Consultant Services for Updating Intersections Operations to Accommodate Bi-Directional Cycle Tracks Harbord Street and Hoskin Avenue (Queens Park Crescent to Ossington Avenue) January 30, 2014
Consultant Services for updating Intersections Operations to Accommodate Bi-Directional Cycle Tracks Harbord Street and Hoskin Avenue (Queens Park Crescent to Ossington Avenue) Table of Contents 1 Introduction... 1 1.1 Study Background and Scope... 1 2 Existing Conditions... 1 2.1 Existing Signal Timing Plans... 1 2.2 Review of City Intersection Files... 2 2.3 Field Observations... 2 2.4 Before Speed and Delay Survey Statistics... 2 3 Synchro Baseline Model... 4 3.1 General... 4 3.2 Calibration of Vehicle and Bicycle Volumes... 4 3.3 Base Model Development and Calibration... 5 3.4 Synchro Measures of Effectiveness... 5 3.5 Existing Conditions from Synchro Outputs... 6 4 Traffic Control and Safety Considerations... 7 4.1 Safety Considerations... 7 4.2 General Traffic Management Strategies... 9 4.3 Unsignalized Intersection Operations... 9 4.4 Signalized Intersection Operations... 9 4.5 Signal Timing Parameters for Bicycles... 10 5 Operational Evaluation of Selected Potential Scenarios...11 5.1 Synchro Analysis of Cycle Track Operations...11 5.2 Potential Scenarios for Signalized Intersections...11 5.3 Evaluation of Potential Scenarios for Signalized Intersections... 14 - i -
Appendices Appendix A - Existing Signal Timings Appendix B - Before Speed and Delay Survey Statistics Appendix C - Unsignalized Intersection Scenario Options Appendix D - Before and After Signalized Intersection Scenario Analyses - ii -
1 Introduction 1.1 Study Background and Scope Delcan has been retained by the City of Toronto to provide engineering services for a comprehensive review and analysis with the objective to provide recommended modifications to signalized and unsignalized intersections necessary to safely accommodate cyclists movements along a bi-directional cycle track to be located on the north side of Harbord Street and Hoskin Avenue (from Ossington Avenue to Queens Park Crescent). The ultimate goal for this assignment is to ensure the safe and efficient movements of cyclists while maintaining/ improving the daily traffic operations within the project area. There are total of 25 intersections located within the study area. Out of this total, 11 are unsignalized and 14 are signalized intersections. 2 Existing Conditions 2.1 Existing Signal Timing Plans The current signal timing plans, cycle lengths, and mode of operation for the 14 traffic signals in the study area are provided in Appendix A. The salient points are summarized as follows: The signalized intersections operate under a mix of fixed time control and semi-actuated control: o At the semi-actuated control locations, a vehicle-only demand will cause the vehicle Green signal to be displayed for the Minimum Green time, which can be subsequently extended by further vehicle demands. A pedestrian demand will cause both the vehicle Green and pedestrian Walk signals to be displayed. o North-South Green phase is callable by vehicle and/or pedestrian actuation. Once a vehicle or pedestrian call is received, the maximum Green would be served. The North-South Walk and Flashing Don t Walk are only displayed on the pedestrian signal heads if a vehicle or pedestrian call is received. o The majority of the traffic signals currently operate with three pre-defined timing plans referred to as the AM Peak, Off Peak, and PM Peak plans. For 12 signalized intersections along the Harbord St - Hoskin Ave corridor, the typical cycle lengths are: o 70 s in the AM Peak; o 60 s in the Off Peak; and o 70 s in the PM Peak. At Spadina Avenue, the cycle length is higher as compare to the other intersections along the Harbord St - Hoskin Ave corridor: o 90 s in the AM Peak; - 1 -
