Edmonton (Alta.) - 1992 - City of Edmonton bicycle transportation plan (1992-04-28)

SD LIBRARY 1111111 Hill 10 111 loll 11111 1111111 11111 1111111111111

11 11

1720076

I!11 6416

REPORT

Pltnr,tng

and Drio'c.

LIBBPSY

Ira Claw litiatioWn

- 4305.a .E3 E373 1992

elitiontOn TRANSPORTATION

T090/9616/1992 Edmonton Transportation Dept.

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN PHONE DATE \

NAME

No.

OUT

T090/9616/1992 Edmonton Transportation Dept.

BICYCLE 'TRANSPORTATION PLAN :11():1 AIYOkipinere

L.fiARY nut Cy admonten

DATE IN

CITY OF EDMONTON BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN FEBRUARY 1992

This report was approved by City Council on April 28, 1992, with the following amendments: ENCOURAGEMENT - Recommendation #4 The City of Edmonton shall provide adequate and secure bicycle parking facilities at all City-owned buildings as per the set of standards recommended by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the Cyclists Education Committee.

ENFORCEMENT - Recommendation #4 The Transportation Department will develop and assess alternative means of addressing the safety and enforcement problems created by bicycle couriers in the downtown, and that include an evaluation of the suitability of licensing bicycle couriers.

IMPLEMENTATION - Recommendation #1 That the Transportation Department and the Parks and Recreation Department review the feasibility of establishing an Advisory Committee to provide input on cycling matters including the joint use of off-street trails and pathways.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

This document has been prepared with the input and assistance of the Cyclists Education Committee, which includes: Alberta Bicycle Association Alberta Bicycling Educators Cycle Edmonton EcoCity Society Edmonton Bicycle Commuters Edmonton Bicycle and Touring Club Edmonton Safety Council Four Members at Large Parks and Recreation Department Police Service The information and comments provided by other agencies and civic departments are acknowledged: Alberta Transportation and Utilities, Canadian Cycling Association, Edmonton Catholic Schools, Edmonton Public Schools, Planning and Development Department, Public Works Department.

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SUMMARY 1.1 POLICY STATEMENT 1.2 GOALS 1.3 RECOMMENDATIONS

1-2 1-2 1-3

2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 BICYCLE CHARACIERISTICS 2.2 THE BICYCLE IN LAW 2.3 BICYCLE PLANNING IN EDMONTON 2.4 BICYCLE SURVEYS IN EDMONTON 2.5 1989 EDMONTON BICYCLE USER SURVEY 2.6 BICYCLE COUNTS 2.7 BICYCLE ACCIDENTS

2-1 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-8 2-9 2-10

3. PLANNING 3.1 INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION 3.2 ROUTE IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES 3.3 MAJOR GENERATORS 3.4 HIGH DEMAND ROUTES 3.5 HIGH ACCIDENT LOCATIONS AND CORRIDORS 3.6 RAILS TO TRAILS OPPORTUNITIES 3.7 RECREATIONAL ROUTES

3-1 3-2 3-3 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8

4. ENGINEERING 4.1 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 4.2 MAINTENANCE

4-1 4-5

5. EDUCATION 5.1 CANADIAN CYCLING ASSOCIATION PROGRAMS 5.2 EDMONTON POLICE SERVICE 5.3 ALBERTA TRANSPORTATION - SAFETY EDUCATION PROGRAM 5.4 EDMONTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 5.5 EDMONTON CATHOLIC SCHOOLS 5.6 EDMONTON SAFETY COUNCIL 5.7 SOLICITOR-GENERAL 5.8 SAFETY CAMPAIGNS 5.9 OFF-STREET TRAIL SAFETY

5-1 5-2 5-3 5-3 5-4 5-4 5-5 5-5 5-6

6. ENCOURAGEMENT 6.1 BICYCLE MAP 6.2 END OF TRIP FACILITIES 6.3 INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION 6.4 BICYCLE TOURING 6.5 BICYCLE RACING

6-1 6-1 6-3 6-3 6-4

7. ENFORCEMENT 7.1 PROPOSED LEGISLATION 7.2 BICYCLE COURIERS 7.3 ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 7.4 BICYCLE REGISTRATION 7.5 BICYCLE LICENSING

7-1 7-3 7-3 7-4 7-5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

8. IMPLEMENTATION 8.1 OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILIIIES, 1992 - 1996 8.2 BICYCLE ADVISORY BOARD

8-1 8-1

BIBLIOGRAPHY

EXHIBITS

OPPOSITE PAGE

1.1 OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILITIES 1992 - 1996

2-1

2.1 TYPES OF SPECIAL BICYCLE FACILITIES 2.2 TRANSPORTATION PLAN PART 1 CONCEPT, 1974

2-4 2-5

3.1 MAJOR GENERATORS 3.2 CLASS 1 BIKEWAYS ALONG EXISTING RESIDENTIAL ARTERIALS 3.3 HIGH DEMAND ROUTES (1989 BICYCLE USER SURVEY) 3.4 HIGH ACCIDENT LOCATIONS AND CORRIDORS (1985 - 1989) 3.5 RAILS TO TRAILS OPPORTUNITIES 3.6 BICYCLE ACCESS TO THE RIVER VALLEY

3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9

4.1 LANE AND GUTTER WIDTHS 4.2 DRAINAGE GRATES 4.3 RAMP DESIGN 4.4 RAILING HEIGHTS 4.5 BICYCLE RACKS 4.6 BICYCLE PARKING FACILITY

4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-7

8.1 OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILITIES 1992 - 1996

8-2

APPENDICES

UNDER SEPARATE COVER

APPENDIX 1

Existing Bicycle Legislation

APPENDIX 2

1989 Bicycle User Survey

APPENDIX 3

1990 Bicycle Counts

APPENDIX 4

Bicycle Accidents in Edmonton

APPENDIX 5

1990 Bicycle Route Condition Survey

APPENDIX 6

High Demand Routes

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

SUMMARY Page 1-1

1. SUMMARY The first bicycle-specific facility in Edmonton was implemented in 1974, with the introduction of the bicycle route from Michener Park to the University of Alberta. Since that time, approximately 150 kilometres of on-street bicycle routes, almost 50 kilometres of paved river valley trails, and a velodrome have been constructed.

The benefits of bicycle transportation are well-known and well-documented. These include energy efficiency, no environmental pollution, efficient use of space, low cost of both acquisition and maintenance of the machine, and improvements to the health and well-being of the user.

The number of bicyclists in the city is increasing. Travel surveys indicate that the number of regular "commuter" bicyclists is small, but increasing. However, surveys of the river valley trails indicate that recreational bicycling is an extremely popular activity, and has increased dramatically in the last few years.

This indicates that there is a substantial latent possibility for increased use of the bicycle as a mode of transportation in Edmonton. The factors which might influence more people to make this choice are not fully understood. Concern for the environment was the stated driving force in 1973, and similar concerns appear to be a major influence again today. However, this subjective "quality of life" decision does not lend itself to rigorous analysis or extrapolation.

The emphasis during the development of the Bicycle Transportation Plan was to work with the organized bicycling community and bicyclists at large, to identify the full range of factors and influences that impact on bicycle transportation. The Plan therefore addresses much more than the technical transportation aspects of bicycling, and includes planning, engineering, education, encouragement, and enforcement.

The effectiveness of whatever facilities and programs are implemented must be carefully monitored, so that the Civic Administration can be in a position to respond to future changes in the demand for bicycle transportation, with some certainty as to the appropriate response.

The current bicycle policy of the City of Edmonton is contained in the General Municipal Plan, Bylaw 9076, approved by City Council in November 1990, which states in Policy 7.A.7.: "Encourage the

continued development and maintenance of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, exploiting opportunities to expand facilities and promote their use." The supporting discussion states that a network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities is required to meet both recreational and functional needs.

The following policy statement, goals, and seventy-one detailed recommendations are intended to implement the bicycle transportation component of Policy 7.A.7. of the General Municipal Plan Bylaw 9076, over the next several years.

SUMMARY Page 1-2

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

1.1 POLICY STATEMENT The overall policy statement of the Bicycle Transportation Plan has been developed through discussion with the Cyclists Education Committee, involved City departments, and other government agencies: The City of Edmonton wishes to encourage and promote bicycle transportation.

Integration of the bicycle into the existing transportation system, and acceptance of the bicycle as a safe and convenient mode of transportation is to be achieved through Planning, Engineering, Education, Encouragement, and Enforcement.

1.2 GOALS The broad goals of the Plan reflect the five basic areas of endeavour identified in the policy statement: Manning Goals To provide a safe and convenient bicycling environment for the on-street bicyclist by: Improving the existing street system to better meet the needs of (1) bicyclists.

Considering bicyclists requirements in the planning of future transportation facilities. (iii) Coordinating on-street and off-street facilities to provide an integrated system.

Engineering Goal To ensure that the design, construction and maintenance of all bicycle-related infrastructure is appropriate for the operational characteristics and functional requirements of the bicycle.

Educational Goal To achieve acceptance of the bicycle as a legitimate vehicle, through the education of both bicyclists and other road users in safe operational practices.

Encouragement Goal To promote the use of bicycles for utilitarian and recreational purposes.

Enforcement Goal To improve bicyclist and motorist compliance with existing legislation.

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

SUMMARY Page 1-3

1.3 RECOMMENDATIONS The goals of the Plan can be achieved by the implementation of the following action recommendations, over a period of several years: PLANNING The planning recommendations cover a range of activities, from monitoring the level of bicycling to preparing improvement plans for specific facilities and developing an implementation program for input to the Capital Priorities Program.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

The Transportation Department will continue to collect bicycle ownership and travel information in conjunction with future Civic Census and Travel Surveys.

The Transportation Department will consider carrying out another Bicycle User Survey, coordinated with a city-wide Travel Survey, in approximately 1994.

The Transportation Department will continue to collect bicycle count information on an on-going basis, to assist in the planning of bicycle facilities.

The Transportation Department will continue to compile and analyze reported bicycle accidents in Edmonton on an on-going basis, to assist in the planning of bicycle facilities.

The Transportation Department will identify specific bicycle-related capital improvements in the Department's Five Year Program.

The Transportation Department will work with the University of Alberta campus Administrations and the adjacent communities, to allow for the coordinated planning, implementation and maintenance of a safe bicycling environment in the greater campus area.

The Transportation Department will continue to monitor bicycle activity and routing in the downtown area, and develop plans for any required improvements to the bicycling environment.

The Parks and Recreation Department and the Transportation Department will work to ensure that the existing river valley and ravine trails, and the on-street bicycle route and street systems are maintained, improved, and integrated so as to accommodate both recreational and commuter bicycle trips.

The Parks and Recreation Department, in conjunction with the Transportation Department, will give consideration to opportunities to accommodate commuter bicycling in the planning and implementation of extensions to the river valley and ravine trails.

The Transportation Department will include Class I bicycle facilities in the development of the retrofit sidewalk program along arterial roadways in existing residential neighbourhoods, with appropriate connections into a neighbourhood recreational bicycle route system.

All Area Structure Plans and Neighbourhood Structure Plans for new residential areas will include a Class I bicycle facility along one side of arterial roadways, with appropriate connections into a neighbourhood recreational bicycle route system.

The Transportation Department will include bicycle requirements in their assessment of neighbourhood traffic problems and the development of neighbourhood traffic control schemes.

SUMMARY Page 1-4

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

The Transportation Department will initiate a review of the identified on-street high demand routes on a priorized basis, and develop plans for any required improvements to the bicycling environment.

The Transportation Department will initiate a review of the identified high accident locations and corridors on a priorized basis, and develop plans for any required improvements to the bicycling environment.

The Transportation Department will assess the feasibility of developing a linear trail system in the C.P.R. rail right-of-way north of 82 (Whyte) Avenue.

The development of a linear trail system in the existing C.N.R. right-of-way in the northeast should be considered on an opportunity basis.

The development of a linear trail system in the existing C.N.R. right-of-way in the northwest should be considered on an opportunity basis.

The Parks and Recreation Department should identify and experiment with optional ways of raising the awareness level of bicyclists, pedestrians, and other user groups in sharing the paved trails in the river valley.

The Parks and Recreation Department should continue to identify and review locations where bicycle-pedestrian conflicts occur on the unpaved trails in the river valley, to determine if physical changes may help to reduce the possibility of conflicts.

The Parks and Recreation Department and the Transportation Department will work to ensure that the river valley trail system and the complementary onstreet bicycle routes are integrated.

The Transportation Department, in conjunction with the Parks and Recreation Department, will develop a system of recreational bicycle routes within existing residential neighbourhoods, making use of opportunities created by walkways and utility rights-of-way, with appropriate connections to city-wide routes and facilities.

All Neighbourhood Structure Plans for new residential areas will include a system of recreational bicycle routes, making use of opportunities created by walkways and utility rights-of-way, with appropriate connections to city-wide routes and facilities.

ENGINEERING The engineering recommendations address both design and maintenance practices. The implementation of new programs and activities will require the approval of budgets by City Council.

1.

2.

3.

4.

The Transportation Department will approach Alberta Transportation and Utilities, with a view to recognizing wide curb lanes, up to a maximum width of 4.3 metres, as an acceptable standard on roadways designed to accommodate bicycle traffic.

The Transportation Department will develop and implement guidelines for the creation of wide curb lanes wherever practical, as part of the on-going roadway lane marking program.

The Transportation Department will approach Alberta Transportation and Utilities with a view to recognizing reduced gutter widths of 250 mm as an acceptable standard on roadways designed to accommodate bicycle traffic.

The Public Works Department and the Transportation Department will develop new standard details for bicycle-safe drainage grates, to replace the existing standard details, in all types of gutter and on all classes of roadways.

SUMMARY BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Page 1-5

The Transportation Department will review the operation and design of rightturns at major intersections, with a view to improving vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian safety.

The Public Works Department and the Transportation Department will develop new standard details for the design and construction of bicycle access ramps for Class I bicycle facilities.

The Transportation Department will extend the existing curb ramp construction program to address bicycle ramp reconstruction requirements.

The Transportation Department will ensure that all railings adjacent to designated bicycle facilities on structures are brought up to the al5propriate height when maintenance work is carried out.

The Parks and Recreation Department should consider implementing a trail width of up to 4.0 metres wherever warranted, in future extensions and ongoing maintenance of the paved trail system in the river valley and ravines.

The Parks and Recreation Department and the Transportation Department should consider constructing unpaved multi-use recreational trails in the river valley and ravines, and in top of bank rights-of-way.

The Transportation Department and the Parks and Recreation Department will review the use of thermoplastic pavement markings and rumble strips on bicycle facilities.

The Transportation Department will continue to maintain and enhance as necessary the on-street bicycle route signing.

The City of Edmonton should ensure that all bicycle racks installed in the city are functional and provide secure bicycle parking.

The Transportation Department will continue to respond to reported potholes and other pavement irregularities on roadways and on-street bicycle facilities.

The Transportation Department will develop a cleaning and sweeping program for designated Class I and Class II bicycle facilities.

The Transportation Department will develop a snow removal program for designated Class I and Class II bicycle facilities.

The Parks and Recreation Department should continue to experiment with alternative winter treatments of paved trails in the river valley.

EDUCATION The education recommendations typically involve several agencies, and involve longer-term activities that will result in long-term benefits.

1.

2.

3.

4.

The Transportation Department, in conjunction with the Safety Councils, should consider the promotion of adult bicycle education.

The Edmonton Police Service should continue to provide bicycle safety programs through the schools and community leagues, with increased emphasis on programs such as bicycle rodeos that include practical training.

The Edmonton Police Service should consider requiring that their bicyclemounted officers and the Safety Officers take a recognized adult bicycle education course.

The Transportation Department, in association with Alberta Transportation and Utilities, should approach Alberta Education, with a view to enhancing the existing bicycle safety and skills component of the school curriculum in Alberta.

SUMMARY Page 1-6

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The Transportation Department will approach the Edmonton Public Schools with a view to enhancing the bicycle education opportunities for students in Edmonton.

The Transportation Department will approach the Edmonton Catholic Schools with a view to enhancing the bicycle education opportunities for students in Edmonton.

The Transportation Department will continue to work with the Safety Councils, to improve the quality and availability of bicycle education programs for all age groups.

The Transportation Department will approach the Solicitor General, with a view to reviewing and updating bicycle information in the Driver's Handbook.

The Transportation Department, in conjunction with other agencies as appropriate, will work to improve and raise the profile of the bicycle component in existing and future safety campaigns.

The Parks and Recreation Department should assess the feasibility of making educational programs available to all users of the river valley and ravines trail systems.

ENCOURAGEMENT The encouragement recommendations cover a wide range of activities which all tend to encourage and promote the use of bicycles in Edmonton.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

The Transportation Department will continue to update and produce the "Cycle Edmonton" map.

The Planning and Development Department should prepare and submit to City Council for their consideration, an amendment to the Land Use Bylaw requiring the provision of bicycle parking facilities in all new developments.

The City of Edmonton should continue to encourage the provision of secure bicycle parking facilities in existing developments.

The City of Edmonton should provide adequate and secure bicycle parking facilities at all City-owned buildings.

The City of Edmonton should encourage the provision of changing facilities for bicyclists where appropriate.

The City of Edmonton should ensure that adequate changing facilities for City employees are provided at all City-owned and occupied buildings.

The Transportation Department will continue to install bicycle parking facilities at transit centres and L.R.T. stations, as funds permit.

The Transportation Department will continue to monitor the demand for and use of bicycle racks at L.R.T. and transit centres.

The Transportation Department will continue to monitor the use of the bikeson-L.R.T. experiment, and develop recommendations for further, action on completion of the experiment.

The City of Edmonton should continue to promote bicycle touring in and around Edmonton.

The Parks and Recreation Department, in conjunction with user groups, should ossass the feasibility of developing an off-street road racing circuit within the City of Edmonton.

The City of Edmonton should undertake the necessary rehabilitation of the Argyll Velodrome.

The Parks and Recreation Department should continue to monitor the impacts and desirability of mountain bike racing.

SUMMARY BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

14.

Page 1-7

The Parks and Recreation Department, in conjunction with user groups, should assess the feasibility of developing a mountain bike racing circuit within the City of Edmonton.

ENFORCEMENT The enforcement recommendations deal mainly with areas of legislation that require updating to address today's bicycling.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

The Transportation Department will approach Alberta Transportation and Utilities, with a view to preparing amendments to the Highway Traffic Act regarding the definition of a dismounted bicyclist; amending the regulations to permit the right-arm-extended hand signal for bicycles; revisions to the "both hands on the handlebars" rule, and the "riding on the right hand side" rule; and requiring bicyclists to wear safety helmets.

The Transportation Department, in conjunction with the City Solicitor, will prepare amendments defining the operation of bicycles in crosswalks, and Schedules of Class 1 and Class 3 bicycle facilities, for inclusion in the Traffic Bylaw #5590.

The Parks and Recreation Department should consider updating the Parks Bylaw #2202 to: deal separately with bicycles and motorcycles; specify which trails are available for use by bicycles, and which trails are not; require that all bicycles operated on parkland be equipped with the equipment specified by the Highway Traffic Act; require all bicyclists to wear an approved safety helmet in city parks; specify regulations for the conduct of mountain bike races; and specify penalties for offences against the provisions of the Bylaw.

The Transportation Department will develop and assess alternative means of addressing the safety and enforcement problems created by bicycle couriers in the downtown.

The Edmonton Police Service should maintain appropriate levels of enforcement for both on-street and off-street bicycling activities.

The Edmonton Police Service should continue to support the Edmonton Bicycle Commuters' bicycle registration scheme, and the Alberta Community Crime Prevention Association's bicycle identification program.

The Transportation Department will approach the Solicitor General, with a view to reviewing the feasibilty of licensing the owners of bicycles on a Province-wide basis.

IMPLEMENTATION The opportunities presented by existing capital programs over the next five years to provide new or improved bicycling facilities in Edmonton are shown on Exhibit 1.1.

The successful implementation of the recommendations of this Bicycle Transportation Plan would be enhanced by this additional action.

1.

The Transportation Department and the Parks and Recreation Department will review the feasibilty of establishing a Bicycle Advisory Board of City Council.

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (

LEGEND NEW ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION 1992-1996 ROADWAY REHABILITATION 1992-1995 0

227 VENUE

BRIDGE REHABILITATION 1992-1995

4.

BICYCLE/ SIDEWALK FACILITIES 1992-1996 PAVED TRAILS AND ON-STREET BIKE ROUTES URBAN PARKS PROGRAM 1992-1996 195 AVEN JE

167

153 AVE

37 AVEN

YEL OWNEAD fRAL —

118 AVENUE I-

F4.1 LLL

/.61 41 CC IV/

Li

In

LI

07 AVE

HIGHWAY 16 95 AVENUE

WH1TEMUD DRIVE 69 AVENUE 62 AVENUE

••

UE

45 AVE

In

44,

3 AVEN

16 AVENUF o—

Li LI

LI

9 AVENUE

V1

3C

41 AVENUE

OPPORTUNITIES FOR BICYCLE - RELATED IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILITIES 1992 - 1996 EXHIBIT 1.1

f

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

INTRODUCTION Page 2-1

2. INTRODUCTION

The recent history and present status of the bicycle in Edmonton closely parallels events throughout North America. There has been a tremendous growth in both ownership and use of the bicycle in the past fifteen or twenty years. In 1975 there were 130,000 adult bicycles in Edmonton, approximately one bicycle for every 3.4 persons; in 1989 there were 277,000 bicycles, or one bicycle for every 2.1 persons.

The range of uses has also shifted dramatically, from child's toy and minority sport, to a wide range of recreational and utility u ws. The bicycle has been recognized by applicable statutes as a legitimate vehicle on public roadways for many years, and in recent years many municipalities, cities and states across North America have prepared comprehensive policies and plans, dealing with the bicycle and bicycling as a legitimate mode of transportation.

2.1 BICYCLE CHARACTERISTICS There are several characteristics of the bicycle that make it ideally suited to modem urban transportation. Other characteristics of the bicycle are rather less ideal, and require specific coping strategies on the part of the bicyclist, or the provision of bicycle-specific services and facilities. The operator of a bicycle enjoys a rather different relationship with the machine and with the environment than does the operator of a motor vehicle. This results in further bicyclespecific planning, design and maintenance requirements.

Energy Efficient

The bicycle provides the most energy-efficient form of locomotion known. The nearest competitor to the bicyclist is a salmon, which consumes two-and-one-half times as much energy; a pedestrian consumes between three and five times as much energy as a bicyclist; bus and rail transit modes consume twenty-five to thirty times as much energy per passenger; an automobile with one occupant consumes fifty to sixty times as much energy as a bicyclist. Studies in the U.S.A. have estimated that fully 50% of the annual gasoline consumption of a private automobile which is used for commuting is expended on that one trip purpose alone. The manufacture of a bicycle is estimated to consume only one hundredth of the energy required to manufacture an automobile, and the amount of raw material used is also significantly less. The potential benefits of urban bicycling in terms of energy savings are manifest. Every trip made by bicycle rather than any motorized mode results in a significant saving of non-renewable fossil fuel resources.

Non-Polluting In operation, the bicycle is totally non-polluting. There are no products of combustion to be emitted, and very little noise. Bicycles do not contribute to the major environmental problems of global warming and acid rain.

Although there are no municipal regulations or policies concerning air pollution, Alberta Environment monitors the ambient air quality in Edmonton on an on-going basis. The air quality index in the Edmonton area is "good" for over 90% of the time. Measures of most individual air pollutants on both an hourly and 24-hour basis typically meet the Alberta Clean Air Act regulations virtually all the time. (The exceptions are 24-hour ozone levels, and suspended particulate matter/total dustfall measures: Alberta experiences high natural levels of ozone at ground level on a seasonal basis, due in part to the extensive forests; the generally dry climate results in blowing dust from roads, fields, construction sites etc.) This is not the case in many North American cities, where unacceptable levels of air pollution are now a regular occurrence. However, an air quality monitoring survey was carried out by Alberta Environment in the fall of 1988, adjacent to Whitemud Drive, at the request of the City of Edmonton Transportation Department. These observations showed that the daily variation in air pollutant concentrations was directly associated with peak traffic hours.

INTRODUCTION Page 2-2

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The City of Edmonton has had an Urban Traffic Noise Policy since 1983. To date, approximately 65 kilometres of noise attenuation devices have been constructed along arterial roadways in the city to protect adjacent residents from high traffic noise levels. It is noted that the major source of unacceptable traffic noise is typically trucks, and that increased use of the bicycle may therefore do little to reduce these noise levels. However, the increased use of the bicycle can certainly assist in maintaining and even improving air quality in Edmonton, by reducing the amount of fossil fuels burned.

Space Efficient The bicycle occupies very little space, both on the road and when parked. It is estimated that the bicycle mode can be as much as ten times as space-efficient as the private automobile. Bus and rail transit modes can be between two and six times as space-efficient again as the bicycle.

In densely developed urban environments, both bicycle and public transit modes offer significant space, land cost, and physical impact benefits over the automobile.

Low Cost The costs of acquiring and maintaining a bicycle are relatively small, as the bicycle is essentially a very simple machine, and most repairs can easily be carried out with very little guidance, using only simple hand tools. A well-built modem bicycle and accessories that will provide likely ten or more years of service, can be acquired for more or less the same cost as a year's supply of bus passes.

Vulnerability The bicycle is a single-track machine, with one wheel behind the other. This requires that the operator balance the machine when in motion, and makes the machine very susceptible to irregular and slippery road surface conditions. Consequently, both the proper geometric design of the bicycle facility, and the on-going maintenance of that facility, demand attention.

Exposure The simple bicycle offers no protection from adverse weather conditions, or extremes of heat and cold. It is therefore necessary for the bicyclist to use appropriate protective clothing and equipment. The bicycle mode can be made significantly more attractive by the provision of endof-trip facilities that recognize and accommodate the likely requirement of the bicyclist to wash and change clothing.

Safety The bicycle offers no protection to the operator in the event of an accident. Most studies have concluded that more than half of bicycle accidents are simple falls from the machine, involving no other vehicle and usually little or no injury. The relatively low operating speed and the small weight of the machine and rider assist in this regard. Whilst less than 10% of all accidents involve head injuries, over 75% of all deaths are a result of head injuries. In the event of an accident, the use of a helmet is by far the most important injury prevention measure that the bicyclist can take. However, in any collision with a much heavier motor vehicle, the significant forces involved place the bicyclist at great risk of personal injury. The planning and design of bicycle facilities must therefore recognize that safety is a most important factor to consider, and that the bicyclist must not be required or induced to perform any erratic, unusual or nonvehicular manoeuvres which may result in a collision with a motorized vehicle.

Bikengine The bicyclist is the engine of the bicycle. Forward motion is achieved only through the physical exertions of the rider. The bicycle itself is little more than a set of levers which convert muscle power into motion. The performance of the vehicle is in every way a direct function of the

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

INTRODUCTION Page 2-3

abilities of the operator. As there are no operator licensing or training requirements, and the physical abilities of the operators range from those of a child to a champion, the bicycle transportation engineer is faced with a far more complex set of variables than those associated with the normalized and regulated operation of motor vehicles.

Health The exertion required of the bicyclist has a direct positive impact on the general health and wellbeing of the rider. The benefits of this are realized in areas such as reduced health care costs, reductions in lost time at work due to sickness, and increased productivity due to enhanced alertness and energy. Secondary health benefits are also realized by the population at large, as a result of the incremental reduction in air pollution that each bicycle trip creates.

Range The bicycle is typically assumed to be suited to only short-distance trips, but this is not necessarily the case. Improvements in fitness are cumulative, with the result that the performance of the bicyclist tends to improve over time. Experienced bicyclists can cover distances which appear quite remarkable to the novice, and which in the urban environment can rival automobile trip lengths.

Momentum Every time the bicyclist has to slow down or stop, all the momentum that is lost has to be recreated by the rider. Compare this physical exertion to the requirements placed on a pedestrian or an automobile driver when executing a stop-start manoeuvre. The principle of conservation of momentum is therefore very important when designing facilities which are intended to attract or accommodate bicyclists.

Operating Environment The unenclosed bicycle puts the bicyclist into an immediate and acute awareness of the operating environment.

The bicyclist does not need to listen to a radio report to find out how warm or cold it is, if it is raining, or where the wind is blowing from and how strong it is. These facts are part of bicycling, and are felt on the face, in the hands and feet, and the legs. Improvements to the bicycling environment in the form of natural shelter from the elements are therefore potentially attractive and beneficial.

The bicycle is essentially silent in operation, and a structural enclosure does not eliminate external traffic, wind or bird noises. The bicyclist can see, hear, smell and feel everything that is going on, and therefore is aware of and can appreciate even small enhancements to the operating environment.

Unlike operators of motorized vehicles, the bicyclist can readily communicate with other bicyclists, and pedestrians, whilst in motion. The bicycle therefore operates in an interactive social environment, which can significantly enhance the bicycling experience. This simple fact is often overlooked by inexperienced bicyclists, brought up in a motorized world.

Pavement Hazards A bicyclist quickly becomes aware of road surface conditions, in the interests of selfpreservation. Potholes, cracks, ruts, catchbasin grates, thermoplastic road markings, raised gutter lips, gravel, glass, ice, snow, standing water, and general debris are all common hazards which have to be dealt with, preferably whilst maintaining both momentum and a safe position in traffic. Therefore, careful attention must be paid to the design details, construction techniques and maintenance procedures on designated bicycle routes and facilities, so as to attract bicyclists.

INTRODUCTION Page 2-4

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Winter Bicycling The advent of the mountain bicycle has had a significant impact on bicycling in Edmonton.

Although not originally intended for such uses, the mountain bike has proved to be a very popular machine for urban use, and is also very effective in dealing with winter riding conditions. It can no longer be said that bicycling in Edmonton is only a summer activity.

Even on the morning after the big snow storm in January 1989, with temperatures around the -40°C mark, bicyclists on mountain bikes were observed in several parts of the city riding to work and school.

2.2 THE BICYCLE IN LAW It is interesting to briefly review the way in which the existing legislation deals with bicycles.

The relevant legislation is documented in Appendix 1.

Highway Traffic Act There are several provisions in the Alberta Highway Traffic Act relating to bicycles. Part 5 of the Act deals expressly with bicycles and motor cycles. The most commonly heard concerns regarding bicycles are addressed as follows.

Section 144 states that unless the context requires otherwise, a person operating a bicycle on a highway has all the rights, and is subject to all the duties of the driver of a motor vehicle as described in Part 3 of the Act. It is therefore clearly established that a bicyclist is required to behave in the same way as all other vehicles using the street system, "unless the context requires otherwise". No guidance as to what this "context" might be is given in the Act. Section 150 requires all bicycles operated during the night to be equipped with a headlamp, a red tail lamp, and a red rear reflector.

Section 45 requires all vehicles, including bicycles, to be equipped with an adequate horn, gong, or bell in good working order, to be sounded whenever reasonably necessary as a warning of approach.

Traffic Bylaw #5590 The City of Edmonton Traffic Bylaw #5590 includes three sections dealing with the operation of bicycles in the City.

Section 501 states that no bicycle having a wheel diameter in excess of fifty centimetres may be operated on any sidewalk except where permitted by a traffic control device.

This allows "children's" bicycles to operate in the pedestrian environment of the sidewalk, on the assumption that this is safe. Unfortunately all available data indicates that the largest cause of accidents to young bicyclists is failure of the bicyclist to observe right-of-way rules when entering a street, typically from a sidewalk or lane.

Sections 1028 and 1029 authorize the Director of Traffic Operations to prohibit the use of bicycles on public roadways, provided that a reasonable alternative route is provided, and to designate bicycle routes on sidewalks, walkways, special bicycle paths, and portions of highways within the city.

The Traffic Bylaw includes schedules of Class 2 bicycle facilities (bike lanes), but not of Class 1 (bike paths) or Class 3 (bike routes) bicycle facilities (Exhibit 2.1). Therefore no statutory procedures have to be followed in making changes to Class 1 and Class 3 bicycle routes. There are no roadways in Edmonton where bicycles are prohibited, although bicycles are prohibited from using bus lanes. In September 1991 bicycles were permitted in the northbound bus/taxi lane on 109 Street, between 82 Avenue and Saskatchewan Drive, on a one year trial basis.

Parks Bylaw #2202 The City of Edmonton Parks Bylaw #2202 was amended in 1967 to address the operation of bicycles and motorcycles on parkland.

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

411X

11'

"CLASS 3"

"CLASS 2"

"CLASS 1"

SIGNED BIKE ROUTE

DISTINCT BIKE LANE

4 bike only lane designated by painted line

SEPARATED BIKE PATH

TYPES OF SPECIAL BICYCLE FACILITIES EXHIBIT 2.1

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

• •0

CORONATION PARK

• 111111• iiimmisillIN11111111111101111

CAPI !.

RK

3

•

10 • •

sadllawsismoims

—K HAWRELA

K-II El I I---I maimmom+immin

onmonsimmeinsod

MIMI

FORT EDMON 3N PARK

CONFEDERATION PAR

PARK AND RECREATION AREA

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT

BICYCLE PATHS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHT—OF—WAY

0 COMMERCIAL CENTRES

APPROVED BIKEWAY

D COMPOSITE HIGH SCHOOLS

ME •

TRANSPORTATION PLAN PART 1, 1974 BICYCLE ROUTE CONCEPT PLAN EXHIBIT 2.2

BIKEWAYS ON EXISTING STREETS

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

INTRODUCTION Page 2-5

Sections 48 and 49 ban the use of bicycles and motor cycles in all paridand within the City, except on park access roads and parking areas which are designated for use by public vehicular traffic, and in any permitted areas, pedestrian walks or bridle paths designated by signs.

Section 48 also requires the operation of bicycles and motorcycles on parldand to be in accordance with the provisions of the Highway Traffic Act and the Edmonton Streets Bylaw (now the Traffic Bylaw).

The Parks Bylaw is currently being reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Department, in response to the dramatic increase in the numbers of both bicyclists and pedestrians on both the paved and the unpaved trails throughout the river valley.

2.3 BICYCLE PLANNING IN EDMONTON The City of Edmonton became actively involved in the planning of bicycle facilities in 1973, in response to the demands of individual citizens and action groups within the city. The first designated bicycle route was implemented on May 1st, 1974, between Malmo Plains and the University of Alberta area, and through the 1970's and early 1980's Edmonton played a leading role in the planning and implementation of bicycle facilities in Canada.

