Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-07-124 - Cycling Facilities1 KKR - . • - Development & Technical Services Report To: Development and Technical Services Committee Date of Meeting: August 13, 2007 Submitted By: John P.McBride Prepared By: Ronald Schirm Ward(s) Involved: All Wards Date of Report: July 10, 2007 Report No.: DTS 07-124 Subject: CYCLING FACILITIES RECOMMENDATIONS: That the City follows the criteria for the installation of boulevard multi-use trails as outlined in the Region of Waterloo Cycling Master Plan (2004) until such time as the City of Kitchener Bikeway Study is updated; and further, That the installation of a boulevard multi-use trail on the River Road extension not be installed as a substitute for on road, 1.5 metre bike lanes; and further, That a City of Kitchener Cycling Advisory Committee be instituted in 2008 as part of the Transportation Demand Management initiative. BACKGROUND: At the Council Meeting dated June 11, 2007 the following resolution was passed: "That staff investigate and report, to the Development and Technical Services Committee, on the feasibility, implications and costs of creating off-road cycling lanes; and That staff makes a recommendation to the Region's Steering Committee for the River Road Extension with respect to off-road cycling lanes, and further, That staff report on the feasibility of re-instituting the City's Cycling Committee." REPORT: I. Feasibility of boulevard multi-use Trails Boulevard multi-use trails are facilities that are built at sidewalk level, either between the sidewalk and the roadway, or instead of a sidewalk. Boulevard multi-use trails are generally constructed using asphalt. The construction of boulevard multi-use trails has been prevalent in many municipalities throughout North America and they have existed in many cities in Europe for decades. In Canada, boulevard multi-use trails generally operate as two-way facilities, meaning that cyclists would be traveling against the flow of traffic as well as with the flow of traffic. boulevard multi-use trails in North America sometimes are for cyclists only but in most cases operate as a multi-use facility, for pedestrians, roller blades, etc., as well as cyclists. In most areas in Europe sidewalk level cycling facilities are typically constructed on both sides of the road; operate strictly as bicycle only, one-way facilities with cyclists traveling in one direction with the flow of traffic only. A great deal of research has been conducted on the safety aspects of boulevard multi-use trails in the past 10 years. It must be noted that in all study scenarios, there was no distinction made between sidewalk and boulevard multi-use trails. This is acceptable in that both facilities operate identically with regard to cyclists at intersections. In every case it has been shown that sidewalks and boulevard multi-use trails are significantly more dangerous for cyclists at intersections. In Toronto, the Bicycle/Motor-Vehicle Collision Study (2003) found that almost 30% of the cyclists were cycling on the sidewalk or boulevard multi-use trails immediately prior to their collisions, this being the most frequent possible contributing factor. Again from Toronto, the Regional Coroner Report (1998) states that expanding the network of bikeways is recognized as an important measure to enhance cyclist's safety. It gives the following as design options: 1. bicycle lanes - define a separate space for cyclists, 2. signed bicycle routes -alternative routes on lightly traveled local streets 3. wide curb lanes - on arterial roads for cyclists and motorists to share. Boulevard multi-use trails are not listed as a suitable design option. The National Bicycle Commuter Survey provides similar findings on the safety of boulevard multi-use trails and sidewalks for cyclists as opposed to other facility types: Risk Factor for a Collision between Cyclist and Motorist Streets with bike lanes 0.5 Designated bike routes 0.5 Multi-use trails (not at roadside) 0.67 Local Roads 1.04 Collectors and arterial roadways 1.26 Boulevard multi-use trails and sidewalks 5.32 Source: National Bicycle Commuter Survey, William Moritz, University of Washington, Seattle, Human Powered Trans ortation Pro ram In Quebec, where there are hundreds of kilometres of boulevard multi-use trails ,particularly in the greater Montreal area, Velo Quebec, has changed its position on boulevard multi-use trails and now recommends the following: "Bi-directional bike paths on the street are not generally advisable. However, they are acceptable in the following situations: • On a street without intersections or driveways on one side • On streets where left turns are prohibited and with a limited number of intersections and driveways (ideally fewer than one every 300 m) The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario as part of the Bikeway Design Guidelines states: "When bike paths are located immediately adjacent to a roadway, many operational problems may occur: • One direction of cyclists ride against motor vehicle traffic contrary to the HTA • At the path beginning/end, cyclists travel on the wrong side of the street to continue their trip or to access the path • At intersections, motorists do not notice cyclists coming from their right • Cyclists on the road (safer, more convenient, better maintained) will be harassed by motorists • Cyclists on the path should stop/yield at driveways and intersections. Cyclists on the road have right-of-way over cross traffic • Stopped motorists on the side street or driveways may block path • Providing a bikeway on a sidewalk is generally most unsatisfactory • Bike lanes, shoulder bikeways or shared roadways may be the best way to accommodate bicycle traffic along highway corridors depending upon traffic conditions." The Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) Guideline for the development of Bikeways states: "Boulevard