Appendix A Supporting Documentation of Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Solutions

Transcription

1 Appendix A Supporting Documentation of Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Solutions A.1 Assumed Footprints of Potential Relocation Sites A.2 Analysis: Location Relevant to Built Development A.3 Analysis: Potential Rerouting Options A.4 Analysis: Brock Street Pedestrian Crossing A.5 Analysis: Accessibility and Universal Design Requirements A.6 High-Level Evaluation of Potential Relocation Opportunities A.7 Detailed Evaluation of Alternative Solutions A.8 Evaluation Weighting and Scoring

2 Appendix A.1 Assumed Footprints of Potential Relocation Sites

3 Appendix A.1 Assumed Footprints of Potential Relocation Sites As part of Step 1B: Identification of Relocation Constraints and Opportunities, the potential relocation opportunities were evaluated. For evaluation purposes and comparison between potential relocation sites, a typical configuration of a DTP was assumed for each opportunity area. The assumed footprint for each potential relocation site is shown in Exhibit 1 through Exhibit 7. Exhibit 1: Existing DTP Footprint at Brock & Bagot 1

4 Appendix A.1 Exhibit 2: Assumed Footprint for Brock, from Montreal to Wellington Exhibit 3: Assumed Footprint for Brock & Wellington 2

5 Appendix A.1 Exhibit 4: Assumed Footprint for Clarence, from Bagot to Wellington Exhibit 5: Assumed Footprint for Queen & Bagot 3

6 Appendix A.1 Exhibit 6: Assumed Footprint for Queen & Wellington Exhibit 7: Assumed Footprint for Queen & King 4

7 Appendix A.2 Analysis: Location Relative to Built Development

8 Appendix A.2 Analysis: Location Relative to Built Development To understand the proximity of development for each potential relocation opportunity, the amount of built development area (building density) within a defined catchment area of each site was assessed. The findings of this analysis were included in Step 1C: High-Level Evaluation of Relocation Opportunities. Built development was measured in terms of building density area 1. Three catchment areas were assessed, including: 200m walk distance (approx. 2-3 minute walk time) 300m walk distance (approx. 3-4 minute walk time) 400m walk distance (approx. 4-5 minute walk time) The comparison of total built developed area within the three catchment areas is shown for each potential relocation site in Table 1. Relative preferences are indicated symbolically (least preferred shown by, somewhat preferred shown by, and most preferred shown by ). 1 Example calculation: 12m x 36m building with 3 storeys equals 1,296 m 2 of building density. 1

9 Appendix A.2 Table 1: Built Development within Defined Catchment Areas of Potential Relocation Sites Potential Relocation Site Total Built Developed Area within 200m (m 2 ) Total Built Developed Area within 300m (m 2 ) Total Built Developed Area within 400m (m 2 ) 2 Overall Brock & Bagot 134, , ,021 Brock, from Montreal to Wellington 95, , ,322 Brock & Wellington 106, , ,725 Clarence, from Bagot to Wellington 94, , ,206 Queen & Bagot 92, , ,381 Queen & Wellington 86, , ,674 Queen & King 74, , ,835 Overall, the existing DTP location at Brock and Bagot Streets, at Brock and Wellington Streets, and at Clarence Street are most preferred. The location at Brock, from Montreal to Wellington, is somewhat preferred. The three locations on Queen, at Bagot, Wellington, and King, are least preferred. The catchment area map for each potential relocation site is shown in Exhibit 1 through Exhibit 7. 2 Limited information of built development was available for the 400m catchment area analysis, which lowers the amount of built development for the three locations on Queen. North Block District redevelopment was not included in these calculations as no approved applications were available to be considered at this time. It is understood that the development potential is expected to accommodate ground floor commercial with multi-storey residential above the site. This type of development within the North Block would not be a primary reason to shift the DTP location. Built development north of Ordnance Street was not included in this analysis (approx. 300m walk distance from Queen and Bagot). 2

10 Appendix A.2 Exhibit 1: Catchment Areas (200m, 300m, 400m) for Brock & Bagot Exhibit 2: Catchment Areas (200m, 300m, 400m) for Brock, from Montreal to Wellington 3

11 Appendix A.2 Exhibit 3: Catchment Areas (200m, 300m, 400m) for Brock & Wellington Exhibit 4: Catchment Areas (200m, 300m, 400m) for Clarence, from Bagot to Wellington 4

12 Appendix A.2 Exhibit 5: Catchment Areas (200m, 300m, 400m) for Queen & Bagot Exhibit 6: Catchment Areas (200m, 300m, 400m) for Queen & Wellington 5

13 Appendix A.2 Exhibit 7: Catchment Areas (200m, 300m, 400m) for Queen & King 6

14 Appendix A.3 Analysis: Potential Rerouting Options

15 Appendix A.3 Analysis: Potential Rerouting Options To evaluate the impacts to the Kingston Transit operations, potential rerouting options were developed for the alternative solutions of Improving the Existing Site or Relocating to Clarence Street. The findings of this analysis were included in Step 2C: Detailed Evaluation of the Alternative Solutions. The existing bus routing to access the Downtown Transfer Point (DTP) is shown in Exhibit 1. The current routing is relatively efficient. No significant detours are made to access the DTP. Exhibit 1: Existing Routing to Access the DTP The current bus stop configuration at the DTP includes seven bus stops. However, the four stops on Brock Street effectively operate as two zones. The existing bus stop configuration at the DTP is shown in Exhibit 2. The major transfer trends in the morning and afternoon peak periods are shown in Table 2. 1