1974 Transportation Plan Part I On July 15th 1974, City Council approved a transportation policy document entitled "Transportation Plan Part 1", which included a policy and concept for bicycles (Exhibit 2.2).

The policy was to establish pleasant and functional bicycling routes for recreational and utilitarian use, with an increaser] degree of safety. The concept recognized many of the bicyclespecific requirements noted in Section 2.1, but attempted to accommodate all bicycle trip purposes on a single "bikeway" network. The fact that the majority of bicycle trips take place on the general street network was not recognized.

1975 Bikeway Planning Process In 1975, the "Bikeway Planning Process" document, prepared by the City of Edmonton Transportation Department, won the first prize in the professional category of the Canadian Urban Bikeways Design Competition. The planning process outlined therein is essentially the same process that was later incorporated into the Transportation System Bylaw #6707, and is now applied to the planning of all transportation facilities.

1978 Capital City Recreation Park The implementation of the first part of the Capital City Recreation Park in 1978, funded by the Government of Alberta, provided a significant increase in the length of off-street bicycle facilities in Edmonton, and created many new bicycle recreational opportunities. Unfortunately no well-developed or recognized geometric design standards for bicycle facilities existed at the time, and several improvements to the paved trails have since been implemented, to improve potentially dangerous operating conditions.

1983 Guidelines for the Design of Bikeways In 1983, the (then Roads and) Transportation Association of Canada published their "Guidelines for the Design of Bikeways". This document was produced by a national committee, under the chairmanship of a staff member of the City of Edmonton Transportation Department, and provides nationally-recognized design standards for bicycle facilities.

1983 General Municipal Plan The 1983 General Municipal Plan, Bylaw 6000, as amended by Bylaw #6905, stated in Objective 8.G.3: "The City will develop and maintain a city-wide bikeway network for both utilitarian and recreational purposes." The supporting discussion refers to bicycles as a "short distance" mode of travel, and the bikeway network as "providing access to community

INTRODUCTION Page 2-6

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

amenity areas and various commercial facilities within the neighbourhood, as well as a recreational purpose." The requirement for the system to be extended and improved in response to demands was also identified.

1985 North Saskatchewan River Valley Area Redevelopment Plan Bylaw The River Valley A.R.P. Bylaw 7188 recognized and endorsed the concept of extending the river valley trail systems both upstream and downstream from the original C. C.R.P. 1990 General Municipal Plan The current bicycle policy of the City of Edmonton is contained in the General Municipal Plan, Bylaw 9076, approved by City Council in November 1990, which states in Policy 7.A.7.: "Encourage the continued development and maintenance of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, exploiting opportunities to expand facilities and promote their use." The supporting discussion states that a network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities is required to meet both recreational and functional needs, and the preparation of a comprehensive bicycling plan is identified in the "Summary of Departmental Planning Activities" document.

2.4 BICYCLE SURVEYS IN EDMONTON Bicycle transportation has largely been ignored by the transportation industry in North America, due to the relatively low utilization of the bicycle as a mode of travel, and there are very few data, standard texts or methodologies to provide guidance. In order to provide data on which to base the planning and implementation of bicycle facilities, there have been several surveys of bicyclists in Edmonton since 1973. These are summarized below.

1973 Edmonton Anti-Pollution Group This survey of 126 bicyclists was carried out by the Edmonton Anti-Pollution Group, and presented to the City in support of "the development, extension, and expansion of facilities for bicyclists within the City of Edmonton, particularly regarding an adequate system of convenient, safe bicycle trails for cyclists of all ages." The survey identified "residential streets and sidewalks", and "main traffic arteries and freeways" as the most frequently used bike routes, and identified the three major disadvantages of 'bicycling to be air and noise pollution from traffic, "roadways .. too uneven and unplanned for bicyclists' needs", and accidents.

1973 Civic Census The 1973 Civic Census of all households within the City of Edmonton collected information on the number of bicycles owned. The total number of bicycles was 117,000, although it is not known whether this represents adult bicycles, or all types of bicycles.

1974 Bicycle User Survey This survey was carried out by the Transportation Department in four schools (two high schools, one junior high, and one elementary school), and obtained 367 responses. No adult cyclists were surveyed, and therefore the results of this survey were heavily biased towards younger, inexperienced and unskilled cyclists. It is therefore interesting to note that this group preferred "to have bike routes designated along major streets (rather) than other areas. Minor streets are the least popular choices." In addition, "bicycle paths and bikeways proved to be very popular ideas, ..(but)..the concept of sharing sidewalks was rejected."

1975 Civic Census The 1975 Civic Census of all households within the City of Edmonton collected information on the number of bicycles owned. The total number of bicycles was 130,000, although it is not known whether this represents adult bicycles, or all types of bicycles.

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

INTRODUCTION Page 2-7

1978 Bikeways Survey This survey was carried out by the Transportation Department, and consisted of 249 random interviews with bicyclists at 25 locations on the five then-existing designated bicycle routes.

The stated objectives of the survey were to evaluate the individual routes and the overall network, and to develop improvement alternatives. Based on the findings of the survey, the bikeway network was considered to be a "complete success", and it was determined that the planning of new bikeways should concentrate on new residential areas, connections to the thennew river valley paved trails, and short trails to overcome barriers to movement on existing bikeways.

1984 Travel Survey The 1984 Travel Survey was carried out by the Transportation Department, and obtained information regarding all trips made between 06:00 and 09:00 by all members of a 21/2 % sample of City of Edmonton households. The purpose of the survey was to obtain statistically valid data to allow for the recalibration of the Regional Travel Model. Bicycle trips accounted for 0.7% of all work and post-secondary education trips made by all modes during the AM peak hour. The mean length of all work and post-secondary education trips made by all modes was 9 km.

1984 Bicycle Planning Survey The 1984 Bicycle Planning Survey was a questionnaire prepared by the Edmonton Bicycle Commuter Society. It was mailed to all members of the Society, and obtained 57 responses.

The survey was qualitative in nature, rather than quantitative, and therefore did not provide much specific information. The most frequently-identified problems on existing routes were poor pavement condition, the High Level Bridge, and missing curb cuts. The most frequentlyidentified suggestions for bikeway planning (other than route extensions) were the provision of space on arterial roadways to accommodate mixed vehicular and bicycle traffic, education and safety programs, and the provision of properly-designed bicycle parking facilities.

1986 Downtown Origin - Destination Survey This survey was carried out by the Transportation Department to assist in the planning of a downtown bicycle lane. Unfortunately there is no documentation extant to indicate how the survey was carried out, but there appear to have been only 30 responses. Although east-west travel was fairly evenly spread over five Avenues (99, 100, Jasper, 102, 103 Avenues), 77% of the respondents indicated that they used 109 Street to access the downtown.

1986/87/88 Planning Questionnaire In each of these three years, "open house" type booths were set up by the Transportation Department in two shopping malls and at the "Bike Day" event at the Argyll Velodrome. The questionnaire was qualitative, the responses descriptive, and there was no analysis or documentation of the results. In 1986 there were 105 responses, in 1987 there were 43, and in 1988 only 10.

1989 Travel Survey The 1989 Travel Survey was carried out by the Transportation Department, and obtained information on trips made to work and post-secondary education by 10% of all households in the City of Edmonton, as part of the 1989 Civic Census. The purpose of the survey was to obtain statistically valid data to allow for the recalibration of the Regional Travel Model. The number of bicycles owned, which had been used at least once in the past twelve months, was also obtained. Out of a total of 24,821 households interviewed, 217 people who use a bicycle on a regular basis provided information on their daily trip to work or post-secondary education.

Bicycle trips accounted for 0.9% of all work and post-secondary education trips made by all

INTRODUCTION Page 2-8

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

modes during the AM peak hour. The mean length of all work and post-secondary education trips made by all modes was 10 km. The total number of bicycles owned was 277,000.

With the exception of the Civic Census and Travel Survey work, the surveys of bicyclists in Edmonton carried out prior to 1989 were all characterized by small sample sizes, and/or the exclusion of large segments of the bicycling population. In 1974 information was only sought from schoolchildren, and in 1984 only from members of the Edmonton Bicycle Commuters; in 1986/87/88 attempts were made to obtain information from the public at large. In 1978 only those bicyclists using the designated bikeways were interviewed, even though it was known that the majority of bicycle trips were, are, and will continue to be made on the general street system.

•

The Transportation Department will continue to collect bicycle ownership and travel information in conjunction with future Civic Census and Travel Surveys.

2.5 1989 BICYCLE USER SURVEY. The 1989 Bicycle User Survey was designed to provide up-to-date information on all types of bicyclists in Edmonton, and on their actual riding habits.

The survey was widely distributed to several schools, the University, N.A.I.T., all public libraries and Parks and Recreation outlets, all civic employees, to bicycle organizations through their membership lists, and at all bicycle shops in the city. Some 2,400 responses were received, despite the fact that there was no pre-paid return mechanism. The uncontrolled sampling mp•nq that the results of the survey only represent the activities of those people who responded; the results cannot be expanded to represent city-wide behaviour. However, the number of responses was overwhelming, when compared to earlier surveys in Edmonton and similar surveys in other Canadian cities, and this suggests that the results of the 1989 Bicycle User Survey can be viewed and used with rather more confidence than any earlier data.

The Survey report is included in Appendix 2. The key results are summarized below.

• • • •

•

• • •

• •

The age group with the highest response rate (28%) was 15-19 years old.

Over 50% of respondents rode during the peak period.

About 17% of respondents rode all year round, indicating that winter bicycling is viable.

Less than 25% of reported bicycle trips were for recreation purposes, indicating that the respondents use the bicycle primarily as a means of transportation.

The most frequently noted desired improvement was the maintenance of roadways and bicycle paths, followed by improvements or extension of existing routes.

Short trips within the trip origin district made up the highest proportion of reported bicycle trips.

The river valley trails are well used for all trip purposes.

Bicycle travel desire lines are similar to desire lines for motorists. Most of the identified high-use bicycle routes are also well used by automobiles since the majority of the reported bicycle trips are made on the arterial and collector street network.

Bicyclists avoid high speed, high volume arterials, except where there is no convenient alternative route.

Bicycle trips are affected by accessibility, particularly river crossings. The High Level Bridge is the most important on-street bicycle link in the city as it is the only central river bridge without steep approach grades.

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

INTRODUCTION Page 2-9

Perhaps the most important and useful information provided by the Survey was the actual routes used by bicyclists in the city. All the routes depicted on the survey returns were transcribed to a large-scale map of the city, and very clear and consistent travel patterns emerged. The conclusions and inferences that can be drawn from this information are summarized below, and are discussed in more detail in subsequent sections.

• • • • • • •

The river valley trails are used for all trip purposes.

Several of the existing on-street designated routes are ineffective.

Most through bicycle trips are made on the arterial roadway system.

Most of the arterial roadway system is used for through bicycle trips.

Bicycle trip patterns are affected by the same barriers to movement as motorized vehicles.

The High Level Bridge and 109 Street approaches on both the north and south sides of the river are the most important on-street bicycle links in the city.

Bicyclists avoid high-speed, high traffic-volume arterials, (ie: Whitemud, Yellowhead) except when there is no direct, convenient alternative route.

The 1989 Bicycle User Survey will provide significant direction to any investment in improved and new bicycle facilities in the next few years. The validity of the direction, and therefore the effectiveness of the investments, should be tested by a similar survey at an appropriate time in the future. By coordinating the Bicycle User Survey with the city-wide Travel Survey, any changes in general trends and underlying travel patterns can be identified. Major travel surveys are typically repeated at approximately five year intervals.

•

The Transportation Department will consider carrying out another Bicyde User Survey, coordinated with a city-wide Travel Survey, in approximately 1994.

2.6 BICYCLE COUNTS Although Edmonton has had a comprehensive and on-going traffic monitoring program since the early 1970's, including intersection counts, automatic link counts, and cordon counts, bicycles were not included in any of the on-going data collection activities. Automatic link counting equipment has never been designed to pick up bicycle traffic, due to the very low mass of the machine and rider as compared to motor vehicles, to which both pneumatic and inductance equipment is insensitive. Bicycle counts still require manual techniques.

In past years, several manual counts of bicycle traffic have been carried out in Edmonton in support of specific projects. However, due to the expense involved, these were never for more than a period of a couple of hours, and the low numbers of both bicycles and locations involved meant that it was never possible to build up a picture of bicycle traffic flows, in a similar fashion to general traffic flow. However, the routing information collected as part of the 1989 Bicycle User Survey gave a good indication of where relatively large numbers of bicycles could be expected to be observed, and specific bicycle counts were carried out in the summer of 1990 at some thirty locations around the city. In addition, very detailed counts of both bicycle and pedestrian movements on the High Level Bridge were taken, including full weekday, weekend and peak period counts. The data from the High Level Bridge has been used to generate daily and peak hour factors for bicycle travel, in the same way that such factors are arrived at for motorized vehicles. These factors can then be applied to other bicycle counts, to provide at least a preliminary estimate of likely daily, peak hour, and weekend volumes from short duration counts at specific locations. As the database is built up over the next few years, it may be

INTRODUCTION Page 2-10

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

possible to develop a reasonably accurate bicycle flow map for the city, to assist in the on-going planning of bicycle facilities.

The bicycle count information obtained in 1990 is documented in Appendix 3.

•

The Transportation Department will continue to collect bicycle count information on an on-going basis, to assist in the planning of bicycle facilities.

2.7 BICYCLE ACCIDENTS In Alberta, the Motor Vehicle Administration Act requires a written report to be filed for any collision involving a motor vehicle which results in death, injury, and/or property damage in excess of $1000 ($500 before January 01, 1991). There is presently no requirement for bicyclists involved in an accident with other than a motor vehicle to file any type of report.

This results in only bicycle-motor vehicle accident statistics being readily available, and this is also the situation generally throughout North America. In 1989 in the City of Edmonton there were a total of 25,036 reported motor vehicle accidents involving 52,915 vehicles and other objects, including 45,214 automobiles, 1,038 trucks, 482 pedestrians, 318 bus, 250 bicycles, and 219 motorcycles. The estimated property damage as a result of these accidents was $65,249,524. The 58 fatalities included 24 pedestrians, 20 drivers, 8 passengers, 4 motorcyclists, and 2 bicyclists.

However, the detailed studies that have been done of all types of bicycle accidents generally agree that collisions with motor vehicles probably account for only 15 to 20% of all bicycle accidents involving injury or death. It is usually estimated that there are as many collisions with other bicyclists as there are collisions with motor vehicles, and that fully 50% of bicycle injuries and deaths are the result of the bicyclist falling from the machine, with no other vehicle, person or animal being involved.

1990 Bicycle Safety Survey The commercially-produced "Edmonton Bicycle Guide 1990" included a Bicycle Safety Survey.

This survey was intended to provide a picture of the typical safety practices of bicyclists in Edmonton, and to determine whether their actual accident experiences corresponded to that documented in the literature. Only 29 responses to the survey were received by December 31, 1990. The major results are as follows: • • • • • • • • • • •

65% of respondents had been involved in a bicycle accident.

54% of the accidents were simply falls from the bicycle.

35% of the accidents involved a motor vehicle.

11% of the accidents involved a pedestrian.

One (1) accident had been reported to the Police.

All respondents "sometimes" disobeyed one or more traffic laws.

31% of respondents had a bell on their bicycle.

55% of respondents wore a helmet.

14% of respondents had taken a certified bicycle skills course.

52% of respondents would take such a course.

31% of respondents had not, and would not, take such a course.

This information indicates that there is no reason to suppose that actual bicycle accidents in Edmonton differ significantly from the documented pattern of bicycle accidents in North America.

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

INTRODUCTION Page 2-11

Reported Bicyde Accidents A review of reported bicycle accidents for the past ten years (Appendix 4) indicates the following general trends: • • • •

The total number of reported bicycle accidents is increasing.

The proportion of reported bicycle accidents to total reported accidents is fairly constant.

The actual RATE of incidence of bicycle accidents cannot be established, due to lack of data on usage.

The proportion of bicycle fatalities to bicycle injuries fluctuates annually, and is not necessarily increasing.

A detailed analysis of 1988 and 1989 reported bicycle accidents in Edmonton has been carried out, and is documented in Appendix 4. Major conclusions include: • • • • • • • • •

In 52% of accidents, the bicyclist was not at fault.

In 13% of accidents, the bicyclist violated a traffic control device.

In 12% of accidents, the bicyclist failed to yield right-of-way at uncontrolled intersections.

In 9% of accidents, the bicyclist struck a parked vehicle.

The rate of no-fault accidents increases as the age of the bicyclist increases.

The time-of-day and thy-of-week distribution of bicycle accidents follows the same pattern as total accidents.

The time-of-year distribution of bicycle accidents follows the seasons, increasing significantly in the summer The location of bicycle accidents corresponds to roadways with high bicycle usage and high motor traffic volumes.

The general pattern of bicycle accidents is similar to that for all types of accidents.

Safety is a key issue in bicycle transportation, as the bicyclist is very vulnerable to injury in the case of falling from the machine, or colliding with a motor vehicle. Although reported bicycle accidents do not provide the full picture, they are the only reliable source of accident information available.

•

The Transportation Department will continue to compile and analyze reported bicycle accidents in Edmonton on an on-going basis, to assist in the planning of bicycle facilities.

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

PLANNING Page 3-1

3. PLANNING Unlike motorized vehicles, which are by and large equal in terms of performance and can be legally operated only by those people who have demonstrated that they have the minimum required skill level, a bicycle can be legally operated by a person of any age, with no training or skills, and with performance capabilities falling anywhere within a very wide range. Thus bicycle transportation encompasses an extensive range of operator and vehicle characteristics, in comparison to the regulated and largely homogeneous characteristics of motorized transportation.

The differing capabilities of bicyclists with differing levels of skill and performance result in a correspondingly wide range of needs and expectations in terms of the physical roadway and bicycle facility infrastructure. The planning of bicycle facilities must recognize that there are two broad groups of bicyclists whose requirements must be met in any comprehensive plan.

Experienced bicyclists have learned how to deal with existing urban traffic conditions, either through many years of experience, or by acquiring such knowledge through association with organized cycling, or by taking proper training courses. These bicyclists typically operate on the street, in a "vehicular" mode, and were largely ignored by bicycle surveys and planning exercises in Edmonton prior to 1989.

Inexperienced bicyclists include novice, occasional recreational and child bicyclists. If unaware of the benefits to be gained through training courses or the accumulated experiences of organized cycling groups, these people will likely take several years to acquire the necessary experience and skills to operate safely and comfortably in the urban traffic environment. They may then have developed into "experienced" bicyclists, and their needs and expectations may have changed accordingly. However, recreational bicyclists who ride only infrequently may never acquire a base of experience and skills, and are also likely unaware of or unwilling to take any training courses. Children on bicycles are the extreme case, lacking skills, experience, and performance. The focus of surveys, planning and therefore facility provision in the past in Edmonton, and typically throughout North America, has been on the inexperienced bicyclist. This has usually resulted in the provision of facilities intended to remove the bicyclist from environments which were perceived by non-cyclists to be dangerous, or otherwise not appropriate for bicycle operation. The fact that the overwhelming majority of bicycle trips are made on the general street system was not acknowledged, and the fact that some of the facilities provided to enhance the safety of the bicyclist had the opposite effect was not understood.

3.1 INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION Most bicycle trips make use of some part of the street system of local, collector and arterial roads for part of the trip. Experienced "commuter" bicyclists who are using the bicycle as a means of transportation typically make extensive use of arterial roadways to get quickly and conveniently to their destination. The integration of bicycling into the operation of the general street system is therefore an important part of the Bicycle Transportation Plan, and has the following benefits: •

•

• •

The full range of opportunities for bicycle transportation on the existing roadway network is enhanced, thereby encouraging the use of the bicycle for all types of trip.

Bicyclists operate within existing vehicular traffic legislation. This greatly facilitates education of bicyclists, motorists and pedestrians, and also facilitates enforcement of the legislation.

Use of the existing investment in roadways is maximized.

Bicyclists are encouraged to develop proper operating and traffic safety skills.

PLANNING Page 3-2

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The less experienced, occasional bicyclist will likely be making shorter, locally-oriented trips, or seeking a recreational experience possibly on the river valley parks trails, and is typically less comfortable using arterial roadways. The provision of special, sometimes segregated, bicycle facilities is therefore also an important part of the Plan, and has the following benefits: •

•

•

Inexperiended bicyclists are encouraged to ride more. The perception that riding in traffic is dangerous is frequently cited as a major deterrent to bicycling.

The recreational bicycling opportunities offered by the segregated river valley and ravines trail systems are complemented by similar facilities providing bicycle access to them.

Neighbourhood-oriented bicycle routes which take advantage of opportunities offered by utility rights-of-way, walkways etc are developed, connecting schools, local parks and neighbourhood stores.

In addition to the above, special bicycle transportation problems may be resolved by the provision of segregated facilities.

3.2 ROUTE IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES The key inputs required for the development of a priorized program of bicycle route improvements are: • • •

Identification of major generators Identification of high demand routes Identification of high accident locations

Having identified those routes and locations which demand attention, a detailed review of existing bicycle operating conditions along those routes is required, including: • • •

Bicycle counts Accident analysis Inventory of bicycle-related infrastructure along the route

It should then be possible to isolate and quantify the specific operational and safety problems for bicyclists using a route, and to develop appropriate solutions through the comparative analysis of a range of alternatives. The do-nothing alternative must always be included and carefully evaluated, as it is entirely possible that some high-demand bicycle routes require no actions whatsoever. If an investment in physical infrastructure is identified as being appropriate, then the regular transportation facility planning process should be followed, feeding into the Transportation Department's Five Year Program, and then into the Corporate Priorities Program and budgetting process.

It is essential that the facility planning process involve the actual or potential users of the facility, in addition to the adjacent neighbourhood(s), in developing and evaluating alternative solutions. It is also essential that all changes to bicycle facilities are carefully evaluated after implementation, to ensure that the anticipated benefits have actually been realized.

The general process de-scribed above has already been started by the Transportation Department.

The 1989 Bicycle User Survey (Section 3.2; Appendix 2) has provided information on actual high demand bicycle routes. Based on this information, some forty bicycle counts (Section 3.3; Appendix 3) were carried out over the summer of 1990, at reported locations of high bicycle activity. Reported bicycle accidents are included in the annual Motor Vehicle Accident

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

PLANNING Page 3-3

Summary report, and a more detailed analysis of bicycle accidents (Section 3.4; Appendix 4) has been carried out. An inventory of all the existing designated on-street bicycle routes, the river valley paved trails, and all the undesignated high demand bicycle routes was completed in 1990 (Appendix 5).

•

The Transportation Department will identify specific bicydle-related capital improvements in the Department's Five Year Program.

3.3 MAJOR GENERATORS (Exhibit 3.1) The major generators of bicycle trips in the city have been identified in the 1989 Bicycle User Survey as: • • • •

The University of Alberta The downtown area The river valley and ravines Residential neighbourhoods

University of Alberta The fact that the greater campus area of the University of Alberta is the major bicycle trip generator in the city has been intuitively acknowledged for some time. It is reflected in the high usage of the High Level Bridge, Saskatchewan Drive, and 82 (Whyte) Avenue, and also in the high usage of the major approach routes, such as the Groat Bridge, 106 Street, 109/111 Street, 115/113/112 Street, 119/122 Street/Belgravia Road/115 Street, and Quesnell Bridge/Fox Drive.

In any planning for improved bicycle facilities in the immediate area of the campus, it is essential that the facilities on campus are consistent and contiguous with the on-street system; the several Administrations in the campus area, as well as the adjacent neighbourhoods, must therefore be involved in such planning. Conversely, all neighbourhood traffic planning in the areas immediately adjacent to the campus must address the requirements of bicyclists accessing the campus.

The greater campus area is unique in the city, having a large and increasing number of bicyclists sharing a dense network of walks, and paths with thousands of pedestrians, all destined for specific buildings, each building requiring some amount of secure bicycle parking. The University of Alberta's bicycle operating and parking Regulations (see Appendix 1) deal with these issues.

In an attempt to deal in some logical fashion with the demands for more bicycle parking and other facilities on campus, the University Administration formed the Bikes on Campus Committee in 1988. The Transportation Department of the City of Edmonton recently joined this group, so that efforts of both the City and the Campus community could be better coordinated.

•

The Transportation Department will work with the University of Alberta campus Administrations and the adjacent communities, to allow for the coordinated planning, implementation and maintenance of a safe bicycling environment in the greater campus area.

Downtown The downtown area is the second most important generator of bicycle trips. The 109 Street/High Level Bridge corridor, and the 100 Avenue corridor are the most used bicycle routes in the downtown, followed by 104 Avenue, Jasper Avenue, and 101 Street. The intense development, which results in many possible destinations, and the dense street network, which results in many possible alternative routes, make it very difficult to develop any effective designated bicycle facilities in the downtown area.

PLANNING Page 3-4

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The Transportation Department will continue to monitor bicyde activity and routing in the downtown area, and develop plans for any required improvements to the bicycling environment.

River Valley and Ravines The annual monitoring of activity on the river valley and ravine trails by the Parks and Recreation Department clearly identifies that the river valley is a very - and increasingly attractive destination for recreational bicycle trips. The 1989 Bicycle User Survey has also indicated that these trails are used for year-round bicycle commuting. The on-going maintenance and any improvements to the existing trails should recognize the requirements of the commuting bicyclist as far as practical, ie: a typically higher operating speed, good continuity, and good connections to the on-street routes and the general street system. The Parks and Recreation Department is currently preparing a master plan for the extension of the Capital City Recreation Park upstream from the High Level Bridge. It is appropriate to ensure that the high level of usage of the river valley trail system by all types of bicycles is reflected in that plan, and that future opportunities to safely accommodate commuter bicyclists in the river valley trails are realized. •

•

The Parks and Recreation Department and the Transportation Department will work to ensure that the existing river valley and ravine trails, and the on-street bicycle route and street systems are maintained, improved, and integrated so as to accommodate both recreational and commuter bicycle trips.

The Parks and Recreation Department, in conjunction with the Transportation Department, will give consideration to opportunities to accommodate commuter bicycling in the planning and implementation of extensions to the river valley and ravine trails.

Residential Neighbourhoods The preferred bicycle route information from the 1989 Bicycle User Survey indicates that bicycle movements within a residential district typically follow the general roadway hierarchy, and are made on locals, collectors, and arterials. Where the arterial route accommodates the desired movement, bicyclists do use the arterial, whether or not the arterial is a designated route, and whether or not there is a Class I bicycle path alongside it. 113A Street in Castle Downs has a separate Class I bicycle path, whereas 50 Street in Mill Woods does not, and yet both these arterials are well-used bicycle routes. However, recognizing that the bicyclists likely to be generated in a residential area will include a large proportion of inexperienced occasional and child bicyclists, it may be appropriate to provide a separate "Class 1" bicycle path along one side of arterial roadways within residential subdivisions (Exhibit 3.2). The provision of either Class 2 or Class 3 facilities (bike lane, on-street route) is not considered to be appropriate for recreational bicycling on arterial roads. Safety of operation, especially at all intersections and driveways, must be a major consideration in the detailed planning for Class 1 facilities: the number of intersections and driveways that the bicycle path crosses must be minimized, since these are typically dangerous locations for inexperienced and child bicyclists. It is also important that these paths connect to the general street or separate bicycle route system outside the residential area, in a logical, contiguous and safe manner. In residential districts which have a comprehensive system of separate walkways and/or utility corridors with developed walkways, it may not be necessary to construct a bicycle path along the arterials, if the walkway system can fulfill the same function and provide the same connections. As Class 1 bikeways are shared-use facilities for both bicycles and pedestrians, pedestrian circulation requirements must be taken into account in the design and implementation.

215 STREET

199 SIRE T

184 STREET

170 STREET

70 ST T

156 SIRE T

156 STREET

ORO" ROAD lErn* .41A/Mi gil

124 STR4 T 1 c 113A ST

A"

109 STREET

10 104 STREET 4111110:40 'it Oil

a

-4 > 97 ST

91 STREET 85 ST 5S

50 SIR ET

34 STREET V190131A STREET

17 STREET

RIDAN STREET

17 STREET NE

BICYCLETRANSPORTATIONPLAN

HENDAY

84 STREET

70 STREE

170 STREET 63 STREET° 6

STREET

156 STREET 49 STREET D DRIVE

STREET

124 STREET

.;k 2

h1

91 STREET

66 STREET

111 STREET

fa

P

A

W' •

116 S

k 109 STREET

8 46-

113A SLEET I

I9

112 STREET

,

UPA104 STREET

>

. 875

97 STIFEET

z

sT Ervai' 83sT4,43: "k s7i en

ST v34‘)

> 50 STRE

50 STR8 T

34 STREET

34 TREET

7 V0:101.01A

17 STREET

RIDAN STREET

17 STREET NE

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

•

•

PLANNING Page 3-5

The Transportation Department will include Class I bicycle facilities in the development of the retrofit sidewalk program along arterial roadways in (misting residential neighbourhoods, with appropriate connections into a neighbourhood recreational bicycle route system.

All Area Structure Plans and Neighbourhood Structure Plans for new residential areas will include a Class I bicycle facility along one side of arterial roadways, with appropriate connections into a neighbourhood recreational bicycle route system.

The Transportation Department has an on-going program for the design and implementation of neighbourhood traffic control schemes. These are only initiated in response to a documented request from a community organization, and the typical concerns are shortcutting by through traffic, pedestrian safety, and school safety issues. Any proposed solutions are worked out in close cooperation with the community, and full public input and majority support is required before anything is implemented. Several cities, especially in Western Europe, have taken these concepts much further, and have deliberately relegated motor vehicles to a secondary role in residential and other areas of pedestrian activity. This is in addition to the well-established concept of pedestrianivItion in downtown commercial centres. A well-known example is the Dutch "woonerf' (living yard) system in which walking, playing and bicycling are the primary uses of specially-designed landscaped roadways in residential areas. West Germany uses speed limits to slow down cars in "Verkehrsberuhigung" (traffic calming) schemes. Similar concepts have been implemented in other countries including France, Denmark, Sweden, Italy, Switzerland and Japan. Although bicycle traffic is rarely an issue, a request to address a neighbourhood traffic problem may create an opportunity to enhance bicycle traffic.

Conversely, any solutions developed should not inadvertently impact bicycle traffic.

•

The Transportation Department will include bicyde requirements in their assessment of neighbourhood traffic problems and the development of neighbourhood traffic control schemes.

3.4 HIGH DEMAND ROUTES (Exhibit 3.3) The following high demand routes have been identified in the 1989 Bicycle User Survey.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

The entire river valley and ravine paved system.

The High Level Bridge and its approaches, ie: 109 Street from 61 Avenue to 111 Avenue Saskatchewan Drive, from Mill Creek Ravine to Groat Road 82 (Whyte) Avenue Groat Bridge/Groat Road/Saskatchewan Drive 100 Avenue/Jasper Avenue/104 Avenue/101 Street (downtown) 127 Street 97 Street, north of 118 Avenue Victoria Trail 137 Avenue 50 Street, Mill Woods to 137 Avenue 86 Street 106 Street, from 23 Avenue to 82 Avenue 115 Street/113 Street/112 Street 119 Street/122 Street/Belgravia Road Whitemud Drive/Quesnell Bridge/Fox Drive 87 Avenue/142 Street/102 Avenue/Stony Plain Road

PLANNING Page 3-6

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

These routes are listed above in their apparent priority, based on the information from the 1989 Bicycle User Survey. The surveys conducted by the Parks and Recreation Department confirm the very heavy usage of the river valley trails for recreational bicycling. The other identified high demand routes are consistent with the high generation of bicycle trips by the greater campus area, and by the downtown area. It is noted that with the exception of the western section of Saskatchewan Drive, 127 Street, 86 Street, and 106 Street, the high demand routes are on arterial roadways. Existing conditions on these identified high demand routes are discussed in detail in Appendix 6, with the exception of the river valley and ravine systems, which are the responsibility of the Parks and Recreation Department, and are addressed in their current planning for the extension of these trails.

•

The Transportation Department will initiate a review of the identified onstreet high demand routes on a priorized basis, and develop plans for any required improvements to the bicycling environment.

3.5 HIGH ACCIDENT LOCATIONS AND CORRIDORS (Exhibit 3.4) The reported bicycle accidents for the past five years (1985 to 1989) have been plotted on a map of the city. Three locations had six reported accidents over five years, and seven locations had five reported accidents over five years. These are as follows: • • • • • • • • • •

Bonnie Doon traffic circle 82 Avenue/83 Street intersection 82 Avenue/103 Street intersection 82 Avenue/104 Street intersection 82 Avenue/105 Street intersection 34 Avenue/106 Street intersection 109 Street/97 Avenue intersection 109 Street/102 Avenue intersection Jasper Avenue/102 Street intersection 142 Street/Stony Plain Road intersection

All these isolated locations, with the exception of the Bonnie Doon traffic circle, are on corridors of high bicycle and motor vehicle usage. The Bonnie Doon traffic circle is not on an identified high demand bicycle corridor, but it is a five-legged complex intersection, has a generally high accident record for all types of vehicles, and is adjacent to the Bonnie Doon High School.

The following corridors with an accident rate of seven or more accidents per kilometre over the same five year period have been identified: • • • • • • • • • • •

Jasper Avenue, 98 street to 117 Street 109 Street, 100 Avenue to 103 Avenue 109 Street, 70 Avenue to 88 Avenue 112 Street, 82 Avenue to 89 Avenue 82 Avenue, 95 Street to 112 Street 97 Street, 118 Avenue to 137 Avenue 101 Street, 118 Avenue to Jasper Avenue 87 Avenue, 109 Street to 116 Street Stony Plain Road, 137 Street to 156 Street 102 Avenue, 109 Street to 95 Street 107 Avenue, 101 Street to 109 Street

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

167

VENUE

153 AVE4JE

153 AVEN

/A 137 AVENLC 1

Lel

127 A

HUE

YELL YEL 0 HEAD TRAJL

118 AVENUE

118 AVFNI

Lcs 1— 41

141

AVEN UE

1:e

(1) ••11

• ..I11:11111 e

HIGH W AY 16

Cl AV

V

AVE 95 AVENUE 90 AVENiE cs, 87

VEN

WI-IITEMUD DRIVE 69 AVENUE 62 AVENUE

45 AV HUE

45 AVENL,E

41

3 AVEN 16 AVENUE

st

9 AVENUE In

170

LU

tel

VENUE

30 AVEN

41 AVENUE

(Based on the 1989 Bicycle User Survey)

HIGH DEMAND ROUTES EXHIBIT 3.3

J

215 STREET

199 STREET

184 STREET 178 ST EET 70 STREET

70 STREET

a; 163 STREET° 159 ST

STREET

156 STREET 49 STREET WHITEMUD DRIVE

01

SNOCIINNO0 CINV

142 STREET

142 STREET

119 STREET

113 TREET 113A ST

111 STREET

112 STR T

7 t4;

104 STREE

> 97 ST

PLGARY TRAIL

91 STREET

5 ST 75 ST

66 STREET

50 SIRE

34 STR T viaolOtt‘ STREET

17 STREET

RIDAN STREET

17 STREET NE

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

• •

PLANNING Page 3-7

178 Street, 76 Avenue to 95 Avenue 83 Avenue, 103 Street to 106 Street

With the exception of the last two corridors, all of these corridors experience high bicycle activity, as well as high general traffic volumes and high adjacent land use activities. High bicycle demand corridors with relatively low accident occurrence rates were typically free of onstreet parking, had lower general traffic volumes, or had special bicycle facilities. Class 1 and Class 2 facilities with high use/low accident characteristics were typically commuter routes, with good continuity, and few driveways, pararamps or intersections to be negotiated.

