Page 1

-M7-1371

SD LIBRARY MINH 4966

5Y

--me-as.e—s-itTr-Ermt) 2 \ .(68

T090/9612/1975

BIKEWAY-PLANNING PROCESS, EDMONTON.-ENGINEERIN

r 1

....... . .

.

.

.................. •• . ...... ••.•

j THE CITY OF t

on ...

4305a .E3 E373 1975


T090 9612 1975

BIKEWAY PLANNING PROCESS, EDMONTON, Sept. 75 Edmonton. Engineering & Transp. Dept.

171 3924

DATE OUT

PHONE DATE IN No.

NAME.:

Planning D,..p tn*n LIBRARY MAR - 1 1984 The City c;

T090 9612 1975

. 7,

•


el THE CITY OF

t d

on

BIKEWAY PLANNING PROCESS

September, 1975 Land Use and Development Section Transportation Planning Branch Engineering and Transportation Department


c' r.


CANADIAN URBAN BIKEVVAYS DESIGN COMPETITION

CERTIFICATE OF MERIT BIKEWAY PLANNING PROCEDURE TRANSPORT PLANNING BRANCH CITY OF EDMONTON An interesting bikeway planning procedure that could be adopted across Canada according to the planners was developed by the City of Edmonton. This planning procedure has already been adopted successfully by Edmonton in the implementation of bikeways. According to the planners, the increasing evidence that the bicycle is becoming accepted as a viable mode of transportation requires a comprehensive planning procedure involving the planning stages from policy and concept formulation to implementation and evaluation. The planning procedures as illustrated on this sheet has the characteristic of being integrated into a comprehensive transportation plan. This plan, according to the Edmonton planners, must be composed of three phases: policy and concept formulation; assessment of long term requirements and developmental program analysis; implementation and evaluation. The policy and concept formulation phase includes an evaluation of the actual situation and the definition of the roles of governmental departments. A second element of the concept stage is the formulation of goals and objectives. The concept formulation, as suggested by Edmonton planners, is not intended to present specific route locations but rather acts as a guide for establishing an integrated bikeway network. Such steps, explained the Edmonton planners, should be subject to technical, administrative and political approval to ensure the projects are achieving public involvement and that concerned departments adhere to their assigned tasks. The long range planning review of the transportation plan deals with the methodology of assessing long term transportation requirements and developments. It is at this stage that examination of program criteria are developed. It is at this point, for example, that bicycle routes are incorporated into the planning of new subdivisions and redevelopment areas and that bikeway programs are elaborated. The third and last phase of the bikeway plan provides an annual working schedule for program implementation. This phase involves the following procedures: annual program analysis and approval; annual program implementation and evaluation. The Edmonton planners incorporated in their planning process many bikeway design criteria and developed some evaluation procedures.


CANADIAN UIRRAN BIKE\WAYS DESIGN COMPETITION

PRESS RELEASE Organizers of the Canadian Urban Bikeway Design Competition today announced the winners. The competition was set up to stimulate interest in bikeway planning and to encourage the widespread change of information on the planning, design and implementation of bikeways in Canada. More than 60 entries were recorded and many organizations provided input. Winners in the professional category were Edmonton and Longueuil. In the amateur category, the winning submissions were proposals for bikeways between Guelph and Rockwood and between Waterloo and Elora. The City of Edmonton submitted an interesting bikeway planning procedure that could be implemented or adopted across the country. This procedure was developed by the city's transportation department. The City of Longueuil's submission was its urban bikeway system linking schools, parks and shopping centres. The Guelph bikeway was proposed by 14 Guelph University students under the supervision of Professor Jofriet. The seven-mile bikeway linking Guelph to Rockwood is characterized by an easy land assembly program since most of the bikeway would be on public land: rights of way, abandoned railroad beds, and so on. The Waterloo-Elora bikeway was submitted by Miss Lynne Mackenzie, a student at the University of Waterloo. It is an example of local bikeway system that could stimulate the planning and building of local bikeways. Miss Mackenzie also dealt with the implementation of intercity bikeway systems. The CUBDC is a research project which relies heavily on citizen participation; a number of local initiatives of Canadian urban communities were reviewed. Sponsored by the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, the project was administered by the Faculty of Forestry of the University of Toronto. Dr. Reiner Jackson, Norm Hamirko and Judith Cobban composed the core group of the CUBDC. Winners of the competition were selected by a group of planners and bikeway users.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i iii

PREFACE

iv

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER ONE PHASE I

THE PLANNING PROCESS

1

GENERAL

1

STAGE I EXAMINATION OF THE STATE-OF-THE-ART

1

STAGE 2 FORMULATION OF GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND CONCEPT

2

PHASE II LONG RANGE PLANNING AND REVIEW

3

STAGE 3 EXAMINATION OF PROGRAM CRITERIA

3

STAGE 4 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENT AND PROGRAM FORMULATION

5

PHASE III FACILITIES PLAN

6

STAGE 5 ANNUAL PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND APPROVAL

6

STAGE 6 ANNUAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION

7


CHAPTER TWO PHASE I

BIKEWAY PLANNING IN THE CITY OF EDMONTON

9

TRANSPORTATION PLAN PART I

9

STAGE 1 EXAMINATION OF THE STATE-OF-THE-ART STAGE 2 FORMULATION OF GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND CONCEPT PHASE II TRANSPORTATION PLAN PART 2

9 11 14

STAGE 3 EXAMINATION OF PROGRAM CRITERIA

14

STAGE 4 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENT AND PROGRAM FORMULATION

16

PHASE III TRANSPORTATION PLAN PART 3

17

STAGE 5 ANNUAL PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND APPROVAL

17

STAGE 6 ANNUAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION

18

THE BIKEWAY PLANNING PROCESS FLOW CHART

20

CITY OF EDMONTON: BIKEWAY REFERENCE LIBARY

21

BIBLIOGRAPHY: BIKEWAYS

23

APPENDIX A: NORTHEAST BIKEWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY

28

APPENDIX B: 113 STREET - UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY EVALUATION


-

PREFACE

The Canadian Urban Bikeway Design Competition (CUBDC) was

"otganized to 6timutate inteiLat in bikeway p.eanning and to encoakage the wideoAead exchange o4 ideaz and in4mmation with iLegaAd to the panning, daign, and impZemenation o6 bikeway6." Our contribution to the above is two fold: first, to develop an acceptable Bikeway Planning Procedure that may be adopted across Canada; and second, to present the State-of-the-Art of Bikeway Planning in the City of Edmonton.

This entry was prepared by the Special Projects Group of the Transportation Planning Branch. Project researchers were Mr. S. R. Daviss, Mr. F. W. Wesseling, and Mr. G. R. Latham. Graphics were done by Mr. Y. D. Gagnon.

Mr. R. H. David, Manager, Transportation Planning Branch, Engineering & Transportation Department, City of Edmonton.


- iv -

INTRODUCTION

It is increasingly evident that the bicycle is becoming accepted as a viable mode of transportation*. Consequently, a comprehensive planning procedure involving the planning stages from policy and concept formulation to implementation and evaluation is required.

In order to illustrate the importance of activities and events involved in bikeway planning, a flow chart (see page 20) has been developed to: i.

identify all the activities required to implement a bikeway; and

ii.

indicate the relationships between the activities and, in particular, distinguishing the parallel activities from sequential ones.

The flow chart consists of three levels: i. ii. iii.

PHASES IN A TRANSPORTATION PLAN. STAGES IN THE PLANNING PROCESS. STEPS IN THE BIKEWAY PLANNING PROCESS.

The first part of the paper explains the bikeway planning process and the second part presents the state-of-the-art of bikeway planning in the City of Edmonton.

*

New Bicycle Sales in the United States from 1970 through 1973 were: 6.9 Million, 8.8 Million, 13.9 Million, and 15.2 Million respectively (Fortune, 1974). Edmonton Civic Census data indicates a rise of about 12% in bicycle ownership from 1973 to 1975.


-

CHAPTER I THE PLANNING PROCESS

A process for bikeway planning is developed which can be integrated into a comprehensive transportation plan. This plan should be composed of three phases: PHASE I

GENERAL - policy and concept formulation.

PHASE II LONG RANGE PLANNING AND REVIEW - assessment of long term requirements and developments. PHASE III FACILITIES PLAN - program analysis, implementation, and evaluation. Each PHASE for a transportation plan is discussed in terms of the STAGES of the planning process and STEPS of the bikeway planning process. PHASE I

GENERAL. Phase I is concerned with the overall view of the "plan." It constitutes two stages in the planning procedure: STAGE I EXAMINATION OF THE STATE-OF-THE-ART. STAGE 2 FORMULATION OF GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND CONCEPT.

STAGE I EXAMINATION OF THE STATE-OF-THE-ART. The examination of the State-of-the-Art involves three sequential planning steps. STEP 1.1 Examine Existing Bicycle Facilities. Federal, provincial, and municipal departments associated with transportation planning are contacted to assemble a complete file of: i. existing and proposed trails, ii. existing allowances for bicycle circulation in new subdivisions, and iii. existing policy guidelines.


STEP 1.2 Define Roles of Governmental Departments. Depending upon the community size and system complexity, the roles of the government levels may vary. Bikeway planning is generally a municipal responsibility. A co-ordinating body, within a city department, is established to define and assign the responsibilities of all associated bodies. STEP 1.3 Examine Bikeway Development in Other Cities. A comprehensive literature review reveals the basic philosophy towards bikeway planning. STAGE 2 FORMULATION OF GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND CONCEPT. Stage 2 consists of four sequential planning steps. STEP 2.1 Establish Goals. Goals provide a framework for the overall plan. STEP 2.2 Establish Objectives. Goals are, by nature, vague and general. Consequently, they must be supplemented with a statement of objectives. STEP 2.3 Formulate Concept Plan. Goals and objectives are translated into a conceptual bikeway system. It is not intended that the concept plan represent specific route locations, rather, that it act as a guide for establishing an integrated bikeway network. STEP 2.4 Approving Authority. Official approval is required at various steps in the planning process. Approving authorities ensure that:


-3 _

i. departments adhere to their assigned responsibilities; ii. essential preliminary steps are not omitted; and iii. the project is receiving public involvement.

