1.             CYCLING SAFETY Improvement PROGRAM

 

PROGRAMME D'AMÉLIORATION DE LA SÉCURITÉ À VÉLO

 

 

Committee Recommendation

 

That Council approve the Cycling Safety Improvement Program as outlined in this report, and the safety evaluation methodology as outlined in Documents 1 and 2, subject to approval as part of the Draft Term of council 2011 – 2014 priorities and $80,000 capital funding and $120,000 operating program costs, including one FTE, in the 2012 budget, and that the Draft Term of council 2011 – 2014 priorities report be amended to reflect the annual operating costs of this program.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION DU COMITÉ

 

Que le Conseil approuve le Programme d'amélioration de la sécurité à vélo, résumé dans le présent rapport, la méthodologie d'évaluation de la sécurité, résumée dans les documents 1 et 2, sous réserve de l'approbation dans l'ébauche des priorités pour le mandat 2011-2014 du Conseil et de l'inclusion dans le budget de 2012 d'une dépense en immobilisations de 80 000 $ et d'un coût de fonctionnement du programme, comprenant un ETP, de 120 000 $, ainsi que la modification de l'ébauche des priorités pour le mandat 2011-2014 du Conseil afin de refléter le coût de fonctionnement annuel de ce programme.

 

 

 

 

 

Documentation

 

1.                  Deputy City Manager, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability report dated 21 June 2011 (ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0112).

 

 

Report to/Rapport au :

 

Transportation Committee

Comité des transports

 

and Council / et au Conseil

 

21 June 2011 / le 21 juin 2011

 

Submitted by / Soumis par: Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice municipale adjointe, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability/Services d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités

 

Contact Person / Personne ressource : Vivi Chi, Manager/Gestionnaire, Transportation Planning/Planification des transports, Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

(613) 580-2424 x21877, vivi.chi@ottawa.ca

 

City-wide/à l’échelle de la ville

Ref N°: ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0112

 

 

SUBJECT:

CYCLING SAFETY Improvement PROGRAM

 

 

OBJET :

PROGRAMME D'AMÉLIORATION DE LA SÉCURITÉ À VÉLO

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Transportation Committee recommend Council approve the Cycling Safety Improvement Program as outlined in this report, and the safety evaluation methodology as outlined in Documents 1 and 2, subject to approval as part of the Draft Term of council 2011 – 2014 priorities and $80,000 capital funding and $120,000 operating program costs, including one FTE, in the 2012 budget, and that the Draft Term of council 2011 – 2014 priorities report be amended to reflect the annual operating costs of this program.

 

 

Recommandation du rapport

 

Que le Comité des transports recommande au Conseil d'approuver le Programme d'amélioration de la sécurité à vélo, résumé dans le présent rapport, la méthodologie d'évaluation de la sécurité, résumée dans les documents 1 et 2, sous réserve de l'approbation dans l'ébauche des priorités pour le mandat 2011-2014 du Conseil et de l'inclusion dans le budget de 2012 d'une dépense en immobilisations de 80 000 $ et d'un coût de fonctionnement du programme, comprenant un ETP, de 120 000 $, ainsi que la modification de l'ébauche des priorités pour le mandat 2011-2014 du Conseil afin de refléter le coût de fonctionnement annuel de ce programme.

 

Executive Summary

 

Assumptions and Analysis:

 

In response to several serious cycling accidents involving injuries, staff were directed to determine best practices and make recommendations to implement an on-going program to improve the safety of cyclists on city roads. On 7 April, 2010, the Transportation Committee approved the terms of reference for a Cycling Safety Evaluation Program (CSEP), as presented by staff in report ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0071.

 

The principal objective of this project is to develop a customized process that combines traffic engineering, observed behaviours, and risk mitigation measures to enable on-going road safety improvements of benefit to cyclists within the City of Ottawa.

 

The Cycling Safety Evaluation Program was initiated in August 2010 and completed in May of 2011. City departments and external stakeholder groups were engaged to provide information and direction related to this report. The CSEP project developed an analytical toolkit as a first step to enable the establishment of a proposed on-going Cycling Safety Improvement Program (CSIP), which is described in this report and related documents.

 

The proposed CSIP program would ensure that a well-defined process is in place to address existing problems areas for cyclists even as routes and facilities are undergoing expansion as called for in the Ottawa Cycling Plan.

 

The proposed CSIP provides a tool-kit for assessing the relative degree of ‘danger and discomfort’ of a cycling problem location, and identifies appropriate remediation options.  Ten cycling problem locations were evaluated both as a means of validating the tool, and to help identify a set of cycling safety enhancements for 2011/2012. These sites were selected based on input from cyclists (through a survey), long-term accident data, levels of usage, as well as an attempt to select a broad mixture of example types.

 

The CSEP project also developed a tool designed to assist in selecting appropriate cycling facility types for road-segments (i.e. bike lane, segregated facility, etc.). This tool (called the Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool) was developed after extensive research on current best practices in other jurisdictions and relevant academic papers. The facility type selection tool will be used by City staff when evaluating future cycling facility projects.

 

Staff is recommending that the proposed on-going Cycling Safety Improvement Program (CSIP) be launched in 2012.  Such a program would utilize the tools and processes developed during the CSEP project, and would ultimately come under the responsibility of the Safety and Mobility Unit of the Traffic Management and Operational Support Branch of Public Works.

 

Success of the proposed CSIP program is dependant on the assignment of an appropriate budget and FTE allocation. Transportation Strategic Planning staff will work jointly with the Safety and Mobility Unit during a transition period.