It should be noted that these "grey corridors" do not reflect a true bicycle accident rate, as no detailed information on bicycle usage is available. This analysis therefore shows only the relative apparent incidence of bicycle accidents along different roadways, and does not imply or indicate that any of these roadways are unusually dangerous to bicyclists.

Most of the above intersections and corridors correspond with high demand routes, and/or high generators of bicycle traffic, and are discussed in detail in Appendix 6. These corridors should be included in the analysis of bicycle routes requiring improvement, and any improvements priorized as part of the overall bicycle route improvement program.

•

The Transportation Department will initiate a review of the identified high accident locations and corridors on a priorized basis, and develop plans for any required improvements to the bicycling environment.

3.6 RAILS TO TRAILS OPPORTUNITIES (Exhibit 3.5) Rail service into downtown Edmonton for both passengers and freight has been declining for several years. It is possible that the rail rights-of-way owned by both C.N.R. and C.P.R. will be abandoned and become available for new development in the foreseeable future. Long, continuous rights-of-way into the centre of the city offer unique opportunities for the development of linear recreational, pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

C.P.R. (Whyte Avenue to Jasper Avenue) Rail operations have already ceased in this section of rail right-of-way, and Canadian Pacific is in process of divesting itself of the redundant infrastructure and right-of-way. An opportunity exists to develop a linear trail facility in this corridor, to provide a strong, attractive and continuous connection between Old Strathcona, the University area, the downtown, and the new Grant MacEwan Campus for pedestrians and bicycles. Advantage could be taken of the existing grade separation structures at Saskatchewan Drive, 97 Avenue and 99 Avenue. The High Level Bridge component is discussed elsewhere. From the routing information in the 1989 Bicycle User Survey, it appears that the 106 Street corridor, which is used to access the University area from the southwest, and the 100 Avenue corridor in Oliver and the downtown, could be most effectively connected directly into a linear trail along the C.P.R. right-of-way.

•

The Transportation Department will assess the feasibility of developing a linear trail system in the C.P.R. rail right-of-way north of 82 (Whyte) Avenue.

C.N.R. (Northeast) The C.N.R. rail right-of-way running northeast from the downtown VIA station at 101 Street to the C.N.R. mainline north of Yellowhead Trail at approximately 125 Avenue, is currently used

by VIA, C.N.R. freight operations, and by the L.R.T system. With the removal of the downtown rail yards, and the reductions in VIA service, heavy rail operations on these tracks have been significantly reduced. It may be possible to develop a continuous paved trail system in this right-of-way, although significant benefits to bicycle transportation are not evident. To

PLANNING Page 3-8

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

be effective as a downtown access route for bicycles, the route should connect directly into the northeast residential neighbourhoods, north of Yellowhead Trail/C.N.R. mainline However, the rail right-of-way north of the C.N.R. mainline is narrower than that to the south, is used by freight operations and L.R.T., and it therefore does not appear to be feasible to extend a trail in the right-of-way further north than 66 Street. South of 82 Street/112 Avenue, Jasper Avenue provides a direct and continuous connection into the downtown from both 82 Street and 112 Avenue. The rail right-of-way is immediately parallel to Jasper Avenue, but would not provide a better interface with the downtown street system than Jasper Avenue already does. The only existing grade separation structures across arterial roadways are 118 Avenue, and Yellowhead Trail; all other roadway crossings along this right-of-way are at-grade. Notwithstanding the above, some local recreation or accessibility functions may be fulfilled by the development of a trail system in the C.N.R. northeast right-of-way.

•

The development of a linear trail system in the existing C.N.R. right-ofway in the northeast should be considered on an opportunity basis.

C.N.R. (Northwest) The C.N.R. right-of-way running west from 116 Street then north along 121 Street to the Calder Yards immediately north of Yellowhead Trail, is used for freight operations. C.N.R. have indicated that this rail line will remain in operation as long as required to serve existing rail customers, but that if rail service is no longer required, then the trackage south of 118 Avenue could be abandoned. However, the track between 118 Avenue and the Calder Yards would still be required for marshalling purposes. The small numbers of bicyclists choosing to use the existing 121/119/116 Street corridor indicate that to be effective as a bicycle transportation facility, a paved trail in the 121 Street right-of-way would have to be much more attractive than the direct and continuous route already provided by 127 Street between 137 Avenue and Stony Plain Road. A facility in the 121 Street corridor would have to cross both the Yellowhead Trail and Calder Yards, and provide an attractive connection into the existing residential areas north of Yellowhead, and north of 137 Avenue. The corridor is crossed by only 118 Avenue, 111 Avenue, and 107 Avenue, and this continuity would have to be maintained. The existing rightof-way terminates at 116 Street/105 Avenue, and does not provide direct continuity with the downtown street system. Notwithstanding the above, some local recreation or accessibility functions may be fulfilled by the development of a trail system in the C.N.R. northeast right-ofway. •

The development of a linear trail system in the existing C.N.R. right-ofway in the northwest should be considered on an opportunity basis.

3.7 RECREATIONAL ROUTES The extensive system of paved and unpaved trails in the North Saskatchewan River Valley provides a unique recreational opportunity for bicyclists. The popularity of the bicycle trails is reflected in the Parks and Recreation Department's surveys of visits to the valley, which indicate that bicyclists are by far the largest single user group in the valley. This very popularity has however created some operational problems, which should be addressed.

Existing Paved Trails The existing paved trails in the river valley, which were originally conceived of and referred to as "bike trails", are now referred to as multi-use recreational trails, reflecting the reality that they are used by pedestrians, bicyclists, skateboarders, roller skiers, roller bladers, cross country skiers, etc. The majority of the existing paved trails are 3.0 metres wide, and during periods of peak demand, some users of the trails have reported experiencing difficulty or discomfort in sharing the trail. The typically-reported conflict is between bicycles and

215 STREET

199 STREET

184 STREET

170 STREET

170 STREET 6 63 STREET° 159 ST

STREET

156 STREET m 49 STREET WHITEMUD DRIVE

rn kr14 2 STREET A t 127 STREET

119 STREET

STREET

113A ST

111 STREET

112 STREET

K., -4

> 97 ST

m z A 91 STREET

82 STREET

66 STREET

50 SIR

< r2 34 STREET

34 STREET

rn VM01.01N 6 STREET

RIDAN STREET

17 STREET NE

NOILVIEOcISNVILalDisOIEI

104 STREET

A r %

12t1

1 NIIIIIIIRMIPI v 7::1r ,&,_11111,1.-.„ ..try:1z* 4/ 4' AY. , !MN i .A04.4„A:, tv 4 •

A •

I

Y'l ,•

STREET

A

,.......• 't 1 4

Plarrin kirE I I II I iggle 0.• I 414,1 IIIIII•MMIMIPI / Mr111.11*M=1111.111Na ‘• AVW11111"1"1 11?"

,4,f. , .4/ 11 . RI

,

Inn,

fx

•

4

v

-'%,v

,),,..f • ;‘ ,

A ' /

4' /

/

7.."'f, '

1' 11.

00i'r

A:4. 401111111ii

•, fr

AZ l',$ ' *•

iwitkL., .,

// /' Ay r dr

A

.

/FY

4

/

/,ZA /i

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

PLANNING Page 3-9

pedestrians; being a vehicle, the bicyclist is always expected to yield the right-of-way to the pedestrian. However, many bicyclists perceive the valley trails as being a "protected" environment, away from the more obvious dangers of motor traffic, and seem to abandon good riding practices, which include yielding right-of-way to all pedestrians. Similarly, it seems that many pedestrians also perceive the trails to be a "protected" environment, and are not prepared to deal with the usually faster-moving bicycle. Individuals in both user groups sometimes therefore react to sharing situations in unexpected ways, thereby creating conflict. The quiet and hence unexpected approach of a bicycle is commonly reported to be a cause of alarm to pedestrians.

These operational problems typically occur in all major off-road trail systems, to a greater or lesser degree. Solutions attempted to date in Edmonton include painting a centre-line on the trails, to act as a constant reminder that traffic, ie: bicycles, should keep to the right. Raised rumble strips have also been installed on steeper grades, in an attempt to keep bicycle speeds down, and to discourage small-wheeled recreational use, ie: skateboards, etc. An education program was also implemented in 1989, through schools in proximity to the river valley, and aimed mainly at bicyclists. None of these measures appear to have been effective in reducing the number of reported conflicts. Further options should be considered, on an experimental basis, and their effectiveness carefully assessed, to develop techniques that can then be applied to any future extension of the trails. â&#x20AC;˘

The Parks and Recreation Department should identify and experiment with optional ways of raising the awareness level of bicyclists, pedestrians, and other user groups in sharing the paved trails in the river valley.

Existing Unpaved Trails The original Capital City Recreation Park trail system included both paved trails (the "bike paths"), and a parallel system of unpaved trails, intended for pedestrians, hiking, etc. As noted above, pedestrians have always preferred to use the paved trails. With the dramatic growth in ownership and use of mountain bicycles over the last ten years, the unpaved trails throughout the river valley and ravines are now well-used by bicyclists, and the same conflicts that have always occurred on the paved trails are now occurring on the unpaved trails too. The current Parks Bylaw No. 2202 makes it illegal to operate a bicycle anywhere in parkland, except where permitted to do so by signs. To date this section of the Bylaw has only been selectively enforced. In 1990 it was enforced on three sections of unpaved trail: Whitemud Creek to Groat Bridge, which in some sections has a parallel trail intended exclusively for horses, and is used by the Equine Centre; Emily Murphy Park to Kinsmen Park, which is subject to bank erosion in plariks; and the trail around Riverside Golf Course, which seems to experience a higher than average rate of reported conflicts. Notwithstanding the Bylaw, and the enforcement activities, counts by the Parks and Recreation Department confirm that the largest user group on the trail from Whitemud Creek to Groat Bridge is bicyclists. An additional result of the significant increase in the use of mountain bicycles in the river valley has been new or increased slope erosion problems at certain locations, due to the creation and use of new, steep trails. There is also some concern that at certain locations, large numbers of mountain bicycles may be a principal contributor to latent erosion problems on soft ground.

The use of bicycles on the unpaved trails should be prohibited wherever bicycles are significant contributors to erosion problems, and where identified conflicts would be reduced by banning bicycles. Given the ubiquitous nature and operating capabilities of the mountain bicycle, it would be appropriate for the Parks and Recreation Department to take physical measures to prevent access by bicycle to any such areas. The Department's records of reported conflicts indicate that the majority of these occur at intersections of paved and unpaved trails, rather than along the trail itself. This indicates that localized physical design solutions may exist. The typically narrow and winding nature of the unpaved trails makes the use of an audible warning

PLANNING Page 3-10

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

device even more appropriate than on the paved trails. The unpaved surface makes any delineation to reinforce sharing of the trail impossible.

•

The Parks and Recreation Department should continue to identify and review locations where bicycle-pedestrian conflicts occur on the unpaved trails in the river valley, to determine if physical changes may help to reduce the possibility of conflicts.

Bicycle Access to the River Valley (Exhibit 3.6) The geography of the river valley and ravine system means that points of access to the trail systems from the general street and on-street designated bicycle route systems are limited.

Careful attention should therefore be paid to the location and details of access points, to ensure that the connections provided are strong, direct, and functional, and result in a properly integrated bicycle system. The planning for the extension of the trails upstream from the High Level Bridge should carefully integrate new access points with an achievable on-street designated bicycle route system, and the general street system, in the adjacent residential neighbourhoods.

The residential areas which are more remote from the river valley should have good, direct onstreet connections to the valley, to accommodate recreational bicyclists. The use of 86 Street and 50 Street between Mill Woods and the river valley, and 137 Avenue/Victoria Trail between the north-east and the river valley are good examples of this demand and function.

•

The Parks and Recreation Department and the Transportation Department will work to ensure that the river valley trail system and the complementary on-street bicyde routes are integrated.

On-Street Recreational Routes As discussed above in Section 3.3, residential neighbourhoods generate internal trips by nerqsional recreational bicyclists. These trips are typically accommodated on the general street network of collector and local roadways, sometimes supplemented by off-street paths and walkways in park areas and utility rights-of-way. In some neighbourhoods it may be possible to identify a continuous, internally-oriented on-street bicycle route, connecting community amenities and recreational opportunities. The planning of any such routes should be carried out with the active participation of the community (in existing residential neighbourhoods), so as to be sensitive to localized needs and expectations. The community must also be made aware that Class 3 on-street routes neither imply nor result in any increase in safety for the bicyclist. A preliminary inspection suggests that some of the existing Class 3 routes which are not fulfilling their intended function of attracting through bicycle trips away from parallel arterial roadways, could be adapted to become internal community-oriented routes. A system of neighbourhood bicycle routes in a proposed residential area should be identified at the Neighbourhood Structure Plan stage.

•

•

The Transportation Department, in conjunction with the Parks and Recreation Department, will develop a system of recreational bicycle routes within existing residential neighbourhoods, making use of opportunities created by walkways and utility rights-of-way, with appropriate connections to city-wide routes and facilities.

All Neighbourhood Structure Plans for new residential areas will include a system of recreational bicycle routes, making use of opportunities created by walkways and utility rights-of-way, with appropriate connections to city-wide routes and facilities.

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

ENGINEERING Page 4-1

4. ENGINEERING The geometric design of roadway facilities in Canada largely follows the "Manual of Geometric Design Standards for Canadian Roads", the latest edition of which was published in 1986 by the Roads and Transportation Association of Canada (now the Transportation Association of Canada). Roadways in Alberta which are cost-shareable with the Province of Alberta are required to be designed in accordance with this Manual, as supplemented from time to time by Alberta Transportation and Utilities.

Edmonton's roadways are therefore designed in accordance with these nationally-developed and recognized standards. The equivalent document for bicycle facilities is the "Guidelines for the Design of Bikeways", also published by R.T.A.C. in 1983. These guidelines cover a similar range of aspects of facility design as the roadway manual, and have been applied to some degree in the implementation of bicycle facilities in Edmonton.

4.1 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS A roadway designed to the R.T.A.C. Geometric Design Standards Manual will usually result in a perfectly adequate facility for motor vehicle and bicycle use. However, based on the actual operating experience of bicyclists as reflected in their responses to the various surveys, some aspects of roadway and bikeway design, as described in the Manaul and the Guidelines and/or as implemented in Edmonton, require revision.

Lane Widths (Exhibit 4.1) The overwhelming majority of bicycle trips are made on the general street system. In most locations, the street system is capable of accommodating all modes of transportation with acceptable levels of comfort. Where bicyclists operate on multi-lane roadways carrying large volumes of traffic, the typically slower operating speed of the bicycle can create some apprehension for both the operator of an overtaking vehicle and the bicyclist, if it is perceived that there is insufficient space in the traffic lane to overtake safely; the "car overtaking bicycle" type of accident accounts for approxianatPly 7% of reported bicycle accidents each year in Edmonton. In recent years, research has been carried out in both North America and Australia, to determine the appropriate width of curb lanes to provide improved levels of comfort for both bicyclists and overtaking motorists. The general conclusion of this research is that curb lane widths wider than 3.7 metres, but less than 4.3 metres, provide measurably higher levels of comfort for both user groups. The R.T.A.C. Manual and the Alberta Supplement define the standard roadway lane width as 3.7 metres. By combining a wider-than-standard curb lane with a narrower-than-standard inner lane, it is possible to minimi7E; the overall increase in pavement width.

Wide curb lanes can also be created on existing multi-lane roadways, through adjustments to the lane markings whenever a roadway is repaved or restriped. This is a zero-cost method of creating more effective space on roadways for bicycle operation. Minimum acceptable inner lane width standards would have to be developed, based on such factors as the types of vehicles likely to operate on the roadway, and the posted speed. â&#x20AC;˘

â&#x20AC;˘

The Transportation Department will approach Alberta Transportation and Utilities, with a view to recognizing wide curb lanes, up to a maximum width of 4.3 metres, as an acceptable standard on roadways designed to accommodate bicyde traffic.

The Transportation Department will develop and implement guidelines for the creation of wide curb lanes wherever practical, as part of the on-going roadway lane marking program.

ENGINEERING Page 4-2

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Gutter Widths (Exhibit 4.1) A primary function of vertical curb faces is to provide vehicle operators with a visual delineation of the edge of the roadway. There is a natural tendency for operators to shy away from the curb-face, and bicycles usually operate in the space left between the curb and the vehicles. The typical gutter is not usable by bicycles, as the longitudinal joint between the asphalt travel lane and the concrete gutter usually becomes an open irregular crack. Gutters also have a steeper crossfall than the travel lanes, and road debris is retained in the gutter. The lateral displacement of motor vehicles from the curbface is not sensitive to these details, therefore the wider the gutter then the narrower is the effective space which bicycles have to operate in. The Alberta Supplement to the R.T.A.C. Manual requires the construction of 500 mm gutters on costshareable roadways. This standard was introduced about twenty years ago, on the basis that the wide gutter would reduce ponding on roadways during heavy rainfalls. However, in locations with limited available right-of-way, 250 mm gutters have been accepted as cost-shareable, and constructed. A reduced gutter width saves land, reduces construction cost, and also creates a wider effective bicycle operating space.

By combining a wide curb lane with a reduced gutter width on roadways designed to accommodate bicycle travel, the incremental land and construction costs can be significantly reduced. Net savings might actually be achieved by combining a wide curb lane with a narrow inner lane and a reduced gutter width, whilst still accommodating motor vehicles, road drainage requirements, and an improved bicycling environment. â&#x20AC;˘

The Transportation Department will approach Alberta Transportation and Utilities with a view to recognizing reduced gutter widths of 250 mm as an acceptable standard on roadways designed to accommodate bicycle traffic.

Drainage Grates (Exhibit 4.2) Both the bikeway Guidelines and the R.T.A.C. Drainage Manual published by the Roads and Transportation Association of Canada recommend the provision of drainage grates which are bicycle-safe, wherever bicycle traffic may be expected, which in an urban environment is everywhere. These grates have openings which are narrow enough and short enough to ensure that bicycle wheels cannot drop into the grate, regardless of direction of travel. However, the City of Edmonton's standard details and specifications do not include any bicycle-safe drainage grates. â&#x20AC;˘

The Public Works Department and the Transportation Department will develop new standard details for bicycle-safe drainage grates, to replace the existing standard details, in all types of gutter and on all dasses of roadways.

Intersection Design The geometric design of at-grade roadway intersections is discussed at length in the R.T.A.C. Manual and the Alberta Supplement. The turning radii provided are usually determined by the practical turning radius of the largest vehicle anticipated to use the roadway, and the desired operating speed through the turn. Physical constraints, such as available right-of-way, or adjacent buildings, may affect the design. Bicycles are rarely present in sufficient numbers to have any direct impact on the geometric design, and are typically safely accommodated by a normal vehicular design. It has become accepted practice in Edmonton, as reflected in the Alberta Supplement, to provide the largest possible turning radius for right-turns at major intersections. Where no constraints exist, this typically becomes a three-centred compound curve, with radii of 60 m - 35 m - 60 m, which can be driven at speeds of 30 to 40 km/h. There is evidence that this design seems to result in an increased rate of "follow too close" accidents, due to the requirement for the operator to look over the left shoulder while driving the turn.

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

8.4 m 0.5m

3.7 m

3.7m

0.5m

CURB LANE

TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION OF ONE HALF OF A DIVIDED ARTERIAL ROADWAY

8.4m 0.25m

3.7 m

4.2 m

re.

0.25m

CURB LANE

MODIFIED CROSS - SECTION USING 250mm GUTTERS TO CREATE A WIDE CURB LANE

LANE AND GUTTER WIDTHS EXHIBIT 4.1

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MNMUTTH 'J ".1

•.,

•.• •-•

Direction of travel

-At-4_.

•1111 II 1,111 / 11111' 11.1'11 -A-

ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE GRATE PLACEMENT

DRAINAGE GRATES EXHIBIT 4.2

J

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

ENGINEERING Page 4-3

The ability to perform right-turns at these speeds is also a potential hazard to bicyclists executing the turn, and to through bicycle movements both upstream and downstream of the intersection which have to weave across the turning vehicles. There will also typically be pedestrian movements occuring at these intersections.

•

The Transportation Department will review the operation and design of right-turns at major intersections, with a view to improving vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian safety.

Ramp Design (Exhibit 4.3) The bikeway Guidelines and the City of Edmonton's standard details include ramps to provide access to Class I bicycle facilities. Curb ramps are also provided at all intersections to make the sidewalk system fully accessible to wheelchairs. Unfortunately this also makes the sidewalks fully accessible to bicycles, which in most cases is not desirable, and not legal unless permitted by signs. Recent testing has determined that the existing standard design of pararamp is accessible to all current types of wheelchair. Two aspects of earlier ramp designs, however, are not compatible with safe bicycle operation.

Ramp detailing includes a lip at the edge of the gutter. This lip is intended to delineate the end of the ramp, and to assist in maintaining a defined hydraulic drainage channel through the ramp area. In 1991, the City adopted a new standard detail specifying a lip of 10 mm over a distance of 1.5 m, replacing the previous standard of a height of 25 mm over a distance of 1.5 m.

However, many ramps have been constructed in the past under the previous standard; in practice, lip heights of more than 25 mm are not uncommon, and the effective width of the ramps at the gutter is typically less than 1.5 m. The height of a standard bicycle tire is approximately 30 mm, therefore expecting a bicycle to mount a vertical face of 25 mm is equivalent to a motor vehicle mounting a vertical face of some 125 mm.

The typical ramp layouts and locations in both the Guidelines and the city's standard details treat the ramps in a traditional "pedestrian" way: the bicyclist is required to almost come to a halt in the general traffic stream and make a sharp right turn to access the ramps. There are several locations in the city where the access ramps to designated Class I bicycle facilities are located so as to force the bicyclist to swing out into oncoming traffic flow, or to ride into on-coming traffic to access a ramp. The utilindion of some Class I facilities could likely be improved if they were readily accessible to bicyclists approaching them on the roadway. The requirement to angle access ramps so that bicycles can safely exit the traffic lane has been incorporated into the ramps constructed for bicycle traffic in 1991.

The current curb ramp construction program is addressing identified wheelchair access needs, and is anticipated that these will have been largely fulfilled by 1993. That program could then be extended to address the deficiencies in existing bicycle ramps.

•

•

The Public Works Department and the Transportation Department will develop new standard details for the design and construction of bicycle access ramps for Class I bicycle facilities.

The Transportation Department will extend the existing curb ramp construction program to address bicycle ramp reconstruction requirements.

Railing Heights (Exhibit 4.4) The R.T.A.C. bikeway Guidelines define the minimum acceptable railing height on structures adjacent to bicycle facilities to be 1.4 metres. In recent years, all new bridges in Edmonton have been constructed with the appropriate railing heights and a 1.5 metres offset between the travel lanes and the sidewalk. However there are some older structures with designated bicycle facilities, which have railings that are considerably lower than this. In particular the Mill

ENGINEERING Page 4-4

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Creek, MacKenzie, MacKinnon, Ramsey, and Groat Ravine bridges have railings at pedal height, ie: well below the centre of gravity of the bicycle and rider, between the designated bicycle facility and the roadway. Railings at this height are potentially more dangerous than no railings at all, as they reduce the width of the bicycle facility, do not contain an errant bicycle, increase the force of any impact on the bicyclist due to the lever-arm effect, and a bicyclist cannot regain control after striking such a low railing.

â&#x20AC;˘

The Transportation Department will ensure that all railings adjacent to designated bicycle facilities on structures are brought up to the appropriate height when maintenance work is carried out.

Bikeway Widths With the exception of some short sections where regular maintenance vehicle traffic was anticipated, the paved trails in the river valley and ravine system have been constructed to a standard width of 3.0 metres. The high usage of these trails by both bicyclists and pedestrians suggests that it may be appropriate to go to the desired R.T.A.C. width of 3.6 metres for a shared-use facility, thereby increasing the levels of comfort for both user groups. With a narrow path, occasional emergency, patrol, and maintenance motor vehicles impose wheel loadings close to the edges of the paved trail, which is inherently weaker at that location. This can result in rutting and/or ravelling of the edge of the pavement, which reduces the effective width of the trail, and increases maintenance requirements A paved width of 3.6 metres moves the wheel loads away from the edge of the pavement, and can therefore assist in extending the useful life of the trail. The 1990 "Community Cycling Manual" published by the Canadian Institute of Planners recommends a width of 4.0 metres for multi-use recreational trails. â&#x20AC;˘

The Parks and Recreation Department should consider implementing a trail width of up to 4.0 metres wherever warranted, in future extensions and on-going maintenance of the paved trail system in the river valley and ravines.

Bikeway Surfaces To date, bikeways and trails intended for use by bicycles have been constructed in asphalt, and occasionally concrete. These materials are used because they can provide a good riding surface, particularly asphalt. Concrete has a significantly higher initial cost than asphalt, but this is offset by significantly lower maintenance costs. A good hard riding surface is important for facilities accommodating through bicycle traffic, and paved surfaces should continue to be used in these locations. However, the use of unpaved surfaces may be appropriate for primarily recreational bicycling trails, as suggested in the R.T.A.C. Guidelines. An unpaved surface is typically cheaper to construct and maintain than a paved surface; provides a better riding surface in wet or slippery conditions; creates more tire noise than smooth pavement, so that approaching bicycles are more audible; cannot be used by small-wheeled recreational equipment; and results in lower bicycle operating speeds. These last benefits may assist in reducing the incidence of bicycle-pedestrian conflicts on shared-use recreational trails in the river valley. â&#x20AC;˘

The Parks and Recreation Department and the Transportation Department should consider constructing unpaved multi-use recreational trails in the river valley and ravines, and in top-of-bank rights-of-way.

Pavement Markings Existing City of Edmonton practices regarding pavement markings for bicycle facilities are considered to be acceptable, except for the use of thermoplastic paints. These materials are typically used for "permanent" markings, and have been used to create rumble strips, on the

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

1.7

'

150 mm CURB HEIGHT

1.7

2.0

10mm i

&

,

f VARIES

IIIII..-

SECTION A-A N.T.S.

PRELIMINARY RAMP DESIGN EXHIBIT 4.3

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

IrdiVIMEM !Loom sommuil IMEMEN

MP-rli

110.111111.

:0 11!2.

1

ili kp

If 113

EXISTING CONDITION ON MILLCREEK, MACKENZIE, MACKINNON, RAMSEY AND GROAT RAVINE BRIDGES

n

!Iliftlw â&#x20AC;¢ 010

PROPOSED MAINTENANCE ENHANCEMENT

TYPICAL RAILINGS ON NEW STRUCTURES

RAILING HEIGHTS EXHIBIT 4.4

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

ENGINEERING Page 4-5

river valley paved trails and in a few locations on the on-street system. When wet, these markings are extremely slippery, and their use on bicycle trails and facilities should be avoided.

•

The Transportation Department and the Parks and Recreation Department will review the use of thermoplastic pavement markings and rumble strips on bicycle facilities.

Route Signs Existing City of Edmonton practices regarding bicycle route signing are considered to be acceptable. Adequately signed routes are of benefit to bicyclists new to the city, to occasional recreational bicyclists, and to new bicyclists. It is therefore essential that clear and complete signing be maintained on an on-going basis.

•

The Transportation Department will continue to maintain and enhance as nerewary the on-street bicycle route signing.

Bicycle Racks (Exhibits 4.5, 4.6) The description of bicycle parking facilities in the R.T.A.C. Guidelines has been superseded by the development and widespread use of U-locks in recent years, and the increasing use of quickrelease wheels. A practical, secure bicycle rack must hold the bicycle frame (not the wheels), in an upright position, and allow for both the frame and at least the front wheel to be U-locked to an immovable object. Racks which hold the bicycle by the wheel(s), or which require written instructions on how to use them, are not functional, and are typically avoided by bicyclists.

There are several styles of bicycle racks which fulfill the functional requirements: hoop racks, post-and-ring, ribbon racks, and simple rails set into the front of a building at the appropriate height. All are characterized by their simplicity. Racks should be located in visible, welltrafficked areas, or in access-controlled or monitored structures.

•

The City of Edmonton should ensure that all bicycle racks installed in the city are functional and provide secure bicycle parking.

Stairways There are several wooden stairways providing pedestrian access, typically to and from the river valley, in Edmonton. Most of these stairways have been fitted with bicycle gutters on one side, and on both sides in locations of high bicycle use, to allow bicycles to make use of these facilities. This low-cost practice provides bicyclists with additional choices of route.

•

The Transportation Department will continue to provide and maintain bicycle gutters on stairways.

4.2 MAINTENANCE Good maintenance of the riding surface of bicycle facilities is a significant safety issue. Uneven surface conditions can be the direct cause of a fall from the bicycle, with the rider quite possibly falling into the path of other vehicles. Sudden manoeuvres to avoid unexpected surface hazards can also place the bicycle in the path of other vehicles. The requirement for additional roadway maintenance of bicycle facilities and roadways used by bicyclists was first identified in the 1973 Survey, and is consistently raised as an on-going concern by bicyclists, yet this critical aspect of safe bicycle transportation has not been explicitly addressed to date.

Potholes Potholes are the most obvious surface hazard that a bicycle has to contend with. The bicycle normally operates immediately adjacent to the curb, which is exactly where the incidence of

ENGINEERING Page 4-6

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

potholes is the greatest. Deterioration of the longitudinal joint between the asphalt pavement and the concrete curb and gutter, and of the transverse construction joints in the concrete base slabs of older pavements permits water to enter the pavement structure. During freeze-thaw cycles breakup of the pavement structure occurs, creating potholes; the combined action of traffic and water enlarges the pothole. Additional damage to the pavement in the curb lane is typically found at transit zones and intersection approaches, caused by the braking loads of heavy vehicles. Longitudinal cracks in the roadway surface are also a potential hazard to a bicycle. Cracks with a width of only 25 mm can result in loss of control if hit at the wrong angle, and can also result in punctures and even wheel damage.

Increasing attention is being paid to extending pavement life, by improving construction details and specifications, earlier resurfacing, and expeditious treatment of potholes and cracks. Major resurfacing requirements are identified by an established pavement management system. Some pothole filling and patching may be deferred, if that particular roadway is scheduled for resurfacing in the current or following year.

â&#x20AC;˘

The Transportation Department will continue to respond to reported potholes and other pavement irregularities on roadways and on-street bicycle facilities.

Sweeping General wheeled traffic has the effect of sweeping gravel and other road debris towards the gutter, where bicycles typically operate. Residue from winter sanding operations is a particular problem in the spring, before the regular street cleaning program can remove it. All roadways in Edmonton are cleaned and swept on a regular basis. Arterial roadways are swept once a week; collector roadways are swept every two weeks; local streets are swept twice a year; all reported incidents of debris on the road are dealt with within 48 hours. As the more important arterial roadways already receive priority cleaning and sweeping, it should not be necessary to specify additional priorities for high demand bicycle routes. However, Class I and Class H designated bicycle facilities do not at this time have any priority for cleaning and sweeping. The cleaning of sidewalks is the responsibility of the abutting owner; the Transportation Department cleans all sidewalks abutting City-owned property. As 127 Street is a collector roadway, the Class II bicycle facility does not receive arterial-type cleaning, although it is in practice an "arterial" route for bicycles. 89 Avenue is a local street, and therefore this Class II facility is cleaned only twice a year. â&#x20AC;˘

The Transportation Department will develop a cleaning and sweeping program for designated Class I and Class II bicycle facilities.

Snow Clearing The increasing use of the bicycle throughout the year has resulted in a demand for enhanced snow clearing procedures. Snow is ploughed and removed from the designated snow routes on a priority basis: hills, the downtown area, arterial roadways, collector roadways, lanes, and finally residential streets. Current practice is to plough approximately 150 mm away from the curb face, to minimin- damage to curbs, Otters, and catchbasin grates. Even so, catchbasin grate damage alone amounted to $70,000 over the 1989/1990 winter season. The designated snow routes coincide with all the high demand bicycle routes, and no additional on-street priorities should be required. However, Class I and Class II designated bicycle facilities do not at this time have any priority for snow clearing; at present, Class I facilities are ploughed on a complaint basis.

Each winter since 1989/90, the Parks and Recreation Department has experimented with snow ploughing on the paved trails in the river valley, initially on a loop close to the downtown. This has been well received by the bicycling community, and other user groups. Parallel ski trails

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

HOOP RACK

RING AND POST

RIBBON RACK

THE WALL BAR

BICYCLE RACKS EXHIBIT 4.5 I

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

\ \ \ \ \

c,

.

of

))

, ,,

\ \ \

,

o'

\ \

, 0

\

\

.

,,,

\ , ,

BICYCLE RACK PLAN

BICYCLE PARKING FACILITY EXHIBIT 4.6 \..

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

ENGINEERING Page 4-7

have been set wherever the paved trails are ploughed, to accommodate this activity. However, extensive icing occurs between the two windrows of ploughed snow during freeze-thaw cycles, and so packing of snow on the trails has been suggested as an alternative to ploughing. Packed trails would have the additional benefit of accommodating skiing on the same trail. There is insufficient experience to date with either ploughing or packing of snow to indicate which may be the preferred method.

â&#x20AC;˘ â&#x20AC;˘

The Transportation Department will develop a snow removal program for designated Class I and Class II bicycle facilities.

The Parks and Recreation Department should continue to experiment with alternative winter treatments of paved trails in the river valley.