There are three levels of approving authority: i. Technical, ii. Administrative, and iii. Political, The Policy and Concept Plan are subject to all three levels of approval.

PHASE II LONG RANGE PLANNING AND REVIEW. Phase II of a transportation plan deals with the methodology of assessing long term transportation requirements and developments. It involves two stages in the planning procedure: STAGE 3 EXAMINATION OF PROGRAM CRITERIA. STAGE 4 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENT AND PROGRAM FORMULATION.

STAGE 3 EXAMINATION OF PROGRAM CRITERIA. Program Criteria are developed from three parallel planning steps. STEP 3.1 Demand Projections. Techniques for predicting existing and potential demand include: i. traffic generation studies, ii. civic census analysis, iii. accident analysis, iv. survey analysis, and v. public proposal inventory.


STEP 3.2 Inventory of Locational Opportunities. Both existing and future locational opportunities are investigated. i. Existing locational opportunities are plotted. For example: a. walkways, b. utility lots, c. aba7-doned railway rights-of-way, d. physical barriers, e. road widths, f. speed limits, g. one-way streets, h. parking restrictions, i. service lanes, j. bus lanes, k. controlled cross-walk and signal locations, and 1. critical traffic congestion areas.

Bicycle circulation is incorporated into planning new subdivisions and re-development areas.

STEP 3.3.1 Establish Design Standards. The design standard manual is produced to: i. define route types, and define design parameters such as: a. construction materials, b. allowable grades, c. vertical and horizontal clearance,


d. drainage, e. grate hazards, f. radius of curvature, and g. parking standards.

STEP 3.3.2 Approving Authority. The design standard manual requires technical and administrative approval prior to program formulation.

STAGE 4 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENT AND PROGRAM FORMULATION. Priorities are assigned and a program is formulated in five planning steps. STEP 4.1 Determine Route Priorities. Route priorities are based on demand projections. STEP 4.2 Determine Policy Study Priorities. Policy study areas are identified in conjunction with proposed route alignments (eg., bicycle registration, and legislation). STEP 4.3 Review Route Priorities. The route priorities are established based on approved design standards and locational opportunities. STEP 4.4 Establish Tentative Program. Route proposals and policy studies are reviewed to determine a program for development, which is phased over a predetermined period of time. STEP 4.5 Approving Authority. The program requires all levels of approving authority.


-6 PHASE III FACILITIES PLAN. The third phase of a transportation plan provides an annual working schedule for program implementation. This phase involves two stages in the planning procedure: STAGE 5 ANNUAL PROGRAM ANNALYSIS AND APPROVAL. STAGE 6 ANNUAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION.

STAGE 5 ANNUAL PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND APPROVAL. This stage of the planning process consists of five planning steps. STEP 5.1 Conduct Route Feasibility Studies. Route feasibility studies are conducted in such a manner that approving authorities obtain a complete understanding of route alternatives and their costs. Each study is formulated with respect to the program criteria. The research design for feasibility studies includes the following: i. history (original impetus), ii. purpose, alignment alternatives, iv. recommendation and justification, v. sign locations, vi. initial costs, and vii. long term improvements and costs.

Aerial photographs and sight surveys are vital to the preparation of route feasibility studies.


-7

STEP 5.2 Conduct Policy Studies. The research design for conducting policy studies may vary according the specific study, however, the following framework is recommended: i. clear statement of objectives, ii. literature review, iii. data requirements, method of collection and analysis, iv. alternatives, and v. recommendations. STEP 5.3 Approving Authority. All feasibility studies (route or policy) require technical approval. STEP 5.4 Prepare Annual Capital Budget. An annual budget is prepared, based on the approved program. STEP 5.5 Approving Authority. Although an annual program may be technically approved, implementation depends on budget approval, which requires both administrative and political approval. STAGE 6 ANNUAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION. This stage of the planning procedure consists of two sequential planning steps.

STEP 6.1 Implement Program. The approved annual program is incorporated into a "city wide" work schedule.


STEP 6.2 Evaluate Program. Route and/or policy items are evaluated to determine their overall success. An evaluation study includes: i. an assessment of qualitative and quantitative ridership data; and recommended improvement alternatives. Aside from indicating minor route revisions, an evaluation study may identify policy or concept revisions. Any major policy revisions would involve a complete review of the bikeway planning procedure.


9

CHAPTER II BIKEWAY PLANNING IN THE CITY OF EDMONTON

A bicycle study conducted by the Edmonton Anti-Pollution Group in May, 1973, provided the impetus for bikeway development in the City of Edmonton. A meeting of representatives from the Engineering and Transportation, Parks and Recreation, and Planning Departments was convened to discuss existing roles and guidelines.

The City of Edmonton, Transportation Plan, subsequently, includes bicycle circulation as a part of the transportation system.

PHASE I

TRANSPORTATION PLAN PART I. Phase I of the City's Transportation Plan was completed in June 1974. Its purpose was to provide: "an ovekview o6 the 4y4tem inctuding a ptan o6 the entite tAanontation netwonk."

STAGE I

EXAMINATION OF THE STATE-OF-THE-ART. STEP 1.1 Examine Existing Bicycle Facilities. At the time of the inventory (October 1973) only recreational routes were in the conceptual planning stages. For example, the Parks and Recreation Department had commenced preliminary investigation into the development of a series of ring routes in and around the City and the Provincial Government was planning to develop a bikeway network in the river valley. Legislation pertaining to the operation of a bicycle is contained in the Highway Traffic Act, Section 162, Subsection (1). It states that:


- 10 "a peuon opetating a bicycle on a highway ha,z ate the Aightz and Lo 4ubject to aLe the dutia that a dniveic o6 a motot vehicle ha s. STEP 1.2 Define Roles of Government Departments. The Transportation Planning Branch of the Engineering and Transportation Department was assigned to develop and co-ordinate a comprehensive bikeway network. The Planning Department reviews all bikeway proposals prepared by the Engineering and Transportation Department. The Parks and Recreation Department, in addition to reviewing proposals prepared by the Engineering and Transportation Department, is responsibile for the planning and implementation of bikeways in parks and green areas. A major portion of the Edmonton river valley trail system, originally controlled by the Parks and Recreation Department, is being developed by the Provincial Government as part of the Capital City Recreation Park Program. Tentative plans for this park include sixteen (16) miles of exclusive bicycle paths and two bicycle/ pedestrian river crossings. STEP 1.3 Examine Bikeway Development in Other Cities, The Transportation Planning Branch is actively corresponding with other cities in North America. The development of the Branch's source library is an ongoing process (see City of Edmonton: Bikeway Reference Library).


STAGE 2

FORMULATION OF GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND CONCEPT. STEP 2.1 Establish Goals. The goals for bikeway development in Edmonton are: i. to provide pleasant and functional cycling routes which allow an increased degree of safety compared with the present situation. ii. to establish cycling routes which meet both the recreational and utilitarian needs of cyclists throughout Edmonton. STEP 2.2 Establish Objectives. The objectives for bikeway development are: i. to jointly serve school children and cyclists commuting to and from various activity centres in the City. to create interconnecting loops from major routes to minor links. to establish an effective public participation program. iv. to establish a policy for the provision of bicycle support facilities (eg., parking). v. to utilize existing rights-of-way (eg., powerlines, pipelines, abandoned railways, etc...). vi. to be compatible with other land uses. STEP 2.3 Formulate Concept Plan. Based on the goals and objectives, a conceptual plan of the Bikeway Network was produced and included in the text. STEP 2.4 Approving Authority. The Transportation Plan Part I, in the City, requires all levels of approval.


CCOICEPTUAL BIKEWAY PETWORK

I'


XIEIWT314 14.3101...NOT41301110

--- - . J._ I I I .... T 1. 1.- - - --I / ....-- ".4%.4 \ \ \

M 1

1

k 1 I 4-. d,414( '•\`' -----ir - ---, \I - I \ 1 \ I )

r„....

I I --I

\

----\

I P-->t 1 I 11 4._•I 1‘ -4--4,•---t I- \• 0 ,1

fl

-c , / , II •, L , -1,- --)----1-1- -I- _I

i I


THE CITY of EDMONTON CONCEPTUAL BIKEWAY NET(

° Jil

l INDUSTRIAL tURPORT

17;::

/

1/EXHIBT1111

mrpAlf". keINESS , DISTRIC

/ ,

S4.

uom CAMPUS I

I

%softer.=

,,, ........ , °1, ___--\ i 1 , T—N I 1 3

l

imiLLwoo

ci,\---

,

4-t--H0 L-NY\-•.,00 ,•0

z_ ,

am= CITY BOUNDARY RAILWAY

"niffSCHOOLS/SHOPPING CENTRES 0 ROCS ACTIVITY CENTRES

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

NW-

.

,,

f


THE CITY of EDMONTON

.... INCLISTRIAL ARPORT EXHIBIN

NJT COM:NATION

c‘r\rirot:7 eusiNEss

DISTRICT\

NIVERSIT FARM

Imwm CITY BOUNDARY N•••••••• RAILWAY El SCHOOLS/SHOPPING CENTRES 0 PARKS ACTIVITY CENTRES


- 13 -

i. Technical Approval. The Engineering and Transportation Technical Review Committee (E.T.T.C.) is the first level of approval. This committee prepares Departmental input on various proposals (eg., outline plans, redevelopment schemes, development permits, bikeway plans, etc...)

ii. Administrative Approval. Administrative approval takes place at three levels. a. The Inter-Departmental Transportation Committee (I.T.C.) reviews all problems which become evident following inter-departmental circulation. The Committee consists of representatives from the Engineering and Transportation Department, Planning Department, Parks and Recreation Department, and support staff as required. b. The Municipal Planning Commission (M.P.C.) has final approval of individual route alignments subject to prior approval of the Annual Capital Budget. c. The Commission Board recommends that the annual program be approved by City Council, and receives individual routes as information.

iii. City Council is the ultimate approving authority and endorses implementation of the bikeway program in the Annual Capital Budget.