o 90 s in the Off Peak; and o 90 s in the PM Peak. At Queens Park Crescent, the signal operates under the SCOOT (Split Cycle offset Optimization Technique) system. 2.2 Review of City Intersection Files The City s intersection PX files were reviewed for past / current traffic signal related concerns, request and recommendations. The following summarizes the salient points: There were no significant or ongoing complaints / issues that were recorded along the Harbord St - Hoskin Ave corridor; only typical occasional operational reviews of green times for specific movements; and The pedestrian times are based on a Walk time of 7 s and a clearance (i.e., Flashing Don t Walk) time calculated based on a walking speed of 1.2 m/s across the full pedestrian crossing. 2.3 Field Observations A site review was conducted during the AM and PM Peak periods on August 27 th and 28 th, 2013. The following summarizes the salient points: The number of lanes, lane alignment and on-street regulations (such as vehicle movement prohibitions) within the study area were recorded. The posted speed limit was also recorded where the speed limit was signed. Lane geometry, length of turn bays and turn restrictions were cross checked with the intersection drawings provided by the City. The intersection drawings were updated in the field, according to site conditions, for exact modelling in Synchro files. Major bicycle traffic was observed along Harbord St - Hoskin Ave corridor during the peak hour timings. Major bicycle turning movements were observed at cross streets with Spadina Avenue, St George Street, Major Street and Markham Street. For each intersection within the study area, the pedestrian crossing distances were measured and the required Pedestrian Flashing Don t Walk times were calculated. At a number of locations, the Pedestrian Walk and Flashing Don t Walk timings had been very recently revised to conform to the City s new practice, and the applicability of the existing signal timings with the on-street requirements were reviewed with the City and confirmed. 2.4 Before Speed and Delay Survey Statistics To establish the existing baseline traffic conditions through the study corridor (as well as to subsequently measure the impact of the optimized timings on traffic flow), before speed and delay surveys were conducted for both bicycles and vehicles, in both east and westbound - 2 -
directions along the corridor. consecutive weekdays: The before runs were conducted on the following three Tuesday, September 10 th, 2013; Wednesday, September 11 th, 2013; and Thursday, September 12 th, 2013. Appendix B provides the reports generated. These reports record the following four traffic performance measures of effectiveness (MOEs) from the before survey: Travel time time required to travel between upstream and downstream intersection measured from stop bars; Average speed average speed recorded between upstream and downstream intersection; Stops average number of times that the vehicle speed dropped below 8 km/hr; and Stopped delay delay due to stops between upstream and downstream intersections along corridor. The average field measurements of the MOEs are summarized in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2 below. Table 2.1: Bicycle - Before Speed and Delay Survey Statistics Average Field Measurements Route along Stopped Harbord St-Hoskin Ave Travel Time (min) No. of Stops Speed (km/hr) Delay (min) AM Peak WB 7.3 3 21 1.0 EB 7.4 4 21 1.1 PM Peak WB 7.6 5 20 1.8 EB 7.3 4 21 1.7 Table 2.2: Vehicle - Before Speed and Delay Survey Statistics Average Field Measurements Route along Stopped Harbord St-Hoskin Ave Travel Time (min) No. of Stops Speed (km/hr) Delay (min) AM Peak WB 6.6 7 23 2.6 EB 10.2 13 15 5.3 PM Peak WB 10.0 14 16 4.8 EB 8.9 12 17 4.1-3 -
3 Synchro Baseline Model 3.1 General To analyze the current traffic signal operations as well as potential new scenarios for the study area, the Synchro 8 / SimTraffic software package was utilized. Synchro is a signal timing optimization software package that is based on the Highway Capacity Manual, and is widely used throughout North America by a wide variety of public agencies and organizations. For this study, baseline Synchro models of the study area were developed for the two weekday peak periods (i.e., AM and PM). Existing operations were modeled using current traffic signal phasing and timings, intersection turning movement traffic count data, and other associated road network information. The City s following guidelines, policies and procedures were followed in the development and calibration of the models: City Guidelines for Using Synchro 7 and SimTraffic Software, including the default Saturation Flow Rate of 1900 passenger car per hour of green per lane; Pedestrian Timing at Signalized Intersections; and Vehicle Clearances. Any exceptions to the above guidelines and/or procedures are noted in the following section. 