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

EDUCATION Page 5-1

S. EDUCATION While a person may not operate a motor vehicle on the public highway without having first passed a test of competency, any person of any age may legally operate a bicycle on the public highway, with no training whatsoever. A lack of safe traffic skills on the part of bicyclists is a frequent complaint of motorists. Similarly, a lack of knowledge on the part of motorists of the special difficulties that a bicyclist faces in traffic is a frequent complaint of bicyclists. With the increase in bicycle use, improved bicycle education for all road users is considered a high priority. In response to this growing need, several agencies have developed bicycle education programs that are presently available within Edmonton. The oldest established program is the Pedal Pushers, which has been taught to young children for over forty years, but most programs have been developed only in the last decade. With the notable exception of the Can-Bike programs of the Canadian Cycling Association, the programs are aimed at children, and are typically available through schools or community leagues. All the programs teach safe vehicular bicycling, and although many of the education programs described below have been carefully developed over some time to address the specific needs of their target audience, it is suggested that all would benefit from some updating and enhancements based on the C.C.A.'s Can-Bike model.

All safety and education courses now emphasize the use of approved bicycle helmets by all bicyclists at all times, as an essential personal-injury prevention measure It is estimated that in Canada, up to 90% of all cyclists' deaths result from head injuries, and helmets are widely advocated as a preventative measure against head trauma and brain injury. Interestingly, there is still strong resistance to the wearing of bicycle helmets in some of the "traditional" bicycling countries of Europe. The most common concern is that mandatory helmet regulations may be introduced by governments as a quick and cheap alternative to the provision of real safety measures based on education and properly-designed facilities. In Denmark it has been suggested that the benefits of bicycling in promoting longer, healthier lives should be weighed against the accident risks involved, with the interesting conclusion that mandatory helmet laws could actually result in a disbenefit overall in terms of man-years saved, due to their assumed negative impact on the use of bicycles.

In addition to the long-recognized requirement to educate bicyclists in traffic safety, it is now recognized that there is a requirement to educatf- bicyclists (and other users) in safe operational techniques for shared-use trails in the off-street environment. The problems currently being experienced in Edmonton on the popular river valley and ravine trail systems are discussed above in Section 3.7.

5.1 CANADIAN CYCLING ASSOCIATION PROGRAMS The Canadian Cycling Association (CCA) is the official governing body for cycling in Canada.

Established in 1882, the CCA is funded predominantly from federal grants, and its main emphasis is on bicycle racing. However, its mandate also includes the promotion of safe and efficient cycling, and of the rights and duties of cyclists. The CCA offers a number of bicycle education programs, adapted from the well established and highly regarded "Effective Cycling" courses developed some years ago in the United States. These "Can-Bike" courses are overseen locally by the Alberta Bicycle Association (ABA), and are taught by CCA-certified instructors.

Can-Bike I The Can-Bike I course is a basic course for beginners and occasional cyclists. The course is sixteen hours long, with sixty percent classroom instruction and forty percent road training, and is designed to be the basic national standard for bicycling education. Upon completion of this course, participants should feel confident enough to ride regularly and safely for utilitarian and recreational purposes.

EDUCATION Page 5-2

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Can-Bike II The Can-Bike II course teaches advanced riding skills and traffic cycling proficiency. The course length is twenty-one-hours, with five three-hour classes and one six-hour day ride. Upon completion of this course, participants should be able to ride safely with competence and confidence in varied conditions of traffic, weather and terrain.

Cycling Freedom For Women The Cycling Freedom For Women course is a basic bicycling course designed for women. It introduces the basics of bicycle equipment, simple bicycle maintenance, cycling in traffic, and family cycling. The course includes classroom instruction and group rides. Currently the ABA is awaiting course instructors and sufficient interest prior to re-introducing this course in Edmonton.

The above courses are unique in that they are oriented towards adult bicyclists, (a similar course for young adults is being developed), combine theory with practice, and are taught only by properly-trained and experienced bicyclists. Despite the high quality of training provided, these courses suffer from a lack of public profile, and a lack of interest in and awareness of bicycle education by adults.

â&#x20AC;˘

The Transportation Department, in conjunction with the Safety Councils, should consider the promotion of adult bicycle education.

5.2 EDMONTON POLICE SERVICE Edmonton Police Service, using specially trained police officers (Safety Officers) from their Education Unit, provides a number of bicycle and traffic safety programs for young people in Edmonton. These programs are available on request, through community groups or schools.

Right-Riders Bicycle Rodeo The Right-Riders Bicycle Rodeo is a one or two-day community-oriented event, usually held off-street in large open paved parking lots. It is aimed at three levels of participants: Kindergarten to Grade 2; Grades 3 and 4; and Grades 5 and 6. Children at each level are evaluated on both a written safety and traffic test, and a bicycle skill (obstacle) riding test.

Traffic Safety Program The Traffic Safety Program is a general program available through the schools. The primary targets are Grades 4, 5, and 6, and program content includes pedestrian safety, bicycle safety, skateboard safety, and seat belt safety. The children are given a fifteen-minute talk on safety, and are then provided an opportunity to show their knowledge and understanding of the safety presentation by drawing a poster.

Bicycle Safety Program The Bicycle Safety Program focuses on bicycle safety for young children, and is available through the schools. The main focus of the program is injury prevention strategies for young bicyclists, in addition to basic traffic rules and safety. A twenty-five minute video entitled "Bicycle Safety Camp" is followed by an open discussion hosted by the Safety Officer.

The Constable Barney Program The Constable Barney Program is a basic personal safety program available through the schools.

The program is presented at two levels: Kindergarten to Grade 3, presenting basic rules of safe conduct at home and outside of home, and Grades 4 to 6, which includes bicycle safety and basic traffic rules, in a classroom setting. Children are encouraged to participate in a safety discussion throughout the presentation.

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

EDUCATION Page 5-3

With the exception of the bicycle rodeo events, the above courses do not involve any on-street or simulated practice, and their effectiveness in teaching safe bicycling is therefore reduced.

•

The Edmonton Police Service should continue to provide bicycle safety programs through the schools and community leagues, with increased emphasis on programs such as bicycle rodeos that include practical training.

Neighbourhood Foot Patrol In 1991 the Neighbourhood Foot Patrol had twenty Constables equipped with mountain bicycles and helmets for law enforcement use. These officers are active participants in the bicycle rodeo events, and along with the Safety Officers of the Education Unit are involved with organizations such as the Alberta Safety Council in enhancing and updating cyclist education programs like the Pedal Pushers Program (see Section 5.6 below). The Parks Patrol Unit also uses bicycles.

Currently, no specific bicycle training is provided to the officers.

•

The Edmonton Police Service should consider requiring that their bicyclemounted officers and the Safety Officers take a recognized adult bicycle education course.

5.3 ALBERTA TRANSPORTATION - SAFETY EDUCATION PROGRAM The Motor Transport Services Safety Branch of Alberta Transportation and Utilities has had a Safety Education Program available through schools in Alberta since .1981. The Program targets three levels of school children: Level I, play-school to kindergarten; Level II, Grades 1-3; and, Level III, Grades 4-6. The program covers basic traffic rules and safe cycling tips, as well as seat belt use, pedestrian safety, and school bus safety. The level of detail incre.asPs with the grade taught, from a fifteen minute presentation for Level I to a thirty minute presentation for Level ILE. These courses do not involve any significant on-street or simulated practice, and their effectiveness in teaching safe bicycling is therefore reduced.

Alberta Education has included bicycle safety practices as one of the topics to be covered under the theme of Safety and First Aid in the Grade 4 Health curriculum for all schools in Alberta, but these are more commonly taught as an extra-curricular activity through the courses offered

by Alberta Transportation, or one of the organizations mentioned below.

•

The Transportation Department, in association with Alberta Transportation and Utilities, should approach Alberta Education, with a view to enhancing the existing bicycle safety and skills component of the school curriculum in Alberta.

5.4 EDMONTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS Edmonton Public Schools (EPS), through their Bennett Environmental Education Centre, have been providing a basic bicycle riding program for about eleven years. This half-day course is available to students, typically in Grades 5 and 6, as part of the overall short-term residential program, and is held in two ci-Asions. The first session of about two hours includes basic safety instruction and some practice riding. The second cession is a two how bicycle trail ride along the river valley, emphasizing correct bicycle trail use and etiquette. Bicycles and bicycle helmets are supplied by the EPS for use in this program. Typically the instructors have no formal training in bicycle education.

In contrast to the extreme popularity of the other activities offered by the Bennett Environmental Education Centre, their bicycling program is rarely requested.

EDUCATION Page 5-4

•

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The Transportation Department will approach the Edmonton Public Schools with a view to enhancing the bicycle education opportunities for students in Edmonton.

5.5 EDMONTON CATHOLIC SCHOOLS Edmonton Catholic Schools (ECS) and the City of Edmonton Parks and Recreation Department provide an Outdoor Pursuits Program for ECS students in Grades 5 and 6, and junior and senior high school, with additional funding from the Alberta Sport Council. ECS owns and supplies the mountain bicycles (about 105 in total) and the bicycle helmets used in this Program; the Parks and Recreation Department supplies facilities and instructors. All instructors are qualified outdoor education specialists and university physical education graduates with additional inhouse training in each of the Program areas. The mountain biking portion of the program is offered as a half or one-day course, at either Gold Bar Park or Victoria Park, emphasizing basic mountain biking techniques, trail riding etiquette and safety, and including a trail ride. ECS High School students also have the opportunity of participating in a supervised weekend highway bicycle tour, such as the popular Jasper-Banff tour. Typically the instructors have no formal training in bicycle education.

The ECS also offers a three credit Industrial Education course which includes bicycle mechanics as a major component: the students in the course dismantle and recondition all the ECS mountain bicycles in readiness for the next Outdoor Pursuits Program.

In addition, the ECS and the Parks and Recreation Department offer bicycle skills and safety courses to the general public over the summer months (July/August). Bicycles and helmets are supplied by the ECS for these courses.

• The ECS Outdoor Pursuit courses, introduced in 1990, have proven to be very popular, but the focus on mountain bike trail riding restricts their effectiveness as general bicycle safety courses.

•

The Transportation Department will approach the Edmonton Catholic Schools with a view to enhancing the bicycle education opportunities for students in Edmonton.

5.6 EDMONTON SAFETY COUNCIL The Edmonton Safety Council in a voluntary, non-profit, non-government organization formed in 1946, and is concerned with all aspects of personal safety, including traffic safety. The Council is affiliated with both the Alberta Safety Council and the Canada Safety Council; the Transportation Department has representatives on the Boards of both the Edmonton and the Alberta Safety Councils.

The Pedal Pusher Program has been active in Alberta since 1950. The program is usually provided through community leagues, using volunteer instructors, and is aimed at elementary school children. It is held on a hard surfaced area such as a large parking lot, in seven sessions of about one hour each. Basic bicycle riding skills, traffic rules, traffic behavior and courtesy are taught. Currently the Safety Councils are reviewing the Pedal Pusher program with a view to updating the course content.

Edmonton Safety Council, in a joint venture with the Kiwanis Club, have recently commenced development of a new children's safety training centre. The "Kiwanis Safety City" is designed to realistically simulate true to life situations, so that more effective traffic (and other) safety course can be provided for children.

•

The Transportation Department will continue to work with the Safety Councils, to improve the quality and availability of bicycle education programs for all age groups.

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

EDUCATION Page 5-5

5.7 SOLICITOR GENERAL The Motor Vehicles Division of the Alberta Solicitor General's Department main efforts to educate the driving public occur at the driver's licence application stage. The primary purpose of the Province's driver-licensing system is to supervise driving habits and to apply enforcement where necessary. Prior to receiving a driver's licence, the applicant must first pass a written examination on safe driving practices and the law, and pass a road driving test. Motor Vehicles Division produces a driver handbook which emphasi7Ps safe driving through the direct application by the driver of knowledge, skill, and proper attitude. The handbook does include information on basic pedestrian and cyclist safety, but the written examination does not include any questions relating directly to bicycle operation.

In the mid-1980's, some changes were made to the bicycling information included in the Driver's Handbook after discussions between the Transportation Department and the Motor Vehicles Division. It may now be appropriate to provide some further enhancement of this material, in order to raise the awareness of motor vehicle operators of special bicycle requirements. â&#x20AC;˘

The Transportation Department will approach the Solicitor General, with a view to reviewing and updating bicyde information in the Driver's Handbook.

5.8 SAFETY CAMPAIGNS Several agencies presently have bicycle safety campaigns in Edmonton, using various forms of advertising to encourage safe riding practices and personal safety. Generally, advertising is viewed as being a very direct and effective way of communicating a message to the target audience.

Edmonton Police Service's "Barney The Safety Bear" advertising campaign promotes bicycle, traffic, and general safety to young children throughout the City's school system. The Police Service's educational campaign also benefits from significant involvement of the local media (radio, T.V., newspapers).

Edmonton Safety Council, representing the Canada Safety Council, the Motorcycle and Moped Industry Council, and Transport ransul2, promotes the "Roads Are For Sharing" message.

Alberta Transportation promotes a similar message province-wide.

The Grey Nuns Hospital Bicycle Helmet Coalition adopted the slogan "Safety's Gone To the Head" for their new (1991) bicycle helmet campaign. Based on ideas initiated by the Injury Awareness and Prevention Centre of the University of Alberta Hospital in 1989, and from several similar programs in the United States, the campaign used the media, city-wide advertising, education presentations and displays, and discounts through bicycle retailers to promote helmet use, especially by children.

The Alberta Motor Association, in addition to its sponsorship of the School Safety Patrol, also promotes bicycle rodeos and bicycle riding safety in general throughout the province.

Private business and corporate sponsorship of safety campaigns is also very important.

Examples includes Petro Canada's and McDonald's Restaurants' sponsorship of bicycle rodeos.

The Transportation Department assists in a number of safety campaigns through the funding, production, and installation of billboards and busboards. The safety campaign billboard schedule for 1991 included the "Safety's Gone To The Head" bicycle Helmet campaign, in

EDUCATION Page 5-6

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

addition to Motorcycle Awareness Month, Check Stop, Pedestrian Safety Month, and Safe Driving Week.

The Transportation Department, in conjunction with other agencies as â&#x20AC;˘ appropriate, will work to improve and raise the profile of the bicyde component in existing and future safety campaigns.

5.9 OFF-STREET TRAIL SAFETY The extreme popularity of Edmonton's river valley and ravine trail systems for both bicyclists and pedestrians has created a requirement for the education of all user groups, to ensure safe sharing of the trail. The "Cycle Edmonton" map includes both a map of the river valley paved trails, and a section on rules for bicyclists using the trails. Reinforcement of this information, and its dissemination to all trail users may assist in making the trail systems safely accessible to all users. â&#x20AC;˘

The Parks and Recreation Department should assess the feasibility of making educational programs available to all users of the river valley and ravines trail systems.

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

ENCOURAGEMENT Page 6-1

6. ENCOURAGEMENT Bicycling is the single most popular form of recreation in Edmonton's river valley, with an estimated 1,100,000 visits by bicycle in 1991. This indicates that there is a tremendous latent possibility for increased use of the bicycle as a mode of transportation in Edmonton.

In addition to the provision of facilities and other "hard" engineering measures, there are several ways in which the City of Edmonton can, and already does, encourage bicycling in general.

6.1 BICYCLE MAP Many cities and municipalities across North America now produce and distribute a bicycle map.

These maps typically show designated bicycle facilities, and include a summary of applicable traffic laws, legal requirements, safety information, and contacts in the local bicycling community. Some cities also identify preferred bicycle routes, as well as routes not recommended for bicycles, and highlight any special hazards The maps are typically for free distribution only, and are of special benefit to new, inexperienced bicyclists, and also bicyclists new to that city.

The cities of Edmonton and Calgary, and Alberta Transportation and Utilities (for the Provincial highway system) produce special maps, with safety and other information included. The "Cycle Edmonton" map has been produced for over fifteen years, and the annual demand for the map is now of the order of 30,000 copies. In addition to the on-street system, a map of the river valley trails and some information on the river valley parks is included. The inclusion of safety information makes the map a very popular item for bicycle educators, and the effectiveness of the map in promoting safe riding practices and assisting in bicycle education should not be overlooked. â&#x20AC;˘

The Transportation Department will continue to update and produce the "Cycle Edmonton" map.

6.2 END OF TRIP FACILITIES The lack of bicycle-specific end of trip facilities is commonly identified by bicyclists as a concern, and also as an impediment to the use of the bicycle by would-be bicyclists. Secure, sheltered parking and changing facilities are effective incentives to increased bicycle commuting: since the 1987 installation of improved bicycle parking and shower facilities at Vancouver City Hall, the number of civic employees commuting by bicycle increased from one percent to over four percent in just one year.

By taking the initiative of ensuring that all City facilities provide adequate facilities for bicycles, the City of Edmonton would be setting an example for the private sector to follow.

Design of Bicycle Parking Facilities (Exhibits 4.5, 4.6) The primary functional requirement of an effective bicycle parking facility is that it provide security against theft, and preferably also protection from the weather. The design of effective bicycle racks is discussed in Section 4.1. Racks should be located in visible, well-trafficked areas, or in access-controlled or monitored structures. Depending upon the particular rack used, and the overall layout, up to fifteen bicycles can be securely parked in the same space as one car.

In many parkades in Toronto, bicycle parking spaces were recently created, to the reported great satisfaction of both the operators, who had an increase in revenue, and the bicyclists, who were provided with secure and covered parking.

ENCOURAGEMENT Page 6-2

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Provision of Bicyde Parking Facilities in New Developments All new developments in Edmonton provide parking and loading facilities in accordance with the requirements of the Land Use Bylaw. The Planning and Development Department is in the process of developing a draft amendment to the Land Use Bylaw, that would require the provision of bicycle parking facilities in all new developments.

•

The Planning and Development Department should prepare and submit to City Council for their consideration, an amendment to the Land Use Bylaw requiring the provision of bicycle parking facilities in all new developments.

Provision of Bicycle Parking Facilities in Existing Developments There is no mechanism whereby the City could force any existing development or property owner to provide bicycle parking facilities. However, there are several ways in which the City of Edmonton can, and has, assisted in the retrofitting of bicycle parking facilities.

If a private developer or property owner wishes to install a bicycle rack, but the only reasonable location is on road right-of-way, the City Administration can use its powers of discretion to permit the installation of a rack on road right-of-way, provided that public safety is in no way affected.

Wherever major streetscape improvements are being implemented, either by the City or jointly by the City and a business organization, bicycle racks should be included if the adjacent land uses may generate bicycle traffic. Hoop racks were included in the Whyte Avenue and Stony Plain Road improvements.

As a major employer, landowner, and facilities operator, the City of Edmonton could take a significant initiative, and ensure that adequate and secure bicycle parking facilities are provided at all job sites and facilities, for both employees and customers. It is noted that all City accommodations and legsM space in the downtown do already have some bicycle facilities, but most of these do not fulfill the basic functional requirements of security and protection.

• •

The City of Edmonton should continue to encourage the provision of secure bicycle parking facilities in existing developments.

The City of Edmonton should provide adequate and secure bicycle parking facilities at all City-owned buildings.

Provision of Changing Facilities for Bicyclists Changing facilities for bicyclists should include changing rooms, showers, and lockers for storage of clothes and equipment. These are obviously much more expensive to install, operate and maintain than a bicycle rack, and are correspondingly much more difficult to justify.

Washrooms can typically fulfill the requirements, to some degree. It is believed that only one municipality in North America (Palo Alto, California) requires the provision of changing facilities for bicyclists in new developments. In view of the costs involved, it is suggested that provision of changing facilities for bicyclists be left up to individual building owners at this time, to satisfy their own identified requirements. The City of Edmonton should however encourage this practice where appropriate, and again should take the initiative by ensuring that adequate changing facilities for City employees are provided at all job sites.

• •

The City of Edmonton should encourage the provision of changing facilities for bicyclists where appropriate.

The City of Edmonton should ensure that adequate changing facilities for City employees are provided at all City-owned and occupied buildings.

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

ENCOURAGEMENT Page 6-3

6.3 INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION One of the typical concerns regarding the viability of increased bicycle commuting in cities such as Edmonton, is that suburban sprawl has resulted in many trip lengths being beyond the perceived range of a bicyclist. A simple, low-cost way of overcoming this, at least for some potential users, is to accommodate bicycles on the transit system. Current activities in this area are discussed below. Other opportunities will be examined as they may arise.

Bike-Park-Ride The concept of park'n'ride for cars is well established in the transit industry, and to extend this concept to include bicycles is a small step. Indeed, in several of the much more denselypopulated developed countries, especially Japan, bike'n'ride is an essential component of urban transportation systems. Several major bicycle parking structures, accommodating thousands of bicycles, have been built at suburban Japanese rail stations in recent years. Bicycle racks have so far been installed at six of Edmonton's twenty-eight transit centres and L.R.T. stations, with little impact to date. A major concern of potential users is the security of bicycles left at transit centres.

• •

The Transportation Department will continue to install bicycle parking facilities at transit centres and L.R.T. stations, as funds permit.

The Transportation Department will continue to monitor the demand for and use of bicycle racks at L.R.T. and transit centres.

Bike-Carry-Bike Several North American transit properties operating rail transit permit bicycles to be carried on the rail cars. There are often restrictions on time periods when this is permitted, typically offpeak and weekends, and restrictions on where the bicycles can by placed in the cars. A few properties have also equipped buses with external bicycle racks, and permit bicycles to be carried on certain routes.

In 1991 Edmonton Transit initiated a one-year experiment of permitting bicycles to be carried on the L.R.T. system, during off-peak hours. Consideration has also been given to installing external racks on the summer Route 123, again on an experimental basis, but this latter concept has not been implemented due to practical and liability problems. The impact of the bikes on L.R.T. experiment is currently being assessed. The physical difficulties of ar-cessing the underground stations in the downtown and the University campus may mitigate against any significant use by bicycles.

•

The Transportation Department will continue to monitor the use of the bikes-on-L.R.T. experiment, and develop recommendations for further action on completion of the experiment.

6.4 BICYCLE TOURING While Edmonton may not appear to be an obvious centre for bicycle touring, the unique opportunities created by the trails in the river valley have been described in detail in bicycle touring books, and are regularly included in travel and tourist publications for the city and the province. Most recently, the locally-produced 1991 "Alberta Bicycle Vacation Guide", distributed across North America, includes descriptions of both the river valley trails, and some of the rural rides in the Edmonton area. The Parks and Recreation Department also recently assisted the Edmonton Bicycle and Touring Club in the production and publication of a short series of bicycle tour guides for the Edmonton region.

The benefits of making people aware of the possibilities for bicycle touring in and around Edmonton include additional tourist dollars, but more importantly provide information to beginning local bicyclists as to the further opportunities and experiences that bicycling offers.

ENCOURAGEMENT Page 6-4

•

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The City of Edmonton should continue to promote bicyde touring in and around Edmonton.

6.5 BICYCLE RACING Bicycle racing is reported to be the second most popular participant sport world-wide (behind soccer), and is enjoying an increasingly-high public profile and increased media attention in North America. The number of licensed bicycle racers in Alberta has increased from about seventy in the mid-1970's to ten times that number today. The advent of triathlons and mountain biking has further increased the number of bicycle racers in Alberta.

While there are archival records of bicycle racing in Edmonton going back to the early years of the century, it was not until the staging of the 1978 Commonwealth Games in Edmonton that the City really became actively involved with the sport. Continued support for bicycle racing will assist in introducing more people to the sport, and thence to the many other aspects and benefits of bicycling.

Road Racing The promotion of a road-race on city streets (bicycle or foot race) is controlled by the Special Roadway Event regulations contained in Section 902 of the Traffic Bylaw #5590. These appear to be working well, and there have been no significant difficulties with race promotion within the city in recent years. The two city courses currently used regularly for bicycle racing are the Commonwealth Games course, on Groat Road, which is usually used only once a year for the major "Cycle Edmonton" promotion, and the Roper Road circuit, which is used frequently as it is a simple and safe circuit that can be easily closed with no impact on traffic. However, at some point in the future, the convenient Roper Road course will likely be lost when the surrounding industrial lands are developed. Some major cities have constructed off-street road racing circuits, similar to but much shorter than car racing circuits. Typically incorporated into public parks, but carefully laid out to facilitate safe racing, such circuits exist in Mexico City, Colorado Springs, Moscow, and London, and are reported to be under consideration in Victoria and Trexlertown, Pa. Opportunities to develop such a facility may exist in currently undeveloped parks, such as Terwillegar Park, and Hermitage Park, and the Clover Bar disposal site, when it is reclaimed. Other possible locations for such a facility may also exist in the city.

•

The Parks and Recreation Department, in conjunction with user groups, should assess the feasibility of developing an off-street road racing circuit within the City of Edmonton.

Track Racing The Argyll Velodrome has been out of commission since August, 1989, following an unsuccessful attempt to resurface the track. Up to that time, the velodrome was well used by all skill levels and ages of bicyclists, being consistently fully-booked by school groups during the day, and by local racing clubs in the evenings. As well as providing a safe introduction to racing for beginners, it accommodated several open race meets, and national and local training camps during the season. Now, the community's investment in the development and success of local athletes that this 1978 Commonwealth Games facility represented has been lost.

With the demolition of the Olympic Velodrome in Montreal, and the loss of the Argyll Velodrome, there are now only two tracks in Canada (Winnipeg and Calgary) although a new Commonwealth Games velodrome is to be constructed in Victoria for the 1994 Commonwealth Games. The 1999 Pan-American Games, for which the City is to bid, requires a velodrome.

•

The City of Edmonton should undertake the necessary rehabilitation of the Argyll Velodrome.

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

ENCOURAGEMENT Page 6-5

Mountain Bike Racing The new sport of mountain bike racing is gaining in popularity, in parallel with the increase in popularity of mountain bikes. Currently races are held with the permission of the Parks and Recreation Department, in both Gold Bar Park and Terwillegar Park. However, the Parks and Recreation Department still has reservations about the longer-term impacts of heavy mountain bike use on some of the more sensitive or well-used sections of trail.

As discussed above for road racing, it may be possible to identify and develop a mountain bike racing circuit (or area) in one of the as-yet undeveloped areas of parkland in the city, or some other location, which would accommodate the demand for this activity whilst minimizing the impacts.

â&#x20AC;˘

The Parks and Recreation Department should continue to monitor the impacts and desirability of mountain bike racing.

The Parks and Recreation Department, in conjunction with user groups, should assess the feasibility of developing a mountain bike racing circuit within the City of Edmonton.

ENFORCEMENT Page 7-1

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

7. ENFORCEMENT Bicycles are legally classed as vehicles, and therefore bicyclists are subject to (almost) all of the same laws as motor vehicle operators. Although education is emphasized as the most appropriate and effective way of improving bicycle safety, enforcement is essential to reinforce the educational processes.

Bicycle organizations are typically in favour of increased enforcement on bicyclists, as a way of improving both safety and status of bicyclists in general. Currently bicycle enforcement is not a high priority task with law enforcement agencies. This reflects the expectations and current mores of society as regards bicycling, and also reflects the practical difficulties that officers have in enforcing laws on vehicles that are not licensed and cannot be readily identified, with operators who are also not licensed and who are quite likely to be juveniles.

Areas where current legislation could be revised to better reflect actual bicycling practices and requirements are discussed below, in addition to other issues affecting enforcement.

7.1 PROPOSED LEGISLATION Bicycling in Edmonton is governed by both provincial and by municipal legislation. Appendix 1 documents the existing Province of Alberta, Highway Traffic Act, R.S.A. 1980, Chapter H-7; the City of Edmonton Traffic Bylaw #5590; and the City of Edmonton Parks Bylaw #2202.

Highway Traffic Act The Highway Traffic Act is the umbrella legislation under which the City's Traffic Bylaw is authorized. In addition to the sections dealing with general requirements of all vehicles and operators, Part 5 of the Act contains special sections relating only to the operation of bicycles and motorcycles.

Section 1 of the Act includes definitions of a pedestrian, and of a bicycle. It does not include a definition of a dismounted bicyclist wheeling a bicycle. Clarification that a dismounted bicyclist is expected to behave as a pedestrian might be useful in formulating municipal traffic bylaws regarding bicycles on sidewalks and in crosswalks (see below).

Section 88 of the Act requires that turns be signalled in the manner prescribed in the regulations.

Presently the regulations prescribe 'that the hand signal for a right turn be made by raising the left arm. When executed by a bicyclist, who does not necessarily sit upright on the bicycle, this signal can be difficult to discern. The right-arm-extended signal for a right turn can be easily executed by a bicyclist, is very clear, and is being recognized by more and more legislations in North America.

Section 146(1)(a) of the Act requires that the both hands be kept on the handlebars, except when making a signal. It is therefore technically illegal for a bicyclist to change gear in Alberta, if the gear lever happens is mounted on the frame as is often the case.

Section 146(2) of the Act requires a bicyclist to ride as near as practicable to the right side of the roadway. The use of "practicable" rather than "possible" permits some discretion on the part of the bicyclist and/or police officer, to allow for actual riding conditions. However, the interpretation and application of this section is often questioned by bicyclists, and some expansion to specify obvious exceptions may be warranted. These exceptions could include overtaking other moving or parked vehicles, making a left turn, and avoiding surface hazards or other fixed objects.

Section 149(1) of the Act requires a motorcyclist to wear a safety helmet at all times. Now that recognized standards exist for bicycle helmets, and helmets meeting these standards are widely available for both child and adult bicyclists, this requirement should be expanded to include bicyclists.

Planwing r:Mid LINftiCiPfil451 Tk

Eignionleta

ENFORCEMENT Page 7-2

â&#x20AC;˘

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The Transportation Department will approach Alberta Transportation and Utilities, with a view to preparing amendments to the Highway Traffic Act regarding the definition of a dismounted bicyclist; amending the regulations to permit the right-arm-extended hand signal for bicycles; revisions to the "both hands on the handlebars" rule, and the "riding on the right hand side" rule; and requiring bicyclists to wear safety helmets.

Traffic Bylaw #5590 The City of Edmonton Traffic Bylaw #5590 is prepared under the Highway Traffic Act, and provides more detailed regulation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic in Edmonton.

One of the most common complaints that has arisen in recent years regarding bicycling is the conflict between bicycles and pedestrians on sidewalks and in crosswalks. Under the existing Bylaw it is very clear that bicycles are only allowed to be ridden on sidewalks where so designated by signs, ie: a Class 1 bicycle facility. However the Bylaw is presently silent on the use of pedestrian crosswalks by bicycles. Some designated bicycle routes direct bicyclists to marked and/or signalized pedestrian crosswalks; other pedestrian crosswalks are heavily used by bicyclists due to their convenient location; inexperienced bicyclists are typically advised to cross intersections by using the pedestrian crosswalks. A clear statement that bicycles may use pedestrian crosswalks only when dismounted and wheeling the bicycle would clarify and assist in both education and enforcement.

The Traffic Bylaw includes schedules of Class 2 bicycle facilities (bicycle lanes), but not of Class 1 (bicycle paths), or Class 3 (on-street bicycle routes) bicycle facilities. Therefore no statutory procedures have to be followed in introducing, removing or revising Class 1 or Class 3 bicycle routes. â&#x20AC;˘

The Transportation Department, in conjunction with the City Solicitor, will prepare amendments defining the operation of bicycles in crosswalks, and Schedules of Class 1 and Class 3 bicyde facilities, for inclusion in the Traffic Bylaw #5590.

Parks Bylaw #2202 The City of Edmonton Parks and Recreation Bylaw #2202 deals with many areas of operation of the Department, including regulating activities within parldands. It bans the use of motorcycles and bicycles in all parklands within the City, except on park access roads and parking areas and in any permitted areas designated by signs. Penalties for offences under Bylaw #2202 are provided in Bylaw #2101, the General Penalty Bylaw. These regulations were put in place before the development of the Capital City Recreation Park, and the Bylaw does not address the operating problems that have now developed on both the paved and unpaved trails. These operating problems fall into two broad categories: on the paved trails due to their extreme popularity with both bicycles and pedestrians, and on the unpaved trails due to the advent of the mountain bicycle. Neither of these two actualities could have been foreseen at the time of passage of Bylaw 2202. The following specific suggestions for updating the Parks Bylaw address the identified problems.

Bicycles should be dealt with separately in the Bylaw, and not grouped together with motorcycles, so that bicycling issues can be properly addressed.

Both compliance with and enforcement of the general statements in Bylaw 2202 regarding prohibitions on bicycling are difficult, as complete and precise information as to where bicycling is in reality permitted is not readily available. Specific information on which trails are and are not available for use by bicycles should be included in the Bylaw, and that information made available to the public.

The quiet and hence unexpected approach of a bicycle is commonly reported to be a cause of alarm to pedestrians. Many conflicts between users could likely be avoided if bicycles were

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

ENFORCEMENT Page 7-3

equipped with and used an audible warning device, as required by the Highway Traffic Act. Although the Parks Bylaw requires that the operation of bicycles and motorcycles on parkland be in accordance with the provisions of the Highway Traffic Act and the Edmonton Streets Bylaw (now the Traffic Bylaw), the river valley trails are not road right-of-way, and there is some concern that this requirement is not enforceable on the trails. The Highway Traffic Act also requires that bicycles be equipped with lights and reflector at night, adequate brakes, etc.

In the interest of conformity and to facilitate education and enforcement, the equipment required for off-street bicycling should be the same as that required for on-street bicycling.

All bicyclists in city parks should be required to wear an approved safety helmet. This would be consistent with the proposed amendments to the Highway Traffic Act. Although mountain bike racing is now taking place in the river valley, with the approval of the Department (see Section 6.5 above), there are no regulations in place to control this activity.

Regulations controlling mountain bike racing in parkland should be developed, similar to the Special Roadway Events regulations in the Traffic Bylaw.

Currently bicyclists apprehended for riding illegally in the river valley are required to make a court appearance, as there are no penalties specified in the Parks Bylaw. Penalties for specified offences should be included in the Bylaw, to simplify and expedite enforcement activities. â&#x20AC;˘

The Parks and Recreation Department should consider updating the Parks Bylaw #2202 to: deal separately with bicycles and motorcycles; specify which trails are available for use by bicycles, and which trails are not; require that all bicycles operated on parkland be equipped with the equipment specified by the Highway Traffic Act; require all bicyclists to wear an approved safety helmet in city parks; specify regulations for the conduct of mountain bike races; and specify penalties for offences against the provisions of the Bylaw.

7.2 BICYCLE COURIERS Bicycle couriers are employed by delivery service companies mainly for efficient handling of envelopes and small deliveries in the downtown. Advantages of using a bicycle courier in the downtown include fast service, low cost, and no special vehicular parking requirements or costs.