 

During the feedback process stakeholders emphasized that a cycling safety program must incorporate both cycling safety messages (directed to all road users) and cyclist training related to safe cycling practices.  Staff agree with this position, and have identified a set of key initiatives to pursue in co-operation with the relevant City departments.

 

The recommendations in this report are proposed to improve cycling safety across the city, targeted at problem intersections posing particular safety challenges for cyclists.

 

For future remediation by the CSIP program, candidate intersections would be selected by staff in consultation with Councillors and the Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee (RCAC). Staff will then establish a short-list of locations that take into consideration route-viability, route-continuity, accident data involving cyclists, and opportunities to take advantage of planned roadway reconstruction projects.  Staff will include budget requests for specific CSIP target sites on a yearly basis as part of the over-all CSIP budget line item.

 

At the end of each two-year CSIP period, staff will prepare a report for Transportation Committee summarizing analysis and actions taken for each site, and showing trends in over-all accident rates vs. cycling rates.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Funding for the implementation of the Cycling Safety Evaluation Program was approved as part of the 2011 Cycling Facilities Program.

 

The on-going requirements of $80,000/year (plus incremental increases) capital funding, and one FTE and $120,000 base operating funding in 2012 (including $100,000 FTE funding, and $20,000 for other program costs), and additional $20,000 base operating funding in each of 2013 and 2014 will be subject to the Term of Council Priorities process, and approval through future-year budget processes.

 

Public Consultation/Input: 

 

Staff has consulted with the RCAC Safely and Education Subcommittee, as well as the Full RCAC committee. Staff discussed the CSEP with various cycling advocacy groups, including Cycling Vision Ottawa, Citizens for Safe Cycling (Advocacy meeting), and other delegations present at the 7 April 2010 Transportation Committee review of the terms of reference.  Staff also solicited input from residents at large via a successful on-line and on‑pathway survey which collected responses from over 2,000 residents.

 

All impacted Councillors will be consulted as intersections/road segments are addressed or analyzed within their wards.

 

RÉSUMÉ

 

Hypothèses et analyse

 

En réponse à plusieurs accidents sérieux de bicyclette qui ont causé des blessures, le personnel a reçu la consigne de déterminer les pratiques exemplaires et de faire des recommandations afin de mettre en œuvre un programme continu visant à améliorer la sécurité des cyclistes sur les voies urbaines. Le 7 avril 2010, le Comité des transports a approuvé le cadre de référence du Programme d’évaluation de la sécurité à bicyclette, tel que l’a présenté le personnel dans le rapport ACS2010‑ICS‑PGM‑0071.

 

Ce projet sur la sécurité des cyclistes vise à élaborer un processus sur mesure combinant l’ingénierie de la circulation, les comportements observés et les mesures d’atténuation des risques pour permettre des améliorations de sécurité routière continues dont pourront profiter les cyclistes dans la Ville d’Ottawa.

 

Le Programme d’évaluation de la sécurité à bicyclette a commencé en août 2010 et s’est terminé en mai 2011. Des services de la Ville et des groupes d’intervenants externes ont été mis à contribution pour fournir des renseignements et des instructions en lien avec ce rapport. Une trousse d’outils analytiques a été mise au point dans le cadre du projet comme première étape de l’établissement de la proposition de Programme d’amélioration de la sécurité à bicyclette, qui est décrit dans le présent rapport et les documents connexes.

 

Le Programme proposé assurerait qu’un processus bien défini est en place pour résoudre les questions qui posent problème aux cyclistes, et ce, même si les routes et les infrastructures font l’objet d’agrandissements, comme le prévoit le Plan sur le cyclisme d’Ottawa.

 

Le Programme proposé comprend une trousse d’outils pour l’évaluation du degré relatif « de danger et d’inconfort » d’un lieu cyclable problématique, et permet de déterminer les options de résolution appropriées. Dix lieux cyclables problématiques ont été évalués comme moyen de valider l’outil et pour aider à déterminer un ensemble de mesures visant à améliorer la sécurité à bicyclette pour 2011-2012. Ces lieux ont été choisis à partir de commentaires de cyclistes (obtenus grâce à un sondage), des données à long terme sur les accidents et des degrés de fréquentation, et on a tenté de choisir un large éventail d’exemples différents.

 

Dans le cadre du Programme d’évaluation de la sécurité à bicyclette, on a également mis au point un outil conçu pour aider à choisir le type d’infrastructure cyclable appropriée pour les segments routiers (c.-à-d. bande cyclable, infrastructure séparée, etc.). Cet outil (appelé Outil d’aide à la décision pour le choix d’infrastructures cyclables) a été conçu après d’importantes recherches sur les pratiques exemplaires utilisées ailleurs et mentionnées dans différents articles scientifiques. L’outil de sélection du type d’infrastructure sera utilisé par le personnel de la Ville lorsqu’il évaluera les prochains projets d’infrastructure cyclable.

 

Le personnel recommande que le Programme d’amélioration de la sécurité à bicyclette soit lancé en 2012. Ce programme mettrait à contribution les outils et les processus mis au point lors du Programme d’évaluation de la sécurité à bicyclette et serait géré par l’Unité de la circulation, de la sécurité et de la mobilité de Gestion de la circulation et Soutien opérationnel de Travaux publics.

 

Le succès du Programme repose sur l’allocation d’un budget approprié et d’un ETP. Le personnel de Planification stratégique des transports travaillera de concert avec l’Unité de la circulation, de la sécurité et de la mobilité durant la période de transition.