3.2 Calibration of Vehicle and Bicycle Volumes A review of available intersection turning movement counts for vehicles and bicycles revealed that the available data was collected over a period of four years. To ensure that the traffic signal timings would be developed using a consistent set of data, the following procedures were followed: The most recent intersection turning movement counts, collected in September, 2013, during the full class session at the University of Toronto, was used as the basis for the volume adjustment; Other intersection volumes were balanced (e.g., by increasing the volume departing from the upstream intersection to compensate for higher measured volumes at the downstream intersection (and vice versa)); and Intersection turning movement counts were adjusted within 15% variance between intersections. - 4 -
3.3 Base Model Development and Calibration Baseline Synchro models of the study area were developed for each of the two weekday peak traffic periods (i.e., AM and PM). These two Synchro models were developed according to the following procedures: Outline the network geometry by directly importing scaled Bing TM maps to Synchro 8 as the background; Set the corridor speed to 40 km/hr; Configure number of lanes, lane alignments and turning movements as observed from the field survey and the City s intersection drawings; Use the default values for lane widths in accordance with the City s Synchro Guidelines (i.e., 3.5 m for through lanes and 3 m for left or right turn lanes); Configure number of lanes, lane alignments and curb radius as observed from the field survey and the City s drawings; Use the default value 1900 passenger car per hour of green per lane for ideal saturated flow in accordance with the City s Synchro Guidelines; Permit or prohibit Right Turn On Red (RTOR) based on the field regulations; Put in turning movement counts and; Calculate heavy vehicle percentages by combining trucks and buses together; and Use current signal phasing, cycle lengths, splits, offsets, modes of operations and pedestrian / vehicle clearance times given by the City. After the two baseline Synchro models had been built, SimTraffic 8 was used for model calibration to verify the signal configuration (e.g., offsets and recall modes) and intersection geometry (e.g., traffic movements). For the AM Peak and PM Peak, the following adjustments were made to match the on-street traffic flows: Added a driveway west of Queens Park Crescent to start two right turn lanes with a turn bay in south east direction to match street conditions; and To simulate bicycle movement crossing the Queens Park Crescent and entering from a cycle track in the park, a link was added to simulate bicycles movement. 3.4 Synchro Measures of Effectiveness Synchro has the capability to automatically generate a range of output data. For the analysis of the existing Harbord Street and Hoskin Avenue operations, the following three key measures of effectiveness (MOEs) were used: Intersection Level of Service (LOS): Level of Service (LOS) is a term used to qualitatively describe the operating conditions of the signalized intersection. It is based on the average control delay for all vehicles approaching the intersection and converting it to a letter between A to F based on the delay; with A representing the best operating conditions and F the worst. Volume to Capacity Ratio (v/c ratio): The volume to capacity ratio (v/c ratio) is a measure of traffic flow capacity sufficiency. It reflects the amount of residual capacity to - 5 -
accommodate variations in traffic flow. If this value exceeds 1.0, this indicates that the volume is exceeding the theoretically available intersection capacity. Average Intersection Delay: Intersection delay represents the average total delay at an intersection measured in vehicle-hours. The total delay includes the control delay plus the queue delay. The control delay is the delay caused by the traffic control device; while the queue delay takes into account the queuing effect and blocking on short links and short turning bays. The average total delay is calculated by taking the volume weighted average of all the delays at the intersection. 