The City of Edmonton does not require that bicycle couriers maintain a special licence for this activity other than the requisite business licence. However, breaches of the traffic bylaws and a lack of common courtesy by some bicycle couriers are a constant source of public complaints.

In response to these complaints, Section 522 of the City of Edmonton Bylaw to Licence and Regulate Business, Bylaw #6124 was amended on June 26, 1990 so as to require delivery/messenger services to: maintain "a list of those persons operating under his control or direction"; to "display a valid City of Edmonton permit" on all vehicles; and to "prominently display, for identification purposes, the name of the Delivery/Messenger service company and a unit number" on all vehicles, including bicycles. These new requirements for bicycle couriers have not been enforced, partly due to the fact that it is not easy to prominently display any means of identification on a bicycle. In addition, the issue of requiring proper training for bicycle couriers is not addressed. â&#x20AC;˘

The Transportation Department will develop and assess alternative means of addressing the safety and enforcement problems created by bicyde couriers in the downtown.

7.3 ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES Presently bicycle enforcement is not a high priority task with law enforcement agencies. The agencies are generally reactive to complaints, and areas of high complaints are acted upon. In addition to the regular enforcement of traffic bylaws, the Edmonton Police Service have a

ENFORCEMENT Page 7-4

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

number of campaigns which emphasize public awareness and public education, along with intense enforcement of traffic bylaws. The annual motorcycle and bicycle awareness campaign held each spring, in addition to being a highly publicized education campaign, also contains an active enforcement component. Vehicles (motorcycles and bicycles) are randomly stopped and safety checked, and traffic safety information and literature dispensed. Check-stops are also utilized in the campaign.

The present level of recreational activity in the river valley is such that the City of Edmonton Police Service retains two constables on a year-round basis in their Park Patrol Unit. During the 1991 summer season two additional constables are added to the Unit, and both S.T.E.P. students from law enforcement programs of study, and Venturers sponsored by Scouts Canada assisted in patrolling the river valley parks during the summer.

While the local bicycling organizations have expressed concerns that increased enforcement by the police is immediately required to address the unfortunate and scoff-law behaviour of some bicyclists, the Police Service believes that the level of enforcement now provided is appropriate, given the resources available and the magnitude of the problem. â&#x20AC;˘

The Edmonton Police Service should maintain appropriate levels of enforcement for both on-street and off-street bicycling activities.

7.4 BICYCLE REGISTRATION All bicycles and motor vehicles are stamped with an identification number by the manufacturer.

While motor vehicle identification numbers have been standardized on a unique universal system for many years, each bicycle manufacturer uses a different numbering system. To bring uniformity to the existing bicycle numbering systems would be far more difficult than it was for motor vehicles, as the number of bicycle manufacturers world-wide and the number of bicycles manufacturerd each year far exceed those of motor vehicles. In addition, bicycles have very few locations where a large identification number can be physically installed, and bicycle components are readily interchangeable.

Bicycle theft is fairly common in Edmonton with 3,863 bicycles reported stolen in 1990. The Edmonton Police Service recovered 2,038 of these and eventually returned 232 bicycles to their respective owners. Seventy-nine of these eases were solved, resulting in 37 persons being charged, a solvability factor of about two per cent.

Many cities and states across north America and Europe have instituted both voluntary and mandatory bicycle registration programs over the years. These programs have also often been abandoned, usually because there was no apparent reason and therefore justification for the program, or for budgetary reasons. Edmonton Police Service instituted a voluntary bicycle registration program in the mid 1970's, which was cancelled after a very few years: the program was not tied to increased education and enforcement activities, did not result in fewer stolen and/or returned bicycles, and was not set up as a source of revenues to be channelled back into other bicycling programs. The Edmonton Bicycle Commuters now run a voluntary bicycle registration scheme, with the cooperation of the Police Service. The Alberta Community Crime Prevention Association (A.C.C.P.A.) is presently promoting a voluntary program of engraving motor vehicle operators' license numbers in several locations on bicycles, in an attempt to help identify stolen bicycles. All local police services, including the City of Edmonton and the R.C.M.P. are A.C.C.P.A. members. However, a bicycle registration program is only be effective in assisting in the return of stolen bicycles if the majority of bicycles are registered, and if the owners make an effort to try to retrieve them. The estimated 5,000 bicycles presently registered under both schemes in Edmonton represent less than two per cent of all bicyles in the city, and there is little incentive for recovery as insurance companies typically pay out such claims readily. Insurance companies do not usually require a bicycle owner to keep a record of their bicycle serial numbers or to participate in a bicycle registration program.

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

â&#x20AC;˘

ENFORCEMENT Page 7-5

The Edmonton Police Service should continue to support the Edmonton Bicycle Commuters' bicycle registration scheme, and the Alberta Community Crime Prevention Association's bicycle identification program.

7.5 BICYCLE LICENSING Neither bicycles nor bicycle operators have ever been licensed in the same way that motor vehicles and motor vehicle operators are licensed by the Provincial Government. Licensing of motor vehicles and operators was instituted in response to the realization that motor vehicles are capable of inflicting severe damage and injury if operated in an tinsafe way. Vehicles are licensed to ensure that they can be identified; operators are licensed to ensure that they have the minimum required degree of cometence. Currently, there is no Provincial legislative requirement for the licensing or registration of bicycles. In fact, the Motor Vehicle Administration Act, R.S.A. 1980, Chapter M-22 specifically exempts bicycles (and power bicycles) from registration and licensing requirements under the Act. Section 16 of the Highway Traffic Act does give municipalities in Alberta the authority to license the owners of bicycles, and to make other regulations as necessary. This means that Edmonton could, in fact, issue bicycle licenses and also ensure that the owners of the bicycle has a minimum level of training, ie: treat bicycles in the same way that the Province treats motor vehicles. However, this also means that the city would also assume all costs associated with such a program. A significant disadvantage in municipalities setting up locally-based licensing systems, in addition to the set-up costs, would be the inability of the several police services in this Province to share licensing information in a timely manner if all municipalities did not implement a universally-compatible system. â&#x20AC;˘

The Transportation Department will approach the Solicitor General, with a view to reviewing the feasibility of licensing the owners of bicycles on a Province-wide basis.

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

IMPLEMENTATION Page 8-1

8. IMPLEMENTATION (Exhibit 8.1) 8.1 OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILIIIES, 1992 - 1996 Consistent with the General Municipal Plan policy, many of the recommended actions take advantage of opportunities presented by established on-going programs and activities, to improve the bicycling environment in Edmonton for both experienced and less experienced bicyclists. The opportunities presented by existing capital programs over the next five years to provide new or improved bicycling facilities in Edmonton are shown on Exhibit 8.1.

In addition to these opportunities, other bicycle-related projects may be identified for implementation, as a result of the further analysis of bicycle transportation requirements to be carried out by the Transportation Department.

8.2 BICYCLE ADVISORY BOARD In order to provide some overall coordination and monitoring of the implementation of the Bicycle Transportation Plan, and to provide a formal mechanism for on-going dialog with the bicycling community, consideration should be given to establishing a bicycle advisory board of City Council. Such a group could also fulfill the same functions for recreational bicycling, to ensure that all aspects of bicycling in Edmonton are fully coordinated. Several cities in Canada now have bicycle advisory boards of some kind, and bicycle advocqe,y groups exist in virtually every large city. Toronto City Council has had a City Cycling Committee for some years; Ottawa and Vancouver have independent bicycle advisory groups. The independent Calgary Cycling Advisory Council was formed in 1987, and works with their Transportation Department on bicycle transportation issues; in 1989, Calgary City Council created the Calgary Pathway Advisory Council, reporting through the Parks and Recreation Department, to work on issues related to their off-street trails. In Edmonton, the Cyclists Education Committee was formed in 1986 by the Transportation Department, with the initial objective of coordinating the bicycle education activities of the involved government agencies. The Committee has since expanded both its membership, to include all major bicycling organizations in the city and members-atlarge, and its scope, to address the wide range of bicycling issues reflected in this document.

However, the Committee is essentially an informal, but regular, forum for information exchange with the organized bicycling community.

â&#x20AC;˘

The Transportation Department and the Parks and Recreation Department will review the feasibilty of establishing a Bicycle Advisory Board of City Council.

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

LEGEND NEW ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION 1992-1996 ROADWAY REHABILITATION 1992-1995 BRIDGE REHABILITATION 1992-1995 OM MN 411•1 11••

227 VEN

BICYCLE/ SIDEWALK FACILITIES 1992-1996 PAVED TRAILS AND ON-STREET BIKE ROUTES URBAN PARKS PROGRAM 1992-1996 195 AVEN

153 AVE

137 AVEN

YELOWHEn

I— LI W cc 1—

I— I.41 tal LU W cc t— t—

co

co n

o,

or to

HIGHWAY

WHTEMUD DRIVE 69 AVENUE 62 AVEN

41 AVENUE

OPPORTUNITIES FOR BICYCLE - RELATED IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILITIES 1992 - 1996 EXHIBIT 8.1

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Guide for Development of New Bicycle Facilities, Washington, D.C., 1981 Canadian Institute of Planners, Community Cycling Manual, Ottawa, 1990 Forester, John, Bicycle Transportation, MIT Press, 1983 Forester, John, Effective Cycling, MIT Press, 1984 Humber, William, Freewheeling, The Story of Bicycling in Canada, Boston Mills Press, 1986 Lowe, Marcia D., The Bicycle, Vehicle for a Small Planet, Worldwatch, 1989 McGurn, James, On Your Bicycle, John Murray, 1987 Smith, Robert, The Social History of Cycling, American Heritage Press, 1972 Transportation Association of Canada, Guidelines for the Design of Bikeways, Ottawa, 1983 Watson, R. and Gray, M., The Penguin Book of the Bicycle, Penguin, 1978 Whitt, F.R. and Wilson, D.G., Bicycling Science, MIT Press, 1982

SD L BRARY

II I I II

172013066

IIF III

II 6413

APPENDICES

PiannIng and Dvielopmeo,

LIBRARY

The City of Edmonton

4305.a .E3 E373 1992a

@hi:5ft11

TRANSPORTATION

T090 9616 1992 c.3 Ac# 11277 Edmonton. Transportation Department BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN: APPENDICES UHI

OUT

1-1-1U11C

NO.

1090 9616 1992 c.3 Ac# 11277 Edmonton. Transportation Department BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN: APPENDICES

DATE IN

APPENDIX 1 EXISTING BICYCLE LEGISLATION

@WM*n

TRANSPORTATION

Index

Highway Traffic Act

Page 1

Traffic Bylaw

Page 5

Parks and Recreation Bylaw

Page 8

University of Alberta Regulations

Page 10

1. RTGRWAY TRAFFIC Ad' Part 1 - POWERS Section 1 - Definitions In this Act (b.1) "bicycle" means, except in Parts 2 and 5, a cycle propelled by human power on which a person can ride, regardless of the number of wheels it has, and includes a vehicle that i)

may be propelled by muscular or mechanical power, â&#x20AC;˘

ii) is fitted with pedals that are continually operable to propel it, iii)weighs not more than 35 kilograms, iv) has a motor that produces not more than 750 watts and that is driven by electricity or has engine displacement of not more than 50 cubic centimetres, v)

has no hand-operated or foot-operated clutch or gearbox driven by the motor that transfers power to the driven wheel, and

vi) does not have sufficient power to enable it to attain a speed greater than 35 kilometres per hour on level ground within a distance of 2 kilometres from a standing start; Section 16 - Municipal Bylaws 16(1) With respect to highways under its direction, control and management but subject to the Transportation of Dangerous Good Control Act, the council of municipality may make by-laws, not inconsistent with this Act and on matters for which no provision is made in this Act, for the regulation and control of vehicle, animal and pedestrian traffic and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may make bylaws 1) controlling or preventing the riding of bicycles on any sidewalk; m) providing for the licensing of owners of bicycles, prescribing regulations with respect thereto and controlling and regulating the operation and parking of bicycles on highways and other public places; n) providing for the seizure or impounding for a period not exceeding 60 days of any bicycle used or operated in contravention of any by-law;

2

Part 2 - EQUIPMENT REQUIRED ON VEHICLES Section 45 - Horn, etc.

45(1) Every motor vehicle, motor cycle, moped, power bicycle and bicycle shall be equipped with an adequate horn, gong, or bell and it shall be kept in good working order and shall be sounded whenever it is reasonable necessary to warn persons on or approaching the highway in the vicinity of the vehicle or motor cycle, moped, power bicycle or bicycle.

(2) No person having the control of a motor vehicle, motor cycle, moped, power bicycle or bicycle shall use the horn, gong, bell or other signalling device on it except for the purpose of giving notice to persons on or approaching the highway in the vicinity of the motor vehicle, motor cycle, moped, paver bicycle or bicycle of the approach of the vehicle, and in so doing shall not make any more noise than is reasonably necessary for the purpose of giving the warning.

Part 4 - OTHER PROHIBITIONS Section 124 - Racing Prohibited 24(1) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway in a race or on a bet or wager.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Minister or a speed authority as defined in section 14 may authorize a race to be held on a highway subject to conditions that the Minister or speed authority considers appropriate.

Part 5 - BICYCLES AND MOTOR CYCLES 143 In this Part, (a)"bicycle" means any cycle propelled by human power on which a person may ride, regardless of the number of wheels it has; (b)"cycle" means a bicycle, a motor cycle or a moped.

144 Unless the context otherwise requires, a person operating a bicycle or motor cycle on a highway (a)has all the rights, and (b)is subject to all the duties, of a driver under Part 3.

145(1) No person under the age of 16 years shall operate a scooter with a motor having a displacement of power greater than that prescribed by the regulations.

- 3 -

(2) No person under the age of 16 years shall carry any passengers on a scooter, a moped or power bicycle being operated by him.

146(1) A person who is operating a cycle on a highway (a)shall keep both hands on the handlebars of the cycle, except when making a signal in accordance with this Act, (b)shall keep both feet on the pedals or foot rests of the cycle, (c)shall not ride other than on or astride a regular seat of the cycle, and (d)shall not use the cycle to carry more persons at one time than the number for which it is designed and equipped.'

(2)A person who is operating a bicycle on a highway shall ride as near as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway.

(3)A person shall not operate a cycle on a roadway where signs prohibit its use.

(4)A person who is riding as a passenger on a cycle (a)shall not ride other than on a regular seat of the cycle intended for a passenger, and (b)shall keep both feet on the foot rests provided for the use of the passenger riding on the seat.

147 A person who is operating or riding as a passenger on a cycle shall not (a)hold onto, (b)attach himself to, or (c)attach the cycle to, any other moving vehicle.

148 A person operating a cycle on a highway (a)shall not ride to the side of another cycle travelling in the same direction, but (b)shall ride directly in line to the rear or front of the other cycle, except when overtaking and passing the other cycle.

- 4 -

149(1) No person shall operate a motor cycle, or moped or power bicycle unless he is wearing a safety helmet securely attached on his head.

(2)No person shall ride as a passenger on a motor cycle, moped or power bicycle unless he is wearing a safety helmet securely attached on his head.

(3)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to the operator or passengers of a motor cycle which is manufactured with a cab that encloses and protects the operator and passengers.

(4)No person shall operate a motor cycle, moped or power bicycle on which a passenger is riding unless the passenger is wearing a safety helmet securely attached to his head. .

(5)No person shall buy, sell or offer for sale any safety helmet intended for the use of operators or passengers of motor cycles or power bicycles unless it conforms to the specifications prescribed by the regulations.

150(1) A bicycle operated on any highway at any time during the night time hours shall be equipped with (a)at least one headlamp but not more than 2 headlamps, (b)at least one red tail lamp, and (c)at least one red reflector mounted on the rear.

(2) No bicycle shall be operated on a highway unless it is equipped with a brake which will enable the operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level, clean pavement.

(3) A peace officer may require the operator of a bicycle to submit the bicycle to examination and tests to ensure that the bicycle is fit and safe for transportation.

(4) If in the opinion of a peace officer a bicycle is unfit or unsafe for transportation or dangerous to the public, the peace officer (a)may require the operator of the bicycle to have the bicycle rendered fit and safe for transportation, and (b)may order the bicycle removed from the highway until the bicycle has been rendered fit and safe for transportation.

(5) A bicycle operator who fails to comply with a requirement or order of a peace office under subsection (3) or (4) is guilty of an offence.

5

2. TRAFFTC BYLAW NO. 559Q Part 1 - DEFINITIONS 102. In this Bylaw except where otherwise defined, (2)"Bicycle" includes any cycle propelled by human power upon which a person may ride, regardless of the number of wheels it may have.

(3)"Bike Lane" means a physically delineated portion of an existing roadway designed for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles.

Part 5 - CYCLISTS AND HORSE DRAWN VEHICLES 501 - No Riding on Sidewalk No person shall ride a bicycle having a wheel diameter in excess of fifty (50) centimeters on any sidewalk except where permitted so by a traffic control device. (Fine $30.00) Part 9 - RULES FOR PARADES AND PROCESSIONS 902 (1) "Special Roadway Event" means a procession for an athletic or recreational purpose which includes but is not limited to bicycle races and foot races.

(2)Section 901 shall not apply to a "Special Roadway Event".

(3)(a) No person shall hold or take part in any Special Roadway Event without first obtaining a permit from the Chief of Police and complying with the terms and conditions thereon. (Fine $110.00) (b) Every member of a Special Roadway Event and the organization and leaders thereof shall be guilty of an offence for each and every violation of this Section. (Fine $110.00) (4)Any person desiring to hold a Special Roadway Event within the City of Edmonton shall at least thirty (30) days prior to the time they desire to hold same, make application in writing to the Chief of Police and in such application shall furnish to the Chief of Police information with respect to the following, namely: (a) The name and address of the applicant, and if such application is an organization, the names, addresses and occupations of the executive thereof;

6 -

(b)The nature and object of such a Special Roadway Event; (c)The day, date and hours during which same will be held; (d)The intended route thereof; (e)The approximate number of person(s) and/or vehicles taking part therein; (f)The approximate size, number and nature of flags, banners, placards or such similar things to be carried therein and particulars of signs, inscriptions and wordings to be exhibited thereon; and such written application shall bear the signatures and addresses of the persons who will be in control of such Special Roadway Event and who undertake to be responsible for the good order and conduct thereof. (g)Proof of comprehensive general liability insurance of at least one million ($1,000,000.00) dollars.

(5)During such Special Roadway Event, all pedestrians not taking part therein shall be restricted to the use of the sidewalk area.

(Fine $110.00) (6)No Special Roadway Event shall move at a slower speed than five (5) kilometers per hour, or obstruct any highway for a longer period than is reasonably necessary. (Fine $110.00) Part 10 - AUTHORITY OF DIRECTOR OF TRAFFIC OPERATIONS AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1028 The Director of Traffic Operations is hereby authorized to designate locations: (1)On public roadways where the use of bicycles is prohibited and shall cause the same to be marked by traffic control devices. Wherever the use of bicycles is prohibited by order of the Director of Traffic Operations, a reasonable alternative route shall be provided.

(2)On sidewalks, walkways and special bicycle paths where the use of bicycles is permitted, and shall cause same to be marked by traffic control devices.

1029 The Director of Traffic Operations is hereby authorized to designate portions of highways within the City for the use of bicycles only, and to regulate the movement of bicycles upon the portion of such highway designated for use by bicycles.

7

SCHEDULE XI THE SCHEDULE OF ONE-WAY BIKE LANES 89th Avenue N.W. westbound from 116 Street N.W. to 118 Street N.W. with a travel width of 2.25 meters South of the North Curb.

SCHEDULE XII SCHEDULE OF TWO-WAY BIKE LANES 127th Street N.W. from Stony Plain Road to 118 Avenue N.W. with a travel width of 2.7 meters East of the West Curb.

8

3. PARKS AND RFOREATTON BYLAW NO. 2202 MOTOR CYCLES AND BICYCLES Definitions: 47. (1) "motor cycle" means a motor vehicle mounted on two or three wheels and includes those motor vehicles known to the trade as motor cycles, scooters and power bicycles; (2)"bicycle" includes any cycle propelled by human power upon which a person may ride, regardless of the number of wheels it may have; (3)"parkland" includes all recreational areas owned or controlled by the City lying within the City limits and whether improved in whole or in part, and includes neighbourhood beautification areas and publicly maintained areas administered by the Department and school grounds and playgrounds; (4) "permitted area" means such an area in parkland as the Superintendent of the Parks and Recreation Department designates as suitable for motor cycles and bicycles; (5)"department" means the Parks and Recreation Department; (6)"tricycle" means a three-wheeled cycle for use by children.

48. No person shall operate a motor cycle or bicycle upon any parkland except: (1)upon park access roads and parking areas which are designated for use by public vehicular traffic; (2)in any permitted areas designated by the Superintendent of the Department from time to time and marked by signs - a list of such designated areas to be made available to any citizen on request; (3)in accordance with the provisions of the Highway Traffic Act, Ch. 30, Statutes of Alberta 1967, and the Edmonton Streets Bylaw.

49. (1) No operator of a motor cycle or bicycle shall ride on any pedestrian walk or bridle path in parkland unless permitted by signs; (2)No operator of a motor cycle or bicycle shall proceed so as to endanger life, limb or property; (3)Such operator shall stay at a reasonable distance away from others using a parkland or permitted area;

9 -

(4)No operator of a motor cycle or bicycle shall drive onto any part of a permitted area or parkland where the City has planted shrubs or trees, or where natural shrubs or trees exist; (5)Operators of motor cycles or bicycles use permitted areas at their own risk and the City does not warrant such areas as being suitable for motor cycles or bicycles; (6)Operators of motor cycles or bicycles shall obey all directional and other signs erected by the City; (7)Tricycles may not be used in those parts of a park where roads, trails or parking area exist or where active games are played.

50. The Superintendent of the Department may close even the permitted areas to motor cycles or bicycles when weather or use conditions create what he considers to be an unduly hazardous situation, or when he is satisfied for other reasons that motor cycles or bicycles shall not be permitted therein.

51. Unless the Superintendent grants special permission in writing, no rally or race involving motor cycles or bicycles shall be held in parkland or in the permitted areas 52. When a "Closed" sign erected by the Department is posted in parkland or on any permitted area, no person shall operate a motor cycle Or bicycle therein.

53. The operator of a motor cycle or bicycle who is charged and convicted of an offence under this part shall be liable to the penalties provided in Bylaw No. 2101 of the City of Edmonton, the General Penalty Bylaw as amended.

- 10 -

4.0 UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA BICYCLE OPERATING AND PARKING REGULATIONS Bicycles on University of Alberta properties must be operated and parked in compliance with the University of Alberta Bicycle and Parking Regulations.

1.0 DEFINITIONS Bicycle

Bicycle, Abandoned

2.0

A device upon which any person may ride, propelled exclusively by human power through a belt, chain, or gears, and having one or more wheels.

A bicycle which has been continuously locked in one location on Campus for more than seven calendar days.

Bicycle Path

An exclusive path, in its own right-of-way, used primarily by bicycles but which may also be used by pedestrians and wheelchairs.

Roadway

A route designated and utilized primarily for motor vehicle traffic (includes Service Roads).

Service Road

A route utilized primarily for Service Vehicles and pedestrian travel.

Walkway

Any sidewalk, pathway, or other route, or segment thereof, used primarily for pedestrian and wheelchair traffic.

OPERATING BICYCLES

2.1. Bicycles Operated on Campus .1

A person operating a bicycle on Campus has all the rights and is subject to all the duties that a driver of a motor vehicle has.

.2

Bicycles shall be ridden on the right hand side of the roadway.

.3

Bicyclists shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians.

.4

The maximum rate of travel for bicycles on bicycle paths and walkways is twenty kilometres per hour.

Page Two. 2.2 Bicycle riding is prohibited; .1

on walkways which are adjacent to roadways.

.2 on any landscaped areas where pedestrians or motor vehicles are not permitted, or where operation of a bicycle would be hazardous to the operator or would damage the landscape. .3 3.0

inside .Campus buildings.

PARKING BICYCLES

3.1 Bicycle parking is permitted only in areas specifically designated by the presence of racks or storage facilities designated for parking bicycles and/or in the presence of signs identifying an area as a bicycle parking area.

3.2 Owners of bicycles seized or stolen should report the circumstances to Campus Security as soon as possible.

3.3 Bicycle parking is prohibited: .1

within two metres of any building entrance or exit where there are no bicycle parking racks.

.2

on any stairway.

.3

on any egress or ingress ramp.

.4

on any loading dock.

.5

on any lawn or landscaped area.

.6

by any handrail, tree, shrubbery, door, signpost, lamp post, telephone post, or other object not maintained or designated for the purpose of securing bicycles.

.7

in any lobby, hallway, or room of any building unless said area is specifically designated by the Director of Physical Plant or his designate for bicycle parking or storage.

4.0 ABANDONED BICYCLES .1

A bicycle will be considered abandoned when it has been continuously locked in one location for longer than seven days.

Page Three.

4.0 ABANDONED BICYCLES (continued).

5.0

6.0

.2

A warning tag will be affixed to the handlebars declaring the bicycle abandoned and advising the owner that the bicycle will be seized by Campus Security or Parking Services within 48 hours if it is not moved.

.3

Seized bicycles will be stored for 60 calendar days before being disposed of in accordance with University regulations.

.4

If it is necessary to circumvent any locking device to impound a bicycle found standing, parked, or stored in violation of these regulations, the University is not responsible for any damage .or loss to such locking devices or bicycles, or for replacement of such locking devices.

.5

In addition to their authority to impound bicycles left standing, parked, or stored in violation of these regulations, Campus Security or Parking Services employees may impound bicycles which they believe to be abandoned or which have been reported as stolen.

.6

Seized bicycles will be released to the owner upon satisfactory proof of ownership and payment of an impound fee, which shall be determined by the Board.

ENFORCEMENT .1

Campus Security and Parking Services employees are authorized to enforce these regulations.

.2

Campus Security and Parking Services employees may move, relocate, or impound any bicycle left standing, parked, or stored in contravention of these regulations.

PENALTIES .1

The penalty for any contravention of these regulations will be as contained in Schedule 'A' or as prescribed by the Board.

- 13-

BICYCLE REGULATIONS SCHEDULE 'A' OFFENCES AND FINES

$5.00 FINE 2.1.2

- Not riding on right-hand side of roadway.

2.2.2

- Riding on landscaped areas.

3.1

- Parking in prohibited area or inside buildings.

$10.00 FINE 2.1.3

- Not yielding right-of-way to pedestrian.

2.1.4

- Riding in excess of 20 kph.

2.2.1

- Riding on walkway adjacent to roadway.

2.2.3

- Riding inside Campus building.

4.6

- Impound Fee for return of abandoned or seized bicycle.

- 14 UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA BICYCLE, PARKING, AND OPERATING REGULATIONS OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

The purpose of these regulations is to promote safety and eliminate obstructive or unsafe conditions caused by unauthorized parking of bicycles on Campus.

Under ordinary circumstances, enforcement of the unauthorized parking or abandoned bicycle regulations will only be acted upon after the receipt of a complaint or when a flagrant violation is observed.

Discretion must always be exercised to ensure we maintain the understanding and support of the community.

The enforcement of these procedures are divided between three departments as follows: CAMPUS SECURITY will take all initiatives in relation to enforcing these regulations.

PARKING SERVICES will refer all complaints and information relating to violations of the parking and operating of bicycles on Campus to Campus Security. They will also receive, collect, account for, and disperse fines and impound fees relating to violations of these regulations, issuing receipts as required.

Monies collected are to be used for improving bicycle parking on Campus.

MATERIALS MANAGEMENT will receive, store, and arrange auction of bicycles in storage.

Contact persons are -

Mike LUPUL, Dispatch Manager (2738)

or,

Peter BARKER (4122)

When a complaint is received regarding a bicycle that is in violation of the parking regulations, an officer will be dispatched to the location.

After viewing the scene, if deemed appropriate, a 48-hour warning notice will be completed. The third or hard copy will be placed on the offending bicycle. The original and second copy will be maintained for record at the Campus Security office.

- 15 Page Two. The Supervisor on duty after the 48 clear hours have expired will check to determine if the bicycle has been moved. If it has been moved, the only necessary action is to make a note on the respective office copy of the warning notice to that effect.

If it has not been moved, the offending bicycle is to be seized and removed to safe storage in Materials Management. A triplicate receipt will be made out. One copy will be attached to the bicycle for Materials Management records. A second copy is to be signed by the Materials Management person receiving the bicycle. This copy is for our records and is to be stapled to and cross-referenced with the warning notice previously issued. The warning notices are numbered in sequence, and a running file will be maintained in our Campus Security records in numerical order.

Bicycles seized and stored by Materials Management are subject to being auctioned after a minimum of 60 days has expired. The University of Alberta Disposal Request Form will be maintained listing all bicycles currently in storage. This list can then be used to process the auction and account for the proceeds.

As with any civil property being returned to owners, the transaction must be made during regular office hours so Parking Services and Materials Management are open to assist.

When the owner of a bicycle that has been seized requests it be returned, we must be provided satisfactory proof of ownership and confirm we have the bicycle impounded. A traffic ticket will be issued to the owner for the unauthorized parking. In addition to the $5.00 fine for the violation of offence 09, a notification on the face of the form will be made, indicating that the owner must also pay an impound fee of $10.00. The owner will be directed to Parking Services where the fine and impound fee will be paid and a receipt obtained. The owner must then return to Campus Security where arrangements will be made to have Materials Management release the bicycle.

A receipt should be signed by the owner and a copy returned to Campus Security by Materials Management to complete our records.

All complaints of moving offenses must be thoroughly investigated. If the offender is identified and sufficient witness and/or other evidence is available, the offender will be issued a parking and traffic ticket. As currently written, there is a conflict in the fine amount, le. $5.00 for a violation of the Traffic and Parking regulations (prohibition section 5.4(XV), for moving violations, as compared with the $10.00 for most moving violations in the Bicycle Offenses and Fines Schedule 'A'. Until this anomaly is corrected, a $5.00 fine will be levied for all bicycle offenses.

Complaints of bicycles that are causing a serious safety hazard or obstruction, for example, blocking a fire exit or paraplegic ramp, will be responded to as soon as possible. If the complaint is valid, immediate action will be taken to have the bicycle removed. A detailed report is required.

- 16 Page Three.

Abandoned bicycles pose a particular problem. Considerable discretion must be exercised before a bicycle is tagged with a warning notice and impounded to ensure we are on safe grounds to take this action. The complainant should be able to provide background information that the bicycle has been parked in a particular location for a considerable period of time, eg. months, although only a minimum seven days is necessary. If you are satisfied that the complaint is legitimate and the bicycle should be moved and impounded, a 48-hour warning notice will be affixed to the bicycle and routine further action taken as necessary.

FORKS TO BE USED: Bicycle, Parking, and Operating Regulations 48-Hour Warning Notice (in triplicate). These have been ordered in booklet form similar to the parking ticket booklet. They will be marked in numerical order for reference purposes.

Campus Security Civil Property Receipt Form (in triplicate) - now in regular use.

University of Alberta Disposal Request Form - required by Materials Management when bicycles are auctioned.

- 17 -

000001 UNIVERISTY of ALBERTA

BICYCLE PARKING AND OPERATING REGULATIONS WARNING NOTICE

This bicycle is parked in contravention of the University of Alberta Parking Regulations. If not moved within 48 HOURS, the lock will be cut off and the bicycle seized.

ISSUED: TIME

DATE

Make: Model: Serial#: Color: Location: Visable Damage(s):

Officer# For more information regarding bicycle Parking and operating Regulations contact:

Campus Security (492-5252) Or

Parking Services (492-3811) Education Carpark 114 St.- 87 Ave. (see other side)

- 18 -

000001

OFFENCE AND FINE

If your bicycle is siezed you may be charged for the following offence: $5.00 FINE

3.1

- Parking in prohibited area or inside buildings.

$10.00 IMPOUND FEE

4.6

- You will also be required to pay an Impound fee for return of your seized bicycle.

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MM••••••••••••••••01110004•14MIN•NMMPONIIMMI

THIS WARNING TAG IS ISSUED BY AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA FOR A CONTRAVENTION OF THE BICYCLE PARKING AND OPERATING REGULATIONS

APPENDIX 2 1989 BICYCLE USER SURVEY

@Wont°

TRANSPORTATION

a

--

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables List of Figures

ii

1.0

Introduction

1

2.0

Survey Methodology

1

3.0

Survey Results

2

3.1

Survey Respondents

4

3.2

Types of Bicycles

4

3.3

Peak Hour Bicycling

4

3.4

Bicycling Season

3.5

Desired Improvements to Bicycling Routes

6

3.6

Frequently Used Roadways

8

3.7

Trip Purpose

10

3.8

Origin - Destination Analysis

10

3.9

Preferred Routes

17

4.0

Conclusions

24

' 6

Appendix A

26

Appendix B

35

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1

Number of Respondents and Bicycle Ownership

2

Table 2

Types of Bicycles Owned

4

Table 3

Peak Hour Bicycling

6

Table 4

Desired Improvements

6

Table 5

Undesignated Well Used Cycle Routes

8

Table 6

Trip Purpose By Sector

10

Table 7

Origin - Destination by Sector

12

Table 8

Frequent Origin - Destination Pars

12

Table 9

Frequent Trip - Origins to the Central Sector

14

-

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1

Number of Respondents

3

Figure 2

Survey Respondents

5

Figure 3

Number of Bicyclists by Month

7

Figure 4

Frequently Used Cycle Routes

9

Figure 5

City Traffic Districts

11

Figure 6

Weekly Cycle Trips to the CBP

15

Figure 7

Weekly Cycle Trips to the University

16

Figure 8

Origins of AN Weekly Cycle Trip

18

Figure 9

River Crossing Study

19

Figure 10 Preferred Cycle Routes

20

Figure 11 Traffic Flow Map

21

Figure 12 Ineffectiveness Designated Cycle Routes

23

1989 BICYCLE USER SURVEY 1.0 Introduction The following report contains the results of the 1989 Bicycle User Survey conducted by the City of Edmonton. The survey was conducted using a questionnaire format which was completed and returned to the Transportation Department on a volunteer basis.

The main objective of the survey was to gather comprehensive data about bicycle users and their riding habits within the City.

Information gained from the survey will be used as input for the City's Comprehensive Bicycling Plan as well as in the identification of facilities requiring improvements or designation change.