- 14 -

PHASE II TRANSPORTATION PLAN PART 2. Transportation Plan Part 2 provides: "a meanz o ezzing iutuke changez and pattennis in the City and Region thtough and beyond a 10 - 15 yean petiod."

STAGE 3

EXAMINATION OF PROGRAM CRITERIA. STEP 3.1 Demand Projections. The Transportation Planning Branch uses data, collected by civic departments, in the bikeway planning process. For example: i.

Traffic Generation Studies - Studies and Research Branch of the Engineering and Transportation Department. Civic Census - Returning Office of the City Clerk. Bicycle ownership, by census tract, is provided by the Civic Census. Accident Reports - The Police Department analyses data concerning accidents in which bicycles are involved. Accident locations have been plotted to reveal major problem areas.

iv.

Survey Results - The Transportation Planning Branch has employed questionnaire and interview surveys to determine public needs and wants in order to provide an insight into ridership behavior.

v.

Public Proposals - Various action and community groups frequently make requests to Commissioners and Aldermen concerning the location of bikeways.


- 15-

The two existing routes in Edmonton originated as public proposals. The impetus for the NorthEast Bikeway was supplied by a city high school class, while the University Bikeway was initially proposed by an interested individual. STEP 3.2 Inventory of Locational Opportunities. i

The University Bikeway in Edmonton contains a 100 foot utility lot in order to divert cyclists from a traffic circle. It is anticipated that future bikeway development will incorporate the use of utility rights-of-way. A proposal for a major park development in the Mill Creek Ravine includes the use of an abandoned railway line as a bikeway. Examination of additional railway lines is anticipated, pending the success of the proposed Mill Creek Ravine Bikeway.

ii.

The implementation of exclusive bikeways is being examined for areas where major development and re-development is to take place. An example of a locational opportunity is the use of walkways in new subdivisions. City policy regarding walkway development is currently under review. It is anticipated that revisions or amendments to the policy will provide an effective walkway /bikeway network.

STEP 3.3.1 Establish Design Standards. The City is currently producing a Design Standard Manual. Bikeway classification in the manual is defined as follows:


- 16 -

i.

A Class 1 bikeway is a path in its own rightof-way designed for exclusive use of bicycles.

ii.

A Class II bikeway is a physically restricted portion of an existing roadway delineated (by a painted line or split curbs) for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles. Through travel of vehiclar traffic or pedestrians is prohibited, however, parking may be permitted.

iii.

A Class III bikeway is a signed cycling route in which cyclists share the roadway with vehicular traffic. The City of Edmonton has utilized the Class III bikeway to determine whether ridership justifies Class I and Class II bikeway development.

The

latter two classes are considered long range improvements to existing routes.

The Design Standard Manual, presently being developed, will contain the technical aspects (grade, surface, curvature, etc...) and standards associated with implementing the three classes of bikeways. STEP 3.3.2

Approving Authority.

The Design Standard Manual requires both technical and administrative approval.

STAGE 4

PRIORITY ASSIGNMENT AND PROGRAM FORMULATION. STEP 4.1 Determine Route Priorities. The City has identified a number of route priorities based on the demand projections.


- 17 -

STEP 4.2 Determine Policy Study Priorities. The City has identified a number of policy studies (eg., bicycle registration, bicycle legislation, bicycle education, walkway/bikeway compatibility, and bicycle support facilities). STEP 4.3 Review Route Priorities. All route priorities are evaluated in terms of the design standards and locational opportunities. The proposed 1976 and 1977 bikeway programs have been evaluated. STEP 4.4 Establish Tentative Program. The City has developed a two year program. STEP 4.5 Approving Authority. The tenative program requires technical and administrative approval.

PHASE III TRANSPORTATION PLAN PART 3 Phase III of the City of Edmonton Transportation Plan includes:

"the detaited de6cAiptionz oi the varciou4 ttanontation noutez embodied in the 'Basic Netwwdz o6 Route6' tepoAt a6 they au apptoved by Councit." STAGE 5 ANNUAL PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND APPROVAL. STEP 5.1 Conduct Route Feasibility Studies. Five (5) route feasibility studies are being conducted for the proposed route implementations in 1976 (see Appendix A for an example of a feasibility study). STEP 5.2 Conduct Policy Studies. Two (2) policy studies, concerning walkway/bikeway compatibility and bicycle parking, are included in the 1976 bikeway development program.


-


- 18 -

STEP 5.3 Approving Authority. Technical approval is required for all route feasibility and policy studies. STEP 5.4 Prepare Annual Capital Budget. The cost of implementing the 1976 Bikeway program will be incorporated into the 1976 Annual Capital Budget. STEP 5.5 Approving Authority. The 1976 Capital Budget will require administrative and political approval. Each route will subsequently be presented to the M.P.C. for final approval.

STAGE 6 ANNUAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION. STEP 6.1 Implement Program. The bikeway program is integrated into the annual work schedule of the City's Engineering Branch. This stage involves two steps: i. ii.

Signing, and Construction.

Sign painting and installation is the responsibility of the Traffic Operations Section, while all construction requirements are forwarded to the Design Section. Minor construction (eg. curb cuts), is presently accommodated under the Engineer's Local Improvements Division, while major requirements are reviewed by a Special Projects Division of the Engineering Branch.


- 19 -

STEP 6.2 Evaluate Program. The City is standardizing the process of evaluating bikeways (See Appendix B for the University Bikeway Evaluation Study).


THE BIKEWAY PLANNING PROCESS

oviAka PROJECTIONS

( steps)

ESANLVE FJOSTINO BILECLE

ANNIE

Fectunrs

armAree,en

CS

0C4IIINE ESTABLISH

'STAHL!

TORINEATE CONCEPT

OFVELOPNINT GOALS

0.1ECTITES

PLAN

ESTIBL IS

INVENTONT OF LOCATION.

ROUTE.

PRIORITIES

OPPORRINIRES

rAnv PROBR151

PROWL. rINALIAL CAPITAL BOOLET

'NFLD. PROCNAll

PROGRFAI

MIER CITIES,.

TABLISH

STANOLHOS

DEMOTING POLICY S MOT PNIONITH-S 41

/

!Stages)

(Photos)

EXAMINATION OF

FORMULATION OF GOALS,

STATE OF THE ART

OBJECTIVES AND CONCEPT

GENERAL

EXAMMTION OF PROGRAM CRITERIA

PRIORITY ASSIGNMENT

ANNUAL PROGRAM

AND PROGRAM FORMULATION

ANALYSIS AND APPROVAL

LONG RANGE PLAN AND REVIEW

ANNUAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION

FACILITIES PLAN


- 21 -

CITY OF EDMONTON: BIKEWAY REFERENCE LIBRARY

1. Bicycleway Pilot Project Guelph Ontario, Interim Report 6, Guelph Transportation Plan. 2. Brooks, Mary E., Planning For Urban Trails, Planning Advisory Service, Report No. 252. 3. City of Calgary, A Bicycle Path System for the City of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. 4. Canadian Urban Bikeway Design Competition, Infopak, Toronto, 1975. 5. DeLeuw, Cather & Company, Bicycle Circulation & Safety Study, City of Davis, University of California, San Francisco, 1972. 6. Department of Civil Engineering, Manhattan Bikeway Plan, Kansas State University, 1974. 7. Department of Engineering, Bikeways Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, May, 1973. 8. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Bikeways: State-of-the-Art, 1974, Washington, D.C., July, 1974. 9. District of North Vancouver, Bikeway Feasibility and Development Criteria, August, 1973. 10. City of Edmonton, City of Edmonton: Transportation Plan Part I. Engineering & Transportation Department, Transportation Planning Branch, June, 1974. 11. City of Edmonton, Design Standard Manual Bicycle Routes, Transportation Planning Branch, June, 1974 Unpublished. 12. City of Edmonton, General Plan, Edmonton March, 1972. 13. City of Edmonton, Toward a Bicycle Route Network for the City of Edmonton, Transportation Planning Branch, June, 1974 Unpublished. 14. Environment/Recreation Task Force, Capital City Recreation Park Inventory and Analysis Report Volume I, Edmonton, March, 1975. 15. Environment/Recreation Task Force, Capital City Recreation Park Volume 3 Trails and Bikeways Assessment and Plan, Edmonton, 1975. 16. Environment/Recreation Task Force, Capital City Recreation Park Trail and Recreation Predesign Report, Edmonton, 1975. 17. Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering, Bikeway Planning Criteria And Guidelines, University of California, Los Angeles, April, 1972.


--


-22-

18. Management Information Service - Report - Planning and Development of Bikeway Systems, Washington, D.C. Volume 5 #4, April, 1973. 19. McLoughlin, Brian J., Urban and Regional Planning: A Systems Approach, London: Faber & Faber, 1970. 20. Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners, Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning and Design, New York, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1974. 21. Metro Toronto Planning Board, Toward A Metropolian Toronto Bicycle Route System, Toronto, Ontario, May, 1973. 22. Navin, Francis P.D., Bicycles, an Urban Transportation Mode, Presented at Joint Transportation Engineering Meeting of EIC-ASCE-RTAC. 23. Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon Bikeways - Progress Report, Oregon, 1973. 24. Sommer R. and Lott, Dale F., Bikeways in Action: The Davis Experience, Congressional Record, April 19, 1971, Vol. 117 No. 53. 25. Transportation Division, Winnipeg Bicycle Route Study, Winnipeg, Manitoba, April, 1973. 26. Windsor Bikeways, April, 1973, Volume one, Number one.