16 Appendix A.3 Exhibit 2: Existing Bus Stop Configuration at the DTP Table 1: Major Transfer Trends in the AM and PM Peak Periods AM Peak Period Transfer Trends PM Peak Period Transfer Trends 1 (St Lawrence College) (Montreal St) (St Lawrence College) 1 (St Lawrence College) (St Lawrence College) (Montreal St)

17 Appendix A.3 Improve the Existing Site To assess potential improvements to the existing site, two aspects were considered, including: Potential to improve routing access to the DTP Potential to rearrange bus stops and improve transfer distance for major transfer trends Rerouting Access to the DTP Currently, routes access the DTP in a relatively efficient manner. In reviewing rerouting access to the DTP, only one route could be improved. Route 12 Highway 15 could be improved to travel northbound on Bagot Street, rather than King Street, and share the existing bus stop for Route 602 (further discussion in the section below). A conceptual rerouting option for the existing DTP location is shown in Exhibit 3. Exhibit 3: Conceptual Rerouting Option for Existing DTP Location Rearranging Bus Stops In reviewing transfer trends, seven of the eleven major transfer trends require passengers to transfer around the corner of Bagot and Brock, in which buildings block visibility. Six of these transfers involve either Route 4 or 701. Since both of these routes use the DTP as a turning point from eastbound to westbound travel the bus stops could be located on either Bagot or Brock without rerouting. As such, moving these bus stops for Routes 4 and 701 from Bagot to Brock would reduce walk distance and improve visibility for many passengers. 3

18 Appendix A.3 The two major transfer movements that require crossing the Brock/Bagot intersection were assessed, but due to the efficient routing of 602, it is not recommended that the bus stops be rearranged to reduce transfers that require street crossing. The Route 12 Highway 15 bus stop on Brock, east of Bagot, could be relocated to northbound on Bagot, north of Brock (shared with the 602 bus stop), if the route is modified as discussed in the previous section. This bus stop location would reduce impacts to the sidewalk patio at the Queen s Inn, as well as provide a more compact footprint of the DTP. More detailed analysis is required at a later project stage to assess the physical feasibility and capacity of rearranging the bus stops. Schedules may need to be adjusted to accommodate the routes, as well as having assigned bus stops. 4

19 Appendix A.3 Relocating to Clarence Street Conceptual rerouting options were assessed for Clarence Street, including the option of a one-way westbound facility, or a two-way facility. The feasibility of these bus stop configurations would require additional analysis at a later project stage. A conceptual rerouting option for the one-way westbound Clarence Street option is shown in Exhibit 4. The following assumptions were made in developing the rerouting option: No reconfiguration of existing one-way streets to two-way streets (Princess Street remains one-way eastbound, Brock Street remains one-way westbound, and Johnson Street remains one-way eastbound) It is more preferable to remain on existing travel corridors as much as possible to reduce impacts to bus stops either upstream or downstream from the DTP, as riders are already familiar with existing corridors In general, routes travelling eastbound on Princess were extended to Wellington, turning south on Wellington to access Clarence In general, routes travelling eastbound on Johnson were extended to Wellington, turning north on Wellington to access Clarence In general, routes travelling northbound on Bagot were detoured eastbound on Johnson, turning north on Wellington to access Clarence In general, routes travelling westbound on Brock were detoured south on Wellington to access Clarence A conceptual rerouting option for the two-way Clarence Street option is shown in Exhibit 5. The following assumptions were made in developing the rerouting option: No reconfiguration of existing one-way streets to two-way streets (Princess Street remains one-way eastbound, Brock Street remains one-way westbound, and Johnson Street remains one-way eastbound) It is more preferable to remain on existing travel corridors as much as possible to reduce impacts to bus stops either upstream or downstream from the DTP, as riders are already familiar with existing corridors It is more preferable for buses to continue travelling in the projected direction, rather than backtracking in a loop on Brock, between Bagot and Wellington The number of bus stops on the north and south sides of Clarence were balanced as much as possible, also considering route frequencies Eastbound routes turning westbound at the DTP along Princess were extended to Wellington, turning south on Wellington to access Clarence from the east Eastbound routes turning southbound at the DTP continued to turn south on Bagot to access Clarence from the west, then detoured southbound on Wellington, eastbound on William, to continue going southbound on Bagot Northbound routes turning westbound at the DTP were detoured eastbound on Johnson, turning north on Wellington to access Clarence from the east 5

20 Appendix A.3 Northbound routes turning eastbound at the DTP were continued north on Bagot, to access Clarence from the west Exhibit 4: Conceptual Rerouting Option for Clarence Street, One-Way Westbound Facility Exhibit 5: Conceptual Rerouting Option for Clarence Street, Two-Way Facility 6