Survey questionnaires were widely distributed throughout the City in an attempt to obtain a reasonably representative sample. The sample of bicycle users obtained by the survey was not a random sample because of the voluntary nature of distribution and response. Biases are therefore inherent.

2.0 Survey Methodology The Bicycle User Survey consisted of a one-page questionnaire which was widely distributed throughout the City. 32,500 survey forms were made available at the following locations (a breakdown of the survey distribution is listed in Appendix A): Type - bicycle shops - public libraries - leisure and recreation centre - high schools - bicycle clubs - special events - City employees

Method counter display counter display counter display hand-out or display club distribution display pay-cheque

The survey was conducted between May 10, 1989 and October 15, 1989.

Survey responses were returned through regular mail service, City interdepartmental mail, or at on-site drop-off points. Return envelopes were not supplied. Replies received after the cutoff date were not included in the tabulation of results.

The survey questionnaire consisted of nine questions on one double sided sheet (see Appendix B for sample questionnaire).

The intent of these questions was to obtain information on

suggested improvements, heavily used routes and the purpose, A map was origin, destination and frequency of trips made. included on the back of the form to allow respondents to sketch in their residence and preferred bicycling routes.

Questions were also asked on the extent of peak hour and seasonal ridership, type of bicycle owned and the age and gender of the respondent.

Data from the survey was compiled separately for each question.

Origin-destination and trip purpose information was coded by location using City of Edmonton traffic districts. Each origindestination pair was assigned a number of weekly return trips as indicated by the respondent. Trip purpose and origin-destination information was listed under two different questions, therefore the total number of trips listed under trip purpose is not identical to the total number of trips used in the origindestination analysis.

Preferred bicycling routes drawn on individual questionnaire maps were overlaid onto a large City map, giving a pictographic representation of the most frequently used routes.

3.0 Survey Results A total of 2245 questionnaires were returned to the City within the time frame of the survey. Not all questions were completed by each respondent.

An analysis of the distribution of respondents by sector shows that a lower rate of response was received from the north and west than the south side of the City. Table 1 shows the response rates. A comparison was made with the rate of bicycle ownership as calculated from the 1989 City of Edmonton Travel Survey. The comparison shows that the questionnaire response rate from the University, central, southwest and southeast sectors is compatible with rates of bicycle ownership in these sectors.

However, the questionnaire response rate in the northeast, northwest and west sectors is approximately 50-60% of the comparable bicycle ownership rate. Figure 1 shows respondents by sector.

Table 1

Number of Respondents and Bicycle Ownership

Lin iversi 84 Respondents 18,976 Population 44 Resp./1000 pop 0.42 Bike/person

Go ntitti:::.Southime.st :SoUthdast: N orthwest 220 437 626 139 76,627 124,288 50,606 84,280 504'' : ::::287: 275::iiiii::*:519 0.46 0.52 0.55 0.27

-2

rtheast â&#x20AC;˘ West Total 2047 233 308 127,460 101,835 84,07 .2.42 â&#x20AC;˘ 2.29' : - . 3.50 0.47 0.45 0.51

Figure 1

NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS 1989 ElIcyclit Usr•r Survily

NORTHEAST LEGEND:

POPULATION 127,460

NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS

308

• ••••••••••••• • • • • • • •• ••••••••••••••• .•.•.•-•.•.•.•.•-•.•.•.•Ak. I2.423 CRESPONSE FtATE/1000 POPULX1101,8

NORTHWEST 7 --.-POPULATION 76,627

139

220

••• • • • • • • • •ii• • • • • • •

"•-•"•-•'•••• NIV•*•-•••••-•"1

••••••

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • (2.171

CENTRfiL

233 P-•-•-•••••• • • • • • 11F11 •••••• • •• • • • • ,•• • •••• •• • • • 4 • -• .• • .0 .• • • • -• •-•-•

(2.2111

84

POPULATION 10 WEST

POPULATION 84,280

POPULATION 124,288

SOUTHWEST

SOUTHEAST

Note: Central Sector includes Downtown and Downtown Fringe only.

-3

The differences in response rates between sectors may be an indication that survey data is biased towards the south side of the City. It is also possible that the survey response rates reflect differences in bicycling habits due to demographic attitude variations. The exact nature of the sample bias cannot be determined.

The following sections examine responses to individual questions in the survey.

3.1 Survey Respondents Figure 2 shows the breakdown of the respondents by age and gender. A higher number of males than females responded to the questionnaire. This is likely a reasonable reflection of actual ridership. A high proportion of respondents were between the ages of 15-19. There is some chance that this group may be overrepresented due to the nature of the high school distribution of the questionnaires. However, actual ridership is typically high in this age group, and the overall response rate from all age groups appears to be a reasonable reflection of actual ridership.

Differences in the degree of distribution within individual schools may contribute to the variation in response rate between sectors.

3.2 Types of Bicycles Table 2 shows the number and proportion of bicycle type in use.

The majority of respondents own multi-speed or mountain bicycles.

Table 2

Types of Bicycles Owned ... , .... . ...... . .

Standard Mountain Bike Multi-Speed BMX More than one type Other Not Given, TOTAL ....

143 708

6% 32%

1062

47% 2% 11%

54 248 2 28

0% 1%

..... ....

3.3 Peak Hour Bicycling Table 3 shows the frequency of peak hour bicycling by the respondents. Over half of the respondents ride during the peak hour on a regular basis.

This is an indication that these respondents regularly use the bicycle as a means of transportation. About one quarter of the respondents do not ride in the peak hour which is an indication that they likely use their bicycle for leisure or recreational purposes only.

Figure 2

Age Under 10 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+ Unkown .,. TOTALI .:.:,:S: :

Survey Respondents

Male Female 4 7 55 53 348 287 136 120 190 _123 182 92 162 70 129 42 62 13 35 12 17 6 11 6 9 0 6 8 1346 r:ii, 839

N/A

Total 11 108 4 639 4 260 9 322 11 285 4 236 2 173 4 79 2 49 2 25 2 19 9 13 30 57.....„.:... 2245

Female

Male

Age 65+ 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 Under 10

••.• ,••••••,••••••••••"•:•••••'

300

200

100

0

Number of Respondents

-5

100

200

300

Peak Hour Bicycling *

Table 3

Number 599

Less than once/week

% of Total 27%

1-2 times/week

455

20%

3-5 times/week Not given

1153

51%

38 2245 •

00%

7.17grAia

2%

Question may have been misunderstood

3.4 Bicycling Season Figure 3 shows the number of respondents bicycling by month of the year. As expected, the majority of respondents ride from May through September. December and January show the lowest number of bicyclists. However, about 17% of the respondents ride during' these months, indicating that winter bicycling is viable.

3.5 Desired Improvements to Bicycling Routes Only about 30% of the respondents completed this question. Table 4 shows a breakdown of the major areas of concern. Road/bikeway maintenance and new route construction or extension were the most common comments. Locations of desired improvements were spread Specific locations that were more throughout the City. frequently noted include the High Level Bridge, the 127 Street bicycle lane, Whyte Avenue, River Valley Road, McKinnon Ravine, Mill Creek Ravine, and the downtown area in general.

Table4

Desired Improvements

............................

INEXAMIngin:

Maintenance Accessibility/Continuity Dangerous Area

236 221 133 55

Signing Parking

40

Bridge Crossing Obstruction/Hazard

36 33 14

Not Specific

Tôtãi

-6

Figure 3

Number of Bicyclists By Month

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

an..... .66::.-i: Mii-1.- ..:74ii: 'Way Number of Cyclists

361

369

605

% of Respondents

16%

16%

27%

1734 77%

1993 89%

7

June

Jqly,

2132

2147

95%

96%

Aydr::Sept 2133 95%

1997 89%

Oct .. ''''...o.v

Dc

653

381

1241 55%

29% 17%

3.6

Frequently Used Roadways

Respondents noted routes that are used frequently by bicyclists but are not currently designated as bicycling routes. The most frequently noted locations are summarized in Table 5 and shown on a map in Figure 4. All roadways in the top 20 locations are arterial roadways. 109 Street south of the High Level Bridge, Whyte Avenue, 97 Street north of the river, and 50 Street south This is of the river are the routes noted most frequently. consistent with the preferred routes of respondents (see Section 3.9 below).

Table 5

Undesignated Well Used Cycle Routes

Rank ' *AM iii 1

2 3 4

5 6

7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

'''.""Ibi;:ii .â&#x20AC;˘ ... .MO. 109 Street (south side) Whyte Avenue

.,f

.N.c. .4if-P.15iiiiie 76 67

97 Street (north side)

51

50 Street (south side) 111 Street (south side)

43

Jasper Avenue 106 Street (south side) 111 Avenue Stony Plain Road 66 Street (south side) 107 Avenue 100 Avenue (downtown) .102 Avenue (downtown)

23 22

82 Street (north side) River Valley Road 23 Avenue 99 Street (south side) 101 Avenue (downtown)

29

19 18 17 15 13 13 12 12

11 11 10

118 Avenue

10 10

Groat Road

10

112 Avenue

861 Responses in Total

8

.

Figure 4

Frequently Used Cycle Routes (Currently Undesignated)

- noted by respondents

CITY BOUNDARY

CITY BOUNDARY

3.7 Trip Purpose Respondents listed the type of trip they make on their bicycle, specifying their destination location and the number of trips made per week for each trip purpose. Table 6 summarizes trips made per week for each category of trip purpose. 65% of the trips made were work or school trips. This is consistent with the number of respondents who noted that they regularly travel during the peak period. An additional 13% of the trips are made for shopping.

This is an indication that of the survey the bicycle is used primarily as a means of respondents, transportation, since only 22% of the trips made are exclusively for leisure or exercise.

Over half of the school trips noted are destined for the University. About one third of the work trips are destined to the downtown area.

Table 6

Trip Purpose by Sector Trips per week

ietire

S

'

emis

TOtal

-owor

554

1271

96

149

69

ent

1094

80

131

119

45

'POPt-w•

204

68

157

58

17

• •.

Northwest

646

566

443

331

174

256

153

78

50

28

Northeast

119

66

62

46;4

105

Wes

204

85

109

114

50

16%

6%

2289 % of Total

37%

28%

107 13%

100%

3.8 Origin-Destination Analysis It should be noted that trips listed under trip purpose are not identical to those used in the origin-destination analysis because this information was gathered from two separate questions. Trip lengths associated with origin-destination pairs were not tabulated since this portion of the question was not completed by many respondents or was estimated incorrectly.

However, a general observation of the responses indicates that most trips are relatively short, with the majority of return trips being less than 15-20 km.

Table 7 shows origin-destination pairs by sector. Internal trips within a sector make up the highest proportion of trips to each sector. Table 8 lists the 20 most frequent origin-destination A map of the City of Edmonton traffic pairs by district. districts is shown in Figure 5 for reference. The most common

Figure 5

City Traffic Districts _ 29

Origin - Destination by Sector

Table 7

Trips per week Destination Origin

Total univees4ygiii:iipeOtrat60(10*e:st6.04thbasti' Noi14*e:st Northeast :.West.Valley 433 197 627 199 59 129 86 1730

Table 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

133 226 223 199 156 215 192 1344

87 25 304 103 9 11 26 565

27 75 36 50 123 54 41 860 187 10 101 83 67 47 1248:513

59 95 48 112 98 415 56 ".883..

75 925 106 79T 70 -1467 109 1639 608 52 81 ..1.070 89 .• •866 ,5f.32•:::. . 7372.:

36 62 18 16 37 35 303

597,

Frequent Origin-Destination Pairs

* University .Southgate * Mill Woods Kaskitayo CBD Fringe CBD Fringe * Jasper Place * Capilano * Beverly * Southgate Bonnie Doon * West Jasper Place Kaskitayo Southgate CBD Fringe University Jasper Place Mill Woods University * Londonderry

University University • Mill Woods University Downtown Core University Jasper Place Capilano Beverly Southgate University West Jasper Place Downtown Core Downtown Core River Valley General Downtown Core Downtown Core Capilano River Valley General Londonderry

* Origin-Destination within same district

•

433 390 327 196 149 149 116 113 104 103 93 89 87 83 83 81 80 74 73 71

origin-destination pairs are internal trips within the University district, trips from Southgate to the University, and internal trips within Mill Woods. This last observation is probably due to the high response rate from J. Percy Page and W.P. Wagner schools.

The central district, including the University, is the largest trip attractor in the City for all trip types. Table 9 lists the most frequent bicycle trip origins by district to the central sector. A high number of trips are made from the University, Southgate, downtown fringe and Kaskitayo districts to the University.

The most frequent destination of bicyclists from all areas of the City is to the University district, followed by the downtown area.

This corresponds to the most frequent destinations of bicyclists as determined by the 1989 Travel Survey. The Travel Survey shows that twice the number of all trips (auto, transit, bicycle, walk) are destined for the downtown area as to the University district. The proportion of bicycle trips compared to all trips made is approximately three to four times as high to the University as to downtown.

1989 Travel Survey * Destination Dittript*giiiRi.i] Bicycle Trips/Day All Trips/Day

iversi 930 35,050

owntown 461 69,960

* It should be noted that the sample size of bicycle destinations in the 1989 Travel Survey is very small, therefore discrepancies may exist between survey data and actual ridership.

Vehicle parking close to the University campus is more expensive and less readily available than in the downtown core.

The majority of the trip makers to the University are students with limited financial resources, and the bicycle is an inexpensive and accessible alternative to auto or transit. The bicycle is also useful for intra-campus transport because of the size of the campus. It is therefore logical that bicycle trips to the University are of higher proportions than to downtown.

Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the numbers of bicycle trips made by the respondents from each sector to the downtown and University areas. A comparison of these figures with the 1989 Travel Survey indicates that the rate bicycle trips made from each sector in comparison to other sectors is approximately proportional to the number of auto/transit trips to the same destinations.

- 13 -

Table 9

Frequent Trip Origins to the Central Sedtor (University, Downtown Core, and Downtown Fringe)

â&#x20AC;&#x17E; . Origin District 2 University 3 Southgate 22 Downtown Fringe 23 Kaskitayo 5 Jasper Place 8 North Central 14 Bonnie Doon 13 Capilano 10 Londonderry 11 Beverly 15 Mill Woods 6 West Jasper Place 1 Downtown Core 4 Riverbend 18 Castledowns 33 Sherwood Park 9 Calder 12 Clareview

niversity. ' Total'''.

Trips/week Trips': (Wo Tot) 566 436 77% 79% 494 390 148 43% 345 196 67% 292 - 29% 180 52 134 28% 38 72% 130 94 49% 116 57 45% 111 50 48 44% 108 104 25 24% 34 35% 98 62% 78 48 64% 64 41 62 18 29% 44% 55 24 14% 42 6 34% 41 14

- 1 -

Downtown Core Downtown Fringe Trips (% Tot) Trips .. (% Tot) ...'

14% 9% 79 51 4% 17% 20 84 14% 48 148 43% 3% 30% 9 88 49 27% 79 44% 44% 59 38 28% 7% 27 21% 9 14 12% 45 39% 50% 5% 6 56 22 20% 39 36% 64% 12 12% 67 12 12% 52 53% 7 29% 9% 23 2 3% 21 33% 28% 17 27 43% 47% 9% 26 5 74% 12% 5 31 44% 22% 18 9

Figure 6

WEEKLY CYCLE TRIPS TO THE CBD

NORTHEAST

1989 Bicycle User Survey Respondents

POPULATION 127,460

LEGEND: E3ICYCLE TRPS

NORTHWEST POPULATION 76,627

POPULATION 69,58 CENTRAL

POPULATION 101,635 WEST

POPULATION 84,280

POPULATION 124,288 SOUPEAST

SOUTHWEST

Note: Central Sector includes Downtown and Downtown Fringe only.

- 15 -

Figure 7

NORTHEAST

WEEKLY CYCLE TRIPS TO THE UNIVERSITY

POPULATION 127,460

1989 Bicycle User Survey Respondents

LEGEND: BICYCLE TRPS

NORTHWEST

• ••• • 40

POPULATION 76,627

• •,• /Ay

•e 0.• I,

••• "

W." POPULATION 69,58 CENTRAL

POPULATION 101,635 WEST

POPULATION 84,280 SOUTHWEST

POPULATION 124,288 SOUTHEAST

Note: Central Sector includes Downtown and Downtown Fringe only.

A high number bicycle trips are made from the southwest sector to the University, likely due to the proximity of the sector to the University and the high number of students living in that area.

Bicycle trips from the west and northwest sectors destined for the University are lower in proportion to other sectors than auto/transit trips. It is possible that fewer bicycle trips are made from the west and northwest sectors due to inaccessibility of river crossings to the University.

Figure 8 illustrates bicycle trips produced by each sector. A comparison of this with the production of daily bicycle trips, as determined in the 1989 Travel Survey, indicates similar trends in the rate of bicycle trips per capita within each sector when compared to other sectors. The Travel Survey indicates a high rate of bicycle trip production from the University, downtown and southwest. The west, southeast and northern sectors have a lower trip production rate. This trend is similar to the bicycle trips production rates calculated from the Bicycle User Survey, with the exception of the southeast sector. It appears that the rate of bicycle trips in this sector determined by the Bicycle User Survey is high in comparison to other sectors, but this may be due to the high response rate from schools in the area (See Appendix A). This age category is unlikely to generate a high number of trips to the downtown or University areas, therefore it is not reflected in the trip rate from the southeast to these destinations.

The origin-destination by sector analysis indicates that internal trips within the southeast sector are a high proportion of all trips produced in that sector. The above would suggest that the data from the Bicycle Survey is a reasonable representation of actual trip production by sector, with the exception of an overestimation of internal trips within the southeast sector.

Figure 9 illustrates the proportion of bicycle trips involving a river crossing. Over two thirds of the trips do not involve a river crossing. This relates to trip distance as well as ease of accessibility.

A high proportion of trips involve short distances and are within the origin sector.

Several river crossings are not easily accessible for many bicyclists since the approaches have long, steep grades, and bridges with narrow lanes and/or minimal offsets to vertical structural members are not conducive to bicycling.

3.9 Preferred Routes Figure 10 is a map showing actual bicycle routes as drawn by the respondents in Question 9. From the consolidated route map, many inferences can be made regarding bicyclist's preferred routes.

Figure 8

NORTHEAST

ORIGINS OF ALL WEEKLY CYCLE TRIPS

POPULATION 127,460

LEGEND:

1••••••• ••••••

•••71

•••••41.44,4 ••• •• •••• • •••••4 •••••• 11•••••• ••••••• • •••••• •.•.•-•.•-•-•.•.•-•.•-•.• .•.•.• .•

BIKE TRPS NORTHWEST POPULATION 76,627

608

••••• 797 ••••• ••••• ••••• ...........•••••••• .••••

I ••••M•410441 1.4 r4rg4r•••••••'•••••'•• • •••• 11•••• ••••4 •••• •••• 0•••• •••• ••••4 "••••••••••••••

Note: Central Sector includes Downtown and Downtown Fringe

Figure 9

River Crossing Study

South to River Volley (5.07) North to River Volley (5.0%)

North Side Only (31.0%) /0

4 South Side Only (37.07)

â&#x20AC;¢ j, . b

Ii

4 North /South Grossing (22.0%)

22%

North Side Only North /South Crossing

37% 5%

North to River Valley

5%

South to River Valley

31%

South Side Only

Figure 19

Preferred Cycle Routes

I 67 AVE

/-4, J., 11.

4474 Ifisk,m titiongeTS/apprrep, go._ =wit PP2 rk.

-

Ilk ma. maw Brig.

is •

1111111*tainut

liassausam 1 meminfirmisaluis ; ANEMMIKtar , .41

oz.

Off Ins

„

.41WPV,

dawn mill saimmustr. lI IIILaI1flIIII 211111111111221111 git

em111111113U AMIN

flinirinFris or ntraym,

.0.••

00-1— • --ZEStr, t*.• -4=9111

* Magnitude of High Level Bridge crossing not fully shown

Figure 11

Traffic Flow Map

•

ea Pa N:

a

•

•• .

....

Lz.

ti

40 al a.

:•...r ,r.....,...... . arme . .. ,t5; ,

I. :w•-•

1.7`..7 ‘,"• 1' • • •

'MIN

Y•••• ,I..../ el•• ••'7; I .

,,,,,,.

:.,.....s..-1,rz.1.—

r •

4,4

1

1 — -- I — ow.

1C.0 1:0•010.

MCA

MI W. AO 4tErAp

.0 0. .• ore

r-h,

•

hroc, or

••••••••• 41 .

Yr

-.

41 1•04000

1 8...5,--....--...— ...-rmile 0. -.:.',:...',.8,... . . .

h -......4.,

.-. .,.

! .

1 ,

DOWNTOWN AREA • 1

t „,

000Nr•

•

gq ir...d :4V

• •

!

•

1

• •

_ -4.

.

• c

A•

_

444

40 of 4W .

44‘

4•441.01

• OP at-

t-

/

.

4...4`• •

DI STR IOW ICN OF avESAGE AAO0IA.Irrilt0a, TUFF IC ST TIME OF (AV (BASED C. RIVER SCREEN-MD

• •T`47Z.,,,t.8,4 ....,,r. .0( e1C-7.04 mat. waottot0

1 .•

4

ma 010f aOCATILD ant 411.417.141

y,,

••••• Oadv404•• Can.

1989 TRAFFIC FLOW MAP Average Annual Weekday Traffic

@friorrton TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT

The most frequently used routes are those along the river valley bicycle paths between McKinnon Ravine and Rundle Park, as well as along Mill Creek Ravine.

The most important and most used link in the City is the High Level Bridge and its approaches.

With the exception of the river valley routes, all frequently used routes are along major arterial roadways. Moderately used routes are along arterial or collector roads. A comparison of the preferred bicycle route map with the traffic flow map in Figure 11, shows that many of the high traffic volume roadways are also well used by bicyclists. Most of the well used bicycle routes have traffic volumes in excess of 20,000 vehicles per day. The most frequently used routes include 82 Avenue, 97 Street, 127 Street, 109/111 Street, 106 Street, an1d0 Street.

It is apparent that the majority of bicyclists not choose a route specifically to avoid traffic, rather they choose the route that will take them to their destination most directly.

The similarities between the map of preferred bicycling routes and the traffic flow map indicate that the travel desire line for bicyclists are the same as for motorized vehicles.

Not all high volume roadway are used by bicyclists, exceptions being the Yellowhead Trail and Capilano Drive. These roads carry very high volumes of traffic, including a significant percentage of trucks at relatively high speeds. Almost, no bicyclists listed these roads as regular routes.

Neither of these roads have shoulders that can be used by bicyclists. In contrast, Whitemud Drive has the highest volume of traffic in the City, and is also well used by bicyclists from 178 Street to 111 Street. Wide shoulders are provided for much of the route, but taper off in some areas such as the Quesnell Bridge. Although this route is not ideal for bicyclists because of the many off-ramps, there is no alternative route to cross the river from the west end to the south side. The locations of the preferred routes indicate that bicyclists avoid very high volume, high speed routes if a convenient, alternative route is available.

Existing Bicycle Routes A comparison of preferred bicyclist routes with existing designated bicycle paths and routes brings to light some important conclusions.

The river valley trails have high usage by bicyclists. Since over two/thirds of the trips made by the survey respondents are for work or school, it is clear that the river valley trails are used for transportation purposes as well as recreation.

Some designated bicycle routes along major arterial roads are well used by bicyclists, but it cannot be determined from the - 22 -

Figure 12

Ineffective Designated Cycle Routes

•••,

k

Desicinated Cycle Route Preferred Cycle Route

MI . 111= MIIIIVIIIINI

ral

111114 mill= TAIIII/ .7101;11111.

"...111MI.MI rilliaM allIMP Air IXIMIIIA 4 N ri t nowi •$0 sa att-a.-

lit AV sits% IMI

i re...

No

Imam5 aii MINOZZEIrTiMuj Cpl. nrelarimin isioririzo0 ,...arommi......‘" 1P1 cs ilf.4--- ...........„„.• MIN"

...

survey whether bicyclists use a separate bicycle path or the road itself. Routes of moderate usage are along arterial or collector roads.

Several existing designated bicycle routes are clearly ineffective, as significant bicycle traffic occurs on nearby streets while the designated routes are little used.

These routes are shown in Figure 12 and include: - route between 127 Street/127 Avenue and 137 Avenue/140 Street route adjacent to 97 Street (north side) - route adjacent to 118 Avenue - route adjacent to 82 Street (north side) - route on 97 Avenue west of 142 Street - route adjacent to Whyte Avenue - route on University Avenue - route south of 102 Avenue, east of 142 Street (Glenora) It is apparent that bicyclists do not regularly use routes that are indirect and inconvenient, even though they may be quiet and traffic free.

The bicyclists prefer the faster, more direct routes on arterial roads.

4.0 Conclusions The main conclusions that can be drawn from the analysis of the 1989 Bicycle User Survey are summarized below: - The age group of the respondents with highest bicycle ridership (28%) is between 15-19 years old.

- Over 50% of respondents ride regularly during the peak period.

- The majority of respondents bicycle during the warm months.

About 17% of respondents bicycle all year, indicating that winter bicycling is viable.

- Less than one quarter of the bicycle trips made by the respondents are for recreation purposes, indicating that the bicycle is used primarily as a means of transportation.

- The most frequently noted desired improvement is the maintenance of roadways and bikeways, followed by improvements or extension of existing bicycle routes.

- The most frequent destination of the respondents is to the University followed by the downtown area.

- Short trips within the origin sector make up the highest proportion of bicycle trips.

- River valley routes are well used and are used for all trip purposes - Travel desire line for bicyclists are similar, to desire lines for motorists. Most high-use bicycle routes are also well used by auto since the majority of bicycle trips are made on the arterial and collector roadway network.

- 24 -

- Bicyclists avoid high speed, high volume arterials, except where there is not convenient alternative route.

- Bicycle trips are affected by accessibility, particularly river crossings.

The High Level Bridge is the most important on-street bicycle link in the City as it is the only central bridge without steep approach grades.

APPENDIX A

â&#x20AC;¢?-

1989 BICYCLE USER SURVEY POINTS OF DTSTPTRUTTON TYPE

CITY SECTOR C

W

NW

NE

SW

SE

BIKE SHOP

600

250

250

550

50

350

LIBRARY

250

50

150

150

50

150

LEISURE/REC. CENTRE

450

100

COMMUNITY POOL

100

100

UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA/ NAIT REGISTRATION

250

SUB-TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS (RETURNED)

TOTAL

1650

100

500

500

TOTAL

581 533 308 198 198 168 137 90 28 1

2242

100

200

1350

200

1200

9

500

509

1989 BICYCLE USER SURVEY 5URVEYS RECEIVED INTERDEPARTMENTAL HIGH SCHOOL MAIL LEISURE/REC. CENTRE LIBRARY U. OF A. OTHER BIKE SHOP N.A.I.T. UNKNOWN

150

100

80

1730

500

400

486

1350

200

1686

Survey Cirrulatinn List

Libraries

No. Sent

Known 112.221

SertorlDistrirt

Jasper Place

50

5

NW Jasper Place

Woodcroft Library

50

6

NW N. Central

Calder Library

50

13

NW Calder

Castle downs

50

23

NW C. Downs

Londonderry Library

50

18

NE Londonderry

Highlands

50

3

Sprucewood

50

11

NE N. Central

200

74

C CBD

Strathcona Library

50

15

C University

Southgate

50

16

SW Southgate

Millwoods

50

Idylwylde

50

11

SE Bonnie Doon

Capilano

50

10

SE Capilano

sop

205

Main

NE Beverly

SE Millwoods

SurvPy Cirrvlstion List

public High Schools

Sent

Known EaC2S1

Sector/District

Bonnie Doon

400

6

SE Bonnie Doon

Harry Ainlay

100

J. Percy Page

950

263

SE Millwoods

L.Y. Cairns

10

Jasper Place

200

McNally Old Scona ' Queen Elizabeth Ross Sheppard W.P. Wagner

1100

29

SE Capilano

250

80

C University

100 1600

9

500

188

5210

575

Fdmonton Catholic Schools Archbishop O'Leary

1400

Austin O'Brien

500

Holy Trinity

400

J.H. Picard

350

St. Francis Xavier

750

St. Joseph

1750

Louis St. Laurent

700

Mount Carmel

350 6200

NW N. Central SE Bonnie Doon

Known LeisurP/Rec, Centres

Sector/District

Sent

C CBD

R.V.O.C.

200

Rundle Family Centre

200

73

NE Beverly

ACT

200

4

NE Beverly

Millwoods Rec.

200

SE Millwoods

Valley Zoo

100

NW Jasper Place

Ft. Edmonton

100

18

C University C CBD Fringe

Commonwealth Stadium

50

Kinsmen Sports Centre

100

20

C University

Muttart Conservatory

100

6

SE Capilano

Confederation Pool

50

7

5W Kaskitayo

Coronation Pool Central

50

15

Grand Trunk Pool

50

5

NW Calder

Jasper Place Pool

50

9

NW Jasper Place

Strathcona Pool

50

SW Southgate

Bonnie Doon Pool

50

SE Bonnie Doon

Eastglen Pool

50

Hardisty Pool

50

SE Capilano

Londonderry Pool

50

NE Londonderry

O'Leary Pool

50

NE Londonderry

Fred Broadstock Pool

50

NW J.P.

Mill Creek Pool Oliver Pool

7

100

8

50

24

NW North

NE Beverly

SE Bonnie Doon C CBD Fringe

Borden Pool (Contract) not participate Argyll Velodrome

200

2200

Bonnie Doon

-30-

196

Survey Circulation List

Surveys Sent to

Known Itec'd

No. Sent

3ector/District

2ike Shops Western Cycle

100

Premier Cycle

100

(C) CBD Fringe 6

NW Jasper Place

Klondike Sporting Goods (N.S.) Place

50

NW Jasper

Klondike Sporting Goods (S.S.)

50

SW Kaskitayo

Different Stokes Cycle

50

4

NW W.J.P.

High Country

50

6

NW N. Central

Alan's Cycle

50

2

NW N. Central

Ongaro Soccer & Cycle

50

NE Londonderry

Wellington Hardware

50

NW Calder

Sensational Sports

50

NE Castledowns

Renroh Cycle

50

Belvedere Cycle

50

NE N. Central

Clareview Sports

50

NE Clareview

International Cycle

50

NE N. Central

Beverly Cycle & Sport

50

5

2

NW Calder

NE Beverly

Zebra Sports Repair

100

George's Cycle

100

14

NE N. Central

50

9

NE N. Central

River Valley Cycle

150

3

SE Bonnie Doon

Edmonton Cycle Shop

150

7

C University

Alberta Cycle

NE Beverly

- 31 -

United Cycle Cycle - Logic 2 Wheel Resource

150

8

C University

50 100

C University

6

C University

Millwoods Cycle

50

SE Millwoods

Sports Shack

50

SE Capilano

Velo City

50

Castledowns Sports

50

NW Castledowns

Coast Leisure

50

SE South Industrial

New Age Sports

50

Treasure House Market

50

2050

6

12

SE Capilano

NW W.J.P. C CBD Fringe

90

3ent

Known Rer 'd

Clubs Edmonton Bicycle Touring Club

300

Edmonton Bicycle Commuter

500

Edmonton Bicycle Commuters (lunar cycle)

200

Edmonton Road and Track Club

100

Edmonton Veterans Club

121

35

1135

121

U of A

250

161

NAIT

100

21

350

182

ty ,r11:11ogyees

12,600

Registration

Other AMA Police Edmonton Safety Council U of A Student Orientation Seminar Alberta Transportation 10th & 13th Floor

50 50 400 1200 50 150

1950 *Mailed out with map requests - unknown RT/mlm

Surveys Returned from know* sollrces

Libraries - Capilano Southgate Londonderry Strathcona Castledowns Main Woodcroft Highlands Sprucewood Jasper Place Calder Idylwylde

High Schools - W.P. Wagner Bonnie Doon Ross Sheppard McNally Old Scona J. Percy Page

Sports Stores - New Age High Country Alan's Renroh Alberta Cycle Velo City 2 Wheel United Edmonton Cycle River Valley Cycle Beverly Cycle George's Premier Different Strokes

U of A NAIT

EBC - Interdepartmental - Mail

Leisure/ Rec. Centre - Rundle Coronation Pool Mut tart Confederation Pool Eastglen Pool Grand Trunk Pool Jasper Place Pool Oliver Pool ACT Mill Creek Pool Kinsmen Fort Edmonton

APPENDIX B

@thonton

TRANSPORTATION

BICYCLE USER SURVEY 1989 SHARE THE ROAD

The City of Edmonton, Transportation Department is conducting a bicycle survey to assist in identifying facilities requiring improvements. As a bicycle user, your cooperation in answering this questionnaire will help to provide you with a safe, convenient and pleasant cycling environment.

Please fill out this questionnaire and return it to the location where you received it or mail it to: The City of Edmonton, Transportation Department, 10th Floor, Century Place, 9803 - 102A Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T5J 3A3. 428-4735.

I.

What is your: a) age

2.

What type of bicycle do you own?

Standard Mountain Bike

b) sex

Multi-speed

3.

During what months of the year do you normally cycle? (eg. April - September, Year Round)

4.

How often do you cycle during peak hours?

(Weekdays 7:00 - 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 - 6:00 p.m.) Check one.

Less than once/week

BMX

0 3 - 5 times/week

0 1 - 2 times/week

5.

Are there any improvements that you would like to see done to a designated bikeway (eg. potholes, curb cuts, signage, dangerous area, inadequate parking)? Specify location and nature of suggested improvement.

6.

Do you know of a roadway that is used heavily by cyclists that is not a designated bike route? Specify where. (eg. 111 Street between 82 Avenue and 87 Avenue).

7.

a) What type of trips do you use your bike for? (x)

eg. School

x

b) Where do you go? (eg. Downtown, U. of A., W.E.M., Rundle Park) J. Percy Page

Work School Shopping Leisure Exercise Other(s) 8.

For your most frequent trips, as described above, what is the: a) Address of Trip b) Address of Trip Origin?

Destination?

c) How often?

(Return trip counts '1') (day, week)

(no.)

5

per week per per per per per per

c) Approx. distance per return trip?

1.

9.

On the map provided on the back, sketch your most frequent cycling routes. Mark your place of residence with an "X".

DOWNTOWN/ UNIVERSITY CORE

@itranton

APPENDIX 3 1990 BICYCLE COUNT PROGRAM

OI'ITOfl

TRANSPORTATION

Counts were conducted during the summer of 1990 to begin building a database of existing cyclist movements. As no automatic data collection systems exist, labour intensive manual observations are required. In order to effectively utilize limited manpower, a system of factoring shorter time period counts to Weekday, Saturday and Sunday daily volume estimates was used. Although the factoring system is not based on statistically valid sampling, the estimates have validity sufficient to compare locations and give reasonable estimates of total usage.