 

Au cours du processus de rétroaction, des intervenants ont souligné qu’un programme de sécurité à bicyclette devrait comprendre des messages de sécurité pour les cyclistes (à l’intention de tous les usagers de la route) et une formation concernant toutes les pratiques sécuritaires à bicyclette. Le personnel est d’accord avec cette idée et a déterminé un ensemble d’initiatives clés pour poursuivre la coopération avec les services de la Ville concernés.

 

Les recommandations du présent rapport sont proposées afin d’améliorer la sécurité à bicyclette à l’échelle de la ville et ciblent les intersections posant des problèmes particuliers quant à la sécurité des cyclistes.

 

Les intersections seront choisies par le personnel en consultation avec les conseillers et le Comité consultatif sur les routes et le cyclisme (CCRC) afin qu’on règle ultérieurement les problèmes qu’elles causent dans le cadre du Programme. Le personnel établira ensuite une liste des emplacements en tenant compte de la viabilité et de la continuité du circuit, des données sur les accidents de bicyclette et des occasions de profiter des projets de réfection de la chaussée prévus. Le personnel inclura les demandes de budget pour chaque emplacement ciblé sur une base annuelle, dans le cadre du poste budgétaire général prévu pour le Programme.

 

À la fin de chaque période de deux ans du Programme, le personnel préparera un rapport à l’intention du Comité des transports, qui résumera l’analyse et les mesures prises pour chaque site et qui montrera les tendances entre les taux globaux d’accidents et la fréquentation.

 

Répercussions financières

 

Le financement de la mise en œuvre du Programme d’évaluation de la sécurité à bicyclette a été approuvé dans le cadre du Programme d’infrastructures cyclables de 2011.

 

Les exigences continues de 80 000 $ par année (en plus des augmentations différentielles) en financement des immobilisations, l’embauche d’un ETP et un montant de 20 000 $ en fonds de financement de base en 2012 (100 000 $ pour le financement d’un ETP et 20 000 $ pour les autres coûts liés au programme) et un montant supplémentaire de 20 000 $ en fonds de fonctionnement pour 2013 et pour 2014 seront abordés dans le cadre du processus d’établissement des priorités du Conseil et devront être approuvés dans le cadre des processus budgétaires des années suivantes.

 

Consultation publique et commentaires

 

Le personnel de la Ville a consulté le sous-comité sur la sécurité et la sensibilisation du CCRC, ainsi que le CCRC. Il a également discuté du Programme avec différents groupes de défense des intérêts des cyclistes, dont L’Avenir en vélo à Ottawa, Citoyens pour la sécurité à vélo (réunion de défense des intérêts) et d’autres délégations présentes lors de l’examen du cadre de référence par le Comité des transports le 7 avril 2010. Le personnel a également recueilli les commentaires de plus de 2 000 résidents grâce à un sondage en ligne et sur les sentiers qui a connu un grand succès.

 

Tous les conseillers concernés seront consultés si des intersections ou des segments de routes de leurs quartiers sont analysés ou touchés par le Programme.

 

Background

 

On 26 August 2009, a Notice of Motion on segregated bicycle lanes was submitted for consideration by the Transportation Committee (ACS2009-CCS-TRC-0013). This motion directed staff to undertake the following:

 

1.                  Identify locations of potential pedestrian/cyclist/vehicle conflict using available information such as accident records and report back to Transportation Committee with a plan on how to minimize collisions at these locations in time for consideration as part of the 2011 Budget.

 

2.                  As part of the above safety review, determine whether segregated bike lanes would be appropriate in these locations to improve safety and promote cycling as a mode of transportation.

 

In response to this motion, staff presented terms of reference (TOR) for a Cycling Safety Evaluation Project (CSEP), which was approved on 7 April 2010 by the Transportation Committee (ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0071).

 

The TOR for the CSEP, in recognizing the intent of Council to improve cycling safety on a city‑wide basis, went beyond addressing solely the locations identified through collision records and suggested the development of techniques that would allow an ongoing and consistent annual assessment and prioritization for improvements of the existing and expanding cycling network in Ottawa. This report describes the work undertaken to establish tools and techniques in support of an on-going cycling safety program.

 

A summary of cyclist-related collisions is presented in Table 1.

 

Table 1: Cycling-related Accidents in the City of Ottawa

Injury  Levels

Year

Minor

Serious

Fatal

Total

2000

208

14

1

223

2001

207

10

1

218

2002

229

9

2

240

2003

231

11

1

243

2004

281

6

1

288

2005

240

10

2

252

2006

223

8

1

232

2007

238

16

3

257

2008

241

18

0

259

2009

221

15

2

238

2010

230

12

6

248

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

The four major objectives of the Cycling Safety Evaluation Program are summarized in Table 2:

 

Table 2: Key Objectives and Related Tasks

 

Key Objective

Related Tasks

#1  Cycling Safety Improvement Process

·      Develop a consistent, technically sound, and defensible technical framework for the assessment of safety conditions on the City’s cycling facility network

·      Provide suitable technical tools to allow the identification and selection of recommended road safety mitigation measures

·      Develop a cost-effectiveness or benefit/cost analysis framework

·      Provide a plan for the start-up and deployment of the Cycling Safety Evaluation Program on an ongoing annual basis

·      Provide appropriate documentation for all aspects of the Cycling Safety Evaluation Program

#2 Facility Selection Tool

·      Specifically research and develop application criteria for, various types of on-road and off-road cycling facilities, including the use of segregated bike lanes.