21 Appendix A.3 The impacts of the rerouting options were measured as the additional travel distance and turning movements. These values were measured on a per day basis, accounting for the number of trips each bus makes through the DTP. This accounts for the larger impact that the higher frequency and express routes have on the network as whole. The additional distance, turning movements, and through intersection movements per day is shown for both rerouting options in Table 2. Table 2: Additional Distance and Turning Movements per Day of Clarence Street Rerouting Options Route Daily Trips Additional Distance (m) Clarence Street One-Way Westbound Additional Turning Movements Additional Through Movements Additional Distance (m) Clarence Street Two-Way Additional Turning Movements Additional Through Movements 1 - St. Lawrence College 31 9, , Montreal St 30 7, , St. Lawrence College 30 9, , Division 30 7, , Kingston Centre 30 1, , Cataraqui 31 10, , Kingston Centre 56 2, , Hwy , , Train Station 14 4, , Portsmouth Ave 93 29, , Cataraqui 69 17, , Queen's / KGH 61 2, , Innovation Dr PnR 84 22, , Cataraqui 48 15, , King's Crossing 49 12, , TOTAL - 133,355 1, ,965 1, Assuming an average speed of km/h 1, this results in an 5.5 to 6.9 hours of additional run time per day for the relocation to Clarence Street. The actual additional time per route would be greater, as the average speed in the downtown area is likely slower, an increase in turning movements and signalized intersections would increase operating time, cost, potential for delays, and schedules would need to be adjusted. 1 As per Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA), Canadian Transit Fact Book, 2013 statistics for Kingston Transit. Note that average speed of downtown operations is likely lower than this value. 7

22 Appendix A.3 In addition, both rerouting options increase bus volumes on multiple street segments, including: Johnson Street, between Bagot and Wellington Princess Street, between Bagot and Wellington William Street, between Bagot and Wellington Wellington Street, between Princess and William Rerouting Option to Mitigate Impacts Based on the conceptual rerouting options for Relocating to Clarence Street, a refined option was developed to mitigate impacts, particularly to reduce bus volumes in residential neighbourhoods, and to gain efficiencies by rerouting further upstream of the DTP. This rerouting option is for a two-way configuration on Clarence Street. This refined rerouting option was used to evaluate the Relocate to Clarence Street option in Step 2C: Detailed Evaluation of the Alternative Solutions. The refined rerouting option for the two-way Clarence Street option is shown in Exhibit 6. Exhibit 6: Refined Conceptual Rerouting Option for Clarence Street, Two-Way Facility The impacts of the rerouting options were measured as the additional travel distance and turning movements. These values were measured on a per day basis, accounting for the number of trips each bus makes through the DTP. This accounts for the larger impact that the higher frequency and express routes have on the network as whole. The additional 8

23 Appendix A.3 distance, turning movements, and through intersection movements per day is shown for both rerouting options in Table 2. Table 3: Additional Distance and Turning Movements per Day of Refined Clarence Street Rerouting Option Route Daily Trips Additional Distance (m) Clarence Street Refined, Two-Way Additional Turning Movements Additional Through Movements 1 - St. Lawrence College 31 10, Montreal St 30 9, St. Lawrence College 30 9, Division 30 9, Kingston Centre Cataraqui 31 10, Kingston Centre 56 19, Hwy , Train Station 14 4, Portsmouth Ave 93 29, Cataraqui 69 17, Queen's / KGH Innovation Dr PnR 84 3, Cataraqui 48 19, King's Crossing 49 12, TOTAL - 124,633 1, Assuming an average speed of km/h 2, this results in 6.4 hours of additional run time per day for the relocation to Clarence Street. The actual additional time per route would be greater, as the average speed in the downtown area is likely slower, an increase in turning movements and signalized intersections would increase operating time, cost, potential for delays, and schedules would need to be adjusted. The distribution of bus stops on the north and south sides of Clarence Street is shown in Exhibit 7. For this rerouting option, bus stops are relatively balanced on the north side and south sides of Clarence Street. The bus bay assignment would be determined at a later project stage, depending on the configuration of the transfer point and the number of bays. 2 As per Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA), Canadian Transit Fact Book, 2013 statistics for Kingston Transit. Note that average speed of downtown operations is likely lower than this value. 9

24 Appendix A.3 Exhibit 7: Bus Stop Configuration at the DTP for Refined Clarence Street Rerouting Option The major transfer trends in the morning and afternoon peak periods for this option are shown in Table 4. In the morning peak period, a number of transfers need to cross Clarence Street (either midblock or at the ends of the transfer point). In the afternoon peak period, the major transfer movements are better balanced across the site. Table 4: Major Transfer Trends in the AM and PM Peak Periods for Refined Clarence Street Rerouting Option AM Peak Period Transfer Trends PM Peak Period Transfer Trends 1 (St Lawrence College) (Montreal St) (St Lawrence College) 1 (St Lawrence College) (St Lawrence College) (Montreal St)