locations for bike paths can create problems: • Visibility of users to drivers reversing out of driveways • Two-directional paths allow cyclists to ride into the road against traffic • At intersections, cyclists should dismount in crosswalks but do not; turning motorists do not expect cyclists to enter crosswalk at speed • Boulevard pathways... should only be used under exceptional circumstances when no alternate route or options are available" • When paths are located immediately adjacent to a roadway, some operational problems are likely to occur." • Signs posted for roadway users are backwards for contra-flow bike traffic • Other types of bikeways are likely to be better suited along highway corridors." In London, Ontario, The Bicycle Master Plan (2005) advocates a departure from the current City practice of providing for "in-boulevard bicycle paths" along arterial corridors. Appropriate applications for an "in-boulevard bicycle path" would be where an uninterrupted right of way is available to provide for long, continuous routes commuting or recreational trips; or, within an independent right-of-way such as an abandoned railway corridor, utility corridor, along a river, through a linear park or greenbelt. The Region of Waterloo Bicycle Master Plan (2004) states: "It is important to note that the boulevard multi-use trails has limited application, may not be preferred by utilitarian cyclists, and should not be a substitute for viable on-road facilities. "Boulevard multi-use trails as part of the Regional Network will be considered for implementation where there are 0 to 3 crossings (driveways/intersections) per kilometre, on a site-by-site basis and where the satisfactory conditions exist for the various design elements identified." The City of Kitchener Bikeway Study (1998) does not recommend use of the boulevard multi- use trail, but acknowledges that there are a few sections of trails that parallel relatively short sections of roadways. The issues that contribute to the safety concerns, study results and subsequent guidelines and policies of the various governing agencies as shown are as follows. 1. Right of Way. When a cyclist is on the road they are a vehicle and have the same right of way as all other vehicles on the road. This includes right of way at driveway crossings. When a cyclist is on a boulevard multi-use trail they no longer have right of way at driveway crossings. They are also more likely to be blocked at driveway entrances and at intersections as vehicles routinely encroach crosswalks when at intersections. 2. Direction of Travel. Cyclists traveling on boulevard multi-use trails will be just as likely to ride against the flow of traffic as with it. At intersections motorists who must scan both left and right before entering the intersection will not look far enough to the right to see oncoming cyclists who travel at a far greater rate of speed than pedestrians. Cyclists traveling against the flow of traffic also encounter the most potential points of conflict at intersections. 3. Mobility. Boulevard multi-use trails treat bicyclists as pedestrians -however, bicyclists are less manoeuvrable than pedestrians and therefore less able to deal with the conflicts experienced by pedestrians. Further, bicycles exceed the design speed of sidewalks and boulevard multi-use trails. 4. Visibility. When on the road cyclists are naturally within the field of vision of motorists. On boulevard multi-use trails cyclists are routinely beyond the natural field of vision of motorists. As cyclists cross the potential points of conflict at an intersection they are in the greatest danger as motorists will more likely cross the path of a cyclist crossing an intersection in the pedestrian portion of the crossing than in the right-of-way. 5. Potential Points of Conflict. For every type of access to an intersection a cyclist is subjected to increased potential points of conflict with motorists if accessing the intersection using a boulevard multi-use trail rather than other on road facilities. For example, a cyclist traveling through an intersection on a boulevard multi-use trail will pass 4 points of potential conflict. A cyclist on the road will pass only 3 points of potential conflict. A left turning cyclist at an intersection will pass 5 points of potential conflict on a boulevard multi-use trail as opposed to 3 points of potential conflict that a left turning on road cyclist encounters. In terms of cost the updated unit cost schedule of the Region of Waterloo Cycling Master Plan (2004) for all cycling facilities is included as an attachment. When comparing new road construction, the cost of a 1.5 metre bike lane in each direction is $205,000 per lane kilometre. The cost, again as part of new construction, of asphalt, boulevard multi-use trail per kilometre is $100,000. This cost does not include signage, crossing treatments or pavement markings. In conclusion, boulevard multi-use trails versus other on-road cycling facilities provide a greater increase in perceived safety but a decrease in actual safety. Other on road cycling facilities provide a lesser increase in perceived safety but an increase in actual safety. When the City of Kitchener Bikeway Study is updated the conditions whereby a boulevard multi-use trail is suitable must be thoroughly addressed. In the meantime the City should use the guidelines for the installation of boulevard multi-use trails as prescribed in the Region of Waterloo Cycling Master Plan (2004), key of which are; • Boulevard multi-use trails are considered for implementation where there are 0 to 3 crossings (driveways/intersections) per kilometre, on a site-by-site basis and where the satisfactory conditions exist for the various design elements identified. • Boulevard multi-use trails have limited applications and should not be a substitute for viable on-road facilities The complete guidelines for the installation of