between cyclists and motor vehicles are Better education for alll users and more infrastructure
allso nmolre corurannora when cyclists riche an time srdeanaallk. for cyclists can help improve behaviour..
°`VUtlhoV dr".att't cryrnh ts, have a hce se'? Do cych t takf;t LIP t(N) otlurat.Al jamic,,e ciln
Not cmly w cr would licensing
w bu d t t l ie In road?'
esn rdc.
A bVc:ycle ws much srnalller tton a nrotu.arized veh cte
%a oaaiii /
transportation, but it would also drain and: the inflrarstruucture recluffed for a cyclist irs much
%aaoi iii, „r city resources Cycling rs currently less than what is needed for a car. As an exaalrnpale,
accessible to everyone no matter their age or income, 10 parked:bicycles take rills the same anaouirit of space
aalrnrt as license would pact as as haarrier, t..lcenms,mg as one parked car.
cyclists has wall<so been foaulnrt to incur rnlore coasts than
hbelrneflfs When Ottawa looked at a Vnce'nlslnrf progranm'
they fouind fVraut it a^woaltf cost$100,001 /year and only
gelm�erate S40,000 In revenue. �j //r
Wilmny't Lilk�e 4@nes diectilTMa s,lle naiy p�.ttn,qa lhll'tar n Ilm1"Ilttg Iiis em111sorrz " V'!lU jlny VII"11vest Illn it'?
vraIu
Wu`l°aufe' it is recognized that less people choose to c'yc`le
Bike lanes halve been found to place high, ran a Visa of nn poor weaffier, many sUll do OtVaer cities thamit have'
features that people value wheln looking to burry a sirnikar%weaather to Kitchener fin°<,McVe year round cyclhing:
hoax°re. Studws have found that both property owners inflrastruuctuure. It Vs important that at least part of the
and real estate agents agree that bike network be maintained so that people who choose to
nr&astrlructrure has Vent to an increase jru cycle pane abie to do so neVna bly..
selling prices. The tarty of "saanlcoUven„
! !,O�%� Vir�%%found that 65% of reators would note
a. nkev l y as a sellllur feature. r
isit r
,
�r rr
IF1 - 33