25 Appendix A.4 Analysis: Brock Street Pedestrian Crossing

26 Appendix A.4 Analysis: Brock Street Pedestrian Crossing To understand both bus operation and pedestrian impacts at the Downtown Transfer Point (DTP) from midblock pedestrian crossings on Brock Street in the vicinity of Montreal Street, a high-level assessment of the existing and potential future conditions of the intersection was conducted. The findings of this assessment inform the selection of the alternative site locations. Existing Conditions The City of Kingston and the Hotel Dieu Hospital have previously expressed concerns with the pedestrian midblock crossings of Brock Street that occur between Sydenham and Montreal Streets. Pedestrians in this area have two main desire lines: Between the Hotel Dieu Hospital and Chown Memorial Parking Garage Between the Hotel Dieu Hospital and the Downtown Transfer Point The Brock / Montreal Street intersection facilitates pedestrian movements between the DTP and the hospital. It currently has marked crossings at all three legs, which provide pedestrians with right-of-way during a green signal phase for Montreal Street at two locations, as shown in Exhibit 1. Both crossings observe relatively large pedestrian volumes (1,820 on the west leg and 652 on the east leg per day) 1. In addition, even higher numbers of pedestrians are observed to cross midblock (approximately 2,500 per day) 2 west of Montreal Street and east of Sydenham Street. The controlled nature of the Brock/Montreal Street intersection also allocates dedicated time for through moving buses on Brock Street. Under the current fixed signal timing plan, 43 seconds of the 80 second cycle time is dedicated to green time for westbound bus and traffic movements, and 28 seconds is allocated for pedestrian crossing movements 3. This signal timing balances the needs of pedestrians, buses, and vehicular traffic, and ensures the efficient, consistent, and reliable movement of buses throughout the day. 1 As per traffic count data provided by the City of Kingston, January As per Draft Brock Street Pedestrian Crossing Review Memorandum, BA Group, May The remaining ~9 seconds is for the all-red interval between green phases 1

27 Appendix A.4 Exhibit 1: Existing Conditions of Brock Street Crossing Potential Future Conditions The City has commissioned several studies in recent years to understand and address pedestrian and vehicular safety in the vicinity of the Brock/Montreal Street intersection. Currently, BA Group has developed a preferred recommendation 4 to improve pedestrian safety at this location. The main aspects of the draft recommendation relevant to the DTP are as follows: 1. Installation of a controlled pedestrian crossing of Brock Street immediately west of the Hotel Dieu and Chown Memorial Parking Garage entrances, as shown in Exhibit 1; 2. Removal of the traffic control signal at the Brock/Montreal Street intersection (replace with stop signs for the southbound and northbound movements on Montreal Street and the Hotel Dieu Hospital driveway); and 3. Removal of the 7 m wide speed humps, which are commonly misinterpreted as formal crosswalks. The study also recommends a phased implementation, by first replacing the existing 7 m flat top speed humps with a more conventional 4 m speed humps and providing a raised decorative crosswalk at Brock/Montreal in the short-term. 4 As per Draft Brock Street Pedestrian Crossing Review Memorandum, BA Group, May

28 Appendix A.4 Future Implications Implementing the draft recommendation provides pedestrians with a dedicated midblock crossing midblock on Brock Street west of Montreal Street via an actuated pedestrian signal. This is intended to encourage a reduction in uncontrolled midblock crossings and provide pedestrians with dedicated right-of-way. Typically, flashing beacons at pedestrian signals are activated immediately after the signal has been actuated, with no delay, requiring that vehicles stop and give right-of-way. This type of crossing facilitates convenient crossings for pedestrians with no wait time. However, in cases where there are high pedestrian volumes, this can cause delays for through traffic. With regards to the DTP, this type of midblock pedestrian crossing will impede efficient bus operations for both of the alternative site locations at Brock and Bagot Streets and on Clarence Street. Assuming that the 2,500 daily midblock crossing pedestrians all utilize the midblock crossing, this would result in 250 pedestrians crossing per hour 5. For a pedestrian to safely clear the roadway width, each crossing would require approximately 15 seconds of signal time. In the worst case scenario of assuming a random distribution of pedestrian arrivals at the crossing, this would result in 3,750 seconds of signal time allocated to pedestrian crossings in one hour (more time than the 3,600 seconds available in an hour). In addition, the pedestrian signal would be continuously actuated during the peak hour. As such, both bus and traffic operations would fail under this scenario. As well, the removal of the traffic signal at Brock/Montreal Street does not preclude right-ofway pedestrian crossings occurring at this location unless both marked crossings are removed (the short-term draft recommendations suggest a raised decorative crosswalk at the Brock/Montreal intersection). If both the marked crosswalks and traffic signals are removed at this intersection, pedestrians may continue to intuitively cross Brock Street at the intersection, but would no longer have a protected right-of-way. As this would also increase walking distances and create a less intuitive crossing, this is an undesirable solution from the perspective of pedestrian safety, as well as an accessible DTP at the Brock and Bagot Street location. Conversely, if the crosswalks remain and the traffic signals are removed at the Brock/Montreal Street intersection, bus operations and reliability would be impeded, as this would allocate constant right-of-way to crossing pedestrians. In addition, there would no longer be a protected crossing phase for pedestrians, and no visual indicators for vehicles (such as midblock crossing lights or traffic signal). When designing midblock crosswalks. Actuated pedestrian signals (half-signals), hybrid beacons, or rapid flash beacons may be considered at midblock locations where infrequent crossings make a traffic signal or stop sign unnecessary. Fixed-time signals or passive detection are preferable to push-button detection. NACTO Urban Street Design Guide 5 Assuming a typical 10% peak hour factor 3

