We support the following: Tom Davies Square 200 Brady Street Sudbury, Ontario

Transcription

1 April 4, 2014 Tom Davies Square 200 Brady Street Sudbury, Ontario RE: Second Avenue Reconstruction Project and Panel Consultation Dear City of Greater Sudbury Mayor and Council: The (SMAP), a council appointment committee, has a mandate to assist staff and Council in implementing a vision for a holistic approach to a multi- model transportation system where citizens can walk, cycle and/or use public transit efficiently and safely to get to their destinations. The Panel is an integral component of the Greater Sudbury Healthy Community Strategy and the City of Greater Sudbury Strategic Plan SMAP has recently learned about the Second Avenue Reconstruction project, and is once again faced with a roads project that has gone to tender before we have been consulted. Our panel includes community members who are transit users, cyclists and walkers who provide quality feedback to City Staff and Councillors on on roads projects. The Second Avenue Reconstruction Project has received a great deal of negative feedback from the community, much of which could have been circumvented if the City had consulted SMAP. This is not the first time SMAP has requested that we be consulted before roads projects go to tender. Attached, you will find our request from July We understand that another public meeting will be held in April. We respectively request that SMAP be consulted on the proposal before this second public meeting. In the meantime, listed below are a few of our comments on the current proposal. We support the following: 1. The addition of sidewalks on both sides of Second Avenue Sidewalks on both sides of the road follow CGS Official Plan 1 Policy. Second Avenue is classified as a Secondary Arterial Road in the Official Plan, and it is the policy of the Official Plan to provide sidewalks on both sides of urban Arterial Roads on new or reconstructed roads. 1 The City of Greater Sudbury (March 2010). Official Plan 1 P age

2 Sidewalks on both sides of the road will allow children and area residents to walk safely to Adamsdale Park, Adamsdale Public School, the retail area, as well as the new Dog Park. 2. A signalized pedestrian crossing at Kenwood We are pleased that City Staff and Council listened to the feedback of Greater Sudburians from the public meeting and are retaining the signalized pedestrian crossing. SMAP concurs with feedback from others that crossing three lanes of traffic without a signalized crossing is not safe for the area residents wishing to use the playground or children wishing to walk safely to school. We ask that the City review the project and consider the following: 1. Physically separated cycling space on both sides of Second Avenue for the ENTIRE length of the project SMAP supports the change from sharrows to a cycle track along the five- lane section of Second Avenue and is pleased that City Staff and Councillors listened to the feedback of the residents to make this change. SMAP understands from news reports that bike lanes will be installed along the three- lane section of Second Avenue. SMAP would like clarification on what is meant by this term. Sharrows (example is on Regent St.) were identified as bike lanes in the Public Information meeting held in March. Under OTM Book 18: Cycling Facilities, sharrows are not bike lanes. We have also heard that a signed bike route with paved shoulders will be installed along the three- lane section. This is also not a bike lane under Book 18. An example of a bike lane is what we currently have on Bancroft. Sharrows and paved shoulders will NOT provide safe cycling infrastructure for the many children who wish to bike to school or to the park, as well as the many adults who do not wish to cycle in traffic. Five lanes will encourage car drivers to speed and continue to do so when the road becomes 3 lanes. We encourage you to read research conducted by Canadian researchers Kay Teschke and Anne Harris 2 on the safety of different types of bicycle infrastructure. SMAP believes that Second Avenue meets the criteria under the Ontario Traffic Manual Book 18 for a physically separated bicycle lane or a cycle track along its entire length as it experiences higher volumes of faster moving traffic and heavy vehicles 3. This is our recommendation. 2 Teschke, K.; Harris, A. et al (December 2012) Route Infrastructure and the Risk of Injuries to Bicyclists: A Case- Crossover Study. American Journal of Public Health. (viewed April 2, 2014) 3 Ministry of Transportation (December 2013). Ontario Traffic Manual Book 18 (Cycling Facilities). Page 86 2 P age