-23-

BIBLIOGRAPHY: BIKEWAYS 1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Guide for Bicycle Routes, Washington, D.C., 1974. 2. American Automobile Association, Special Survey on Bicycle Safety November, 1972. 3. Arizona State Highway Department, The Teacher's Guide to Better Bicycle Driving, Bicycle Institute of America. 4. Berkeley City Planning Department, Bicycles in Berkeley: A Background Report, Berkeley California: Berkeley City Planning Department, 1971 5. Berkeley Local Transit Study Committee, Berkeley Bikeway Plan, Berekely, California: Berkeley City Planning Department, 1971. 6. The Bicycle Onslaught: How are Cities and Counties Handling it? Better Roads, January, 1972. 7. Bicycle Institute of America, Bike Ordinances in the Community, New York. 8. Bicycle Institute of America, History of the Bicycle, New York, 1971. 9. Bicycle Institute of America, Recent Independent Research Studies on Bicycle Accidents: A Survey and Analysis, 1971. 10. Bicycle Institute of America, Renaissance for an Old Sport Bicycling, New York. 11. Bicycle Institute of America, Success Story - The Growth of Bikeways New York. 12. Bicycles in New York, Congressional Record, Vol. 118, September 25, 1972 No. 150. 13. U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Transportation, Bicycling for Recreation and Commuting, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1972. 14. Bivens & Associates, Arizona Bikeways, Arizona Highway Department, June, 1973. 15. Boethling, Bob, ed., The Bicycle Book, Los Angeles: University of California, Alumni Association, 1971. 16. Brezina, E. and Kramer, M., An Intestigation of Rider, Bicycle and Environmental Variables in Urban Bicycle Collisions, Ontario Department of Transit, 1970.


-2417. Calgary City Engineering Department, Commissioner's Report Attachment B.B.: A Preliminary Study of Routes Suitable for Bicycling in Calgary, Calgary: Calgary City Engineering Department, 1971. 18. California Division of Highways, Provisions for Pedestrians, Equestrians, Bicycles and Motor-Driven Cycles, Policy Amendment, Circular Letter 71-15, Highway Project Development, Highway Design No. 163, March 1, 1971. 19. California Highway Patrol, A General Bicycle - Motor Vehicle Accident Study, October, 1971. 20. Chlapecka, T., National Bicycle Usage and Accident Data Pretaining to 1972, Presented to the Human Factors Workshop on Transportation Safety, January, 1974. 21. Cleckner, Robert M., What's new in Bicycle Safety? Journal of Traffic Safety Education, Volume 19, No. 1, October, 1971. 22. Cleland, Michael & Guzzi, Brian T., The Kinston Bikeway Study, Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Queen's University School of Urban and Regional Planning, Kingston. 23. Cook, Walter L., Bike Trails and Facilities - A Guide to their Design, Construction and Operation, American Institute of Park Executives. 24. Diridon Research Corporation, Santa Clara County Public Attitude Survey for Bicycle Safety, San Jose, California, December, 1973. 25. Dittmar, James C., Bike Pike, Recreation 57:495, 533 December, 1964. 26. Drake, Elizabeth A., Tempe Bikeway Study, City of Tempe Planning Department, Tempe, Arizona, March, 1973. 27. Eggleston, David M., Toward a Dual Mode Bicycle Transportation System, Maudep Pedestrian Bicycle Seminar, San Francisco, California, December, 1972. 28. Fullerton, Office of the Director of Public Works, A Proposed Bikeway System, Fullerton, California: Department of Public Works, 1971. 29. Germano, A. Trent, Paul H. Wright, R. Gary Hicks, and Paul H. Sander, The Emerging Needs of Bicycle Transportation, Unpublished, School of Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, January, 1973. 30. Grigg, G. & Walsh L., Interim Subcommittees Report on the De Anza College Demonstration Bicycle Route (unpublished report), South Bay Transportation Officials Association, October, 1972. 31. Grigg Glen M. Progress Report on the De Anza College Demonstration Bicycle Lanes, (Unpublished Report), South Bay Transportation Officials Association, June, 1974. 32. Hansen, Robert J., Preliminary Study of Bicycle Facilities Department of Public Works, City of Portland, Oregon, October, 1971.


-25-

33. Hayes, J., Some Facts about the Current Bike Explosion, Bicycle Institute of America, Inc., New York, August, 1972. 34. Hawaii State Department of Transportation, An Approach to Establishing Highway Planning Branch of the Highway Division, Bikeways, Honolulu, Hawaii State Department of Transportation, 1970. 35. Hirsch, Ralph M., Bikeway Demand Survey for Downtown Philadelphia, U.S. Department of Transportation's Bicycles, U.S.A. conference, Boston, Mass., May, 1973. 36. Hulbert, S., et al., Bikeway Planning Criteria and Guidelines, U.C.L.A. Institute of Transportation & Traffic Engineering., April, 1972. 37. Konski, James L., The Bicycle Anarchy, Transportation Engineering Journal, ASCE, November, 1973. 38. Lauzon, B., Guidelines For Developing Urban Bikeways, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Bikeway Investigation Group, January, 1973. 39. Lewis, John W., Bicycle Rules of the Road, State of Illinois, 1971 40. Los Angeles, City of, Bikeway Feasibility Study, Los Angeles, California, March, 1974. 41. Mayor's Bicycle Task Force, A Total Bicycle Program for Madison, Madison, 1972. 42. Motor Vehicles Division, Oregon Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Accidents 1971, Department of Transportation, Salem, Oregon. 43. National Safety Council, Bicycle Accidents, 1971. 44. National Safety Council, Bicycling Hazards on the Rise, Statistical Bulletin, May, 1970. 45. National Safety Council Statistics Division, Accident Facts, Chicago: National Safety Council, 1971, 46. National Transportation Safety Board, Special Study Bicycle Use as a Highway Safety Problem, Washington, D.C., Report No. NT5B-H55-72-1. 47. Ohin, Carl E. Estimation Potential Bicycle Use and Public Investment, Presented at the Institute of Traffic Engineers, 43rd Annual Meeting, August, 1973. 48. Orange County General Planning Program, Feasibility Study of a Countywide Bicycle System in Orange County, Santa Ana, California: Orange Couty Board of Supervisors, 1971. 49. Oregon State Highway Division, Footpaths and Bike Routes, Standards and Guidelines, January, 1972.


- 26-

50. Palo Alto, City of, A Study of Attitudes and Awareness of Bicycling Procedures and Safety, Palo Alto, California, January, 1972. 51. Pascarella E.A., A Study of Youthful Riders in an Urban Community, Highway Safety Research Centre, University of North Carolina, 1971. 52. Perraton, Jean K., Planning for the Cyclist in Urban Areas., The Town Planning Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, July, 1969. 53. Popish, L.N. and Lytel, R.B., A Study of Bicycle - Motor Vehicle Accidents, City of Santa Barbara, California, June, 1973. 54. Ramey, M.R., Sommer, R., and Lott, D.F., Some Aspects of the Design ASCE National Transportation and Evaluation of Bikeway Facilities, Engineering Conference, Tulsa, Oklahoma, July, 1973. 55. Rasmussen, Paul, et al., Guidelines for a Comprehensive Bicycle Route System, Chicago: Chicago Department of Development and Planning, 1971. 56. Regional Planning Board of Princeton, New Jersey, A Bicycle Path Master Plan for Princeton, New Jersey, New York: Bicycle Institute of America, 1971. 57. Smith, Haldon L., Ann Arbor Bicycle Path Study, City of Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A. July, 1972. 58. Smith, Robert A., A Social History of the Bicycle, American Heritage Press, 1972. 59. Sunset, Here Come the Bikeways, October, 1972. 60. Sverdrup, Parcel and Associates, Inc., Supplemental Studies for a Pedestrian - Bicycle Path on the Proposed Interstate Route 1-205 Columbia River Bridge, Prepared for Oregon State Highway Commission, 1972. 61 . Taylor, W.C. and Hubbell, J.S., The Evaluation of Pavement Marking to Designate Direction of Travel and Degree of Safety, Ohio Department of Highways, 1967. 62. Taylor, J. I. and McGee, H.W., Roadway Delineation Systems, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report No. 130, 1972. 63. Torrance City Recreation Department, Bicycle Route Feasibility Report, Torrance, California: Torrance City Recreation Department, 1971. 64. University of California at Los Angeles, Bikeway Planning Criteria and Guidelines, ITTW School of Engineering and Applied Science, April, 1972. 65. Vandergrift, Lynn T., et al., The Bikeway Plan, Denver Planning Office, Colorado, August, 1973.


-27-

66. Weber, W.G., Bikeway Curves by the Mid-Ordinate Method, National Capital Commission, Ottawa. 67. Wheaton, Virginia, The Boom in Bicycles, Highway User, May, 1972. 68. Wilson, S.S., Bicycle Technology, Scientific American, March, 1973. 69. Wolfe, V.D., and McClure, J.D., Oregon Bikeways Synopsis, Oregon Department of Transportation, Highway Division, 1972. 70. Yu. Jason C., The Bicycle as a Mode of Urban Transportation, Traffic Engineering, September, 1973.


APPEN siX


MEMEL

,r

1"

E_

,


TRANSPORTATION PLAN PART II SECTION B - BICYCLE NETWORK

VOLUME 5

FEASIBILITY STUDY: NORTHEAST BIKEWAY

Prepared by: Rick Daviss Land Use and Development Section Transportation Planning Branch

-1-


TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Title Page Table of Contents Definitions Introduction Summary of Report

i ii iii iv v

Proposed Route Alignment

(1)

Implementation

(4)

Signing

(5)

Costs

(6)

Conclusion

(7)

Appendix

(8)


DEFINITIONS

Class I Bikeway: exclusive paths specifically designed for bicycles; (Bicycle Path) located in areas where it is possible to prohibit motor vehicle traffic.

Class II Bikeway: a physically delineated restricted portion of an existing roadway designed for exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles. Through travel of motor vehicles is not allowed, however, vehicle parking may be permitted.

Class III Bikeway: a cycling route utilizing existing vehicular roadways, where cyclists would share the roadway with other types of traffic.

Recreational Bikeway: a relatively uninterrupted bikeway;designed for sightseeing, exercising, and touring. Utilitarian Bikeway:

a prescribed route which links specific activity centres and traffic generators.


