Implementing Complete Streets in Ottawa - TCAT

Implementing Complete Streets in

Ottawa

Project Delivery Process and Tools

Complete Streets Forum 2015

October 1, 2015


Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015

OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS

IBI GROUP

The Essentials

• Complete Streets

Implementation Framework

will become part of the

routine delivery of City

transportation projects

• Approach uses every

transportation project as a

catalyst for improvements

• Integrates new approaches

including Multi-modal Level

of Service

2




IBI GROUP

Background

Completed in 2013, Ottawa’s

Transportation Master Plan included the

following actions related to Complete

Streets

• Adopt a complete streets policy for road

design, operation and maintenance;

• Update road design guidelines,

standards, and processes to reflect

complete streets principles;

• Use Multi-Modal Levels of Service

(MMLOS) to assess road designs and

allocate right of way.

3




IBI GROUP

Ottawa’s Definition of Complete

Streets

• Complete Streets incorporate the

physical elements that allow a

street to offer safety, comfort and

mobility for all users of the street

regardless of their age, ability, or

mode of transportation.

• A Complete Streets approach uses

every transportation project as a

catalyst for improvements within

the scope of that project to enable

safe and comfortable access for all

users.

4




IBI GROUP

Complete Streets Approach

• Integrates into the City of Ottawa’s

routine processes, guidelines and

standards for transportation

projects

• Strive first to accommodate the

basic needs of all users

• Strive second to further improve

conditions wherever possible within

the scope of a transportation

project, and with a balanced

consideration of relevant plans and

policies

5




IBI GROUP

Challenge

• The City of Ottawa delivers

many different types of

transportation projects

• Various branches are

responsible for delivering

different projects during

various phases of the project

development

6




IBI GROUP

Solution

• Goals are identified at project initiation to foster multi-modal

and context-sensitive solutions

• Complete Street elements will align with the scope of

transportation projects and Municipal Class Environmental

Assessment (MCEA) requirements

• Key constraints are recognized early in the process, including

right-of-way ownership, major utility conflicts, and long-term

maintainability

• Projects will anticipate opportunities to incrementally achieve

Complete Streets and networks over time, and in future

phases of projects

• Each project must be budgeted appropriately for

implementation of the Complete Street approach

7




IBI GROUP

Supporting Tools

Current tools:

• Master Plans, Planning & Design Guidelines, Accessibility

Guidelines for Ontarians with Disabilities, and

Construction, Operation & Maintenance Manuals

Tools Under Development:

• Road Design Guidelines project

• Multi-Modal Level of Service: a new approach to be

incorporated into the Transportation Impact Assessment

guidelines

8




IBI GROUP

Multi-Modal Level of Service – A

Custom Approach

• MMLOS to be used for both City-lead

and developer lead projects

• Substantially simpler than HCM

approach

• Builds on other approaches including

PETSI

MMLOS Guidelines developed to

provide details on the methodology for

each mode & provide targets, TIA

Guidelines to provide details on how

the methodologies are to be applied

9

MMLOS approach is Draft

subject to Council approval

Oct 7, 2015




IBI GROUP

MMLOS Ranges

10

MODE ELEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE

A B C D E F

Pedestrians (PLOS)

Segments High level of comfort Low level of comfort

Intersections Short delay, high level of comfort, low risk Long delay, low level of comfort, high risk

Bicycles (BLOS)

Segments High level of comfort Low level of comfort

Intersections Low level of risk / stress High level of risk / stress

Trucks (PLOS)

Segments Unimpeded movement Impeded movement

Intersections Unimpeded movement / short delay Impeded movement / long delay

Transit (TLOS)

Segments High level of reliability Low level of reliability

Intersections Short delay Long delay

Vehicles (LOS) Intersections Low lane utilization High lane utilization




IBI GROUP

Pedestrian Level of

Service (PLOS)

Primary intent of the tool is

to evaluate pedestrian

comfort, safety and

convenience

PE

DE

ST

RIA

N L

EV

EL

OF

SE

RV

ICE

11




IBI GROUP

PLOS Data Requirements

12

SEGMENTS SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

» Operating speed

» Sidewalk width

» Boulevard width

» Motor vehicle volume (AADT / lane)