3 Sharrows and paved shoulders will neither provide protection nor encourage our citizens to be more active. According to the Ministry of Health and Long- Term Care 4, the Sudbury and District Health Unit population has both a higher than provincial average adult overweight and obesity rate (60% versus 50% for provincial average) and a higher than provincial average youth ages overweight or obesity rate (29% versus 21% for the provincial average). We have a duty to promote active transportation for the health of our citizens, and particularly our children. The Ontario Medical Association calls on municipalities to redouble efforts to build cycling infrastructure and specifically recommends bike lane and bike path networks should be safe and seamless enough for parents to feel comfortable permitting their children to ride on them. 5 The Ontario Professional Planners Institute has recently released a call to action to create healthier communities and recommends we shift the emphasis from planning and designing roads for ease of use by people in motor vehicles, to planning and designing roads for the convenience and safety of each person, without one transportation mode dominating another. 6 SMAP strongly encourages the City of Greater Sudbury to build infrastructure that incorporates Gil Pensola s, of 8-80 cities, 8-80 Rule, which states: Think of an 80 year old you love. Think of an 8 year old that you love. Would you send them on a bike ride together down this road? If the answer is no, then the project needs to be improved 7. This rule is incorporated in cities around the world. The Bicycle, a City of Greater Sudbury Council appointed panel, recommended on Second Avenue that...the installation of dedicated bicycle lanes is recommended if curbs are added to the roadway when it is reconstructed. 8 SMAP, in our comments to the City s Draft Transportation Study, stated, many people in this area cycle, including a high volume of children. A dedicated bike lane should be 4 Ministry of Health and Long- Term Care, Public Health Unit Share File Canadian Community Health Survey [Data File]. Sudbury & District Health Unit, Sudbury, Ontario 5 Ontario Medical Association (August 2011). Enhancing Cycling Safety in Ontario. Page pdf (viewed April 1, 2014) 6 Ontario Professional Planners Institute (March 2014). A Call To Action: Healthy Communities and Planning for Active Transportation Moving Forward on Active Transportation in Ontario s Communities. Page 5. Communities/2014/Moving- Forward- on- Active- Transportation- in- Ontario (viewed April 1, 2014) 7 rule (viewed April 1, 2014) 8 City of Greater Sudbury Bicycle (2011). Bicycling Technical Master Plan for the City of Greater Sudbury. (viewed March 31, 2014). Page 29 3 P age

4 installed on Second Avenue as a continuation of infrastructure from Bancroft Drive (running both sides of the street would be best). We would like to see our recommendation considered. In our regular meetings with City staff, staff have stated that separated bike lanes are only feasible when completed in conjunction with major road upgrades, such as has been proposed for Second Avenue. To miss this opportunity would show that Greater Sudbury is not in line with other cities, or with the provincial government. We encourage Council and City Staff to read the Ministry of Transportation s #CycleON: Ontario s Cycling Strategy 9 9 Ontario Ministry of Transportation (2013). #ONCycling: Ontario s Cycling Strategy. 4 P age

5 City of Greater Sudbury s Sustainable Mobility Advisory Panel To conclude We do not recommend sharrows or paved shoulders Example of a Sharrow (MTO, OTM Book 18: Cycling Facilities. Page 16) Example of a Paved Shoulder (MTO, OTM Book 18: Cycling Facilities. Page 17) We recommend a physically separated bike lane and/or raised cycle track along the whole length of nd 2 Avenue Example of a Separated Bicycle Lane (MTO, OTM Book 18: Cycling Facilities. Page 88) Example of a Raised Cycle Track (MTO, OTM Book 18: Cycling Facilities. Page 111) 2. Consider the installation of Transit Stopping Bays or other transit infrastructure The CGS Official Plan states that new or rehabilitation of existing roads will include provisions for, where feasible, public transportation in the form of such elements as stopping bays and exclusive transit links or lanes.10 SMAP would like to confirm that these elements were considered for this project. If they were considered SMAP would like to know the reasoning behind not including them Our population is aging and in the coming years we may find that our non- driving population is growing. This is an opportunity to build transit supportive infrastructure in a dense neighbourhood, an opportunity that will not come again for many years. We understand from the Roads Department that Greater Sudbury is currently on a 90- year maintenance schedule for roads and an opportunity to look at transit infrastructure may not come around again for Second Avenue in our lifetime. 10 The City of Greater Sudbury (March 2010). Official Plan. Section Road Improvements 5 P a g e