INTRODUCTION The dramatic increase in the use of bicycles across North America has created a demand for improved cycling facilities. The success of the experimental 113 Street - University Bikeway has prompted the City of Edmonton to continue with plans to develop "Utilitarian" bikeways. An interested group of students from M.E. Lazerte High School presented the Land Use and Development Section of the City of Edmonton Transportation Planning Branch with a proposal for a Northeast Bicycle Route. This route extends from the city centre to the Londonderry district. The route was planned to provide safe and direct linkages between various activity centres, ie. schools and park areas. A careful study of the proposed layout was performed with reference to the observations and conclusions drawn from the 113 Street - University Bikeway Evaluation Study. The revised Northeast Bikeway is presented in the following report.


SUMMARY 1. The Northeast Bikeway has been proposed in response to the increased demand for utilitarian bikeways in the City of Edmonton. Conclusions drawn from observing the experimental 113 Street - University Bikeway have proved beneficial to the design of the proposed Northeast Route. In establishing policy for bikeway design it is proposed that further experimentation with Class III bicycle routes be examined in order to determine their effectiveness in other areas of the City of Edmonton.

2. The proposed Northeast Route alignment was selected after consideration was given to various alternative alignments.

3. The purpose behind the design was to provide safe, direct links between: the central business district, Clarke Stadium, Borden Park, the Exhibition Grounds, Grant McEwan College and the Londonderry district.

4. It is recommended that signing conform to that utilized for the University Bikeway.

5. It is recommended that the initial route be officially opened on June 1st, 1975 with construction of exclusive paths and implementation of the Norwood Boulevard pedestrian crossing to be carried out as soon as possible.

6. The route could be implemented initially at a cost of $6,000.00. However, when the improvements outlined in the report are included, expenditures would increase to approximately $28,500.00.

7. Long term improvements to the bikeway will be examined in greater detail if the route proves successful.

-v-


PROPOSED NORTHEAST BIKEWAY (Refer to Map I, Appendix A) The proposed Northeast Bicycle Route commences at 96 Street and 103A Avenue. The cyclist follows 103A Avenue from 96 Street to 93 Street where he turns northbound for one block to 104 Avenue. The cyclist then proceeds east on 104 Avenue to 92 Street where he again turns north. The jog in direction allows access to 92 Street without negotiating a left hand turn at Jasper Avenue. (Southbound cyclists will be directed to follow 92 Street as far as 103A Avenue before turning west since making right hand turns is relatively safe.

The route makes use of 92 Street from 103A Avenue to 114 Avenue. The relatively light traffic flow and restricted parking along the east side of 92 Street provides for a desirable route. A controlled pedestrian crossing at 107A Avenue on 92 Street provides further rationale for the alignment. The heavy traffic flow (12,700 vehicle/day) encountered at Norwood Boulevard however, presents the cyclist with a hazardous crossing. Since there are no controlled pedestrian crossings on Norwood Boulevard/112 Avenue for several blocks on either side of 92 Street, it is recommended that a crossing be established at this point. Long range improvements to the route include grade separated crossings at both 107A Avenue and Norwood Boulevard.

The next link of the route proceeds along 114 Avenue from 92 Street to the lane east of 82 Street. This allows cyclists direct access to Borden Park and the Exhibition Grounds on a lightly travelled road with a parking ban on the south side. Due to the traffic lights located at 115 Avenue and 86 Street a controlled pedestrian crossing is not justifiable, however, a clearly demarcated crosswalk is necessary. A crosswalk would be similarly justifiable at 82 Street and 114 Avenue. (Note: Provision should be made for cyclists to cross over the proposed 82 Street - 113 Avenue grade separated crossing.)

(1)


Cyclists are directed to follow the North/South lane east of 82 Street to 115 Avenue. Commissioner's Authority will be required for cyclists to travel on the sidewalk south of 115 Avenue east to 81 Street. (A long range improvement is the provision of a bicycle path along the west side of the C.N.R. right-of-way between 114 and 115 Avenue. This would negate the need for cyclists to use the sidewalk and poorly maintained lane.) Cyclists will cross 115 Avenue at 81 Street (a crosswalk is necessary) and proceed north to the east/west lane south of 118 Avenue. Cyclists will follow this lane east to 80 Street. Cyclists will then be directed to dismount and cross 118 Avenue on the west side of 80 Street. Pelmission has been obtained for cyclists to use the parking lot of Grant McEwan Community College (north of 118 Avenue) and the 10' concrete walk along the east side of the college to 119 Avenue. They would then cross 119 Avenue and share an existing sidewalk for 55' eastward in order to follow 80 Street north to the lane south of 125A Avenue. (Curb cuts and ramps would be required on 119 Avenue as the street has been closed to through traffic.) A controlled pedestrian crossing at 120 Avenue provides the rationale for selecting 80 Street.

Upon reaching the lane south of 125A Avenue, cyclists will turn westward and follow the lane to the Texaco Service Station on 82 Street. A short stretch of paving is required to allow cyclists access to the service station lot and eventually the underpass on the east side of 82 Street. (see Appendix C.)

Cyclists will cross 127 Avenue on the east side of 82 Street and then gain access to 128 Avenue via the CO-OP shopping centre parking lot. (The CO-OP General Manager has given consent for the City to direct cyclists across their property.) The route proceeds along 128 Avenue from 81 Street to 78 Street where it turns north to 131A Avenue. It then jogs eastward to 76 Street before again turning north.

The route follows 76 Street from 131A Avenue to 133 Avenue where

(2)


it jogs eastward to 74 Street. Heavy traffic flow necessitates the implementation of a marked crosswalk on 76 Street across 132 Avenue.

Upon reaching 74 Street, the cyclists would travel north to Delwood Park. It is suggested that an 8' walkway/bikeway facility be constructed across the park directly north of 74 Street. Such a facility would result in cyclists and pedestrians not having to travel around the park via a peripheral route. (Until a walkway/bikeway facility is constructed, cyclists will be directed to travel around the east border of the park between 134 Avenue and Delwood Road.) At Delwood Road, the route will jog to 74 Street where it turns northward as far as 144 Avenue. (Note: A branch line to Londonderry Shopping Centre will also be designated along the service lane north of 137 Avenue.)


IMPLEMENTATION It is recommended that the route officially open June 1st, 1975. It is suggested, therefore, that all necessary curb cuts and paving be implemented in May of 1975. The length and nature of the route provide the bikeway designer with an opportunity to observe local cycling behaviour patterns. Therefore, it is advisable that the bikeway be closely monitored over the summer months to: a) reveal unforeseen problem areas, b) observe how cyclists cope with known problem areas, c) establish rider travel patterns and preferences, and d) determine the overall success of the route. Conclusions drawn will play a vital role in future bikeway design.

(4)


SIGNING The Bikeway Signs to be employed on the Northeast Bikeway should conform with those in use on the existing 113 Street - University Bikeway. These styles have been recommended for use by the National Capital Commission and have proven effective on the existing bikeway.

In conjuction with the Bicycle Path Signs and the Bicycle Warning Signs used on the existing bikeway it may be necessary to implement signs directing cyclists to dismount before crossing major arterials. The proposed signs are illustrated in Appendix D.

(5)


COSTS 1.

INITIAL COSTS A) SIGNING $ 3000.00 750.00 60.00

100 Bicycle Path signs @ $30/sign 25 Bicycle Warning Signs @ $30/sign 2 Cyclist Dismount Signs @ $30/sign SUB TOTAL:

$ 3810.00

B) CURB CUTS west of 80 st./south of 119 ave. west of 80 st./north of 119 ave. 80 street/north of 119 avenue 81 street/south of 115 avenue

6' 6' 6' 6'

@ @ @ @

$4.50/1in. $4.50/1in. $4.50/1in. $4.50/1in.

ft. ft. ft. ft.

$

SUB TOTAL:

30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 120.00

C) PAVING 2 2 40 ft. @ $2.504t 2' X 6' = 12 ft.` 2 2' X 6' = 12 ft.2 2' X 6' = 12 ft.2 = 2' X 6' = 12 Ft. 2 = 20' X 6' =120 ft.

119 avenue - 80 street 8' X 5' 119 avenue - 80 street (ramps) 115 avenue- 81 street (ramp) 125A avenue- east of 82 street

SUB TOTAL:

$ 100.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 300.00 $ 600.00

D) CROSSWALK PAINTING 114 .114 115 132 •

avenue avenue avenue avenue

-

86 82 81 76

$

20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00

SUB TOTAL:

$

80.00

TOTAL:

$ 4610.00

street street street street

E) 30% Administration, Contingency, and Overhead INITIAL COST: 2.

$ 1390.00 $ 6000.00

COSTS FOR SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS Controlled Pedestrian Crossing 92 Street and Norwood Boulevard

$ 4000.00

Paving Delwood Park 2 2 8' X 670' = 5360 ft. @ approximately $2.50/ft.

$13400.00

30% administration, contingency, and overhead

$ 5220.00

TOTAL:

$22620.00

TOTAL COST OF ENTIRE PROJECT:

$28185.00

(6)


CONCLUSION The decision to create more "Utilitarian" bikeways was made after evaluating Edmonton's first experimental bikeway. The proposed Northeast Bicycle Route will also be an experimental route, as it contains several aspects of bikeway design which do not exist on the University Bikeway. The University Bikeway was established to accommodate a known cyclist demand, however, the Northeast Route is being implemented in hopes of "creating" the demand ie. it is assumed that cyclists will be attracted to activity centres such as the Downtown Area and Borden Park, once they are located on a designated bicycle route.

If the Northeast Bikeway proves to be an effective alignment for north/south bicycle circulation, it will eventually serve as a trunk line for several east/west branch lines. The purpose of the proposed bikeway, is therefore, to provide a starting point for future bikeway development in North Edmonton.

(7)


APPENDIX APPENDIX A MAP 1 - Proposed bicycle route alignment. MAP 2 - Average annual weekly traffic flow map. APPENDIX B Plan for Exclusive Bicycle Paths: i) Cross-sectional construction standards. ii) Delwood Park bikeway alignment. APPENDIX C 1. 2. 3.