» Presence of on-street parking

Exposure to Traffic

» Street width (number of through lanes to be crossed – with or without a median) and presence of refuge island for crossing pedestrians

» Right & left turn conflicts based on phasing (permitted, protected/permitted, protected, prohibited) and pedestrian-only phases (leading pedestrian interval)

» Right turn on Red (RTOR) restrictions

» Corner radius and type (smart right turn channel, right turn channel with receiving lane)

» Crosswalk treatment (transverse marking, zebra stripe markings, textured/coloured crosswalks, raised crosswalks)

Delay

» Cycle length

» Pedestrian green time (walk time)




IBI GROUP

PLOS Methodology – Example for Segments

13

30 >30 or 50 >50 or 60 >60 1

3000 N/A A A A B

Yes A B B N/A

No A B C D

3000 N/A A A A B

Yes A B C N/A

No A D D E

3000 NA A B C D

Yes B B D N/A

No D D E F

3000 N/A A A A B

Yes A B C N/A

No A C D E

3000 N/A A B B D

Yes A C C N/A

No B D E E

3000 N/A A B C D

Yes B C D N/A

No D E F F

3000 N/A C C C C

Yes C C D N/A

No C E E E

3000 N/A C C C D

Yes C C D N/A

No D E E E

0 F 2 F 2 F 2 F 2

< 1.5 F 3 F 3 F 3 F 3

3000 N/A C 4 F F F

> 3000 N/A F F F F

1.8

0 N/A

Notes:

1. On-street parking not provided on roadways with posted speed of 70 km/h or more

2. Sidewalk must be 1.8 m wide if no separation is provided (curb-face sidewalk)

3. Sidewalk must be 1.5 m wide to meet Provincial accessiblity standards

4. Ottawa’s Pedestrian Plan, 2014: “all new and reconstructed urban local roads where pedestrian facilities are required in accordance with these policies

but no dedicated pedestrian facility is provided, require that roads be designed for a speed of 30 km/h or lower (pending development of a new 30

km/h roadway design standard).” Consider providing "safe" space for visually impaired

> 3000

> 3000

1.5

0.5 to 2

0.5 to 2

> 2

> 2

N/A

0

2.0 or more

> 3000

> 3000

N/A

> 3000

> 3000

0.5 to 2

> 2

0

> 3000

> 3000

Sidewalk Width

(m)

Boulevard Width

(m)

Motor Vehicle

Traffic Volume

(AADT / lane)

Presence of On-

street ParkingOperating Speed (km/h)

Segment PLOS




IBI GROUP

PLOS Methodology –

Intersections

14

Exhibit 1 – PETSI Evaluation Table

Exhibit 2 – Pedestrian Delay Evaluation Table

5.2 Signal Phasing & Timing Features

Left turn conflict ("Left_turns") Points

Permissive -8

2 120 120 Protected/permissive -8

3 105 105 Protected 0

4 88 90 No left turn/prohibited 0

5 72 75 Right turn conflict ("Right_turns") Points

6 55 60 Permissive or yield control -5

7 39 45 Protected/permissive -5

8 23 30 Protected 0

9 6 15 No right turn 0

10 -10 0 Right turns on red ("RTOR") Points

Island Refuge Points No right turns 0

No -4 RTOR allowed 0

Yes 0 RTOR prohibited at certain time(s) 3

RTOR prohibited 5

Leading ped interval? ("LPI") Points

Points No 0

-9 Yes 5

-8

-6

-5

-4 Crosswalk treatment ("Crosswalk") Points

Less than/equal to 3m -3 Standard transverse markings -7

0 Textured/coloured pavement -4

-3 Zebra stripe hi-vis markings -4

2 Raised crosswalk 0

Right turn channel with receiving lane

Right turn "smart channel"

5.3 Corner Radius

5.4 Crosswalk Treatment

Greater than 25m

> 15m to 25m

> 10m to 15m

> 5m to 10m

> 3m to 5m

No right turn

5.1 Crossing Distance & Conditions

Total travel

lanes crossedNo median

With Median

(>2.4m)