boulevard multi-use trails as set out in the Regional Cycling Master Plan (2004) are included in Appendix "A' of this report. II. Cvclinq Facilities on the River Road Extension Cycling facilities are included in all the design alternatives for the River Road extension. At present the type of facility is still being determined by the Steering Committee. The use of a boulevard multi-use trail is being considered for this location for a number of reasons. It is anticipated that the volume of truck traffic on this section of road will be significant and there is concern that because of this on road cyclists would be intimidated in using on road cycling lanes. There is also some concern that on road bicycle lanes are designed more for the experienced cyclist, who would use such a facility on a regular basis, for commuting, etc. A boulevard multi-use trail is viewed as being a more inclusive form of cycling facility. Further, there would be opportunities to link a boulevard multi-use trail to existing and planned trails. The standard that the Region uses when installing cycling facilities on Regional urban roads is the 1.5 metre on road bike lane on either side of the road. This has been proven to be the safest cycling facility for most of the roadways that the Region installs them on. Staff at the Region has been reticent in recommending boulevard multi-use trails due to the safety issues that have been identified. The preferred design alternative for the River Road extension will feature limited access only. Although it is difficult to predict exactly what will unfold in the future, it is anticipated that on the south and east side of the River Road extension from King Street East to Bleams Road there will be approximately 12 intersections and driveway accesses, both existing and planned for the 4 kilometre long section. By definition this meets the Regional criteria for when a boulevard multi-use trail can be considered. However, the Regional Cycling Master Plan does state that the boulevard multi-use trail is not to be used as a substitute for on road cycling facilities. A boulevard multi-use trail is being considered for the south/east side of the River Road extension. This would be the most appropriate side of the roadway for such a facility as it connects more easily to park facilities and limits exposure to driveway accesses and intersections. However, the safest, most appropriate form of cycling facility for a roadway of this type is the 1.5 metre, on road, signed and lined, bicycle lane on each side of the roadway. This type of facility would operate effectively and safely and would not be as affected, in terms of safety, on the type of development that will take place in this area. III. City of Kitchener Cvclinq Advisory Committee In the early 1990's The Twin City Cycling Advisory Committee, which was chaired by Councillor Mike Wagner, dealt with various cycling issues. The membership of the committee included Councillor Wagner, Councillor Joan McKinnon, City of Waterloo, and staff from both cities, Waterloo Regional Police Service and various cycling advocates and retailers. The chief mandate of the Committee was to aid in the compilation of the Regional Cycling Master Plan (1994). At a meeting dated September 29, 1994 the Committee decided that it had fulfilled its original mandate, the Regional Cycling Master Plan, and that it needed a meeting of various stakeholders to set a mission statement and strategy for the Committee. This meeting was never held. In April 1998 staff at the City released the City of Kitchener Bikeway Study. This document dealt with a vast array of cycling issues in the City, including The Cycling Environment, User's needs and expectations, Cycling Network and a recommended Plan. However, without proper advocacy within the City much of what was contained within the Report did not materialize. The Region of Waterloo at present has a Regional Cycling Advisory Committee that is comprised of private citizens from throughout the Region. The membership is drawn from residents with skills and demonstrated expertise in cycling areas of concern and not as representatives of particular agencies, organizations or interest groups. This Committee operates under the following mandate: (a) Advise on cycling issues that are in accordance with the Regional Cycling Policy Master Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. (b) Assist in monitoring the extent and effectiveness of cycling facility construction and support programming (encouragement, education and enforcement) on an ongoing basis. (c) Advise on measures required to implement the Region's commitment to cycling. (d) Assist the Region in developing cycling policies and strategies. (e) Advise on cycling issues received from other governments and agencies (i.e., studies, policies, programs, legislation, etc.). The Regional Cycling Advisory Committee will serve as a forum for the public and/or agencies to raise their viewpoints on particular cycling issues findings. The Regional Cycling Advisory Committee will endeavour to increase public awareness and understanding of issues taken up by the Committee. It is felt that a creation of a City Cycling Advisory Committee acting in a similar capacity in relation to cycling issues in the City would not be redundant. Further, Council recently approved the City of Kitchener Air Quality 5 Best Bets for 2007 as presented by the Environmental Advisory Committee. Best Bet Number 3 is "Facilitate Modal shift to Bicycle Transportation." The City would benefit a great deal from the creation of a City of Kitchener Cycling Advisory Committee, similarly drawn from citizens with skills and demonstrated expertise in cycling areas of concern and not as representatives of particular agencies, organizations or interest groups. The initial mandate of this group would be to aid in the review of the City of Kitchener Bikeway Study. Further, this