Plan for use of sidewalk along Grant McEwan College. Plan for use of Texaco Service Station Lot. Plan for use of CO-OP Shopping Centre Parking Lot.

APPENDIX D 1. 2. 3.

Bicycle Path Sign. Bicycle Warning Sign. Cyclist Dismount Signs.

APPENDIX E 1. 2.

Letter of Support from Edmonton Separate School Board. Letter of Support from Grant McEwan Community College.


APPENDIX A


NORTHEAST BIKEWAY

Loc777 LAZERTE SCHOOL

137 Ave.

LEGEND -Major Arterials -Railway Tracks imasassaramma - Bike Route -Major Activity Center aHISOTION GROUNDS

-Parks -Schools or Campuses

BORDEN PARK


MAP 2 144 AVENUE 9,900

AVERAGE ANNUAL

0

WEEKDAY TRAFFIC FLOW 137 AVENUE 2 2,9 i

132 AVENUE 8,400

82 STREET 25,000

ArArAvArmar BIKE ROUTE MAJOR ROADS

118 AVENUE 15,700

115 AVENUE 13,300

82 STREET 17,800 1,10e' 1,2 Me AA2 0

S ASKATcH EWAtl

1P1/4 As. 13 :300


APPENDIX B


MI H. SLOPE r

c>“

/4"To

1

„e,

x; • -p•

I

I

:

F-A1/4 L-1— 1 /4 '1 TO I ' -0" • -7

Alb

,ocse...1,soc-,cyz,o

-

3SC) C7)

acr:+47o..<3

I c.01---1C.Ft-,--T•e-

I II MAX. oaF=TH FN U LAPS

c..1._11-1

=-

c:=D" ‘-1 C-C>TP,cT I(:=3 J<Z)I NT , N•c>

r2,a

1-.4G

rsi

0

IL I

ill

cr,u-1

The City of Edmonton Engineering and Transportation Department Revisions

9

MAJ OR WALKWAY 8' SLOPED

A-11,9 Y 4975Date

MARCH 29/ 74

Scale

AS SHOWN

Drawn

Y. C. BATI S Checked

( 8IKEWAY ) Drawing

201


.


FIGURE 2 20

21

19

18 -8

/7

o 0 14'

08. 52.0' 33,

06 548_ 53 3 52 51 A 30 26.0

44.0

20

50

49

55.0

. 51.0

48

470

51.0

MONO

S/F t-10NO wA,Lx,

..km 1=1 in

m.74

20

2

/7

so' â&#x20AC;¢

35- 0 Z2E.2g'

55:n' I

5's:-) .10


APPENDIX C


FIGURE 1

0

cO , a• 0

Grant McEwan College

..

,

02

, %

`4

Ci

3 P;) 2

', 27 2t

'9

25 24

0 67C:2

, .50;2

4, o,e

CI?

C f?

,

—1. .

A 43

.

fr 50 j !

47_6

,S6'1/NE C, iv ii7.51:50/..e.

-

301,401 50'1

I

561

6.15I

50 I

4triw /04•94,t-' Ircr0 _30'

-

_.3e5•


FIGURE 2

7' C04C Carbk.,7e *

(1.)

SERVICE STATION


FIGURE 3 923 N \

..) cOki) .

/07 0

X)

vi5/4

/07'

/3/22

"98

/5

E.se,' .4.47. /Z2- Z

CP

/8;k"

\

5-

Co,C

A/c 392

c5.

CV,.6 ///7 eIP

FMIIIIIWZ"7,7M1 sr

26U

/22

.73,7

/220

ze 20 ral MEI NM

20

Lot

2

II

3

10 PARKING LOT

2/ 7

4

°-)

' SHOPPING CENTRE

I

Ac.

/g0

12

//

Ac.

;via /A•

5 /5-0

34

84

6

$7.- =

I I

/70

Al?

27

2:e •

C.A 0 (0

0

\b \

I' i 1 1

\

\

ND

\D tr,

,

c:thev.4- fATA 0 e, t / .6-

1

R C :: M: : :: 79.0. . C . 46 '

,..... , \ \

\

1

\i

. c :.

‘.

1.79 Ac. 70 28

28

/;?.

/5/;'9

,

Lil ...

k-.

14/0/k

2 H11 7s(-

AVE.

CP

= /00

C. f?

7-

38

127

60.25 -

26

_ /77


APPEIYDIX D


SIGN SIZE = 18" x 24"

BICYCLE PATH SIGN

Traffic Eng.:

Revisions

Eng. Asst. : Eng. Asst. :

Lic (Eitu of 'Ebmuntott ENGINEERING & TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

Draftsman Date:

Bob K

DEC

6/73

Scale: 3/ 8 = 1.0

File


OW MIS MO NW 00 OW NO IOW OEM IWIll

IMO Will

NS MIS IN Ins


I

BIKE ING

BICYCLE CROSSING SIGN Zlit City of Pmonton ENGINEERING a TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

Revision

'Trattic Eng. Eng.Asst Eng. Asst. Dtaltsman Date : Scale :

:

File


SIGN SIZE = 18"x 24"

BIKES USE SIDEWALK SIGN Ville City of 'bnirritton ENGINEERING a TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH.

Traffic Eng : Eng. Asst.

Revisions

:

Eng. Asst. Draftsman : Date : Scale :

File


r 11 1 lt` •

• I

-..z'1

." .,

-IT' , ,:..

.. .

57

' ••''''

41,1_, '''• • ' i '.• . ,•••_ •. ,1 L-•1'' '' -''''•''''''

_.. •

.-

•'

.]-1.

'

A' A6.•

•-• jj_ ,,

•' ' 6 I 7' ';'. PI ./4.*

1 .. ..- I

6.

•:.•,..4 '• ' 7: ..--,.6.,

'6

1

-... •

' A,' h.. 1' Fr i

.,.,‘

1' ,

..."'A . iN-I •'. .51,e. :1 . .•AL ., 1_ •,q i',.

1s

i f'l±t" ,-.,..,,A

!I'

1' 7., ,

di.. ,,,,4 91'' .

•1'

'.1 T .'

, . f , r:

.1

P,

11

f-'..i : '614$

i.

'.

,

-,-1-

'

'-;1‘ '''''..e .4

1 -••• . i

I- ' . ,.

r

c

.r.- • 1

1.-,I1,

r.

. '.,11

I • ' ..=" ' .n .''.

a:

4. •

-r- • 4

1. I, ..

,I.-.14er '. -.'''' ••• .ri. ' : • .)-_- - ' .., I., .

N

r'

1

•-

'1:1,

N .'

•-, '..4•41.. • '..;• 7

• -•

•.

- f•I

' 7'

•••111-...'

t 'Y I 6

I .:, •d , . .1.1.. 10:61 ig: ''..r ‘41., t 1 •UV - .1'''T ,i

A j !II •' . , •,..

' -1 I '

'

.

: jf•.•

4i:;-:: • - ri 0,

-

.

' , # • i' ' -IC .1.,, - • 'I' "(ir - ' ' -I..• .1 ' •4 .... .4- .i.,......;. '•.•'' ...'...'...'

.' I- 1" ' ...I ' . 11,1 '. .'• . A :r.I .. • i kikfiisi.." .,' , ., ‘ ,''.il

-'4 ' -1,01 ,:iiii ''',.;ii, ,,.. ' .. -i, ., r F'.

..1 .

-

.1.

-A,..A.

l'11'. .'.i•"

.4 j .

1.

4.• A l.

l •

• 11 '

". 1....'

A. 6

.

41.

...

''''

, 2 6•2..•-•,.

,,..• -.1

1.-.1 4'1V ..1?

-

.

-4.•!".. A

.

LI •

'' : ' ' •rII

t

n.

r/

4, - ', A-Tr

' 1-; 1; 1-....:c LP)1. . a 'I', .,:i-, r ....... , L , ., All. '., 1 •,-

,

F, ..• ' • ''.. I. LI •

.

„iil. ..,

• ; ' ,1/2 ' ,11-,r14. 1 , -.., ,nikit . L• 10, , ,• -zw,r-,1 ,91,-4.4id .16•0' 1.- 4 ,L,

, /

r .11

FYILI 1

• -J

_•

t./

C

‘• - I

-

,,, ,-,p. .,- , —

, • , .__,., r,,ri6=,

A-

I


SIGN SIZE = 18" 24"

CYCLISTS DISMOUNT SIGN Zile City of Pintonton ENGINEERING 81 TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

Traffic Eng :

Revisions

Eng. Asst Eng. Asst Draftsman : Dat• : Scol• :

File


dx4 ti Nj •

J.1

I

1

It• ,

411 4- A

.1- • •

;Mt'

-

*

11, "1

• - • —111

r

. 1,•„'Ar

•'—'

r

tr

„ ..... -. 1' 1. ' • ' 1.;,1'..:Si ' -, ...:4) -,ye ,'

'r..'

r.,,

-

C.

' ..'H. il , .•••• .. 1.

"-.' ;;-.1

• • 101:'

4••••;$ -1'

4' t•_."'.1101 ,,41'. . 't 1 . ,• .. .1,1 r g,

,e Jri

tr

foi •

.;. . "',, I., — .i7.--J.;+, e'

• .

-.7.

, - • ",.....

..,

4,4,t

:, '.,•'',.q...I . , A' _ '' _ 1

-

. 1.'... ,••

V

Fi! ii.d.,•' , '.A .. -,.., *. Pt ;4. 1., ''''_1.1' .

-

, Jt 1 ,11

'

4:

., • ''''"(t,'-` 1 -. .. •114-1 .k ,-Ll- A ,...' '...' • ' i'rieldi,t .

, ' ".•-'`,-.L...-1 . _... ,


APPENDIX E


1142,

eifftowmitc

6.ifita.4

SERVICE BUILDING 10734 120 STREET, EDMONTON, ALBERTA T5H 3P7 - TELEPHONE (403) 452-3440

R.J.11 .;,1.

Mr. Rick Daviss Land Use & Development Section Transportation Planning Branch Engineering & Transportation Department The City of Edmonton

PT,

ENG. ErT A

March 6, 1975

WEG.'