Corner radius

Points threshold LOS

≥ 90 A

≥75 B

≥60 C

≥45 D

≥30 E

<30 F

Pedestrian Exposure to Traffic LOS

Delay =

< 10 s per intersection leg LOS A

10 to 20 sec LOS B

>20 to 30 sec LOS C

>30 to 40 sec LOS D

>40 to 60 sec LOS E

> 60 sec LOS F

Average Pedestrian Crossing Delay Component




IBI GROUP

PLOS Methodology - Segments

15

• Sidewalks 1.8m +

• Streets with low volume (≤3000 AADT) or

low operating speeds (≤ 30 km/hr)

• Sidewalks 1.8-2.0m adjacent to roads with high

operating speeds (typically <50 or 60) and higher

volumes

• Sidewalks 1.5m with boulevards

• No sidewalk or substandard width

• Sidewalk adjacent to high volume, high speed

roadways without any boulevard




IBI GROUP

PLOS Methodology - Signals

16

• ≤4 lanes to be crossed

assuming no major

penalties

• 4-6 lanes to be

crossed assuming no

major penalties

• 6 to 10+ lanes to be

crossed depending on

penalties

• <10s per intersection

leg

• >20 to 30s

• >60s

Segments Delay

Penalties: large corner radii,

unfavourable signal phasing, etc.




IBI GROUP

Bicycle Level of Service

(BLOS)


to evaluate the level of traffic

stress (or degree of comfort)

experienced by a cyclist

Methodology is based on

the Mineta Transportation

Institute report, but adapted

to City of Ottawa LOS A-F

BIC

YC

LE

LE

VE

L O

F S

ER

VIC

E

17




IBI GROUP

BLOS Data Requirements

18


Mixed Traffic (No cycling facility)

» Street width (total number of lanes in both

directions)

» Operating speed

Bike Lanes

» Street width (number of through lanes per

direction)

» Bike lane width (including marked buffer

and paved gutter width)

» Parking lane width (where bike lane is

adjacent to parking lane)

» Operating speed

» Qualitative assessment of commercial

deliveries for commercial areas

Physically Separated Bikeway

» No additional information needed

Unsignalized Crossings

» Presence of median refuge suitable for

bicycle storage (≥1.8m wide)

» Width of street being crossed (number of

lanes in both directions)

» Speed limit of street being crossed

Pocket bike lanes

» Right turn lane characteristics (number of

right turn lanes, length of turn lane, turning

speed)

» Operating speed

» Left turn accommodation (presence of bike

box, number of left turn lanes, number of

lanes crossed)

Mixed Traffic (No cycling facility)

» Right turn lane characteristics (number of

right turn lanes, length of turn lane, turning

speed)

» Operating speed

» Left turn accommodation (presence of bike

box, number of left turn lanes, number of

lanes crossed)




IBI GROUP

BLOS Methodology – Segments

19

• Physically separated bikeway

• Wide bike lanes on 2-lane roads with low operating

speed (≤ 40-50 km/h depending on parking lanes)

• Mixed traffic on 2-lane low speed residential streets

• Narrow bike lanes on roads with >2 lanes and

higher speeds (60 km/h)

• Frequent bike lane blockage due to commercial

activity

• Mixed traffic on high speed roads (≥ 60km/h)

• High stress unsignalized crossings (4+ lane

roads with higher speeds)




IBI GROUP

BLOS Methodology – Signals

20

• Left turn bike boxes provided for left turns

• No right-turn lanes or right-turn lanes to the left of

cycling infrastructure

• 0-1 lane crossed to make a left turn at moderate

speeds

• Short, low speed right-turn lane where cycling

facilities are provided

• 2 or more lanes crossed to make a left turn with

speeds ≥ 50 km/h

• Long / dual right-turn lanes




IBI GROUP

Truck Level of Service

(TkLOS)


to complement motor

vehicle LOS by considering

the physical space available

for trucks to negotiate

corners quickly and easily,

and to operate safely within

travelled lanes

TR

UC

K L

EV

EL

OF

SE

RV

ICE

21




IBI GROUP

TkLOS Data Requirements

22


» Street width (number of

through lanes per direction)

» Curb lane width (m)