3.5 Existing Conditions from Synchro Outputs The calibrated Synchro baseline models were used to evaluate the existing traffic signal operations, and identify bottlenecks and other operational issues. Table 3.1 and Tables 3.2 provide a summary of the performance at each signalized intersection for each of the two peak periods, using the MOEs identified above. Intersection Harbord St/Hoskin Ave Table 3.1: Existing Conditions at Signalized Intersections Int. LOS AM Peak Max v/c Ratio Delay (sec/veh) Int. LOS PM Peak Max v/c Ratio Delay (sec/veh) Ossington Ave B 0.59 10.8 B 0.69 12.6 Shaw St A 0.43 9.8 B 0.59 14.7 Montrose Ave A 0.49 8.7 B 0.73 16.5 Grace St B 0.58 17.1 B 0.67 18.6 Clinton St B 0.44 13.2 A 0.57 9.8 Manning Ave B 0.41 13.5 A 0.50 7.0 Palmerston Blvd A 0.36 7.8 B 0.42 14.6 Bathurst St F 1.31 116.9 F 1.30 98.9 Brunswick Ave B 0.48 10.9 B 0.35 10.8 Spadina Ave C 0.82 28.4 C 0.88 29.9 Huron St B 0.68 18.3 B 0.55 11.2 St George St B 0.73 19.3 C 0.73 24.4 Tower Rd A 0.32 1.3 A 0.28 1.7 Queens Park Crescent C 0.87 20 B 0.57 12.3-6 -
Table 3.2: Existing Conditions at Unsignalized Intersections Intersection AM Peak Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Delay (sec/veh) Roxton Rd 1.5 1.3 Crawford St 1.5 3.1 Jersey Ave 0.7 1.1 Euclid Ave 3.7 7.4 Markham St 0.9 0.6 Lippincott St 0.6 2.0 Borden St 1.4 2.0 Major St 1.1 1.1 Robert St 0.6 0.5 Sussex Mews 0.3 0.3 Devonshire Pl 0.7 0.8 From a review of Table 3.1 and 3.2, the following observations can be drawn: In general, all signalized and unsignalized intersections are operating at acceptable level of conditions during AM and PM Peak periods, except Bathurst Street with LOS F and v/c ratio higher than 1.0; and Further to the above point, at Bathurst Street, the existing cycle lengths in both the AM and PM Peak periods are significantly lower than their desirable natural cycle lengths. 4 Traffic Control and Safety Considerations 4.1 Safety Considerations A primary purpose of the study is to recommend modifications to signalized and unsignalized intersections necessary to safely accommodate cyclists movements along the bi-directional cycle track proposed to be located on the north side of Harbord Street and Hoskin Avenue. The Ontario Highway Traffic Act considers a bicycle to be a vehicle, and from safety point of view, all conflicts between vehicle movements at signalized intersections that are not specifically addressed by the Highway Traffic Act (e.g., Vehicle EB Left Turn and Bicycle EB Through, etc.) should be eliminated. - 7 -
For example, assuming the case where the cycle track is on the north side of a full movement, two-way, four-leg, unsignalized intersection with stop controls on the northbound and southbound approaches, the following traffic movements are considered to create significant safety issues and should be either controlled or prohibited: Left Turn (EBL) Vehicle traffic has to yield to westbound through and right turn traffic, eastbound cycles (which will be approaching from behind the EBL vehicle), westbound cycles and pedestrians crossing the north leg. Northbound Through (NBT) Vehicle traffic has to yield to nearside pedestrians, eastbound through traffic, westbound left turn traffic, westbound right turn traffic, eastbound through traffic, westbound cycles and pedestrians crossing the north leg. Southbound Left Turn (SBL) Vehicle traffic has to yield to nearside pedestrians, westbound cycles, eastbound cycles, westbound through traffic, westbound left turn traffic, eastbound left turn traffic, eastbound through traffic, and pedestrians crossing the south leg. Southbound Through (SBT) - Vehicle traffic has to yield to nearside pedestrians, westbound cycles, eastbound cycles, westbound through traffic, westbound left turn traffic, eastbound left turn traffic, eastbound through traffic, eastbound right turn traffic, and pedestrians crossing the south leg. Left Turn Bicycles (WBL Bicycles) Bicycles have to yield to eastbound cycles, westbound right turn traffic, westbound through traffic, (all eastbound traffic would be approaching from behind the cyclist), eastbound left turn traffic, eastbound through traffic, and pedestrians crossing the south leg. Consideration was given to providing a WBL Bicycle box in the median separating the cycle track from the westbound traffic lane. WBL Bicycles will still have to conflict with eastbound and westbound traffic and sufficient space does not appear available to safely mark the cycle box in the median. Furthermore, the cyclist would not be able to positions themselves at 90 degrees to the eastbound and westbound traffic. Right Turn Bicycles (EBR Bicycles) Bicycles have to yield to westbound through traffic, westbound left turn traffic, eastbound left turn traffic, eastbound through traffic, eastbound right turn traffic (all