_

MAR 10 '975 kC.B„. I .1.1,:! .

1

L

Dear Mr. Daviss: Re: NORTHEAST BIKEWAY We feel that this attempt to recognize the needs of cyclists, in competition with regular traffic within the city, is worthy of support.

A bikeway, covering as many school sites as possible, will also assist our students in getting to and from school with more safety.

We hope that your program is extended to other areas of the City.

Yours truly, /177 &(,)

W. P. Pasternak, M.R.A.I.C. Properties Superintendent WPP:lh

EDMONTON R.C. SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER SEVEN

V.,IX . L.


GRANT MacEWAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE Box 1796, Edmonton, Alberta T5J 2P2

April 15, 1975

Mr. R. H. David Manager Transportation Planning Branch City of Edmonton 8th Floor Centennial Building Edmonton, Alberta

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 400 — 10150 — 100 Street (403) 425-8810 ASSUMPTION CAMPUS 10765 — 98 Street (403) 429-2503 CROMDALE CAMPUS 8020 — 118 Avenue (403) 425-8810 JASPER PLACE CAMPUS 10045 — 156 Street ENG. & TRANS. DEPT_ (403) 484-7791 D SCONA CAMPUS W.EG..0 G.H. R.J.M 10523 — 84 Avenue D.B. B.M.H. D.L.M. (403) 433-6454

APR 17 1975 A.C., 1 i.m.

W.K.

B.A.

P.L.

DEPT. REF. /

Dear Mr. David:

4

--

RE: North East Bicycle Way (Request from your Messers. L. McLachlan and S. R. Daviss, March 20, 1975) The College has no objections to granting a bicycle route along the east side of the Cromdale parking lot. The route would be located immediately adjacent to the sidewalk with the car parking shifted about ten feet west by precast concrete curbing. The College requires, however, that the City assume all public liability for the bicycle way. There also exists a possibility of some construction taking place on the Cromdale Campus sometime in the near future. The alignment of the bicycle route would have to be reviewed at that time.

Yours very truly, GRANT MacEWAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE

A. Pall"as Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds fk


*

M...

.......â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;

P....

.1.


THE

CITY

OF

EDMONTON

TRANSPORTATION

PLAN

PART

II

SECTION B - BICYCLE NETWORK

VOLUME 4

113 STREET - UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY EVALUATION STUDY

Prepared by: Rick Daviss ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH Land Use and Development Section October, 1974.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page LIST OF TABLES AND MAPS

ii

INTRODUCTION

1

METHODOLOGY

3

SECTION I FINDINGS

7

A.

MONITORING RESULTS

7

1. Bicycle Counts

7

2. Economic Justification

7

3. Traffic Bylaw Adherence

7

4. Problem Areas

10

B.

CYCLIST SURVEY RESULTS

11

C.

HOME OWNER SURVEY

11

SECTION II RECOMMENDATIONS

14

A.

SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVES

14

B.

USE OF LANE EAST OF 113 STREET

16

C.

113 STREET CROSSING

16

D.

POLICE BYLAW IMPLEMENTATION

17

E.

76 AVENUE TRAFFIC COUNT

17

APPENDIX.

18


LIST OF TABLES AND MAPS

Page MAP 1 - Bikeway Monitoring Station Locations

2

MAP 2 - Average Hourly Bicycle Traffic

6

TABLE 1 - Use of Bikeway According to Stations

8

TABLE 2 - Use of Bikeway According to 11/2 Hour Intervals

9

MAPS 3 - 9 - Hourly Differences in Bikeway Usage

20

MAP 10 - Recommended Alternative Route I

13

MAP 11 - Recommended Alternative Route II

15

TABLE 3 - Bikeway Bicycle Traffic Counts

19


1.

INTRODUCTION

The sharp increase in bicycle popularity observed over the last several years (1 bike for every 3.8 people in Edmonton)' has created a demand for improved cycling facilities. On May 1st, 1974, Edmonton's first experimental bikeway was implemented as a preliminary step towards a comprehensive bicycle route network throughout the City. The "113 STREET UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY" was designed to serve residents of the Malmo Plains area with access to and from the University of Alberta. This bikeway was surveyed and monitored over the summer months in order to evaluate its effectiveness.

1.

City wide census 1973.


2.

MAP 1 113 STREET UNIVERSITY

m.KERNAN PUBLIC SCHOOL

r ---1

61 KEWAY

®

STATION KEY 76 AVE

L® ®

IL

112 Street South of University Avenue

72 AVE

76 Avenue West of 112 Street

67 AVE

112 Street South of 76 Avenue

113 Street South of 76 Avenue SCHOOL for the DEAF LANE

113 Street (lane) South of 72 Avenue

60 AVE

II

58 AVE

113 Street (lane) North of 61 Avenue

56 AVE

115 Street North of 51 Avenue

51 AVE

48 AVE MALMO RD 46 AVE


3.

METHODOLOGY The Land Use and Development Section of the City of Edmonton Transportation Planning Branch carried out a three facet study of the University Bikeway. a)

Monitoring of the route;

b)

Survey of cyclists using the route; and

c)

Survey of home owners residing on the route.

A. MONITORING OF THE ROUTE Since the counting could not be carried out mechanically, it was not economically practical to monitor the entire route for the same time slots on the same day. Therefore the route was monitored at 6 different locations on various days during the summer when weather conditions were favourable for cycling. The reasons for choosing the various stations are outlined below: STATION (1):

chosen to observe whether the cyclists were willing to double back in order to travel the route or whether the distance/time element took precedence over the traffic elements.

STATION (2) & (3): chosen to determine: whether the cyclists were using the route along 76 Avenue, if any traffic problems were encountered, and if traffic bylaws were being obeyed. STATION (4):

chosen to observe the number of cyclists entering/exiting the route at this point and also to observe if traffic bylaws were being obeyed.


4.

STATION (5):

chosen to observe possible traffic problems encountered by cyclists crossing 72 Avenue.

STATION (6):

chosen to observe possible traffic problems encountered by cyclists crossing 113 Street.

STATION (7):

chosen to observe possible traffic problems encountered by cyclists crossing 51 Avenue and to compare the number of cyclists using the southern leg of the route to the number of cyclists using the northern leg of the route.

B.

CYCLISTS SURVEY The survey was designed to determine: 1) the cyclists' general opinions of the route ie., possible faults and remedies; and 2) their general cycling attitudes and habits.

C. HOME OWNER SURVEY A random sample of homes backing onto the alley east of 113 Street and a sample of homes along 115 Street north of 51 Avenue were surveyed in order to determine; 1)

general opinions of the route;

2)

possible safety hazards; and

3)

possible future improvements to the route.

The first section of this report simply presents the data collected from each facet of the study. The bicycle traffic counts are examined in relation to: a)

present extent of bicycle usage;

b)

economic justification;

c)

adherence to traffic bylaws; and

d)

specific problems.


5.

The two remaining facets of the study represent a sample opinion of the effectiveness of the route. The second section of the report presents recommendations based on the assembled data.


6.

MAP 2 AVERAGE HOURLY BICYCLE TRAFFIC 7:30 am - 6:00 pm

BICYCLE COLE T LEGEND

iv A

southbound

station

northbound

northbound flow

1

15

15

southbound flow

2

6

5

3

7

7

4

8

3

5

10

11

6

10

6

7

9

11

1r

-


7.

SECTION I FINDINGS A. 1.

MONITORING RESULTS The information gathered from the bicycle traffic counts

indicate that the bikeway was a successful venture. The counts for each time period and station are revealed on tables 1 and 2. Average hourly route usage is revealed on Map 2. It should be noted that the route was not monitored to any great extent on weekends or during the evenings.

Maps 3 - 9 (see appendix B) reveal hourly differences of use between the stations on the route. These maps reveal that the peak hours of use are 7:30 - 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 - 6:00 p.m. 2.

The Oregon Department of Transportation has devised a

technique for calculating the economic justification of bikeways.2 Edmonton's first bikeway (2.75 miles with an average of over 200 commuters between 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. every day) could be considered feasible with an expenditure of approximately $40,000. Since the actual cost was approximately $1,000, it was concluded that the route was economically justifiable. The extensive use of the route also justifies the proposed improvements recommended for 1975. 3.

Traffic bylaw adherence was observed at several stations

along the route. Cyclists obeyed the stop signs at 113 Street - 76 Avenue and 112 Street - 76 Avenue only if automobile traffic was heavy enough to force a stop. In addition, less than 5% of the cyclists

2.

The ODT has determined that a bike route serving 100 commuters/day for 5 months/year should be considered a good investment for an expenditure of up to $8,000/mile. OREGON BIKEWAYS PROGRESS REPORT, 0.D.T., Highways Division, February, 1973.


8.

TABLF, I. Average ;cyclists using the route (7:30 am - 6:00 pm)

COUNTS

0

0

0

C

0

158

154

312

29.7

64

57

121

11.5

74

76

150

14.3

89

33

122

16.3

104

111

215

20.5

102

60

162

20.25

96

114

210

20

A

recorded for 7:30 am - 3:00 pm *, recorded for 7:30 am - 4:30 pm


9.

TABLE 2. Average # cyclists using the route for each 11/2 hour interval

COUNTS

0

0

0

Gi)

7:30 -

39

2.6

41.6

14.1

2.4

16.6

11.3

7.3

18.6

11

10.7

21.7

12

13

25

7

24

31

9:00 900 10:30 10:30 12:00 12:00 1:30 1:30 3:00 3:00 4:30

0*xx.4

4:30 600

6.6

Total

101 X.** *

41.8

48.4

101.8

202.9

station 4 not included stations 4 & 6 not included


10.

observed used proper hand signals. It should also be noted that neither cyclists nor automobile drivers obeyed the stop sign at the north end of the alley east of 113 Street. 4.