#3 Collaboration, Training and Outreach

·      Ensure that the Program embodies active collaboration between staff and the cycling and neighbourhood communities

#4 Apply to Target Sites

·      Apply the Cycling Safety Evaluation Program to selected sites

 

The City has a long-standing Safety Improvemnent Proram (SIP) in place to reduce vehicle accident rates at intersections, and has recently initiated a Pedestrian Safety Evaluation pilot project to improve safety of pedestrians at intersections.  The proposed CSIP follows the general methodology of the pedestrian safety evaluation process, with safety weighting factors tailored for cycling-specific conflict areas.  Expert input was retained through a consultant team (Delphi-MRC/MMM Group) that specialized in road safety and was the same core team engaged by the City for its Pedestrian Safety Evaluation pilot project. It is anticipated that the proposed Cycling Safety Improvement Program will merge into the over-all SIP program for better coordination among the different safety programs dealing with different modes of transportation.

 

Key Objective #1-  Cycling Safety Improvement Process

 

A well-defined process to address existing problem areas for cyclists would consist of the following phases.

 

1.       Selection:  Identify five to 10 “top” problem sites each year.

2.       Investigation:  Collect data and identify causal factors.

3.       Evaluation:  Develop, evaluate and recommend mitigation measures/solutions.

4.       Monitoring:  Evaluate and document effectiveness of solutions.

 

Selection

 

To help identify problem intersections, staff reviewed accident data involving cyclists covering the period 2005-2009.  Attempting to apply sparse collision data as the sole index for prioritizing investments may result in a misallocation of resources. Therefore, it is proposed that the City considers other sources of input such as from the cycling communities and other stakeholders regarding problem sites. These include:

 

a)      Councillors, through their interaction with residents;

b)      The Road and Cycling Advisory Committee (RCAC);

c)      Various local cycling websites (for example ottawabikingproblems.ca);

d)     Ottawa Police Services in relation to accident investigations;

e)      Other city departments such as Transit Services; and

f)       Regular cyclist surveys.

 

Through the above process, staff will identify a list of top intersections sites to be addressed within the proposed Cycling Safety Improvement Program (CSIP) on a yearly basis.

 

Investigation

 

Following the identification of target sites, the diagnosis phase begins. The assessment requires both an office investigation and a field investigation to have a full appreciation of the “safety” context. An office investigation typically requires the review of readily available data such as cycling flows, traffic volumes, transit routes/stops, cycling collisions, existing infrastructure (i.e. cycling provisions, if any; vehicle lane configurations, etc.). Once the office investigation is complete, a field investigation would follow.  This field investigation would be completed from the perspective of cyclists and drivers, during both peak and off peak periods of the day, as well as at night, to gain full appreciation of the site context.

 

Cyclists who routinely travel through a specific problem area under widely differing traffic and weather conditions can provide extremely valuable input into this investigation process. Their insights and observations of actual road user behaviours complement investigator site assessments as an independent line of investigation. This kind of user feedback was available to the investigators through the results of a cyclist safety evaluation survey initiated as part of the CSEP project. Although this user survey was initiated in 2010, the data collected will remain largely valid for the next few years, after which other direct mechanisms for cyclist input will be developed with the assistance of the RCAC Safety and Education sub-committee.

 

Evaluation

 

The evaluation phase follows a methodology referred to as the Cycling Environment Review System (CERS) as shown in Figure 1. This approach allows staff to quantitatively and qualitatively assess each cycling facility from a variety of perspectives to identify specific concerns and risks.  The CERS process provides a tool-kit for assessing the relative degree of ‘danger and discomfort’ of a specific cycling problem location, and for identifying appropriate candidate remediation options. The CERS tool-kit is described in detail within section 5 of the Ottawa Cycling Safety Study (Document 1).


Figure 1:  Cycling Environment Review System (CERS) Flow Chart

 

 

Monitoring

 

Once remediation steps are taken, careful analysis of before and after behaviour by cyclist is required to evaluate the effectiveness of each component of the program. This monitoring will be accomplished by staff site visits. Automated video monitoring tools currently in development at Carleton University are being evaluated by staff on a pilot basis, as they hold the potential to assess safety conditions at intersections on a repeatable and quantifiable basis. If successful, these new techniques will provide an improved means of monitoring, evaluating and quantifying the effects of corrective measures.  By comparing quantifiable safety improvements with remediation costs, cost/benefit analysis of individual projects undertaken by the CSIP could be developed.

 

Deployment of a Long-term Cycling Safety Improvement Program (CSIP)

 

Success of the Program requires on-going annual budget allocations.  Such a program would utilize the tools and processes developed during the CSEP project, and would ultimately be the responsibility of the Safety and Mobility Unit of the Traffic Management and Operational Support Branch of Public Works, as a part of the over-all SIP program.

 

In 2011, $180,000 was approved as part of the 2011 Cycling Facilities Program budget. A part of this budget will also be used to improve safety related outreach and messaging.  Additional funding and an additional FTE staff position will be requested for future years, as detailed implementation plans on the more complex sites allow for cost estimates to be prepared.

 

To allow focused evolution of tools and remediation measures, the scope of the CSIP would be limited to problem intersections. Problems within road segments or routes would remain the responsibility of Transportation Strategic Planning staff to address, since this activity is closely tied to corridor planning within the context of the Ottawa Cycling Plan.

 

Documentation will also be required to provide a record of long-term cycling safety trends within the city.  City-wide data relevant to cycling will include a chart showing trends in over‑all accident rates, similar to the example from the City of Portland as shown in Figure 2.

