Sustainable Mobility in Greater Sudbury NeORA Conference September 25, 2012 Presented by: David Shelsted, MBA, P.Eng., Director of Roads & Transportation Services
The City s Transportation Network Approximately 3,600 lane kms of road Approximately 320 kms of sidewalk Line painting 1,500 kms In excess of 40,000 street signs
Average Daily Traffic Volumes Kingsway 45,000 Paris Street 35,000 LaSalle Boulevard 35,000 Barry Downe Road 33,000 Notre Dame Avenue 29,000 Regent Street 29,000 Falconbridge Highway 27,000
Sustainable Mobility Advisory Panel SMAP is mandated to assist staff and Council in implementing a vision for a holistic approach to a multi-modal transportation system where citizens can walk, cycle and/or use public transit efficiently and safely to get to their destinations.
Official Plan * People Engaged * Places Defined *Progress Driven Transportation Study Report ALL aspects of transportation required for the existing and future growth of the City. Must be regularly updated to respond to the changes in the economy, social goals and the external environment.
Active Transportation Route Selection Principals Visible: Active transportation routes should be a visible component of the transportation system.
Active Transportation Route Selection Principals Connected/Linked: The Active Transportation network should link communities and important destinations throughout Greater Sudbury such as commercial, employment and residential areas, community centres, leisure, recreation and tourist destinations, parks, and schools.
Active Transportation Route Selection Principals Easy to access: Active Transportation routes should be easily accessible from local neighbourhoods within Greater Sudbury.
Active Transportation Route Selection Principals Integrated: The Active Transportation network should be integrated with other modes of transportation, particularly public transit. Routes will provide access to existing and future/planned transit stations.
Active Transportation Route Selection Principals Attractive and Interesting: Active Transportation routes should take advantage of attractive and scenic areas, views and vistas. Routes should provide users with the opportunity to experience and appreciate the natural and cultural heritage assets throughout Greater Sudbury.
Active Transportation Route Selection Principals Diverse: The Active Transportation network should provide a diverse on and off-road walking experience throughout the municipality. The system should appeal to a range of user abilities and interests, which implies a variety or hierarchy of route types.
Active Transportation Route Selection Principals Comfortable: Active Transportation route and facility solutions should be based on the goal of reducing risks to users and providing facilities that people are comfortable using.
Active Transportation Route Selection Principals Accessible: Where possible and practical, offroad Active Transportation routes will be accessible. It is recognized however that not all off-road Active Transportation routes will be accessible in all locations. Routes should be appropriately signed to communicate the level of accessibility so that users can make their own decision about use based on their ability.
Active Transportation Route Selection Principals Context-Sensitive: Off-road Active Transportation routes should be appropriately located when associated with natural heritage features.
Active Transportation Route Selection Principals Sustainable: Sustainability will be a key consideration in the alignment, design and selection of materials for on and off-road Active Transportation routes.
Active Transportation Route Selection Principals Cost-effective: The cost to implement and maintain the Active Transportation network and supporting facilities/amenities should be phased over time and designed to be affordable and appropriate in scale for Greater Sudbury.
Transportation Study Report Develop a recommended Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Plan Catalog existing inventory Identify gaps and barriers Identify key cycling and pedestrians origins and destinations
Transportation Study Report Identify areas of the City that require different types of design Consider hierachy of bicycle facilities Evaluate corridor route alternatives Confirm constructabilty of recommendations
Transportation Study Report Challenges Creating a connected and destination oriented network Lack of connected facilities to, and within outlying communities Gaps in sidewalk network Physical barriers such as railways, hilly topography, lakes and rivers
Transportation Study Report Challenges Lack of a grid road network in many areas Large and complex intersections Truck traffic Accommodating the needs of a range of skill levels among users Maintenance, including winter snow clearing and snow storage
Transportation Study Report Opportunities Existing linear corridors Grade separated crossings already in place in several locations On-road and off-road facilities already being developed Expansion of the Rack and Roll program Targeted Education initiatives (SMAP)
Transportation Study Report Estimate how much the recommended Network will cost Create a Sidewalk Priority Policy Prepare an Implementation Plan Network will include existing and proposed facilities
Public Participation Three Public Meetings One Council Meeting Attend SMAP Meetings Use of Social Media
Other Initiatives Pedestrian Crossing Policy Ontario Traffic Manual Book 18 Bicycle Facilities
Questions??