29 Appendix A.4 Alternative Option An alternative option is suggested to address the issues stated above from both a pedestrian and bus operation standpoint, as follows: Retain the traffic signal at Montreal Street & Brock Street Provide a raised, decorative crosswalk (or a pedestrian crossing table) at the midblock location and provide a fixed time pedestrian signal that is coordinated with the Brock/Montreal Street signal (as this design is not typical of dedicated pedestrian signals at an intersection, additional signage and makings should be provided for visual cues 6 ) Provide decorative bollards at the raised crosswalk (or pedestrian crossing table) to emphasize the appropriate location to cross and to offer protection from the roadway. Decorative bollards could also be used along Brock Street to provide visual cues that guide pedestrians to the designated crossing areas at both the Brock/Montreal Street intersection and the midblock crossing Increase education and enforcement in the area This option would require additional study prior to implementation. Conclusions The draft recommended changes to the Brock/Montreal Street intersection results in the following implications for pedestrians and bus operations at the DTP: Bus operations will be impeded. If pedestrians are given right-of-way at midblock crossing without a further level of control, bus flow and general traffic would be substantially reduced during peak hours and throughout the day. As midblock pedestrian crossings would not occur consistently throughout the day, it would be difficult to schedule potential bus operation delays and for buses to operate reliably. This would impact both the Brock and Bagot Street and the Clarence Street options similarly. Pedestrian walking distances to and from the DTP will be increased and will become less intuitive if the marked crosswalks and the traffic signal are removed at the Brock/Montreal Street intersection. In this scenario, pedestrians may continue to cross Brock Street at the intersection, but would no longer have a protected right-of-way. If the crosswalks remain and the traffic signals are removed at the Brock/Montreal Street intersection, bus operations and reliability will be impeded as they will be required to give right-of-way to crossing pedestrians whenever there is crossing demand. An alternative option, preferred for both pedestrians and bus operations, should be considered. 6 Design could use the same pedestrian crossing light at intersections, featuring walk / don t walk symbols, such that pedestrians understand the need to wait. 4

30 Appendix A.5 Analysis: Accessibility and Universal Design Requirements

31 Appendix A.5 Analysis: Accessibility and Universal Design Requirements To understand the design requirements to meet accessibility standards and universal design principles at the Downtown Transfer Point (DTP), existing policies were assessed to recommend accessible and universal design criteria. The findings of this analysis inform the physical layout and placement of amenities and street furniture at the DTP, and guide the understanding of limitations and opportunities at the alternative site locations. Existing Policies A combination of four policies/principles governs the design of the DTP, including Universal Design Principles, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), the City of Kingston Facility Accessibility Design Standards (FADS), and the Kingston Transit Accessible Transit Services Handbook (ATSH). A brief overview of each of the policies/principles, as it relates to the DTP, is discussed in the following sections. Universal Design Principles Universal design is defined as The design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. These principles go above and beyond the requirements for accessibility (to meet the needs of people with disabilities), and considers a wider variety of users (such as children, seniors, parents with strollers, and includes people with disabilities). The design of the DTP should be driven by universal design, as the intent of the transit system is to provide mobility for nearly everyone. The universal design philosophy is structured around seven design principles, as follows: Equitable use The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities. Flexibility in use The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities. Simple and intuitive to use Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the users experience, knowledge, language skills or current concentration level. Perceptible information The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user s sensory abilities. Tolerance for error The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions. Low physical effort The design can be used efficiently and comfortably with a minimum of fatigue. 1

32 Appendix A.5 Size and space for approach and use Appropriate size and space are provided for approach, reach, manipulation and use, regardless of user s body position, size, posture, or mobility. The City of Kingston FADS incorporates these principles of universal design. Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 In terms of accessible design standards, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), 2005, O. Reg. 191/11: Integrated Accessibility Standards provides standards for the design of built environments. Although transportation and transit infrastructure is not outlined in the AODA standards, the design of the DTP would follow Part IV.1 Design of Public Spaces Standard (Accessibility Standard for the Built Environment), Exterior Paths of Travel. This section applies to the design of newly constructed and redeveloped exterior paths of travel that are designed and constructed for pedestrian travel and are intended to serve a functional purpose. In should be noted that AODA allows exceptions to the requirements for exterior paths of travel, such as if it would affect the cultural heritage, natural heritage, or natural environment, or if it is not practicable to comply with the requirements, or some of them, because existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces or features, such as where increasing the width of the exterior path would narrow the width of the adjacent highway or locating an accessible pedestrian signal pole within 1,500 mm of the curb edge is not feasible because of existing underground utilities. City of Kingston Facility Accessibility Design Standards, 2009 The City of Kingston Facility Accessibility Design Standards (FADS), 2009 provides the accessibility requirements for the design and construction of new facilities, as well as the retrofit, alteration or addition to existing facilities owned, leased or operated by the City of Kingston. However, the standard does not apply to the public right-of-way. As the DTP is located within the public right-of-way, it is not mandatory that the design of the DTP comply with the FADS (including Section Transportation Facilities). However, it is recommended that the design of the DTP be consistent with the FADS wherever possible to ensure adequate and consistent universal design throughout the City of Kingston. With regards to Section Transportation Facilities, the DTP should comply with the specifications for Transit Terminals, if possible. It should be noted that these standards go above and beyond the AODA standards for exterior paths of travel. Kingston Transit Accessible Transit Services Handbook, 2012 The Kingston Transit Accessible Transit Services Handbook, 2012 specifies the minimum accessibility requirements for various aspects of the Kingston Transit system. The bus stop guidelines incorporate the requirements identified in the FADS. In terms of accessible bus zone design, the handbook distinguishes between Accessible Bus Stops and Functionally Accessible Bus Stops (bus stops that do not have all the 2