» Effective radius

» Number of receiving lanes on

departing leg of intersection




IBI GROUP

TkLOS Methodology

23

• Curb lane width 3.5m+

• Two travel lanes

• Curb lane width 3.3m

with two travel lanes

• One travel lane width

3.5m

• One travel lane width

<3m

• Effective radius >15m

with more than one

receiving lane

• Effective radius >15m

with one receiving lane

• Effective radius <10m

with one receiving lane

Segments Signalized Intersections




IBI GROUP

Transit Level of Service

(TLOS)


to evaluate the relative

attractiveness of transit

based on transit travel time

and the transit priority

afforded to transit vehicles

TR

AN

SIT

LE

VE

L O

F S

ER

VIC

E

24




IBI GROUP

TLOS Data Requirements

25


» Level/exposure to congestion

delay, friction, and incidents

(qualitative assessment)

» Average transit travel speed

» Posted speed limit

» Number of driveways along

corridor and approximate crossing

volume

» Average Signal Delay




IBI GROUP

TLOS Methodology - Segments

26

Congestion FrictionIncident

Potential

No No No N/A A

No/limited parking/driveway friction No Low Low Cf ≤ 60 B

Frequent parking/driveway friction No Medium Medium Cf > 60 C

Limited parking/driveway friction Yes Low Medium Vt/Vp ≥ 0.8 D

Moderate parking/driveway friction Yes Medium Medium Vt/Vp ≤ 0.6 E

Frequent parking/driveway friction Yes High High Vt/Vp < 0.4 F

Notes:

Cf, Conflict Factor = = (Number of driveways x crossing volume) / 1 km

Vt/Vp is the ratio of average transit travel speed to posted speed limit

Bus lane

Mixed Traffic

Segregated ROW

Quantitative

MeasurementLOS

Level/exposure to congestion delay,

friction and incidentsFacility Type




IBI GROUP

TLOS Methodology

27

• Segregated ROW

• Bus lane with frequent

parking / driveway

friction (Cf> 60)

• Mixed traffic w/ high friction

• Ratio of average transit

travel speed to posted

speed limit < 0.4

• Grade separated

crossing (Delay = 0s)

• Mid-level TSP (Delay

≤ 20 sec)

• No TSP & long cycle

length (Delay >40s)

Segments Signalized Intersections




IBI GROUP

Auto LOS

Methodology remains

consistent with what is

currently provided in the TIA

AU

TO

LO

S

28




IBI GROUP

Targets & Tradeoffs

29




IBI GROUP

Ultimate objective of developing a MMLOS program is to

enable designers, City staff and the public to evaluate

and understand transportation choices

Towards this end, modal level of service targets have

been developed

Targets must cover a wide range of conditions (i.e.

varying built form and context) and therefore should be

considered to provide broad guidance rather than

absolute cut-offs

Targets are likely to shift over time as they are better

calibrated to reflect outcomes and initiatives

30




IBI GROUP

Targets

31

Official Plan Designation /

Land Use

Pedestrian Bicycle Transit Truck Automobile

PLOS BLOS TLOS TrLOS MVLOS

Central Area / Mixed Use

Centres High High High Low Low

Transit Station Areas High High High Low Low

School Areas High High Medium Low Low

Traditional Main Streets High Medium Medium Low Low

Arterial Main Streets Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

General Urban / Village

Areas Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Rapid Transit Corridors Medium Medium High Low Low

Transit Priority Corridors Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Crosstown Bike Routes N.A. High N.A. N.A. N.A.

Bike Spine Routes N.A. Medium N.A. N.A. N.A.

Truck Routes N.A. N.A. N.A. High N.A.

General Rural Areas Low Low N.A. Medium Medium

1 Values represent minimum targets to be exceeded wherever possible without negatively impacting other modes. 2 Not Applicable (N.A.)




IBI GROUP

Summary

• Small changes to processes

should yield big dividends for

Complete Streets

• Adopting MMLOS will support

decision making process around

trade-offs

• Approaches do not replace need

for good planning and design

32

Implementing Complete Streets in Ottawa - TCAT

Documents

Transcript of Implementing Complete Streets in Ottawa - TCAT