Committee could act as an advocate for cycling infrastructure, initiatives, etc. and assist in determining priorities in the installation of cycling facilities. According to Council Policy I-60, in order to institute a Cycling Advisory Committee a Councillor would need to agree to Co-chair the Committee, along with a lay member. Staff resources would be needed to administers the Committee and to liaise between the Committee and staff that are working on issues related to the Cycling Advisory Committee. A Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM) will be developed within the next 6 months. The goal of TDM is to provide for and encourage more sustainable transportation options for the community. It is anticipated that cycling issues, including the review of the City of Kitchener Bikeway Study (1998) will fall under this program. The most appropriate location for a Cycling Advisory Committee would be as part of the TDM Program. It is anticipated that TDM programming and staffing will become operational in 2008. Therefore, a Cycling Advisory Committee, established in 2008, would be an excellent vehicle in addressing cycling issues and being an advocate for cycling in the City. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None at this time COMMUNICATIONS: None at this time CONCLUSION: As the City begins to embrace Transportation Demand Management initiatives, cycling facilities will become increasingly important in the goal of creating sustainable forms of transportation that assist in improving air quality, quality of life issues and ultimately give residents more choices in transportation modes. The City must be prudent in recommending and constructing cycling facilities that are safe. The issue of boulevard multi-use trails and promotion of the use of on road cycling facilities must be dealt with more thoroughly when the City of Kitchener Bikeway Study (1998) is reviewed and updated. Until that time, the Region of Waterloo Cycling Master Plan criteria for the installation of boulevard multi-use trails should be used as a guideline. A City of Kitchener Cycling Advisory Committee is potentially an appropriate and effective vehicle for addressing cycling issues in the community and should be undertaken as part of the TDM Program in 2008. Ronald K. Schirm, Supervisor John P. McBride, Director Crossing Guards Transportation Planning Transportation Planning RKS Attach. DTS Report 07-124 Appendix "A" Region of Waterloo Cycling Master Plan (2004) 3.3.6 boulevard multi-use Trail Generally the Regional Network is intended to include off-road segments in greenbelts and/or abandoned rail corridors, and on-road bike lanes, wide curb lanes, shoulder bikeways and other "shared" facilities that are signed as "bicycle routes". In certain situations, boulevard multi-use trails may be used where conditions permit this facility type. Cyclists using boulevard multi-use trails are required to yield to other vehicles at intersections. This is opposite to cyclists riding on the road who have the right-of-way, just like motor vehicles, when they intersect private driveways and side streets. As typically, utilities are located in the boulevard, the addition of a boulevard multi-use trail has the potential to impact ongoing costs of maintaining utilities, due to the need for occasional access underground. As such, it is important to note that the boulevard multi-use trails has limited application, and may not be preferred by utilitarian cyclists, and should not be a substitute for viable on-road facilities. The application of the boulevard multi-use trail must be considered on a site-by-site basis and under specific conditions. Important corridor characteristics include: • Urban arterial, collector or rural roads where there is ample right of way between the edge of the platform and the limit of the right-of-way to maintain minimum separation between the road and the boulevard multi-use trail • Adequate side clearance is available (0.5 m minimum) to wall, fence, barrier or other fixed objects, i.e., hydro poles, signs; • Adequate overhead clearance of 2.4 m minimum is available; • Routes that provide connections between important destinations that are frequented by casual or inexperienced cyclists; • Routes that are intended to provide short connections between long off-road multi-use trail segments (i.e.4 blocks or less); and • Along corridors where there are limited commercial or residential driveway crossings. A boulevard mixed-use trail will be considered where there are 0 to 3 crossings (driveways/intersections) per kilometre. When implementing this facility type, the following design elements will be considered on a site by site basis: • A setback from the curb (2.Om minimum) throughout the length of the route with the exception of intersections where the trail should cross with the formal pedestrian crossing; • Open sight lines at intersections with driveways and roadways; • Centre yellow line on trail to separate directions of travel and to guide riders overtaking pedestrians and slower moving riders; • Curb cuts at driveways and roadway intersections; • Stop or yield signs at driveways; and • Signing in advance of and at roadway intersections to inform cyclists to stop, dismount and walk across intersections as identified in the Highway Traffic Act. In the case where the boulevard multi-use trail transitions to an on-road bike lane, the following additional design elements will be considered: • Signage to indicate that the boulevard multi-use trails ends ahead and that a bike lane begins; and • "Bike lane begins" signed on the downstream side of the intersection. Guideline: Intersection multi-use trails as part of the Regional Network will be considered for implementation where there are 0 - 3 crossings (driveways/intersections) per kilometre, on a site-by-site basis and where satisfactory conditions exist for the various design elements identified.