33 Appendix A.5 required accessible features). Functionally Accessible Bus Stops are being addressed over time as outlined in the Kingston Transit Redevelopment Plan. Any improvements to existing bus zones or new construction must ensure that all accessibility requirements are met. Recommended Design Criteria Accessibility standards were reviewed across multiple policies to recommend design criteria for the DTP. Only the design features relevant to the physical layout and placement of amenities and street furniture were reviewed (dimensions of the accessible route, clearances, bus shelters, seating and benches, street furniture, surface material, illumination, etc.). A discussion of existing policies and recommended accessibility and universal design standards for the DTP is provided in Table 1. Table 1: Discussion and Recommendation of Accessible and Universal Design Standards for the DTP Design Feature Discussion of Existing Standards Clear Width The AODA standard for exterior paths of travel is a minimum clear width of 1,500 mm, which can be reduced to 1,200 mm to serve as a turning space where the exterior path connects with a curb ramp. As per FADS, the DTP would be considered an exterior accessible circulation path (an exterior continuous and unobstructed way of passage from one place to another) As per FADS standard (Section Accessible Routes, Paths & Corridors): The minimum clear width of an exterior accessible circulation route is 1,500 mm. The preferred minimum clear width is 1,830 mm to allow two wheelchairs to pass. Every accessible route less than the preferred 1,830 mm shall provide an unobstructed passing space of 1,830 mm in width and 1,830 mm in length located not more than 30 m apart. All facilities shall have convex mirrors at intersections along an accessible route to allow people who are deaf, deafened, or hard of hearing to see on-coming pedestrian traffic. Designated areas for snow piling are to be provided for exterior accessible routes, located away from pedestrian routes. Recommended Standard Minimum clear width of 1,830 mm Convex mirrors at intersections along the accessible route 3

34 Appendix A.5 Design Feature Cross Slope Running Slope Discussion of Existing Standards As per the AODA standard for exterior paths of travel, the maximum cross slope must be no more than 1:20, where the surface is asphalt, concrete or some other hard surface. As per FADS standard (Section Accessible Routes, Paths & Corridors), accessible routes shall have a cross slope not steeper than 1:50 (2%). The existing running slope on Brock Street between Bagot and Montreal Streets is 1:35 (2.9%). The existing running slope on Bagot and Clarence Streets are minimal and are considered to be level. As per the AODA standard for exterior paths of travel, the maximum running slope of the exterior path must be no more than 1:20, but where the exterior path is a sidewalk, it can have a slope greater than 1:20, but it cannot be steeper than the slope of the adjacent roadway. As per FADS standard (Section Accessible Routes, Paths & Corridors): Accessible routes shall have a running slope not steeper than 1:25 (4%). An accessible slope steeper than 1:25 is considered a ramp and would follow FADS Section Ramps. Brock Street between Bagot and Montreal Streets is not considered a ramp. If the accessible route is not level with the adjacent surface by more than 200 mm, the edges shall be protected. Accessible routes shall have level rest areas spaced no more than 30 m apart. Recommended Standard Maximum cross slope of 1:50 (2%) Maintain current running slope Maximum running slope of 1:25 (4%) Note: If level rest areas are provided the effective length is reduced and running slope will become steeper Level with the adjacent surface 4

35 Appendix A.5 Design Feature Ground Surface Material Detectable Warning Surfaces Discussion of Existing Standards As per the AODA standard for exterior paths of travel, the surface should be firm, stable, and slip resistant. As per FADS Section Transportation Facilities for Bus Stops, bus stops shall incorporate a paved, firm, level surface. Bus shelters shall be located on firm, level pads approximately at the same elevation as the sidewalk or walkway. As per ATSH, bus stop design includes a concrete surface at the front and rear doors of a bus, and concrete connection to existing pathways or sidewalks. Shelters are placed on upgraded pads that connect to an existing sidewalk or path. As per FADS Section Transportation Facilities for Transit Terminals, the edges of platforms shall incorporate a continuous detectable warning surface of at least 600 mm wide. As per ATSH, bus stops should include provisions for future tactile warning surface indicators pending AODA Built Environment requirements. As per FADS Section Detectable Warning Surfaces, While detectable warning surfaces may be considered for use on exterior accessible routes on municipal sites, they are not a requirement at this time. They are also not recommended at this time for the general public right-of-way. Further research is required as to the most appropriate way to install and maintain these surfaces, especially with respect to winter weather conditions. Detectable warning surfaces are used outdoors at transit facilities in cities with similar weather conditions (ex. Calgary Transit) Recommended Standard Concrete surface along the entire DTP Level and consistent surface material at bus stops, bus shelters, and along the accessible route Incorporate a detectable warning strip along the curb of the bus zones within the DTP, of appropriate width 5

