Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Segregated Bike Lane PilotProject Introduction and Status Update
RCAC 2010 03 15
From Copenhagen Bicycle Account 2006
Presentation Overview
• Project Background and Study Area
• Safety + Increasing the Number of Cyclists
• Examples of Segregated Lanes
• Cross-section Design
• Screening Criteria Round 1
• Screening Criteria Round 2
• Route Ranking + Impacts
• What a Segregated Lane Could Look Like in Ottawa
• Next Steps
Project Background and Study Area
From Ottawa Cycling Plan approval in 2008:
“BE IT RESOLVED THAT east-west routes (e.g. Gladstone from Preston to Elgin) be evaluated for the feasibility of an on-street dedicated cycling lane separated from regular traffic by a median and a first pilot project be suggested.”
Study Area:
Preston to Elgin & Wellington to Catherine
Safety + Increasing the Number of Cyclists• One of the best ways to improve safety for cyclists is to increase the number of cyclists (Pucher)
• Reason cited most often for not cycling = perceived safety
• 1-2% of Portlanders described as “strong and fearless”; 50% of Portlanders described as “interested but concerned” (Geller)
• Cities that have high number of cyclists:
• equal number of women and men cyclists
• children and seniors who cycle
• Countries with high numbers of cyclists all have segregated cycling facilities (Pucher)
Safety + Increasing the Number of Cyclists
New York City - 9th Avenue:
• Injuries to all street users down 56%
• Reportable crashes down 48%
• Injuries to pedestrians down 29%
• Injuries to cyclists down 57%
From Benson 2009
From Benson 2009
Safety + Increasing the Number of Cyclists
New York City - Broadway:
• Injuries to all street users down 50%
• Reportable crashes down 49%
• Injuries to pedestrians down 40%
• Injuries to cyclists down 50%
From Benson 2009
From Benson 2009
Safety + Increasing the Number of Cyclists
New York City - Grand Street:
• Injuries to all street users down 27%
• Injuries to pedestrians down 28%
From Benson 2009
From Benson 2009
Examples of Segregated LanesNew York City
From Benson 2009
Examples of Segregated LanesNew York City
From Benson 2009
From Benson 2009
Examples of Segregated LanesCambridge, MA, USA
From Benson 2009From APBP 2010
Examples of Segregated LanesVancouver
From Benson 2009
From Anderson, City of Vancouver
Examples of Segregated LanesMontreal
From Benson 2009Google Street View
Examples of Segregated LanesMontreal
From Benson 2009
Google Street View
Examples of Segregated LanesOttawa
From Benson 2009
Google Street View
Examples of Segregated LanesCopenhagen, Denmark
From Benson 2009
Google Street View
From Nelson, Liveable Copenhagen
Examples of Segregated LanesThe Netherlands
From Benson 2009
Google Street View
From Molenaar, 2009
Examples of Segregated LanesThe Netherlands
From Molenaar, 2009
Cross-section Design
• bi-directional lanes (both directions on one side) are consistently recommended against
• higher potential for traffic conflicts + more complex signals required
Screening Criteria Round 1
• 33 possible east/west routes in study area
• Screening Criteria
• Ottawa Cycling Plan
• Continuity of Route (coverage + detours)
• Connectivity at East and West ends
• Signals at Major Crossings
• 11 routes carried forward
Screening Criteria Round 2
• 4 of 11 routes initially screened out because of high transit volumes (Wellington, Queen, Albert, Slater)
• 7 remaining routes
• Analysis of two options:
• 2 bike lanes on a single route (preferred option, but higher impacts on single route)
• 1 (single direction) bike lane on each route using two parallel routes
• Extension of some routes to NCC pathway and Corktown Bridge to improve connectivity
Screening Criteria Round 2
Laurier, Lisgar, Somerset, MacLaren, Gilmour, Gladstone, Catherine (1 bike lane)
Screening Criteria Round 2
Laurier, Lisgar, Somerset, MacLaren, Gilmour, Gladstone, Catherine (2 bike lanes)
Screening Criteria Round 2
• Screening Criteria (1 of 2)
• Road Geometry/Design Feasibility
• Continuity of Route
• Delay to Vehicles
• Cyclist Conflict with Vehicles
• Traffic Volumes
• % Truck Traffic
Screening Criteria Round 2
• Screening Criteria (2 of 2)
• Transit Operations
• Adjacent Land Uses
• Key Destinations
• Streetscape / Urban Design Impacts
• Relative Cost
• Location, Extent, General Impact on On-Street Parking
Route Ranking + Impacts
• Ranking (2 lanes / 1 lane) - 15.5 maximum score
• Somerset (11.0 / 12.5)
• Laurier (8.25 / 7.5)
• Lisgar (8.25 / 9.0)
• Gilmour (7.25 / 8.75)
• Gladstone (6.5 / 6.5)
• MacLaren ( - / 8.25)
• Catherine ( - / 7.5)
Route Ranking + Impacts
Route Ranking + ImpactsRoute Ranking + Impacts2 Bike Lanes – Parking and Travel Lane Impacts
Route Ranking + Impacts1 Bike Lanes – Parking and Travel Lane Impacts
What a Segregated Lane Could Look LikeSomerset Village (Current Situation)
What a Segregated Lane Could Look LikeSomerset Village (Current Situation)
What a Segregated Lane Could Look LikeSomerset Village (Future Scenario)
What a Segregated Lane Could Look LikeSomerset Village (Current Situation)
Next Steps
• Outline benefits for local business and communities
• Consultation with Stakeholder groups (e.g. community associations, business improvement associations, cycling advocacy organizations)
• Determine parking mitigation strategies
• Public open house
• Report to Transportation Committee (May or June 2010)
More Information
www.ottawa.ca/bikelane
www.ottawa.ca/voiecyclable
Joel MulliganCycling Projects CoordinatorStrategic Transportation PlanningCity of OttawaTel: 613-580-2424, ext. 21827E-mail: [email protected]
From APBP 2010