 

Figure 2:  Example of Cycling Crash Trend - Portland

 

Key Objective #2- Facility Selection Tool

 

The terms of reference for the CSEP called for the development of application criteria for various types of on-road and off-road cycling facilities, including the use of segregated bike lanes. Such a selection tool was developed during the CSEP project, and is included as Document 2 “Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool”.

 

Review of research and best practices from other jurisdictions (Netherlands, USA, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, UK) showed that one of the most effective measures for improving overall cyclist safety within a road network is to increase the number of cyclists using the system. With more cyclists on the road, drivers become more aware and alert to the presence of cyclists. While it is necessary to ensure that existing facilities for current cyclists perform appropriately from a safety standpoint, there is also a need to provide additional routes and facilities that encourage new or less experienced cyclists. This can only be accomplished if new cyclists feel comfortable using such facilities.  An emerging option that is becoming increasingly important in this respect is the appropriate deployment of segregated cycle facilities.

 

The Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool uses a three-step process starting with a pre-selection monogram as depicted in Figure 3 below. The second step involves the use of a decision tree to provide guidance at a more detailed level and determine if the pre-selected facility type is compatible with the site characteristics. The final step defines a process to summarize the decision and provide the rationale behind it. These steps are covered in detail within section 5 of Document 2.

 

Two road-segment examples (along Maitland Avenue and Bank Street) were evaluated using this facility selection process – which led to a recommendation for segregated and alternate routes respectively.

 

Figure 3: The Cycling Facility Selection Tool Monogram

 

This facility selection tool will be used in updates to the 2008 Ottawa Cycling Plan, a process which is anticipated to get underway in early 2012.  It will also help in selecting an appropriate cycling facility type in cases where the scope of a particular annual road reconstruction project may allow for a number of cycling facility options.

 

The Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool is currently being considered by the Ontario Traffic Council for inclusion as part of Ontario Traffic Manual Book 18 (a new provincial cycling facilities guide). This effort is strongly supported by the Ministry of Transportation for Ontario, and numerous Ontario municipalities. By including this tool in a province-wide analysis process related to Book18, there will be further opportunities to enhance and improve this tool for future use in Ottawa.

 

Key Objective #3- Collaboration, Training and Outreach

 

Staff initiated an extensive and well-publicized survey to encourage active collaboration between the cycling community and the CSEP project. The survey requested cyclists to identify specific problem locations based on their own experiences and perceptions.

 

The Cycling Safety Evaluation survey started in August 2010, and ran for five weeks.  Respondents offered extensive and detailed commentary on challenges they face on their bikes (Figure 4). The 2,000 responses received highlighted over 5,000 areas of concern along city streets and pathways.

 

The survey results were important complements to accident data reports (which are often sparse for cycling incidents). The comments provided were used by City staff to help identify a list of ‘top’ problem areas to be addressed by the CSEP project.  They also provided additional insights related to evaluation of these specific problem areas. 

 

 

Cycling Safety Survey

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4: Online Survey promotion using ‘bike hangars’, and on-pathway survey taking place

 

The need for cycling safety training, outreach and enforcement was identified during the feedback process where stakeholders emphasized that a cycling safety program must incorporate both safety messages (directed to all road users) and cycling training.  This is echoed by a comment from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities:

 

“.. no designated bicycle facility can overcome a lack of bicycle operator skill”

 

Staff has identified the following existing and future programs as particularly relevant;

 

1.      Children’s cycling safety training

2.      Share the Road course option for traffic violations of relevance to bike/vehicle incidents

3.      Outreach on messaging safety and new road features

 

The City Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department is rapidly expanding the reach of its CAN-BIKE programs.  Particular focus is being placed on training school children with an objective of reaching over 2,000 school children per year.  These children’s sessions typically run for 50 minutes and are provided during lunch hours, physical education classes, outdoor education and after-school programs. The topics covered in the children’s CAN-BIKE program include:

 

•         Getting ready to ride on your own

•         A Bike is a Vehicle- Street Sense

•         Signs of Safety, staying away from trouble

•         Handling your Bike

•         Protect your Head

•         Ride a Safe Bike/ABC Quick check

 

Through the Integrated Road Safety Program working group, Ottawa Police Services will investigate a ticket diversion program, modeled after a successful program launched in Portland three years ago.  These programs provide first-time non-criminal traffic offenders (both cyclists and motorists) with incentives to successfully complete a Share the Road Safety Class as an alternative to a conviction or fine.  A description of the Portland Diversion Program and its results are provided in Document 3.

 

Safety messaging and outreach programs directed to cyclists and drivers will be initiated in 2011/2012. The key messages for the program are listed below;

 

·         Dooring: (Car door opening)

o   Message to cyclists: stay out of the dooring danger zone, don’t weave in out between parked cars; take the lane where sharrows have been provided.

o   Message to drivers: park close to the curb, take care and look for cyclists before opening doors, share the road with cyclists who must take the lane for safety reasons

 

·         Right Turn Mandatory Yield to Cyclists

o   Message to drivers: look to your right, you must yield to cyclists heading straight ahead

o   Message to cyclists: make eye contact, proceed with caution

 

·         Bike Box

o   Message to drivers: you must stop before the bike box, wait for cyclists to clear out before proceeding.  Right turns are not allowed on a red signal

o   Message to cyclists: enter the bike box on a red signal, position yourself properly in the box if you intend to turn left

 

·         Two Stage Left Turn

o   Message to cyclists: this is the best way to implement a left turn at certain locations.  Explanation of how this turn can be done will be demonstrated via an instructional video

 

·         Sharrows /Take The Lane

o   Message to drivers: be patient; cyclists need to be located where they are safe

o   Message to cyclists: your biggest danger is from dooring, not from traffic behind you-- so don’t weave in/out, take a consistent track and remain visible

 

Staff recommends that a part of the on-going CSIP budget (approximately $20K per year) be allocated to a continuous cycling safety messaging and outreach.  Funding for CAN-BIKE training will continue to be included as part of the Transportation Demand Management budget.