Counts at 7 locations from 6:30 to 21:30 on a weekday (Figure 3.1) were Used to determine variation by time of day. Based on previous surveys, this 15 hour survey period yields approximately 95% of the total volume for the day. Weekday counts of any duration can be factored using Table 3.1 to provide a 15 hour estimate, then divided by 0.95 to produce an estimated total weekday volume. Factors to estimate weekend volumes from weekday were based on counts on the High Level Bridge.

This link is one of the key links in the bicycle commuter network and carries high volumes of cyclist traffic. Table 3.2 shows the relationship between Weekday, Saturday, and Sunday volumes, in addition to time of day distribution for each day. Day of week factors displayed in Table 3.4 were derived from counts recorded in Table 3.5.

Volume estimates by location for all 1990 counts are listed in Table 3.6. Details of individual counts follow this listing. These count details are filed by location from low to high numeric Streets and/or Avenues followed by named roadways in alphabetic order. Some of the counts are on a roadway link with detail by direction of travel, others are at an intersection with approach volumes broken into manoeuvres at the intersection. In most instances movements are identified as on roadway (R) or sidewalk (S).

TIME OF DAY DISTRIBUTION - 1990 WEEKDAY BIKE COUNTS

TABLE 3.1

0700 0730 0800 0830 0900 0930 1000 1030 1100 1130 1200 1230 1300 1330 1400 1430 1500 1530 1600 1630 1700 1730 1800 1830 1900 1930 2000 2030 2100 2130

50 ST CLOVERDALE DAWSON H IG H LEVEL FOOTBRG FOOTBRG FOOTBRG BRIDGE

97 ST N OF 82 AV EOF 122 ST N OF YELWHD 95A ST 51 AV

TIME END

12 16 26 9 7 5 6 8 9 10 11 7 12 21 20 22 16 17 12 20 30 31 15 21 17 15 20 12 14 11

2.7% 3.5% 5.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.1% 1.3% 1.8% 2.0% 2.2% 2.4% 1.5% 2.7% 4.6% 4.4% 4.9% 3.5% 3.8% 2.7% 4.4% 6.6% 6.9% 3.3% 4.6% 3.8% 3.3% 4.4% 2.7% 3.1% 2.4%

20 23 28 25 24 14 14 16 20 20 17 26 38 27 20 23 34 32 37 49 47 51 36 14 32 32 40 51 27 24

2.3% 2.7% 3.3% 2.9% 2.8% 1.6% 1.6% 1.9% 2.3% 2.3% 2.0% 3.0% 4.4% 3.1% 2.3% 2.7% 3.9% 3.7% 4.3% 5.7% 5.5% 5.9% 4.2% 1.6% 3.7% 3.7% 4.6% 5.9% 3.1% 2.8%

12 10 13 26 17 11 5 9 10 9 13 11 5 7 14 7 13 7 15 18 15 17 24 31 21 16 9 5 4 4

861

TOTAL 452

3.2% 2.6% 3.4% 6.9% 4.5% 2.9% 1.3% 2.4% 2.6% 2.4% 3.4% 2.9% 1.3% 1.9% 3.7% 1.9% 3.4% 1.9% 4.0% 4.8% 4.0% 4.5% 6.3% 8.2% 5.6% 4.2% 2.4% 1.3% 1.1% 1.1%

378

4 15 6 5 7 8 5 7 3 8 5 1 7 15 11 8 16 7 6 10 23 19 13 15 13 11 10 7 3 0 268

1.5% 5.6% 2.2% 1.9% 2.6% 3.0% 1.9% 2.6% 1.1% 3.0% 1.9% 0.4% 2.6% 5.6% 4.1% 3.0% 6.0% 2.6% 2.2% 3.7% 8.6% 7.1% 4.9% 5.6% 4.9% 4.1% 3.7% 2.6% 1.1% 0.0%

11 10 13 11 10 12 7 8 16 7 23 90 53 24 13 2 6 6 7 12 19 31 17 24 13 21 42 43 33 14 598

1.8% 1.7% 2.2% 1.8% 1.7% 2.0% 1.2% 1.3% 2.7% 1.2% 3.8% 15.1% 8.9% 4.0% 2.2% 0.3% 1.0% 1.0% 1.2% 2.0% 3.2% 5.2% 2.8% 4.0% 2.2% 3.5% 7.0% 7.2% 5.5% 2.3%

4 4 3 6 1 0 0 4 2 2 3 2 5 1 3 10 5 2 5 7 15 4 6 8 7 5 9 13 2 3 141

2.8% 2.8% 2.1% 4.3% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 1.4% 1.4% 2.1% 1.4% 3.5% 0.7% 2.1% 7.1% 3.5% 1.4% 3.5% 5.0% 10.6% 2.8% 4.3% 5.7% 5.0% 3.5% 6.4% 9.2% 1.4% 2.1%

30 65 111 96 70 43 33 33 28 47 49 26 63 56 50 71 60 56 56 122 165 113 105 73 83 61 57 75 72 45

1.5% 3.2% 5.5% 4.8% 3.5% 2.1% 1.6% 1.6% 1.4% 2.3% 2.4% 1.3% 3.1% 2.8% 2.5% 3.5% 3.0% 2.8% 2.8% 6.1% 8.2% 5.6% 5.2% 3.6% 4.1% 3.0% 2.8% 3.7% 3.6% 2.2%

6.0% .•:•

Bikes Percent of Tota l

5.0%

.44

4.0% •:4

0'4

4

3.0%

e

e, • X

p.

2.0%

.04 :

4•41 •1 .

p.

'4;

:3

1.0%

•

40 'X •:• 0.

4

0.0% 0900

0700 0800

1000

93 143 200 178 136 93 70 85 88 103 121 163 183 151 131 143 150 127 138 238 314 266 216 186 186 161 187 206 155 101 4712

2014

7.0%

• •• 4 t•ti

TOTAL BIKES

X '••• 4.

'4!

2100 1900 00 I 1300 1500 I 1700 2000 1800 1600 1200 1400 Time of Day

1.7% 3.0% 4.2% 3.8% 2.9% 2.0% 1.5% 1.8% 1.9% 2.2% 2.6% 3.5% 3.9% 3.2% 2.8% 3.0% 3.2% 2.7% 2.9% 5.1% 6.7% 5.6% 4.6% 3.9% 3.9% 3.4% 4.0% 4.4% 3.3% 2.1%

HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE 1990 BIKE COUNTS - UNIVERSITY OUT

TABLE 3.2

WED AUG15

TIME END

SAT AUG11

SUN AUG12

0700 0730 0800 0830 0900 0930 1000 1030 1100 1130 1200 1230 1300 1330 1400 1430 1500 1530 1600 1630 1700 1730 1800 1830 1900 1930 2000 2030 2100 2130

30 65 111 96 70 43 33 33 28 47 49 26 63 56 50 71 60 56 56 122 165 113 105 73 83 61 57 75 72 45

1.5% 3.2% 5.5% 4.8% 3.5% 2.1% 1.6% 1.6% 1.4% 2.3% 2.4% 1.3% 3.1% 2.8% 2.5% 3.5% 3.0% 2.8% 2.8% 6.1% 8.2% 5.6% 5.2% 3.6% 4.1% 3.0% 2.8% 3.7% 3.6% 2.2%

6 9 21 20 28 39 38 27 44 38 43 53 52 56 52 72 67 100 64 87 94 62 49 59 70 45 46 47 39 49

0.4% 0.6% 1.4% 1.4% 1.9% 2.6% 2.6% 1.8% 3.0% 2.6% 2.9% 3.6% 3.5% 3.8% 3.5% 4.9% 4.5% 6.8% 4.3% 5.9% 6.4% 4.2% 3.3% 4.0% 4.7% 3.0% 3.1% 3.2% 2.6% 3.3%

6 8 13 15 24 27 30 41 54 45 38 41 69 71 103 105 100 84 98 109 108 85 84 58 48 41 59 55 60 62

0.3% 0.5% 0.7% 0.9% 1.4% 1.6% 1.7% 2.4% 3.1% 2.6% 2.2% 2.4% 4.0% 4.1% 5.9% 6.0% 5.7% 4.8% 5.6% 6.3% 6.2% 4.9% 4.8% 3.3% 2.8% 2.4% 3.4% 3.2% 3.4% 3.6%

TOT

2014

100.0%

1476

100.0%

1741

100.0%

9.0% 8.0%

_

7.0%

-

6.0%

^

5.0%

^

4.0%

-

3.0%

-

2.0%

^

1.0%

-

0.0%

I 0700

I 1 1 i i 1700 I 19100 I 2100 1300 1 1500 1 0900 [ 1100 1600 1800 2000 1400 1200 1000 0800 Time of Day 0 WED + SAT 0 SUN

TABLE 3.3

HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE 1990 BIKE COUNTS - UNIVERSITY OUT/IN TIME END

UNIV OUT WED AUG 8

UNIV IN WED SEP19

0700 0730 0800 0830 0900 0930 1000 1030 1100 1130 1200 1230 1300 1330 1400 1430 1500 1530 1600 1630 1700 1730 1800 1830 1900 1930 2000 2030 2100 2130

30 65 111 96 70 43 33 33 28 47 49 26 63 56 50 71 60 56 56 122 165 113 105 73 83 61 57 75 72 45

1.5% 3.2% 5.5% 4.8% 3.5% 2.1% 1.6% 1.6% 1.4% 2.3% 2.4% 1.3% 3.1% 2.8% 2.5% 3.5% 3.0% 2.8% 2.8% 6.1% 8.2% 5.6% 5.2% 3.6% 4.1% 3.0% 2.8% 3.7% 3.6% 2.2%

28 43 119 71 99 47 75 22 35 35 49 50 40 37 37 42 55 58 65 86 95 97 69 63 49 42 32 23 15 32

1.7% 2.7% 7.4% 4.4% 6.1% 2.9% 4.7% 1.4% 2.2% 2.2% 3.0% 3.1% 2.5% 2.3% 2.3% 2.6% 3.4% 3.6% 4.0% 5.3% 5.9% 6.0% 4.3% 3.9% 3.0% 2.6% 2.0% 1.4% 0.9% 2.0%

TOT

2014

100.0%

1610

100.0%

9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0%

i 0700

i I I I I I I i 1900 1300 I 1500 1700 2100 1100 0900 0800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 i Time of Day + UA in 0 UA out

TABLE 3.4

HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE 1990 BIKE COUNTS - DAY OF WEEK FACTOR DAILY VOLUME MON TUE WED THR FRI SAT SUN

% of AVG WKDY

1922 1916 2014 2271 1871 1476 1741

0.96 0.96 1.01 1.14 0.94 0.74 0.87

1.20

*X*

â&#x20AC;¢***:

1.10 1.00 0.90 0.80

cox* mos :ssz

two

kgit gain Mat tigg:

0.70 0

fltgi

0.60

0

0.50 4444 44

0.40 0.30

gig

$$$$$$$$ PI*

0.20

gaol

0.10

itifA :40: 4+:01if

AVM% 0444.* ****

0.00 MON

TUE

WED

THR

Day of Week

FRI

SAT

SUN

HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE - 1990 BIKE COUNTS

TABLE 3.5 TIME END

MON AUG13

TUE AUG14

0700 0730 0800 0830 0900 - 0930

61 127 100 75

70 105 110 78

1000

1030 1100 1130 1200 1230

1300 1330 1400 1430 1500 1530 1600 1630 1700

WED AUG15

30 65 111 96 70 43 33 33 28 47 49 26 63 56 50 71 60 56 56 122 165 113 105 73 83 61 57 75 72 45

6 8 13 15 24 27 30 41 54 45 38 41 69 71 103

0.3% 0.5% 0.7% 0.9% 1.4% 1.6% 1.7% 2.4% 3.1% 2.6% 2.2% 2.4% 4.0% 4.1% 5.9% 6.0% 5.7% 4.8% 5.6% 6.3%

28 43 119 71 99 47 75 22 35 35 49 50 40 37 37 42 55 58 65 86

1.7% 2.7% 7.4% 4.4% 6.1% 2.9% 4.7% 1.4% 2.2% 2.2% 3.0% 3.1% 2.5% 2.3% 2.3% 2.6% 3.4% 3.6% 4.0% 5.3%

5.9% 6.4%

108

6.2%

95

5.9%

62 49 59 70 45 46 47 39 49

4.2% 3.3% 4.0% 4.7% 3.0% 3.1% 3.2% 2.6% 3.3%

85 84 58 48 41 59 55 60 62

4.9% 4.8% 3.3% 2.8% 2.4% 3.4% 3.2% 3.4% 3.6%

97 69 63 49 42 32 23 15 32

6.0% 4.3% 3.9% 3.0% 2.6% 2.0% 1.4% 0.9% 2.0%

386

666

1476

386 0

0 666

2014

2271

1871

1476

1741

1.01

1.14

0.94

0.74

0.87

2014

363 648

363 645

342 717

15HR TOT

1922

1916

FACTOR

0.96

0.96

PM

0.4% 0.6% 1.4% 1.4% 1.9% 2.6% 2.6% 1.8% 3.0% 2.6% 2.9% 3.6% 3.5% 3.8% 3.5% 4.9% 4.5% 6.8%

WED SEP19

94

1008

AM

6 9 21 20 28 39 38 27 44 38 43 53 52 56 52 72 67

72 133 107 74

SUN AUG12

87

1011

TOTAL

SAT AUG11

117 168 104 78 61 48

63 104 149 108 86 74 61

1730

1.5% 3.2% 5.5% 4.8% 3.5% 2.1% 1.6% 1.6% 1.4% 2.3% 2.4% 1.3% 3.1% 2.8% 2.5% 3.5% 3.0% 2.8% 2.8% 6.1% 8.2% 5.6% 5.2% 3.6% 4.1% 3.0% 2.8% 3.7% 3.6% 2.2%

FRI AUG1

105 100 84 98 109

60 100 150 127 84 62 65

1800 1830 1900 1930 2000 2030 2100 2130

THR AUG9

17.0% 35.6%

90

100 64

4.3%

1741

1610

332 524

20.6% 32.5%

BICYCLE VOLUME ESTIMATES

TABLE 3.6 LOCATION 34 AV 50 ST 50 ST 50 ST 50 ST 63 AV 82 AV 82 AV 82 ST 82 ST 86 - 787 AV p:7 AV 87 AV 95 AV 95 AV 97 ST 102 AV 102 AV 106 ST 111 ST 111 ST 111 ST 112 AV •112 AV • 113A ST 114 ST . • 116ST .116 ST 122 ST ...127. ST. : 137 AV 137'AV 142 ST 163 ST 163 ST :BELGRD BELGRD CLOVER : CONFPR r•coNFPR DAWSON HERMRD HERMRD :HIGHLEV HIGHLEV .:JASPAV .

SASKDR .SASKDR STPLRD :V ICTR 1 VICTR

DATE WKDY SAT SUN

Eio.F:a,„i.,:::.i'.;AN;;G . "'Ap6i2pts.q.n:;.w.:::;.:::m ..i:. im:.;:ggl. :TS::;;:m:::::.ii.:::b. .

N or 137 AV 07/12/90 88 65 76 ..S Cf..]::?!:.' 137 .AV..:.:::000. 07/12/90: :: : .. : ::::.. : i : . : . : : ::::i:::::.:.::. 129iji.::.....:.,:::M. ::::i15.11.:.: FTBRG ..

08/09/90281 208 245 f,:::WHTMp. :..05/.29/90 .:.: 43!.: ...S :OF. E OF 103 ST 07/1 2/90 260 192 226 EORI.: • 95A :ST::a.:.,.

•. 08/08/90.: .....669 ..,.:. ,.: 787 707:::1.

E or 103 ST 06/21/90 846 626 736 . N .OF.i .:. 1:i::'.1.12:AV:::§::•:i.ii:::,i:::::::;:::::..:::.!:071.12/90.::::;iii:eig;i:; .n.•1 131.45:::.i.;: :.;]::a:::Ip:15 : : S OF 112 AV 07/12/90 385 285 335 WHTMDR • ..s or::. .:.0;',.:',....::(:)711/90 limi.::::im: 383 ."":!'::: ]i];:.,i$:.!::284..,]:•j;:i!];:!.mi.iim33 .. . .

E OF 112 ST 09/18/90 373 439 WOE :.,: :::.150 ST 09/17/90 369',.::::::ie,:i;::'gi27 . IitiZEgnik321 W OF 170 ST 06/28/90 265 196 231 E OR'..... 163 ST 06119/90 156:::::;.::::ii.i:::: .:.. . ',:gi;.:i.:::. 116•_ii.mes.q::!!1 :..

W OF 163 ST 06/1 9/90 200 148 174 N OR: . .:.:YLW.HDTR;: •.•:": 08/08/90: . :::::475"7: • E OF STPLRD 06/21/90 162 1 41 •W OR:i.::: STPLRD 06/21/90 . . ::::ii'i•'..idg. 174 S OF WHTMDR 06/14/90 • 507 375 441 N: OR .. •coNFF9:;:.:. ? ,, m:.:,op/.1.p./.w:,:ilig::igp:t;:i.25 ....

CONFPR S OF 210 247 S oF.::.....,..:.iiistaxplim!.:: :::.1;R:p 9./1 wsp:c:ii:::,:i::;.: ,.,..;:bp . 219 162.....:::: ::i.: ...:1]*1•1:•• E OF 82 ST 07/12/90 359 266 313 W OF:i::: .:•:! .,82.$T::.taiM:07/12/90.: :-: M:::.:178....:::i:•::::::::.:i.:.::;kgi:::":; ..131••:::::::155 S OF 153 AV 06/14/90 363 269 :. N oF.O.i BELG 0.9/18/90.3,6C1 45 126 NOF . BELGRD 05/23/90 671 496 584 S OR ..,:.::!:::BELGF.PSIMM.: 05/23/90 470 552 N OF 51 AV 08/09/90 294 397 345 : S .0E,aal 1 8.:AvaininV08.7q9/...pp 205 241 E OF 50 ST 07/12/90 166 123 144 . W: of:: .,.-.: ::' ,0. :.sf:Ail:Mga0.7/1:2/0.

176 McKRAV 06/14/90 847 627 737 N OR..:::.• ":::::95....:AVdisairivE:06/19/90 27 72 84 S OF 95 AV • 06/19/90 115 100 E OF . •:.:-.416.STO::::0ffir'05/23/9.0.: :::0:: W Or 116 ST 05/23/90 96 72 .:::'::!FITBRGASM.:::-.. :,. ::08/1.3./9.01]::iiiit-& E OF 111 ST 06/19/90 79 59 69 W OF. ....111. STV.H.:. ... .1:Ii:.i061i9/92.tiit ;::i:::: 230 170: .:i.i..:2..0.0 . . TB RG 08/13/90 148 110 E OR . VI CTR•::::g.i:r • •%::.08/08/90::: :.::7.: 82 W OF VICTR 133 08/08/90 99 116. :• ••:•:. BRIDGE :44 . :0909/90 .;.:;ii .N::::1691 1251 147.1.

BRIDGE 08/15/90 2115 1550 1828 W OF .: 109:ST.:.•!' :::::Wl..... . . .. .:.: 386 . 0.6/28/90 E or 111 ST 09/18/90 792 586 689 • WOE. . 11T: $T.• 4 ..op/18/90 ,..::::. . :::::::: 43..70.: N OF 102 AV 06/21/90 74 64 55 : N OF :HERMRD.i,:: • ••• 04/ w90 . :::86. .

S OF HERMRD 08/08/90 381 282 332

Revised Nov 15 90

APPENDIX BICYCLE ACCIDENTS IN EDMONTON

INE CITY OF

tiC Li I_

i_ TRANSPORTATION

Legislation in Alberta requires that any collision involving a motor vehicle resulting in either death, injury or property damage in excess of $500 be reported to the police. A standardized report is filed which contains details of vehicles and persons involved , location and time of occurrence, and a record of factors contributing to the collision. The Transportation Department extracts pertinent data from these files if the accident occurred on a public road right of way.

Private property occurrences are excluded. Bicycle accident details and totals in this chapter are based on the above criteria, reportable, on street collisions involving a motor vehicle.

A major limitation of the data presented is the absence of collisions of cyclists hitting pedestrians, each other, fixed objects, or falling from the bicycle. Presently there is no requirement to report such incidents. If an individual does report such an occurrence the police document details on a General Occurrence form. As these files include any and all general assistance calls and are filed only by date and time, extraction of bicycle related incidents is cumbersome. For a three month trial period in 1990 (June to August inclusive) the bicycle incidents were extracted. A total of 11 incidents were recorded. Most of the incidents were the cyclist falling from the bike and injuring themselves. In the most severe incident, the cyclist was not expected to survive after striking his head to the pavement. We have no way of determining what percentage these reported incidents are of the total occurring.

A 10 year comparison of all reportable accidents to bicycle accidents (Table 4.1) show a fairly constant relationship of bicycle accidents to total accidents and of cyclist injures to total injuries. Cyclist fatalities to total fatalities fluctuate from year to year. Although the percentage of bicycle accidents to total accidents for 1989 is low, 1.0%, cyclist injuries at 3.4% and fatalities at 3.5% prove that the cyclist is a definite loser when in collision with a vehicle. The general trend is increasing bicycle accidents and injuries, probably directly related to increasing useage.

TABLE 4.1 Comparison of Bike Accidents to Total Accidents ACCIDENTS Bike Total Accid Accid 25,272 133 31,985 195 34,464 198 25,977 190 21,324 233 19,469 232 21,756 210 23,593 223 22,159 273 24,034 262 248 25,036

INJURIES Total #Cycl â&#x20AC;˘WoCycl â&#x20AC;˘ Injury Injury / Total 129 3,261 6,674 188 7,343 183 184 6,609 222 6,392 6,228 229 204 6,621 222 7,208 275 6,702 252 6,803 240 7,135

FATALITIES Total #Cycl Fatal Fatal 4 56 55 3 71 3 62 0 32 1 42 0 40 1 47 1 37 1 47 2 2 58

In 1989 there were 248 bicycle collisions involving 250 bicycles. Injuries resulted from 240 of the collisions with 2 cyclists killed and 240 injured. Tables 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and Figure 4.1 are all based on these 1989 collisions.

Detailed review of cyclist by age group (Table 4.2) yields some interesting observations. In total, cyclists and motor vehicle drivers equally share the blame for causing collisions.

However, a review of cyclist action by age category shows that as cyclists mature they are less

TABLE 4.2

% of Cyclist Actions Within Age Categories

Driving Properly Fail to Observe Control Fail to Yield-Uncontrolled Struck Parked Vehicle Other Cyclist Faults % fo Total Accidents

28.6 0.0 71.4 0.0 0.0

12-15 6 43.2 40.5 8.1 31.0 9.5 35.6 2.7 7.1 11.9 10.9

63.7 19.4 0.0 2.8 14.1

â&#x20AC;˘ 19;24.:': 25430':, 69.4 62.5 4.1 9.4 4.1 6.3 12.2 6.3 10.2 15.5

.8

47.4 7.9 7.9 18.4 18.4 1

52.4 13.2 12.4 9.2 12.8

often at fault. Pre-school cyclists (0-5 yr. olds) are involved in only 3% of the collisions.

They are most often responsible for causing the collisions. Comparatively small in physical size, these cyclists are not easily visible or expected by a motorist. Most occurrences are at uncontrolled crossings where the cyclist fails to yield right of way. Cyclists this age would be close to home on residential streets and lanes.

The elementary and junior high student age brackets account for 30% of the collisions. They are at fault in approximately 60% of the occurrences. Short attention spans and poor comprehension of traffic rules may explain these higher than average rates. One major difference between these two age groups is that the 6 to 11 year olds are colliding at uncontrolled crossings while the 12 to 15 year olds are colliding at controlled locations. Elemetary students usually have shorter trips to schools, junior high students normally travel greater distances on or crossing higher volume collector and arterials roadways.

Cyclists in the 16 to 30 year old categories make up 47% of the collisions. These age categories were less often at fault than other age groups, the cyclists were driving properly in more than 60% of the collisions. Cyclists should be much more familiar with traffic bylaws as many are obtaining drivers licenses by age 16.

Comparison of accident causes and cyclist action (Table 4.3 and 4.4) indicate the motorist manoeuvre when they were at fault in a collision. The most common motorist errors include failure to observe traffic signals and stop signs, failure to yield at uncontrolled crossings, left turn across path, and follow to close. The follow too close, striking cyclist in same lane, are usually the result of an attempt to overtake the cyclist.

Table 4.3 1989 BICYCLE ACCIDENTS - AGE AND ACTION OF CYCLIST INVOLVED â&#x20AC;¢

0-5

6-11 12-15 16-18 19-24 25-30

DRIVING PROPERLY FOLLOW TOO CLOSE FAIL TO OBSERVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL STOP SIGN VIOLATION

2 0 0 0

16 1 1

YIELD SIGN VIOLATION FAIL YIELD R.O.W. NO CONTROL LEFT TURN ACROSS PATH IMPROPER LANE CHANGE

0 5 0 0

0

STRUCK PARKED VEHICLE

0 0

BACKED UNSAFELY IMPROPER TURN LEFT OF CENTRE IMPROPER PASSING OTHER, UKNOWN

0 0 0 0

2 13 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0

17 0 5 5 3 4 0 1 3 1 1 2 0 0

23 1

34

6 1

2

0 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 2 1 2 6 0 0 1 0 0

20 0 0 2 1

31+

UNK

18 2 2

1 0

2 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0

Table 4.4 1989 BICYCLE ACCIDENTS - CAUSE AND ROADWAY PORTION

FOLLOW TOO CLOSE FAIL TO OBSERVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL STOP SIGN VIOLATION YIELD SIGN VIOLATION

7 39 25 10

14 1

FAIL YIELD R.O.W. NO CONTROL

33

11

LEFT TURN ACROSS PATH

5 25

IMPROPER LANE CHANGE

6

14

0 0

STRUCK PARKED VEHICLE RAN OFF ROAD BACKED UNSAFELY IMPROPER TURN LEFT OF CENTRE IMPROPER PASSING

0 1 1 7 1

23 0 2 3 9

2 1

3 0

OTHER, UKNOWN TOTAL

1

0

0 0 0 1 0 0 0

1

0 0

0 3 0 3

2 2 0 0

7 0 0 2

3 0

0 0

0 0 1 0

Accident distributions over time coincide with expected cycling patterns. Time of day distributions (Figure 4.1) indicates weekday concentrations in the morning and evening peak traffic periods when home to/from school work trips are being made. A slight increase at noon may indicate students using bicycles during lunch breaks. Collisions on Saturday and Sunday are occurring later in the day. Distribution over the week (Figure 4.2) shows Monday and Friday as the highest weekdays. Weekends are lower, most school and work trips would be replaced by recreational trips. As expected, month of year (Figure 4.3) shows few collisions during winter months with April to September recording most of the collisions. The November collisions may indicate the arrival of a hardier breed of cyclist.

One item of information which was not readily available from the accident database was the type of roadway travelled. A review of 1988 collisions included the addition of roadway type, arterial, collector, residential or local, and service road or lane. As the 1989 experience with bicycle collisions do not indicate a changing pattern from 1988, the 1988 analysis is deemed acceptable for this review and was not updated. Table 4.5 is based on 1988 records.

The majority of all bike accidents occur on arterial roadways, 62% of the total. A breakdown of accidents by roadway type within each age group, shows an increase in arterial accidents as cyclist age increases.

Table 45 % of Collisions on Roadway Types by Age Group Roadway Type/Age Arterial Collector Residential Service Rd/Lane Pici:ORTOTA LACC D ENTS

0 37.5 25.0 37.5 0.0

6-it 1244.2 59.5 16.7 16.3 30.2 19.0 4.8 9.3

1 1 76.5 11.8 11.8 0.0 NV"

70.8 13.8 10.8 4.6

547..

64.4 10.2 23.7 1.7 2

62.1 13.4 20.3 4.2

As young adults gain on-road experience and confidence, their trip lengths increase, exposing them to higher traffic volumes. The 0-11 year olds cycle primarily for recreation, staying close to home or cycling short distances to school on low volume residential or collector roadways.

As the 12-16 age groups acquire increased independance, confidence, and roadway experience, cycling to school or a partime job exposes them to higher traffic volumes on the collector and arterial roadways. Starting out in the work force and/or attending secondary and post secondary schools, the 16 and over age groups use the bicycle as an inexpensive mode of trasportation, sharing the arterials with motorist.

1 9 8 9 BICYCLE ACCIDENTS FIGURE 4.1 TIME OF DAY DISTRIBUTION 28% 26% 24% 22% 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 0100 0300 0500 0700 0900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 Time of Day WKDY + SAT 0 SUN

FIGURE 4.2 DAY OF WEEK DISTRIBUTION

FIGURE 4.3 MONTH OF YEAR DISTRIBUTION

20.0%

18.0%

19.0%

17.0%

18.0%

16.0%

17.0%

15.0%

16.0%

14.0%

15.0%

13.0%

14.0%

12.0%

13.0%

i:18111

12.0%

11.0% 10.0%

ILO% 10.0% a.

9.0% a.

9.0% 8.0%

8.0% 7_0%

7.0%

6.0%

6.0%

niginnn•

5.0%

5.0% 4.0%

4.0%

1ga

3.0%

3.0% 2.0%

2.0%

MCC •••••••••••••••

1.0% 0.0%

1_0% 0.0%

YON

T1JE

WED

1110

FlO

SAT

SUN

JAN FEB IAR APR UV JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

In addition to the preceding analysis, a survey of accident locations was carried out by plotting the reported accidents for the years 1985-1989 inclusive on a map of the city.

Having plotted all of the accidents, "black spots" and "grey corridors" were identified. Black spots are those locations recording five or six accidents over the five year period in question (no location recorded greater than six accidents). The black spots are: 90 avenue and 85 street traffic circle, 82 avenue and 83 street intersection, 82 avenue and 103 street intersection, 82 avenue and 104 street intersection, 82 avenue and 105 street intersection, 34 avenue and 106 street intersection, 97 avenue and 109 street intersection, 102 avenue and 109 street intersection, Jasper avenue and 102 street intersection, Stony Plain Road and 142 street intersection.

Grey corridors are those links which recorded greater than seven accidents per kilometer over the same five year period. These locations are: Jasper avenue from 117 street to 103A avenue, 109 street from 103 avenue to 100 avenue, 112 street from 89 avenue to 82 avenue, 82 avenue from 112 street to 95 street, 109 street 88 avenue to 70 avenue, 97 street from 137 avenue to 111 avenue, 101 street from 111 avenue to Jasper avenue, 107 avenue from 109 street to 101 street, 87 avenue from 116 street to 109 street, Stony Plain Road from 156 street to 137 street, 178 street from 95 avenue to 76 avenue, 83 avenue from 106 street to 103 street.

Once identified, the individual accident reports for these sights were analyzed in order to determine the reasons for the high incidence. This information was used in conjunction with the known approximation of bicycle use as determined from the "1989 Bicycle User Survey".

The resulting analysis indicates that in the case of the black spots, all occur on very high use corridors according to the user survey as well as on intersections reporting high motor vehicle accident numbers (averaging 100 reported motor-vehicle accidents each over the same five year period). In addition, 70 percent of these black spots fall on grey corridors most of which may be similarly explained.

Very high use corridors with low accident numbers were typically free of parking and low on bus traffic or had special (Class I) bicycle facilities with good condition ratings (see Appendix 5: 1990 Bicycle Route Condition Survey).

Correspondingly, Class I facilities with good condition ratings

were all high use, low accident areas when the route served a commuting function; le., directly linked major generators.

Exceptions among the grey corridors were 178 street from 95 avenue to 76 avenue (with seven to ten accidents per kilometer) which typically involved younger cyclists (below the age of 1989 Bicycle User Survey respondents -- 8-13 years likely commuting to school by the times of the accidents), 83 avenue from 106 street to 103 street (with seven to ten accidents per kilometer) where the majority of accidents involved parked vehicles and must therefore be considered with some skepticism owing to the size of the sample, and Stony Plain Road from 156 street to 137 street which did have a high number of buses and high use but also appeared to have some geometry problems relating to the narrowing and widening of the kerb lane as well as the intermittent nature of the parking allowances.

It should be noted that this information does not include bicycle/bicycle or bicycle/pedestrian conflicts and should therefore not place undo emphasis on the favorability of-Class I facilities as these accident types will obviously not have occurred in any significant number on Class III facilities.

Regarding Class II facilities, there is only one of any significance in the city, and while it is a high use link which did not show up as a grey corridor, it is a moderately high accident corridor (with four to six accidents per kilometer) which deserves mention insofar as unlike other high use, moderate accident number links, it has low motor vehicle tr conjunction with the known approximation of biCycle use as determined from the "1989 Bicycle User Survey".

The resulting analysis indicates that in the case of the black spots, all occur on very.high use corridors according to the user survey as well as on intersections reporting high motor vehicle accident numbers (averaging 100 reported motor-vehicle accidents each over the same five year period). In addition, 70 percent of these black spots fall on grey corridors most of which may be similarly explained.

Very high use corridors with low accident numbers were typically free of parking and low on bus traffic or had special (Class I) bicycle facilities with good condition ratings (see Appendix 5: 1990 Bicycle Route Condition Survey).

Correspondingly, Class I facilities with good condition ratings were all high use, low accident areas when the route served a commuting function; ie., directly linked major generators.

Exceptions among the grey corridors were 178 street from 95 avenue to 76 avenue (with seven to ten accidents per kilometer) which typically involved younger cyclists (below the age of 1989 Bicycle User Survey respondents -- 8-13 years likely commuting to school by the times of the accidents), 83 avenue from 106 street to 103 street (with seven to ten accidents per kilometer) where the majority of accidents involved parked vehicles and must therefore be considered with some skepticism owing to the size of the sample, and Stony Plain Road from 156 street to 137 street which did have a high number of buses and high use but also appeared to have some geometry problems relating to the narrowing

and widening of the kerb lane as well as the intermittent nature of parking.

It should be noted that this information does not include bicycle/bicycle or bicycle/pedestrian conflicts and should therefore not place undo emphasis on the favorability of Class I facilities as these accident types will obviously not have occurred in any significant numbaer on Class III facilities.