36 Appendix A.5 Design Feature Bus Shelter Size Bus Shelter Clearance Seating and Benches Discussion of Existing Standards As per FADS Section Transportation Facilities for Bus Stops, bus shelters shall incorporate sufficient clear floor space to accommodate a person using a wheelchair or scooter. The clear floor space of a wheelchair is a minimum of 760 mm x 1,220 mm, and the clear floor space of a scooter is 660 mm x 1,370 mm. To accommodate a frontal approach into the bus stop, the minimum dimensions should be a doorway width of 1,100 mm and shelter depth of 1,370 mm. As per ATSH, accessible bus stops should have provisions for future shelter placement offering sufficient room to manoeuvre mobility assistive devices. New City-owned shelters meet the FADS requirements, and are general a minimum of 1,524 mm x 2,348 mm. The waiting area for mobility aid devices within the accessible shelters is a minimum of 1,117 mm x 1,448 mm. As per FADS Section Transportation Facilities for Bus Stops, bus shelters shall have clearances around at least two sides of the shelter, including the landing pad side of at least 1,220 mm. No standard is specified for clearance around a bus shelter in the ATSH. As per FADS Section Transportation Facilities for Bus Stops, bus shelters shall feature at least one seat with armrests and a seat height between 400 mm and 450 mm. For Transit Terminals, seating shall be provided at or close to boarding points and shall have a seat height between 450 mm and 500 mm, be of contrasting colour to their background, and have an adjacent, level, firm ground surface of at least 920 mm x 1,370 mm. As per ATSH, benches in the City-owned accessible shelters have a seat height of 451 mm, and do not encroach into the mobility aid device waiting area. Recommended Standard New City-owned shelters are sufficient (minimum size of 1,524 mm x 2,348 mm, with an accessible space of 1,117 mm x 1,448 mm) Open face shelters are preferred, and should provide an accessible space of 1,100 mm x 1,370 mm Minimum clearance adjacent to shelters of 1,220 mm on at least two sides Minimum clearance along entire DTP curb/landing pad of 1,220 mm New City-owned shelters are sufficient (seat height between 400 and 450 mm, with an armrest) Bench height between 450 and 500 mm Minimum clearance adjacent to benches of 920 mm x 1,370 mm 6

37 Appendix A.5 Design Feature Street Furniture Discussion of Existing Standards As per FADS Section Street Furniture, street furniture (ex. waste receptacles, light standards, signs, planters) shall not reduce the required width of an access route, and be located to one side of the normal path of pedestrian travel. As per ATSH, a bus stop should have no obstructions such as hydro poles, newspaper boxes, etc. that would compromise the mobility of a person using a mobility aid device. Illumination As per FADS Section Accessible Routes, Paths & Corridors, all portions of an accessible route shall have a minimum lighting level of 50 lux. As per FADS Section Transportation Facilities for Transit Terminals, lighting levels at all boarding platforms shall be at least 100 lux at the platform or boarding-surface edge. Recommended Standard Street furniture must not be placed within the accessible route and clearances of other amenities Minimum illumination of 50 lux along the accessible route Minimum illumination of 100 lux along the curb of the DTP Visible and Audible Signals As per FADS Section Transportation Facilities for Transit Terminals, boarding locations shall incorporate visible and audible warning signals to advise travellers of approaching vehicles Provide visible and audible warning signals 7

38 Appendix A.6 High-Level Evaluation of Potential Relocation Opportunities

39 Appendix A.6 High-Level Evaluation of Potential Relocation Opportunities Qualitative comments of Step 1C: High-Level Evaluation of Potential Relocation Opportunities Screening Criteria Brock and Bagot (Base Case) Brock, from Montreal to Wellington Brock and Wellington Clarence, from Bagot to Wellington Queen and Bagot Queen and Wellington Queen and King Proximity to key Downtown destinations and majority of Downtown development Significant built development density within 400m walk distance; location is close to the Princess Street corridor, Hotel Dieu Hospital, City Hall, Market Square, and Kingston Frontenac Public Library; online survey indicated numerous destinations in the vicinity of the site Moderate built development density within 400m walk distance; location is close to the Princess Street corridor, Hotel Dieu Hospital, City Hall, Market Square, and Kingston Frontenac Public Library; online survey indicated numerous destinations in the vicinity of the site Significant built development density within 400m walk distance; location is close to the Princess Street corridor, Hotel Dieu Hospital, City Hall, Market Square, and Kingston Frontenac Public Library; online survey indicated numerous destinations in the vicinity of the site Significant built development density within 400m walk distance; location is close to the Princess Street corridor, Hotel Dieu Hospital, City Hall, Market Square, and Kingston Frontenac Public Library; online survey indicated numerous destinations in the vicinity of the site Less built development density within 400m walk distance; location remains close to the Princess Street corridor and is closer to the North Block District, but is farther away from Hotel Dieu Hospital, City Hall, Market Square and Kingston Frontenac Public Library; online survey indicated few destinations on Queen Street Less built development density within 400m walk distance; location remains close to the Princess Street corridor and is closer to the North Block District, but is farther away from Hotel Dieu Hospital, City Hall, Market Square and Kingston Frontenac Public Library; online survey indicated few destinations on Queen Street Less built development density within 400m walk distance; location remains close to the Princess Street corridor, City Hall, Market Square and is closer to the North Block District, but is farther away from Hotel Dieu Hospital and Kingston Frontenac Public Library; online survey indicated few destinations on Queen Street Directness of transit route access and efficiency of bus flow Existing transit routing and bus flow works well Moderate rerouting required Moderate rerouting required Moderate rerouting required Moderate rerouting required Inconvenient rerouting, increased travel distances Inconvenient rerouting, increased travel distances Effectiveness of transfers for transit customers Buildings block bus visibility on perpendicular streets, ~160m max. walk distance to transfer, may need to cross an intersection or driveways to transfer Low visibility of buses on a long straight segment, ~200m max. walk distance to transfer, more passengers need to cross an intersection or driveways to transfer Buildings block bus visibility on perpendicular streets, ~180m max walk distance to transfer, longer block faces provides an opportunity to eliminate street crossings to transfer buses, passengers may need to cross driveway access for Hanson Memorial Parking Garage Good visibility in an open bus-only facility, ~100m max. walk distance to transfer, depending on bus bay configuration passengers may need to cross parked buses to transfer Buildings block bus visibility on perpendicular streets, ~160m max. walk distance to transfer, block length is similar to existing location which may require passengers to cross an intersection to transfer buses Buildings block bus visibility on perpendicular streets, ~180m max. walk distance to transfer, longer block faces provides an opportunity to eliminate street crossings to transfer buses, passengers may need to cross driveway access to a surface parking lot Buildings block bus visibility on perpendicular streets, ~180m max. walk distance to transfer, longer block faces provides an opportunity to eliminate street crossings to transfer buses 1