 

Key Objective #4- Application of CSEP Recommendations to Target Sites

 

Applying the evaluation process to real-world examples was also necessary to properly evaluate the tool-kit provided by the CSEP project. The methodology behind the CSEP project has therefore been applied to 10 ‘top’ problem cycling sites across the city.

 

A number of factors were considered to select 10 target sites for initial evaluation. Inputs for selecting the target sites came from residents via the CSEP survey process (with over 2,000 respondents), as well as staff assessments. The initial CSEP target site selection also considered the need to include enough variation among sites in order to ensure that the tool-kit is flexible and could accommodate differing problem types. The CSEP target sites are listed in Table 3, and mapped on Figure 5.

 

Staff is reviewing the recommendations put forward during the CSEP review for the 10 initial target sites, a summary of implementation status for these sites is provided in Table 4.

 

Table 3: CSEP initial target sites

Figure 5: CSEP Initial Target Locations

 

 

Table 4: Target Site Implementaion Status

 

Responses to Issues Raised

 

At the 7 April 2010 Transportation Committee meeting, staff were directed to work with a delegation (Mr. Avery Burdett) and to review and consider the related work of J. Forrester and L. Altman Hall in the context of this report.  Staff have consulted with the delegation on 19 April 2010. Representatives of this delegation (Mr. E. Wright) attended the detailed CSEP discussion at the RCAC sub-committee meeting on 12 April 2011.  The following are the main points raised by the delegation:

 

1.      Training or enforcement issues were not mentioned in the CSEP terms of reference, and should be added

2.      The city should focus efforts on improving cyclist competence, rather than recognize and attempt to accommodate cyclist of widely varying skill levels through build-out of specialized facilities (per J. Forrester)

3.      A body of research exists that segregated cycling facilities are not safe (Helsinki documents were provided as references)

 

Staff agree with point 1 which was also raised by other stakeholders and support the need to improve cycling safety training, outreach and awareness.  A number of existing and future initiatives have been identified in this report (under Objective #3) for implementation or enhancement.

 

With respect to point 2, staff are not aware of any jurisdiction which has significantly increased its cycling modal share through relying solely on promoting cycling training, outreach and awareness, without concurrent investment in improved cycling facilities. Transportation planning staff from Portland, Oregon (which has achieved a notable increase in cycling rates) clearly stated that they do not believe they could have succeeded without continuous improvement in cycling facilities. In a recent lecture on the topic of Portland’s success Mr. Forrester acknowledged Portland’s success in boosting cycling rates, but argues that the improved facilities cannot be attributed as the key success factor because they were not deployed in isolation (parallel initiatives in promotion and training were also undertaken).

 

With respect to point 3, staff  have reviewed the report put forward from Helsinki (Document 4) highlighting safety problems with segregated facilities where counter-flow lanes appeared to be the major contributor to crashes.  This is a facility design issue, and counter-flow lanes are not being contemplated in Ottawa.  More recent publications show that segregated facilities are safer than on-road facilities [as highlighted in the recent publication; Cycle-tracks, bicycle lanes & on-street cycling in Montreal: a preliminary comparison of the cyclist injury risk; Thomas Nosal, Luis F. Miranda-Moreno, Anne C. Lusk and Patrick Morency; Proc. CMRSC-XXI; Halifax, Nova Scotia; May 8-11, 2011].

 

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The CSEP focuses on addressing issues and risks at intersections and road-segments that have high cycling volume which are typically located in urban/suburban settings.  However, the safety improvement methodology can be applied to rural intersections where warranted.

 

CONSULTATION

 

On 20 Sept 2010 staff presented an overview of the CSEP process to the RCAC, and on 12 April 2011 presented the CSEP Tool-Kit to the RCAC Safely, Outreach and Education Subcommittee.  At the 16 May 2011 RCAC meeting, the following motion was approved:

 

WHEREAS the City of Ottawa has undertaken a Cycling Safety Evaluation Study; and,

 

WHEREAS the citizens of Ottawa have advised the City of cycling problems through a variety of means;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee recommends that the Transportation Committee approve the implementation of the tools outlined in the Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool User Guide and the Ottawa Cycling Safety Study Draft report; and,

 

FURTHER THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City implement any ongoing safety programs using these tools to identify, prioritize, and solve cycling safety problems; and,

 

FURTHER THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City continue to consult with resident on cycling safety issues through a variety of means.

 

City staff also consulted with other jurisdictions that have recently initiated cycling safety evaluation programs, and incorporated lessons learned into the proposed CSIP process. Specifically:

 

·         the City of Portland: Improving Bicycle Safety in Portland (2007)

·         the City of Toronto: Toronto Bicycle/Motor-Vehicle Collision (2003)

 

The development of the methodology for assessing cycling risks at intersections as described within Document 1 (Ottawa Cycling Safety Report), and for assessing appropriate cycling facility types as described within Document 2 (Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool), were accomplished in collaboration with the Safety and Mobility Unit of the Traffic Management and Operational Support Branch of Public Works.