The nature of the route in conjunction with general

observations made, led to the realization of several problem areas. a)

The heavy bicycle traffic flow observed at 112 Street and University Avenue indicates that the cyclists observed were unwilling to be detoured one block back to 113 Street in order to utilize the northern portion of the route.

b)

The heavy automobile traffic flow and poor road surface conditions prompted cyclists to avoid 76 Avenue.

c)

Crossing 72 Avenue at 113 Street created a minor problem for the cyclists. Eastbound motor vehicles leaving the traffic circle made it difficult for the cyclist to negotiate breaks in traffic.

d)

The 113 Street - 61 Avenue crossing was observed to be a safety hazard. As the situation presently exists, the cyclist is forced to cross: i) a 40 mph speed limit; ii) a truck route; and iii) a major 4 lane divided arterial.


11.

B.

1.

CYCLIST SURVEY RESULTS

The cyclists determined the route to be well signed and

easy to follow. 2.

The majority of the cyclists were using the route for

utilitarian purposes (ie., travel to and from the University of Alberta). 3.

According to the cyclists surveyed, two major safety

hazard regions exist on the route:

4.

a)

61 Avenue & 113 Street crossing; and

b)

heavy traffic on 76 Avenue.

The absence of any reported bicycle accidents on the

route may suggest that motorists are reacting to signing and exercising greater caution when in the vicinity of the bikeway. 5.

The majority of the cyclists interviewed revealed they

did not use the route north of 76 Avenue because of the inconvenience. C. HOME OWNER SURVEY 1.

Approximately half of the people living on the bicycle

route made use of it themselves. Only one respondent displayed a negative opinion of the route. The remainder felt that the extra care taken to back onto the lane has not been an inconvenience.


12.

2.

90% of the home owners surveyed living on 115 Street

north of 51 Avenue would have no objections to parking being restricted on the east side of the street in order for the implementation of a 3 Class II Bikeway.

3. A Class II Bikeway is defined in Toward a Bicycle Route Network for the City of Edmonton as "a physically delineated, restricted portion of an existing roadway designed for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles. Through travel of motor vehicles or pedestrians is not allowed."


13.

tl

79

avenue O

78

avenue

O

111 O /0 O

O O lua-murzr=

ALTERNATIVE I IN RE

proposed route existing route


14.

SECTION II RECOMMENDATIONS A.

The northern portion of the bikeway should be modified to

serve the majority of cyclists more effectively and safely. 1.

REASONS FOR MODIFICATION: a)

The 76 Avenue road surface condition, the two sided parking, and the heavy traffic flow create an unsafe cycling situation.

b)

The bikeway layout north of 76 Avenue does not facilitate the majority of students attending the University of Alberta. (This situation would change if the U. of A. was to implement its proposed bike route network.)

c)

The blind intersection in the alley south of 78 Avenue should be avoided.

d)

The intersections along 113 Street north of 78 Avenue are not controlled.

e)

Monitoring of the route indicated that cyclists were unwilling to follow the northern portion of the route.

2.

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES a)

Alternative I (See Map 10): Northbound cyclists would turn east at 73 Avenue instead of proceeding to 76 Avenue along 113 Street. The route would turn north at 112 Street - 73 Avenue and continue along 112 Street as far as Whyte Avenue. This alternative is desirable in that the traffic flow along 113 Street is lighter than that on 112 Street.


15.

(j).

76

.si

ty

79

avenue

78

avenue

75

avenue

avenue

4-

fr)

73

avenue

72

avenue

71

aven e â&#x20AC;¢

ALTERNATIVE 2 111 III

proposed route existing route


16.

b)

Alternative II (See Map 11); Northbound cyclists would turn east into the alley south of 71 Avenue instead of proceeding to 76 Avenue along 113 Street. The route would then turn north at 112 Street across 4 71 Avenue, through an existing walkway and continue northbound along 112 Street as far as Whyte Avenue. This alternative is desirable in that cyclists would no longer have to cope with motor vehicles exiting the traffic circle.

The Land Use and Development Section recommends that Alternative II be chosen. B.

Traffic on the lane east of 113 Street and north of 67

Avenue is presently being used by motorists as a 3rd lane for northbound traffic on 113 Street. (Especially during peak traffic hours the lane is used frequently by fast moving motor vehicles.) It is recommended therefore that the alley be posed with 15 - 20 mph speed limit signs or "no through traffic" signs. C.

Results of the on-route cyclist survey indicate that the

61 Avenue and 113 Street crossing is a major problem area on the route. It is subsequently recommended that an 8 foot walkway/bikeway facility be established along the west side of 113 Street from 61 Avenue 1000 feet north to the existing controlled pedestrian crossing.

4.

Pursuant to the Highway Traffic Act Section 223, Subsection (1) No. 15; special permission for utilization of the existing walkway by bicycles must be attained through Commissioners! authority.


17.

The Construction Section of the Engineering Branch has recommended that a 6 inch concrete facility (cross-fall type) should be used for the 8 footwalkway/bikeway.

The proposed facility would provide for a safer cycling environment upon completion. A long term benefit of the facility is that it could eventually serve as a link in a bicycle route extending around the University Farm Complex. The cost estimate for the construction of such a path (including preparation and landscaping) would be: 1000 feet @ approximately $20.00/linear foot = $20,000.00 D.

It is recommended that a municipal bylaw be established

permitting police officers to enforce proper cycling practices in a more stringent manner.

E.

A north/south pedestrian traffic count should be taken at

the 112 Street - 76 Avenue intersection. The existing commercial land use strip and motor vehicle traffic volumes on 76 Avenue may necessitate the implementation of a controlled pedestrian crossing.


APPENDIX


TABLE 3 BICYCLE TRAFFIC COUNTS (Recorded May - September 1974) a,

'-'Station (direction) 7:30

SB

NB

NB

000 SB SB NB SB NB

NB

®Cl) SB NB SB

NB

SB

5

37

4

0

10

4

1 3

30

0

39

2

36

I

2

13

4

21

4

15

I

8

13

14

1

7

6

2

21

8

9

2

10

5

17

9

19

11

3

16

2

I7

23

10

17

25

11

I 15

20

12

15

I I I I 27

3

18

2

52

72

4

20

0

39

18

3

13

0

9

11

6

1

10

14

25

5

7

6

14

5

8

9:00

I I I I

10:30

22

I

I

I

12,00

130

I

300

13

I

39

8

10

3

58

7

31

2

I

21

I

0

I

29

4:30

13

33

9

35

6:00

11 7:30

I I

12

I

I I

21


22.

MAP 4 BICYCLE TRAFFIC FLOW 9:00 am - 10:30

am

LEGEND %

z

BICYCLE COUNT

northbound flow station northbound southbound southbound flow

\

(13

18

3

®

13

0

9

2

0

13

4

0

21

4

0

15

0

0

10

4

, . ,, *


23.

MAP 5

--...,_

BICYCLE TRAFFIC FLOW 1030 am - 12:00am

LEGEND

BICYCLE COUNT

northbound flow

M

station

northbound

southbound

0

22

11

0

6

1

0

10

8

0

13

14

0

1

7

0

6

2

0

21

8

southbound flow


24.

MAP 6 BICYCLE TRAFFIC FLOW 12:00 pm - 1:30 pm

LEGEND

BICYCLE COUNT northbound flow station northbound

southbound

southbound flow

,

0

14

25

0

5

7

9

2

10

5

17

9

19

II

3

16

.

0 0 0


25.

MAP 7 BICYCLE TRAFFIC FLOW 1:30 pm - 300 pm

LEGEND

BICYCLE COU: T

northbound flow station northbound

southbound

southbound flow 6

14

5

8

2

7

23

10

17

25

II

15

20

12


26.

MAP 8 BICYCLE TRAFFIC F LW!! 3:00 pm - 4:30 pm

LEGEND

BICYCLE COUNT

northbound flow station northbound southbound â&#x20AC;¢

southbound flow 13

39

8

10

0

3

21

0

0

29

0

15

27

3

18

0 0


27.

MAP 9 BICYCLE TRAFFIC FLOW 4:30 pm - 6:00 pm

LEGEND

A

BICYCLE COUNT

northbound flow station

â&#x20AC;¢ southbound flow C.)

0

0

northbound

southbound

13

58

7

31

2

33

9

35

2

52


APPENDIX C — BIKE ROUTE USAGE RECORDING SHEET FORMAT Co

LOCATION:

TIME. Northbound cyclists entering route from the:

Southbound cyclists using route

Northbound cyclists using route

NORTH

EAST

SOUTH

WEST

' !

i Northbound cyclists leaving the route and continuing: _NORTHBOUND

SOUTHBOUND

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND

_

!---

Southbound cyclists entering the route from the: NORTH

SOUTH

1 1 i

EAST

WEST i

i 1

i

Southbound cyclists leaving the route and continuing: ! NORTHBOUND

SOUTHBOUND

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND

___ I

LEGEND X S T V X

-

Mustang Bike Standard Bike 10 Speed Bike Proper Signal (where applicable) Bicycle was walked

STOP SIGNS (Groups are circled) Bylaws Ignored By:

Cyclists ' Motorists

YIELD SIGNS

INTERSECTIONS


APPENDIX D - CYCLIST SURVEY RECORDING SHEET FORMAT

Age:

.Sex:

29.

Bike Type:

1. How viny trips/week do you take on this route?

2. For what purpose do you do the majority of your cycling? (recreation-Functional)

3. Approximately how many hours/week do you use your bicycle?

4. Where did you enter the route?

, from the:

5. Where do you leave the route?

, headed:

6. How far out out of the way do you ride in order to use the route?(#Blocks) â&#x20AC;¢

7. Do you find the route easy to follow?.

8. Have you experienced any speicific difficulties on the route?

82 Avenue: 76 Avenue: 72 Avenue: 61 Avenue:

9. How would you overcome these difficulties?

10. What do you find to be generally hazardous cycling conditions? (traEfic, poor roads)


APPENDIX E - HOME OWNER SURVEY RECORDING SHEET FORMAT

Address

Opinion of Route

Use of Route

'Favor Against

:\lo !Yes

inconveniences o Yes


The City of EJ2-oonfon

Edmonton (Alta.) - 1975 - Bikeway planning process (1975-09)  
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you