40 Appendix A.6 Screening Criteria Brock and Bagot (Base Case) Brock, from Montreal to Wellington Brock and Wellington Clarence, from Bagot to Wellington Queen and Bagot Queen and Wellington Queen and King Availability of sidewalk space and opportunities for placemaking Some opportunity to improve placemaking on the wide sidewalk on Brock; opportunity to widen the narrow sidewalk on Bagot Some opportunity to improve placemaking, on the wide sidewalk on Brock west of Bagot; limited opportunity east of Bagot due to narrow sidewalk and sidewalk patio at The Queen s Inn; adjacent Hanson Memorial Garage limits opportunities Some opportunity to improve placemaking; narrow sidewalks on Brock and Wellington; adjacent Hanson Memorial Garage limits opportunities Significant opportunity for placemaking as a transit-only facility Limited opportunities for placemaking unless sidewalk is widened; narrow sidewalk on both Queen and Bagot, adjacent land use is a parking lot that facilitates backdoor deliveries to commercial building Limited opportunities for placemaking unless sidewalk is widened; narrow sidewalk on both Queen and Wellington, adjacent land use is a parking lot that facilitates backdoor deliveries to commercial building Some opportunities for placemaking in conjunction with North Block District redevelopment if sidewalk is widened; narrow sidewalk on both Queen and King Conflicts with other vehicles and traffic High traffic volumes on Brock are impacted by buses merging with traffic; low impact on Bagot due to moderate traffic volumes and wide road space High traffic volumes on Brock are impacted by increased buses merging with traffic Buses rerouted on Wellington may conflict with other vehicles due to the narrow road space on Wellington, between Bagot and Queen Closure of Clarence between Bagot and Wellington has minimal traffic impacts due to low volumes on Clarence; bus-only facility eliminates conflicts between buses and other moving vehicles Increased bus volumes and parked buses would conflict with high traffic volumes on Queen; relatively low impact to Bagot Increased bus volumes and parked buses would conflict with high traffic volumes on Queen and narrow road space on Wellington between Princess and Queen Increased bus volumes and parked buses would conflict with high traffic volumes on Queen; relatively low impact to King Stakeholder, transit customer, and public preference Preference for existing location Preference to stay at or within a one block radius of existing DTP Preference to stay at or within a one block radius of existing DTP Preference to stay within a one block radius of existing DTP Not preferred, as location is two blocks from existing DTP Not preferred, as location is three blocks from existing DTP Not preferred, as location is four blocks from existing DTP Capital cost estimate, relative to other locations Relatively low capital cost to improve existing site Moderate capital cost to modify sidewalk space and curb lines and provide bus stop infrastructure Moderate capital cost to modify sidewalk space and curb lines and provide bus stop infrastructure Moderate capital cost to modify sidewalk space and curb lines and provide bus stop infrastructure; opportunities to enhance the site (placemaking) may increase capital cost Moderate capital cost to modify sidewalk space and curb lines and provide bus stop infrastructure Moderate capital cost to modify sidewalk space and curb lines and provide bus stop infrastructure Moderate capital cost to modify sidewalk space and curb lines and provide bus stop infrastructure 2

41 Appendix A.6 Screening Criteria Brock and Bagot (Base Case) Brock, from Montreal to Wellington Brock and Wellington Clarence, from Bagot to Wellington Queen and Bagot Queen and Wellington Queen and King Overall Outcome Preferred Carry forward Summary Existing location is preferred as it is in a central location in the downtown, within walking distance to many key destinations. Transit users are familiar with the layout of the transit network and routes. It is served by the most direct route configuration. Least Preferred Do not carry forward Although visibility is improved for a linear facility, the configuration in this location would result in similar traffic and bus conflicts that currently exist and would require more passengers to cross an intersection to transfer. Limited benefits in relation to the impacts. Somewhat Preferred Do not carry forward The location is somewhat preferable from multiple perspectives. However, it does not provide the potential for a large improvement over the existing location in relation to the impacts and cost to construct a new site. Preferred Carry forward This location is most preferred overall, as the potential for a bus-only facility creates significant opportunities for placemaking, improves the customer experience. However, potential enhancements to the site may entail higher capital costs. Least Preferred Do not carry forward Location is too far away from the majority of downtown destinations to provide convenient access. Transit customers displayed a high preference for a location that is close to the existing DTP. Least Preferred Do not carry forward Location is too far away from the majority of downtown destinations to provide convenient access. Transit customers displayed a high preference for a location that is close to the existing DTP. Location is not preferable for transit operations as significant bus re-routing would be required. Least Preferred Do not carry forward Although the location is closer to future North Block District redevelopment, the location is too far away from the majority of downtown destinations to provide convenient access. Transit customers displayed a high preference for a location that is close to the existing DTP. Location is not preferable for transit operations as significant bus re-routing would be required. Legend Least Preferred Somewhat Preferred Most Preferred 3