 

Public Works Department:

 

The Public Works Department has been consulted in the development of this report and is supportive of the report recommendation. 

 

Public Works will work with the Planning and Growth Management Department to implement the report recommendation subject to approval by Council and will assume responsibility for the Cycling Safety Improvement Program provided the capital funding and the operational program costs, including one FTE, are approved.

 

Comments by the Ward Councillor(s)

 

This is a City-wide item.

 

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no legal impediments in implementing the recommendation of this report.

 

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

 

N/A

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Funding for the implementation of the Cycling Safety Evaluation Program was approved as part of the 2011 Cycling Facilities Program.

 

The on-going requirements of $80,000/year (plus incremental increases) capital funding, and 1 FTE and $120,000 base operating funding in 2012 (including $100,000 FTE funding, and $20,000 for other program costs), and additional $20,000 base operating funding in each of 2013 and 2014 will be subject to the Term of Council Priorities process, and approval through future year budget processes.

 

Environmental Implications

 

Surveys of residents have shown that a perceived lack of safety inhibits many people from cycling to work, and other non-recreational purposes.  Improving the actual and perceived safety of the the worst intersections in the City for cyclists would make a significant contribution to an increase in cycling modal share across the city, resulting in reducltions in vehicular emissions.

 

Technology Implications

 

N/A

 

City Strategic Plan

 

The CSEP project suports the following objectives:

 

Sustainable, Healthy and Active City, Objective 11: By 2017, close the gap in sidewalks, traffic lights, street lights and bicycle lanes in infrastructure that has been warranted and unfunded.

 

Transportation, Objective 1: Improve the City’s transportation network to afford ease of mobility, keep pace with growth, reduce congestion and work towards modal split targets.

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

Document 1    Ottawa Cycling Safety Report (Previously distributed and held on file)

Document 2    Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool (Previously distributed and held on file)

Document 3    A Description of the Portland Diversion Program and outcomes

Document 4    Selected cycling accident data from the City of Helsinki

 
DISPOSITION

 

Following Council approval, Planning and Growth Management and Public Works staff will implement the recommendations identified in this report.

 

DESCRIPTION OF PORTLANDS

‘SHARE THE ROAD’ DIVERSION PROGRAM                                             DOCUMENT 3

 

Portland Share the Road Safety Class (SRSC)

A traffic law and safety class for all road users

 

Summary prepared by Christopher Larsen

Judge Pro Tem, Multnomah County, Oregon

 

Class Goals: The Share the Road Safety Class (SRSC) seeks to improve traffic safety by increasing public education of Oregon traffic law that applies to motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and others who share our roadways. SRSC is designed to increase compliance with traffic law thereby decreasing preventable crashes which cause property damage, injury and death to the citizens of our community.  SRSC provides “first-time offenders” (those people who have never taken SRSC before) with appropriate incentives to enter and successfully complete SRSC as an alternative to a conviction or a fine for certain eligible non-criminal law traffic violations.

 

Class Description:  SRSC is two-hours in length and offered twice a month on the second and fourth Wednesday nights at Legacy Emanuel Hospital in Portland, Oregon. Class begins at 7:00 pm and concludes at 9:00 pm. The first SRSC class was held on March 14, 2007. The class is a combination of lecture and digital slide show/video presentation that focuses on traffic law and traffic safety issues and concludes with a questions and answer session. Class instruction includes: explaining Oregon law as it relates to all users of the roadways (motor vehicle drivers, pedestrians, bicycles); encouraging class participants to share the road in a safe and lawful manner; presenting videos, photos, “real life” stories, information and examples of scenarios where people are put at risk of being injured or killed as a result of illegal and unsafe bicycling, walking, and driving behavior; explaining the physical, emotional and legal consequences of traffic violations and crashes involving pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists, with an emphasis on our most vulnerable road users.  SRSC is presented by at least four persons, including a law enforcement officer, a hospital trauma nurse, a judge as well as traffic safety experts and advocates. The class presenters emphasize why following the law enables everyone to safely share our roadways, increase the class participants knowledge and understanding of traffic laws and safety issues and seek to positively change the way people think and act when using our roadways. The presenters acknowledge the importance of law enforcement actions to increase compliance with traffic laws while at the same time recognizing the need to increase public education and understanding of the traffic laws in an effort to help citizens avoid future traffic law violations. The presenters also discuss the social and economic impacts of traffic law violations and crashes and the benefits of walking, biking and using mass transit.

 

Class Admission and Court Procedure: Eligible first-time offenders are provided the necessary information to participate in the class at the earliest opportunity. Law enforcement officers and court staff have “Share the Road Safety Class” information referral slips to provide to eligible defendants at the time the defendant is cited for the violation and at the time of the defendant’s first appearance in court (arraignment). The citing officer is also encouraged to advise the court of a defendant’s SRSC eligibility by making clear and legible notes on the citation which include the officer’s recommendation to either dismiss or discharge the fine if a defendant successfully completes SRSC. Before a defendant is admitted into the class, a records check will be performed by SRSC staff to ensure that no person who has already successfully completed SRSC is allowed to repeat the class or receive the benefit of a dismissal or sentence of discharge (a conviction but no fine) of the eligible violation. At the end of each class, each participant/defendant is provided with an original certificate of successful completion with instructions on how to file the certificate with the court. It is the defendant’s responsibility for filing the original SRSC certificate of completion with the court in order to receive the benefit of dismissal or discharge of the violation. Only original and valid SRSC certificates will be accepted by the court (no photocopies). Those defendants that have entered a plea of guilty or no contest to the violation, or those defendants that have been found guilty after a trial to the court, and who fail to provide the court with the original certificate of successful completion by the deadline date ordered by the court or agreed upon by the parties shall be convicted of the violation and sentenced to up to the maximum fine allowed by law. A defendant’s participation in SRSC does not limit the court’s authority to impose additional sanctions (e.g. license suspension) or make further court orders it deems appropriate upon conviction for any violation as provided under Oregon law.