6 We also encourage City Staff and Council to review the Ontario Ministry of Transportation Transit Supportive Guidelines 11 and its description of where transit infrastructure is appropriate and where they can help or hinder car traffic, cyclists and pedestrians. 3. Consider the installation of a speed reduction measure at the 3 to 5 lane transition Sincerely, Five lanes will encourage car drivers to speed and continue to do so when the road becomes 3 lanes. This is a residential neighbourhood and speeding cars do not create a liveable neighbourhood. A separated bike lane will create physical infrastructure to help reduce the speed of cars, but it will be helped by the following, especially at the 3 to 5 lane transition: trees, landscaped centre strips, narrow roads, or narrowing the perceived lane width using painted markings, and/or gateway infrastructure to indicate to drivers they are entering a residential neighbourhood. These are just examples. Your Enclosure. CC: Catherine Matheson Tony Cecutti David Shelsted Chris Gore Barb MacDougall Minnow Lake CAN Coalition for Liveable Sudbury Sudbury Cycling Grannies Friends of Sudbury Transit Rainbow Routes Association Sudbury Cyclist Union 11 Ministry of Transportation (2012). Transit Supportive Guidelines. guideline/transit- supportive- guidelines en.pdf (viewed March 31, 2014) 6 P age

7 July 29, 2013 Committee Member Tom Davies Square 200 Brady Street Sudbury, Ontario RE: Request for SMAP Review of Infrastructure Renewal Projects Dear Councillor Kilgour, The SMAP s mandate is to assist staff and Council in implementing a vision for a holistic approach to a multi- model transportation system where citizens can walk, cycle and/or use public transit efficiently and safely to get to their destinations. City of Greater Sudbury s Mandate To assist staff and Council in implementing a vision for a holistic approach to a multi- model transportation system where citizens can walk, cycle and/or use public transit efficiently and safely to get to their destinations. Three pillars were identified to successfully achieve this objective: Policy, Education and Infrastructure. SMAP appointed citizens believe that to meet its mandate, the group needs to be provided with the opportunity to comment on planned renewal projects taking place and shaping our community prior to them happening. Via the submission of this letter, the infrastructure committee is requesting that the committee s chair be provided with drawings and details of planned construction for infrastructure renewal projects being undertaken within the Community. There are multiple reasons for this request, which fully align with and are supported by many objectives set out for the panel. To name a few: to assist in implementing the recommendations made within the sustainable Mobility Plan and the Bicycle Master Plan. Share the responsibility of the public. To promote walking and cycling as an important part of a healthy community; (via built infrastructure) To advocate recommendations for walking/cycling infrastructure. (and to understand project specific limitations or constraints) To advocate for Greater Sudbury's policies affecting pedestrians, cyclists and transit users; and to develop recommendations to encourage sustainable mobility; (via built infrastructure) A review by SMAP members could hold many benefits to the City of Greater Sudbury (CGS). It would allow a group of citizens to better understand the challenges and constraints faced by CGS staff in regards to active transportation for individual projects. A second voice, nominated to represent citizens of our community, would be generated to offer residents an independent opinion, which we trust, would for the most part align with CGS decisions conformant with the Official Plan and other City directing documents. Such an approach would also allow CGS staff to share the 1

8 responsibility of decisions made with informed citizens in the field of active transportation. Lastly, positive innovate ideas could emerge from the process. To assist in establishing a process for the review of the information, we offer the following suggestions for your consideration: That the information be provided prior to construction advertisement or tendering That the CGS allow a minimum of two weeks for the SMAP to review and provide official comments prior to tendering the work. That, where deemed necessary, the CGS allow for a brief meeting with SMAP reviewers to discuss the SMAP s comments. That specific project information remains confidential to panel members. City of Greater Sudbury s This process would allow the SMAP and the CGS to have a public file on record to ensure citizens are well represented in regards to implementing active transportation. Our group will be flexible to the approach recommended and understand the day- to- day responsibilities of CGS employees. Our intent is in no way to encumber the progress of CGS projects, but to make this a positive and constructive discussion process, which would provide an independent opinion at little to no cost to the CGS. We strongly believe that such a process would be beneficial to both the SMAP and CGS staff, with the ultimate objective of making sustainable transportation an integral and recognised part of our City. We look forward to a favourable response by the CGS. Sincerely, SMAP Appointed Citizens Mandate To assist staff and Council in implementing a vision for a holistic approach to a multi- model transportation system where citizens can walk, cycle and/or use public transit efficiently and safely to get to their destinations. CC: All Councillors SMAP City Appointed Staff 2