Regarding Class II facilities, there is only one of any significance in the city, and while it is a high use link which did not show up as a grey corridor, it is a moderately high accident corridor (with four to six accidents per kilometer) which deserves mention insofar as unlike other high use, moderate accident number links, it has low motor vehicle traffic.

APPENDIX 5 1990 BICYCLE ROUTE CONDITION SURVEY

a Lon TRANSPORTATION

BICYCLE ROUTE CONDITION SURVEY An evaluation program was devised to quantify routes from the perspective of a cyclist's safety and comfort. Existing and high demand routes were traversed by an experienced cyclist recording physical route attributes and conditions. Data collected included lane widths, parking existence and use, driveway interference, sight obstructions, surface composition and condition, and obstructions such as railcrossings, catchbasins, bridge joints and rumble strips. Signing deficiencies were also noted. Field data was supplemented with information on speed limits, and traffic volumes and composition.

In order to reduce all the data for given sections of roadway into a single rating, a weighting of the numerous entities was applied. Relative importance of individual entities was derived from a survey of perceptions of members of the bicycling community. A rating is derived for each link on a route, and is then combined with length and rating for each link to arrive at an overall rating for each route.

As the ratings are a relative measure of deficiency, the higher the rate, the less desirable the route is for cyclists.

Individual links measured range from ratings of 10 to 560. A rating of less than 60 would indicate excellent riding condition, a rating between 60 and 80 would indicate comfortable riding conditions, and ratings greater than 80 would indicate the existence of noticeable deficiencies.

Factors such as continuity and how well designated routes serve commuting functions (relative to trip generators) were observed in the field but are not included in the overall rating.

These factors were used to assist in the evaluation of the 1989 Bicycle User Survey questionnaires. Signing deficiencies identified will be incorporated into a sign installation program.

Access ramp deficiencies will be incorporated into the pararamp installation program.

Links of the designated route system ranged in ratings from 20 to 560 overall route ratings ranged from 30 to 145 falling mostly in the seventies to nineties. On non-designated, high demand routes (according to the 1989 Bicycle User Survey), links ranged from 10 to 230 in rating While the entire routes ranged from 50 to 110, with averages in the same range as the designated route system. Given the similarity in safety and comfort of the two systems (and indeed more uniform quality among the nondesignated routes) and the fact that the non-designated routes more directly link major traffic generators (most of which exist on major arterials) the reason for the indicated preference becomes obvious. This may also call the development of segregated bicycle facilities for commuting purposes into question.

BICYCLE ROUTE CONDITION SURVEY RO

ROUTE = Overall description, eg: 34 Avenue (66 Street to 111 Street) plus route number as per existing file

LI

LINK = Section of route to which data sheet refers. Start and finish of links were selected at changes in type of facility (eg: on-street to sidewalk), by signalized intersections (with discretion), and by other changes in bicycle operating conditions.

TY

TYPE = Type of bicycle facility (1)Paved trail (remote from roadway) (2)Designated lane (3)No designation (4)Service road (5)Sidewalk (6)On street

LE

LENGTH = Length of link in km

DTr

AAWDT = Average Annual Weekday Traffic/1000

NTr

TRUCKS = The number of thousands of trucks on the link per day

BHr

TOTAL BUSES DURING PM PEAK HOUR

SLr

SPEED= Posted limit (km/h) THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS ALL COLLECTED IN THE FIELD

OPr

ON STREET PARKING = Existence and use (with class III bikeways) (1)Parking prohibited 24 hours (2)Parking allowed but npt used (3)Parking prohibited peak hours (4)Parking allowed and used (0) Irrelevant

DRr

DRIVEWAYS = # existing on link which affect bikeway (Class I and II bikeways)

WIr

WIDTH = statement of adequacy for intended function For Class I and II bikeways: (0) Adequate = >1.5m one-way or >2.5m two-way (1)Adequate with few short exceptions (2)Inadequate = <1.5m or 2.5m as above For Class III and potential (non-designated) bikeways: (0) Adequate = >3.7m (outside lane width) (1)Adequate with few short exceptions (2)Inadequate = <3.7m

STr

SURFACE TYPE = Composition (1)Asphalt (2)Concrete (3)Wood (4)Metal

RHr

RAILING HEIGHTS (0) Adequate Cl) Inadequate relative to centre of gravity of cyclist (on bridges)

SGr

SIGHT LINES = Description of specific incidents of visiblity obstruction/imparement (0) Good = no incidents (1)(4 of incidents) = disconcerting (2)(4 of incidents) = blind

REr

REPAIR = Condition of surface eg. Good/Fair/Poor (relative to frequency of cracks/potholes and rideability of surface) Plus indication of specific incidents of impassable damage.

(0) Good = no switching required (1) = infrequent disturbances (2)Fair = adequate (3) = frequent disturbances (4)Poor = tendency to avoid route due to frequency of ride disturbances

DEr

DEBRIS = Frequency of debris imparing bicycle movement (0) Low = Nothing imparing (1)Moderate = passable (2)High = avoid route

CBr

CATCHBASINS = Number of each type of specific incidents of improper orientation of grates and projections of water and sanitation fixtures necessitating adjustment of bicycle line of movement

BJr

BRIDGE JOINTS = Description (0) Good(Irrelevant) (1)Fair (2)Poor as related to effect on bike movement

RRr

RAILROAD CROSSINGS= Specific problems and degree of problem; (1)(#) = bad (2)(#) = impassable such as angle of crossing, inadequacy of approach, and rideability

RSr

RUMBLE STRIPS = # of rumble strips or speed bumps existing on link

INr

INTERSECTIONS = # of intersections on link where bicycle may require to stop

LIr

LIGHTS = number of incidents where traffic control lights are not visible from normal bike lane/path

PRr

PARARAMPS = Description (0) Satisfactory (l)(*) Inadequate (2)(*) Required

SRr

SPECIAL TURNING REQUIREMENTS = # of incidents such as conditions where bicycle must cross multiple lanes to execute turn and awkward corners. eg. 102 Avenue and 137 Street westbound left turn.

RSr

REQUIRED SIGNAGE = # of specific sign still required on link

AEr

AESTHETICS = Description (0) Good = Parkland (1)Fair = Residential (2)Poor = Industrial

RATE

LINK RATING = A safety and comfort index used to measure and compare links within the bicycling network. Individual data elements are weighted based on link length (for quantity indications) and a relative importance derived from a survey of the perceived impressions of the bicycling community. The weighted data is then added to arrive at the final link rating.

RATE*KM

LINK RATING KILOMETER = The link rating multiplied by the length for the purpose of summation, then division of the sum by the total route length in order to arrive at equitable OVERALL ROUTE RATING

-BICYCLE ROUTE CONDITION SURVEY WEIGHTING FACTORS Instructions: You have $100 to allocate to various aspects of bicycle route improvements. You must distribute the funds between the six general groupings of factors which affect the bicycle operating environment, so as to indicate the priorities as you perceive them.

Your decisions will be used to determine the relative importance of these factors, which will then be used to develop a comparative assessment of existing and potential bicycle routes in Edmonton.

Amount Allocated

Factors Reducing .the Impact of Other Traffic: Average Annual Weekday Traffic Truck Count Bus Count Speed Limit On Street Parking Driveways Improving Route Engineering Details: Width Surface Type Railing Heights Sight Lines Improving Route Riding Condition:â&#x20AC;˘ Repair Debris Catchbasins Bridge Joints Railway Crossings Rumblestrips Improving Intersection Details: Intersections Traffic Light Visibility Parar amps Special Turning Requirements $ Improving Route Marking: Required Signage Improving Aesthetics: Sensory impact (Industrial-parkland) Total:

$100

WHO' ruCI Cwt.

m AVEr

ROUTE LOCATION RATING 1 111 STREET 2 WHITEMUD 3 122 STREET 4 112 STREET 5 SASK. DRIVE 6 GROAT 7 UNIVERSITY 8 ARGYLL 9 WHYTE 10 86 STREET 11 MILL CREEK 13 SASK. EAST 14 CASTLEDOWNS 15 137 AVENUE 16 127 STREET 17 97 AVENUE

57 34 65 79 46 56 93 77 82 145 75 102 29 73 71 92

ROUTE LOCATION RATING 18 142 STREET 19 102 AVENUE 20 97 STREET 21 92 STREET 22 ADA BLVD. 23 119 AVENUE 24 82 STREET 25 50 STREET 26 VICTORIA 27 RIVER ROAD 28 89 AVENUE 29 28 AVENUE 30 RIVERDALE 34 MILLBOURNE 35 34 AVENUE

89 73 96 128 67 91 94 58 30 61 73 60 91 47 78

NON—DESIGNATED, HIGH—USE ROUTES (as indicated in the 1989 Bicycle User Survey)

ROUTE LOCATION 1 ST.ALBERT TRAIL 2 97 STREET 3 82 STREET 4 50 STREET 5 111 AVENUE 6 106 AVENUE 7 WHYTE AVENUE

RATING 94 90 88 64 98 53 95

ROUTE LOCATION 8 106 STREET 9 109 STREET SOUTH 10 WHITEMUD 11 87 AVENUE 12 STONY PLAIN ROAD 13 109 STREET NORTH

RATING 56 98 107 78 101 108

APPENDIX 6 EXISTING HiGq DEMAND BICYCLE ROUTES

CITY OF

.ri

120

fl

TRANSPORTATION

HIGH DEMAND ROUTES The following high demand routes have been identified in the 1989 Bicycle User Survey.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

The entire river valley and ravine paved system.

The High Level Bridge and its approaches, •ie: 109 Street from 61 Avenue to 111 Avenue Saskatchewan Drive, from Mill Creek Ravine to Groat Road 82 (Whyte) Avenue Groat Bridge/Groat Road/Saskatchewan Drive 100 Avenue (downtown) 127 Street 97 Street, north of 118 Avenue Victoria Trail 137 Avenue -50 Street, Mill Woods to 137 Avenue 86 Street 106 Street, from 23 Avenue to 82 Avenue 115 Street/113 Street/114 Street 119 Street/122 Street/Belgravia Road Whitemud Drive/Quesnell Bridge/Fox Drive 87 Avenue/142 Street/102 Avenue/Stony Plain Road

These routes are listed above in their apparent priority, based on the information from the User Survey. Recent surveys conducted by the Parks and Recreation Department confirm the very heavy useage of the river valley trails for recreational bicycling. The other identified high demand routes are consistent with the high generation of bicycle trips by the greater campus area, and by the downtown area.

With the exception of ,the western section of Saskatchewan Drive, 127 Street, 86 Street, and 106 Street, the high demand routes are on arterial roadways.

Existing conditions on these identified high demand routes are discussed below, except for the river valley and ravines trail systems which have been addressed by the Parks and Recreation Department in other reports.

High Level Bridge and Approaches The fact that the High Level Bridge is the only river crossing in the city that does not have steep and/or long approach grades for bicycles, and that it provides direct access to both the University of Alberta and the downtown area, make this the most important and most used river crossing for bicycles in the city.

The High Level Bridge is very heavily used by bicyclists and pedestrians, and for many years it has been known that the shared operating environment is less than ideal.

Several options to resolve this have been evaluated in recent years, and the preferred solution is to develop the top deck of the Bridge into a wide pedestrian-bicycle facility. This is included in the concept plan for the extension of the Heritage Trail, developed by the Planning and Development Department in 1988. However, the Bridge is still owned by Canadian Pacific Railways, and its_future disposition, even though rail To give some operations have now ceased, has not been resolved. certainty to the bicycling community that the City is in fact serious about resolving this long-standing problem in a comprehensive way, it

may be appropriate for the Planning and Development Department to bring the Heritage Trail extension concept plan forward to City Council for approval at this time.

The new footbridge beneath the Dudley Menzies L.R.T. bridge, while creating a further river crossing option for bicycles, will not have any significant impact upon the usage of the High Level Bridge.

The existing south approach to this new bridge is from Walterdale Hill, which involves a significant detour for University-generated bicycle traffic; the north approach does not provide a grade-separated crossing of River Valley Road or Fortway Drive.

The approaches to the High Level Bridge, ie: 109 Street from 61 Avenue to 111 Avenue, which are also heavily used by bicyclists, present two particular difficulties to bicycles, in addition to the generally narrow street configuration and the large volume of general traffic.

The designated northbound bus and taxi lane between 82 Avenue and Saskatchewan Drive forces bicycles to operate either illegally in the bus lane, or in extreme danger in the second lane.

The accepted practice in Europe is for such with-flow bus lanes to be for buses, taxis and bicycles. A complex bus-priority system was introduced in the city of Derby, U.K. in 1981, including both with-flow and contra-flow bus lanes, with selective bans on the use of these lanes by bicycles.

After a two-year trial period, all bans on the use of bicycles in both with-flow and contra-flow bus lanes were removed, as no negative effects could be ascribed to the shared use of the lanes, despite a significant increase in the number of bicycles.

Bus-bike lanes also currenty operate in Toronto, Ontario, Madison, Wisconsin, Washington, D.C., Seattle, Washington, and Tuscon, Arizona. Effective in September 1991, buses, bicycles and taxis will be sharing the 109 Street bus lane, on a one-year experimental basis. The same difficulties for bicycles are also created by the peak,hour bus lanes along Jasper Avenue, between 121 Street and 108 Street, and on 97 Street, between 118 Avenue and 137 Avenue, and by the downtown bus lanes.

The second difficulty for bicycles approaching the High Level Bridge is the "Rathole" between 104 Avenue sand 105 Avenue. This extremely narrow two-lane tunnel has narrow walkways on each side of the road; the west walk is signed for bicycles only, while the east walk is signed for pedestrians only. This of course does not happen, and both walkways are shared, apparently with some success, by bicycles and pedestrians. As with the High Level Bridge itself, there is no reasonable low-cost way of improving the current situation, and the resolution of this particular difficulty requires the replacement of the Rathole by an atgrade roadway. This is one of the changes identified in the Agreement between the City of Edmonton and C.N.R., regarding the development of the Grant MacEwan Campus on the CN Downtown Yards. The timing for the construction of 109 Street at-grade is not yet defined, and it could be several years in the future.

Saskatchewan Drive West of the High Level Bridge, Saskatchewan Drive provides access to the University of Alberta from both the High Level and Groat Bridges, the latter via Emily Murphy Hill.

East of the High Level Bridge, Saskatchewan Drive is the major bicycle access route to the University

and the High Level Bridge from the Strathcona area, with its large student population.

The configuration of the existing bicycle facilities along Saskatchewan Drive is variable, and results in some erratic and illegal manoeuvres. This is compounded by the constrained and complex nature of the general street system in the adjacent Campus, Garneau and Strathcona neighbourhoods.

The new sidewalk on Groat Bridge will reinforce the existing use of the sidewalk on the north side of Emily Murphy Hill by bicycles. At the top of the Hill the sidewalk (officially designated a Class I bikeway) stops in the middle of the intersection with 116 Street, and bicycles are supposed to revert to two-way travel on Saskatchewan Drive.

This results in erratic bicycle movements being added to the alreadydifficult intersection at the top of the Hill. An informal trail exists all the way along the north side of Saskatchewan Drive to 111 Street, where a Class I bikeway starts again on the north side of Saskathewan Drive and leads to the High Level Bridge via 90 Avenue. Eastbound bicyclists operating on the road at this point naturally tend to continue east on the street, if they do not wish to access the campus via 111 Street, resulting in illegal wrong-way operation on Saskatchewan Drive between 111 and 110 Streets. The logical routing for bicycles wishing to access the signal-protected crossing of 109 Street at 88 Avenue, which is the direct connection to Saskatchewan Drive east of 109 Street, is eastbound along 88 Avenue. However, 88 Avenue was one-way westbound between 110 Street and 109 Street, and therefore there were on-going violations of the one-way and illegal sidewalk riding by bicycles. In May 1991 a contra-flow eastbound bicycle lane was created along 88 Avenue, between 110 Street and 109 Street, on a one-year trail basis, to resolve these problems.

Large numbers of pedestrians and bicycles approach the intersection of 109 Street/88 Avenue/Walterdale Hill/Saskatchewan Drive/High Level Bridge from all directions, and cross one or more of the several streets at-grade. The cessation of rail operations by the C.P.R. should create oppportunities to improve both service and safety for all modes of transportation at this location, as the tunnel under Saskatchewan House, the top deck of the High Level Bridge, and the approaching rail rightof-way through Strathcona could all be utilized in some fashion by bicycles and/or pedestrians.

East of 109 Street, the Class I bikeway along the north side of Saskatchewan Drive is very narrow, crosses both 91 Avenue and Queen Elizabeth Park Hill Road at-grade, includes a couple of steps in the boardwalk section, and has very few ramps to provide convenient access for bicycles on the north-south streets. At the eastern end of the route, 99 Street/Strathcona Hill, there are no convenient connections to the street system, or Mill Creek Ravine. The Planning and Development Department's concept for the extension of the Heritage Trail includes Saskatchewan Drive, from the High Level Bridge to Scona Road, and down Scona Road to the Low Level Bridge, as a major joint pedestrian-bicycle facility.

82 (Whyte) Avenue Whyte Avenue is well used by bicycles along its entire length, because it provides direct and continuous access to the University area from

Strathcona and the south-east of the city. The connection to Mill Creek Ravine also appears to be important. An on-street designated bicycle route on parallel residential streets exists from 112 Street to 75 Street. This route does not facilitate through movements, and is not well used. There is considerable activity along Whyte Avenue, with onstreet parking, many small retail businesses, apartments, etc, all generating vehicular and pedestrian activity, in addition to the through arterial traffic generated by the direct connection to the Sherwood Park Freeway and the University of Alberta campus. The only existing bicycle "facility" is the ban on bicycles using the north sidewalk on the Mill Creek Ravine bridge; the south sidewalk is part of the little-used parallel designated bicycle route.

In the spring of 1991 the lane markings on the bridge deck were repainted so as to create wide curb lanes in both directions, in an attempt to encourage bicyclists to remain on the road rather than go up onto the sidewalk to cross the ravine.

It is very difficult to say what, if any, bicycle-specific measures may be required, or even achievable, along Whyte Avenue, without further detailed analysis and consideration.

Groat Bridge and Approaches The Groat Bridge provides a direct connection into the University area from the west and northwest of the city, via both the MacKinnon Ravine trail and Groat Road. The 1989/1990 redecking included the construction of a wide sidewalk on the east side of the bridge, to accommodate the large numbers of both bicycles and pedestrians using the bridge. Access ramps connecting the new sidewalk to Emily Murphy Hill, Groat Road, River Road, and the MacKinnon Ravine/River Road trails were constructed in 1991. The busy and difficult roadway in Groat Ravine, which has a discontinuous sidewalk on the west side, will likely remain a popular route for bicycles, because of its directness. The physical constraints in the ravine section mean that essentially nothing can be done to improve the bicycling environment there. However, the recently-paved trail in Ramsey Ravine is only some 500 metres to the west, but little used as it does not provide any direct connections to either the street system, or the existing on-street designated bicycle routes. It may be possible to develop an effective alternative to the Groat ravine using Ramsey Ravine, if the alternative route can be made sufficiently direct.

The southern approach to Groat Bridge, along Saskatchewan Drive and Groat Road South, is also well used by bicycles. Bicycle facilities exist along these roadways, although there is no continuity through the Mayfair Interchange or with the new sidewalk on the Groat Bridge. The Class I bikeway on the west side of Groat Road South starts at the entrance to Hawrelak Park, cannot be accessed from either Groat Road southbound or the southbound ramp, and is very narrow.

100 Avenue (Downtown) In the downtown area, 100 Avenue is well used by bicycles, as it connects directly to the west end routes (MacKinnon Ravine, 102 Avenue), via Victoria Park Hill Road and the newly-constructed Victoria Promenade, and therefore provides an alternative through route to Jasper Avenue. However, the morning peak period bicyclist on Jasper Avenue, heading eastbound from west of 121 Street, is faced with a major

dilemma: it is illegal to continue east along Jasper in the bus lane, it is very dangerous to continue east along Jasper in the second lane, and it is illegal to head east along Victoria Promenade, either on the street or on the sidewalk (Heritage Trail).

Those who do proceed eastward on the sidewalk find that there is no way of re-entering the street system at the intersection of 116 Street/Victoria Park Hill Road/Victoria Promenade. It is clearly unreasonable to place bicyclists in this dilemma. 99 Avenue provides a relatively quiet alternative to 100 Avenue between 104 and 114 Streets, except for a one-block section of one-way westbound traffic, between 105 and 106 Street. The Heritage Trail has been constructed along the south sidewalk of 99 Avenue, and could accommodate eastbound bicycles for the one block section, thereby providing a continuous alternative two-way bicycle route across the south part of the downtown and Oliver areas.

127 Street/97 Street/Victoria Trail/50 Street The C.N.R. mainline runs all the way across the city, immediately north of the Yellowhead Trail. These two major transportation corridors are crossed only by arterial roadways, carrying large traffic volumes. The three major bicycle crossings of choice are 127 Street, 97 Street, and Victoria Trail. Secondary bicycle crossings occur at St. Albert Trail, reflecting direct inter-urban movements into the central area; on 82 Street, which provides a direct route to Jasper Avenue; and on 50 Street, which provides a direct route to the river valley and river bridge.. Other crossings, at 66 Street and all arterials west of the St. Albert Trail, are much less attractive to bicyclists.

127 Street is a designated bicycle route from 127 Avenue to 104 Avenue.

North of 127 Avenue the designated route leads through the Athlone and Wellington neighbourhoods, and connects to 137 Avenue at 140 Street.

This section of the route is little used, most bicycles ccantinuing on 127 Street all the way to 137 Avenue. Between Stony Plain Road and 118 Avenue, 127 Street operates as a one-way northbound roadway, with a 2.7 metres wide two-way bicycle lane adjacent to the west curb. This oneway operation was implemented in the late 1970's to reduce the volume of short-cutting traffic on 127 Street, and created the opportunity to use some of the surplus pavement width as a special bicycle facility. A two-way bicycle lane on one side of a street is one of the most hazardous types of special bicycle facility that can be provided, as it creates unusual and unexpected - but legal - bicycle movements at intersections. At each of the eleven unsignalized intersections with two-way side streets along the bicycle lane, 21 possible conflicts can occur, and the. northbound bicyclist operating in the bicycle lane is required to scan through almost three-quarters of a full circle when approaching an intersection, to determine whether or not other properlyoperating vehicles will be in conflict in the intersection. As the bicycle lane is not swept by motor vehicles, and does not receive any special sweeping in lieu of this, road debris accumulates in the bicycle lane, making bicycle operations difficult. Despite these operational difficulties the 127 Street bicycle lane is well-used by bicyclists.

However, the reported bicycle accident rate along 127 Street is similar to that of arterial roadways carrying similar volumes of bicycle traffic but much higher volumes of general traffic. It is therefore difficult

to say whether this special bicycle facility does in fact improve the bicycling environment. As part of the A.M.P.L.E. work in the adjacent neighbourhoods, the bicycle lane has been reconstructed using special pavement treatment and additional rumble strips at the frequent intersections, in an attempt to reduce the operating speed and raise the awareness of bicyclists approaching the intersections. Complaints have since been received from both bicyclists and motorists, that the bicycle lane is now even more uncomfortable to ride than it was before, and that bicyclists are riding outside the lane to avoid the new surface treatments.

The unusual and unexpected bicycle movements at intersections that the two-way bicycle lane creates could be removed by the simple expedient of changing the bicycle lane operation to one-way southbound only, with northbound bicyclists operating normally on the northbound roadway. This would reduce the number of possible conflicts at intersections from 21 to 12, and bicyclists would no longer be required to scan three-quarters of a circle. South of Stony Plain Road the designated bicycle route winds through the Groat Estates neighbourhood, to connect to 103 Avenue east of 124 Street, and 102 Avenue at Groat Ravine. This section of the route is very little used, as it is difficult to follow and does not provide direct connections to either the street system or the river valley trails.

97 Street has almost-continuous paved shoulders from the north city limits to 137 Avenue, which provide an attractive and safe bicycling environment. However, between 137 Avenue and 118 Avenue, there are peak hour bus lanes, the multi-lane underpass of the C.N.R. mainline, and the very wide signalized intersection at Yellowhead Trail for bicyclists to deal with.

South of 118 Avenue, bicycle movements are distributed across 118 Avenue to the east and west, and 101,97 and 95 Streets to the south.

There is an existing parallel on-street designated route, betwwen 137 Avenue/105 Street and 118 Avenue/106 Street.

This, designated route is little used by bicyclists, as it diverges away from the desired travel lines.

Victoria Trail has a Class I bicycle facility from 144 Avenue to Abbotsfield Road.

The main function of this route seems to be to provide access to Rundle Park and the river valley trails from Clareview, and from other neighbourhoods in the north-east of the city via 137 Avenue. A significant discontinuity exists immediately south of the Yellowhead Trail interchange, where an unmaintained and therefore unuseable underpass crosses to the north side of 118 Avenue/Abbotsfield Road, leading bicyclists away from the Park. An informal trail, which crosses the eastbound 118 Avenue to Yellowhead ramp at-grade, has been created by bicyclists and pedestrians to fulfill the desired travel pattern.

50 Street has an existing Class I bicycle facility from 137 Avenue to 127 Avenue. As 50 Street leads directly to the river valley trails and the 50 Street river bridge, the existing bicycle facility should be extended south to connect into the river valley trails.

137 Avenue Apart from the obvious concentration of bicycle movements onto the arterial crossings, the other noticeable effect of the C.N.R./Yellowhead barrier to movement is the use of 137 Avenue to provide east-west

distribution of bicycle movements to the preferred north-south arterial Secondary east-west distribution movements also crossing location. occur along 132 Avenue and 127 Avenue.

137 Avenue is a designated bicycle route from 140 Street to Victoria Trail. Although the existing usage by bicycles west of 127 Street is not large, it would be logical to extend the designated route west to St. Albert Trail, to provide simple continuity.

50 Street (south of the river) The high usage of 50 Street between Mill Woods and the river valley, with no designated bicycle facilities, is in direct contrast with the low usage of the parallel 75 Street, which does have a designated bicycle facility for part of its length.. This is thought to be due to the access to the river valley trails and the river bridge which 50 Street provides, whereas 75 Street/Capilano does not.

86 Street/Mill Creek Ravine The most important bicycle route out of Mill Woods is 86 Street/Mill Creek Ravine, which provides a direct radial route between Mill Woods and the central area of the city, and the river valley and ravine trails. Both recreational and commuter trips appear to make good use of this route. There is a designated bicycle facility along 86 Street as far as Argyll Road, then the designated route detours around the outside of the Argyll neighbourhood, to access the Ravine trails. At the north end of the Ravine, the Low Level Bridge provides a direct connection to the downtown area and the northside river valley trails. However, the paved trail out of Mill Creek runs half-way up Connors Hill, across Connors Road, past the Muttart Conservatory, across 98 Avenue, and to the river bridge at 95 street. An informal route through the James MacDonald interchange area, leading directly to the Low Level Bridge, has been created by bicycle and pedestrian traffic, to avoid the hillclimb and detour.

106 Street (23 Avenue to 82 Avenue) 106 Street is used as a direct bicycle commuting route, from 23 Avenue to the University and downtown areas. There are no designated bicycle facilities along 106 Street.

115 Street/113 Street/114 Street This is the original designated bicycle route in Edmonton, connecting the Michener Park area to the University Campus.

The proposed replacement of the two traffic circles on 114 street, at Belgravia Road and University Avenue, in 1992, in conjunction with the provision of slightly wider curb lanes on 114 Street itself, should create a slightly-improved environment for bicycles on this route.

119 Street/122 Street/Belgravia Road This is an important bicycle route for southwest Edmonton, and is very well used from 23 Avenue through to the University Campus area and the river valley. Designated bicycle facilities exist throughout the route.

The recently completed bicycle and pedestrian overpass of Belgravia Road at 116 Street is expected to reinforce the attractiveness of this route.

A6 - 7

The existing designated on-street route trough Belgravia has also been revised, and now is consistent with the route actually used by bicyclists,ie: north along 115 Street, to the signal-controlled pedestrian crossing of University Avenue.

When the 114 Street/University Avenue traffic circle is replaced with a signalized intersection in 1992, a pedestrian-actuation button will also be installed on the east side of the 115 Street/University Avenue intersection, so that northbound bicyclists can safely call up the crossing signal, without having to cross to the west side of the intersection. In addition, the existing on-street route along 78 Avenue between 115 Street and 113 Street, will be replaced by a new route along the service road on the south side of University Avenue, between 115 Street and 113 Street.

Whitemud Drive/Quesnell Bridge/Fox Drive The Quesnell Bridge is the only river crossing in the west end of the city, and is therefore well used by bicyclists.

There is a wide sidewalk on the east side of the Bridge, but there are no continuous or paved approaches to this sidewalk for bicycles. The preferred bicycle route information indicates that Whitemud Drive/Fox Drive are used from 170 Street to 122 Street to access the Quesnell Bridge. There are no designated bicycle facilities along either of these roadways, although there are intermittent paved shoulders on Whitemud Drive. While these may appear to be highly dangerous roads for bicyclists, the accident information for the last five years indicates that there has been only one reported bicycle accident on these sections of Whitemud Drive and Fox Drive in that time: it can be inferred that only skilled and experienced bicyclists actually use Whitemud Drive itself. This is the only section of high-speed, high traffic roadway in Edmonton that is used in any significant numbers by bicyclists, and an attractive alternative west end river crossing facility for bicycles is required, and would most likely be used, if the desired transportation functions were fulfilled.

87 Avenue/142 Street/102 Avenue/Stony Plain Road 87 Avenue is 800 metres north of Whitemud Drive/Quesnell Bridge, and its continuity with 142 Street provides an alternative route for west end bicyclists accessing the central area.

From 142 Street, both the MacKinnon Ravine trail, 102 Avenue and Stony Plain Road are used to access the University and the downtown. Designated bicycle facilities exist along 87 Avenue, from 156 Street to 142 Street, and along 142 Street, from 87 Avenue to Ravine Drive. The designated route winds through the Capitol Hill neighbourhood, between 142 Street/Ravine Drive and the pedestrian signal at 102 Avenue/136 Street. There is also a designated route along 96/97 Avenue, from 142 Street to 161 Street.

Neither of these last two routes are well used by bicyclists.

102 Avenue is a designated bicycle route between 136 Street and the downtown. The major physical hazards along these routes are the ravine bridges.

The MacKenzie and MacKinnon Ravine bridges both have a "safety" barrier at pedal height between the sidewalk/bikeway and the roadway; Ramsey Ravine bridge has very a narrow and poorly-surfaced carriageway and sidewalk, plus the pedal-height railing; the 102

Avenue/Groat Ravine bridge has an open steel deck, which is extremely hazardous to bicycles if it is at all wet, and the designated route across the bridge expects eastbound bicycles to cross 102 Avenue twice in the pedestrain mode, to use the north sidewalk on the bridge. The Stony Plain Road/Groat Ravine bridge is also very narrow, and has pedalheight railings on the sidewalks. Stony Plain Road has narrow lane widths throughout.

HIGH ACCIDENT LOCATIONS All reported bicycle accidents over a five year period (1985 to 1989) have been plotted on a city map, and the high bicycle accident locations and corridors identified (Appendix 4). The accident "black spots", ie: 5 or 6 reported accidents over five years (no location has experienced more than 6 reported bicycle accidents between 1985 and 1989) are: • • • • • • • • • •

Bonnie Doon traffic circle 82 Avenue/86 Street intersection 82 Avenue/103 Street intersection 82 Avenue/104 Street intersection 82 Avenue/105 Street intersection 34 Avenue/106 Street intersection 109 Street/97 Avenue intersection 109 Street/102 Avenue intersection Jasper Avenue/102 Street intersection 142 Street/Stony Plain Road intersection

All of the above locations, except for 34 Avenue/106 Street, are busy intersections, with large traffic volumes and also significant bicycle movements. They are all also, with the exception of the Bonnie Doon traffic circle, on identified high demand bicycle routes, and in the development of specific route improvement plans, the accident records would be reviewed in detail.

The "grey corridors" (See Appendix 4) which exhibit higher bicycle accident rates are of more importance in establishing route improvement priorities. These corridors are: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Jasper Avenue, 98 street to 117 Street 109 Street, 100 Avenue to 103 Avenue 109 Street, 70 Avenue to 88 Avenue 112 Street, 82 Avenue to 89 Avenue 82 Avenue, 95 Street to 112 Street 97 Street, 118 Avenue to 137 Avenue 101 Street, 118 Avenue to Jasper Avenue 87 Avenue, 109 Street to 116 Street Stony Plain Road, 137 Street to 156 Street 102 Avenue, 109 Street to 95 Street 107 Avenue, 101 Street to 109 Street 178 Street, 76 Avenue to 95 Avenue 83 Avenue, 103 Street to 106 Street

Most of the above corridors correspond with high demand routes, and/or high generators of bicycle traffic, and are discussed above.

Those corridors which have not already been discussed are: 101 Street, 118 Avenue to Jasper Avenue This section of 101 Street is one of several roadways south of 118 Avenue used by bicycles to access the downtown area. It also carries a large number of buses, and approximately 30,000 vehicles per day south of Kingsway. There is considerable retail and commercial activity along 101 Street, and also large institutional uses, ie: Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton Public Schools, Victoria Composite High School.

Given the intense nature of all activities along this section of 101 Street, and the limited carriageway and right-of-way, it is not clear what, if any, improvements to the bicycling environment may be required.

107 Avenue, 101 Street to 109 Street This section of 107 Avenue is very similar to 101 Street, as discussed above. Although the number of buses and general traffic volume is somewhat less, there is the same intense developent on both sides of 107 Avenue, and also Victoria Composite High School is one block north.

Given the existing situation, it is not clear what, if any, improvements to the bicycling environment may be required.

178 Street, 76 Avenue to 95 Avenue Bicycle accidents along this section of 178 Street, approaching and adjacent to West Edmonton Mall, seem to involve younger school-age bicyclists, and the time of the accidents suggests that school commuting trips are involved. However, the school catchment areas do not create a requirenment for pupils to use 178 Street to access a school, and therefore it is inferred that these accidents may be due to increased bicycle movements attracted to the Mall. 178 Street is a busy street, carrying over 30,000 vehicles per day, with many intersections and driveways accessing adjacent residential development, as well as the Mall.

83 Avenue, 103 Street to 106 Street The majority of bicycle accidents along this short section of 83 Avenue, which is two-way through to 105 Street then one-way eastbound west of 105 Street, appear to involve parked vehicles.

In this kind of accident, the bicyclist is typically at fault, and remedial actions are difficult to identify.

A6 - 10