 

Class Participation – Pre-registration and Cost:  Pre-registration for the SRSC is required.  Eligible defendants are required to pay $30 in cash at the door before being admitted. Class cost may be adjusted to ensure continued operation of the class. Class cost is kept to a minimum to provide additional incentive for increased participation.

 

Class Operation, Cost and Funding: The successful first year of the class was made possible by the continued contributions of the original SRSC workgroup and supplemented with mini-grant funds obtained from the Oregon Department of Transportation, Traffic Safety Division. SRSC is now self-funded through the class fees collected from participating defendants.  SRSC is a non-profit entity at Legacy Emanuel Hospital. The class is expected to continue from year to year in perpetuity.

 

Defendant Eligibility Requirements: Only those defendants who have never taken the SRSC class before will be eligible to receive a dismissal or sentence of discharge under the class disposition guidelines

 

Proof of Successful Completion: SRSC staff provides each successful class participant with a “Certificate of Completion” (including the defendant’s name, date of birth, court case number and completion date) at the end of each class. Defendants are solely responsible for providing the original certificate to the court on or before the applicable court date as a condition for obtaining a dismissal or sentence of discharge.

 

 

EXERPT HELSINKI FACILITY CYLING SAFETY REPORT                   DOCUMENT 4

 

Dr. Eero Pasanen - Helsinki City Planning Department Traffic Planning Division, Aleksanterinkatu 26- 00170 HELSINKI FINLAND -

 

In the City of Helsinki, the number of injury-causing bicycle accidents per km traveled is 5-times higher than for motorcar traffic and 10-times higher than for bus traffic.

 

A recent study in Helsinki showed that it is safer to cycle on streets amongst cars than on our two-way cycle paths along streets. It is hard to imagine that our present two-way cycling network could be rebuilt. But in those countries and cities which are just beginning to build their cycling facilities, two-way cycle paths should be avoided in urban street networks.

 

Even in more advanced cycling countries like Denmark and in the Netherlands, with a lot of cyclists and with their one-way lanes and paths, cycling is still much more dangerous than car driving or public transport.

 

Still, we want to increase cycling for environmental and health reasons. But are these reasons strong enough to compensate the serious safety problems of cycling, especially when cycling seems to compete mainly with the very safe public transport? The important question is: Does increased cycling weaken the level of public transport service?

 

Cycling is nice and healthy for cyclists, but public transport is essential for many and perhaps the most manageable way towards sustainable traffic. It is clear that we must radically improve the safety of cycling. But how can this be done?

 

So far, most of the important successful steps in traffic safety work have been based on restrictions of the freedom of car driving. When trying to improve the safety of cycling, the starting point is different. Popular arguments for sustainable traffic and the freedom of cycling often seem to neglect safety problems.

 

A recent study in Helsinki showed that it is safer to cycle on streets amongst cars than on two-way cycle paths along streets (Figure 2). The distribution of bicycle use was estimated by assigning a sample of real trips on a map. We got the origins and the destinations of the trips (street addresses) from travel survey data.

 

The basic problem seems to be that car drivers are not afraid of cyclists. At crossings, car drivers focus their attention on other cars rather than on cyclists. This causes troubles for cyclists, especially in a two-way cycle path system (Figures 3 and 4).

 

Figure 2 shows that 45% of the cycling kilometres in Helsinki are on cycle paths along streets, but 56% of injury accidents happen to these cyclists.

 

Figure 3 shows that the risk of a crossing accident is 3-times higher for cyclists coming from a cycle path than when crossing on the carriageway amongst cars.

 

 

Figure 2: Bicycle use and bicycle accidents on different facility types in Helsinki.

fig2.gif (3404 bytes)

Figure 3: Crossing events and crossing accidents for bicycles /5/.

fig3.gif (3293 bytes)

Figure 4: Accident types at non-signalised crossings of two-way cycle paths and minor streets

fig4.gif (7868 bytes)

 

Figure 4 gives an example of the problem. All of the eight traffic situations in figure 4 are equally common. But the first situation, with a right-turning car and a cyclist coming from the right, causes more than ten times as many accidents as any of the other situations. Right-turning drivers focus their attention mainly on cars from the left on the major street, and "forget" the cyclists approaching from the right.

 

The present Finnish two-way cycle path network is based on the SCAFT Nordic traffic planning guide from the late 1960s. This guide considered pedestrians and cyclists to be a homogenous group of vulnerable road users, to be separated from motor traffic. This was an appealing principle, but it led to car/bicycle-accidents at at-grade crossings and to bicycle/pedestrian conflicts on cycle paths connected to sidewalks.

 

In the City of Helsinki (500 000 inhabitants), we have built 800 kilometres of two-way cycle paths. More than half of these are the dangerous ones, located along the streets. It is hard to imagine that this system could be rebuilt. But in those countries and cities which are just beginning to build their cycling network, two-way cycle paths should be avoided in the urban street network.