eastbound traffic would be approaching from behind the cyclist) and pedestrians crossing the south leg. Consideration was given to providing a EBR bicycle box in the median separating the cycle track from the westbound traffic lane. EBR bicycles will still have to conflict with eastbound and westbound traffic and sufficient space does not appear available to safely mark the cycle box in the median. Furthermore, the cyclist should not be able to positions themselves at 90 degrees to the eastbound and westbound traffic. Other vehicle / bicycle movements that can create lesser safety issues that can be partially mitigated are: right turn (WBR) - Vehicle traffic has to yield to eastbound cycles, westbound cycles (which will be approaching from behind the WBR vehicle) and pedestrians crossing the north leg. These conflicts can be partially mitigated by providing signage similar to the one below where applicable. This signage is provided - 8 -
for in the TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for Canada and is currently in use in Vancouver at accesses. Southbound right turn (SBR) - Vehicle traffic has to yield to nearside pedestrians, westbound cycles, eastbound cycles, and westbound through traffic. These conflicts can be partially mitigated by providing custom signage that requires SBR traffic to yield to bi-directional cyclists where applicable. This signage is not provided for in the TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for Canada. The study approach was to develop options that addressed the vehicle / bicycle conflicts by first attempting to eliminate the significant conflicts and then the lesser conflicts. 4.2 General Traffic Management Strategies For all scenarios, it has been assumed that the cycle track passing through an intersection, both signalized and unsignalized, would be painted green to highlight its presence to vehicle drivers, and that appropriate signage (e.g., yield to cyclists, etc.) would be provided. At all signalized interactions, the movement of bicycles along the cycle track would be controlled by dedicated traffic signal displays, and vehicle / cyclists conflicts would be reduced by: Providing southbound bike boxes (i.e., between the southbound vehicle stop line and the east-west pedestrian crossing) to encourage cyclists to make a two-stage westbound left turn ; and Prohibiting southbound vehicle Right Turn on Red. 4.3 Unsignalized Intersection Operations In an attempt to address the vehicle / cyclist conflicts at the unsignalized intersections along the Harbord St Hoskin Ave corridor, various potential options were developed. The philosophy that was followed was to first allow all movements (Option 1) and then gradually attempt to eliminate first the significant conflicts, and then in later options, the lesser conflicts, as described in the above section. These potential options are presented in detail in the Appendix C, with a commentary on the associated safety and mobility impacts. In all cases, a trade-off would have to be made between safety (i.e., eliminating vehicle / bicycle conflicts) and mobility (i.e., prohibiting movements and therefore restricting access to local streets). 4.4 Signalized Intersection Operations At the following eight signalized intersections, potential vehicle / cycle conflicts can be mitigated, and the existing signal phasing still used (i.e., with the bicycle phase displayed in parallel with the east-west vehicle phase), through the application of southbound bike boxes (i.e., to enable cyclists to make a two stage westbound left turn) and southbound No Right Turn on Red prohibitions: - 9 -
Shaw St; Montrose Ave; Grace St; Manning Ave; Palmerston Blvd; Brunswick Ave; Tower Rd; and Queen s Park Crescent. At the remaining six, more complex, signalized intersections, additional measures would be needed to further reduce or eliminate the vehicle / cycle conflicts. 4.5 Signal Timing Parameters for Bicycles In consideration of the cyclists travel speed, stopping distance, etc., signal timing parameters (i.e., Minimum Green, Amber and All Red times) different from typical vehicle-related parameters are required for the display of the bicycle signals. The bicycle signal timing parameters were calculated based on Chapter 4 of Transportation Association of Canada (TAC), Traffic Signal Guidelines for Bicycles (). Table 4.1 provides a summary of recommended bicycle phase signal timing parameters. These parameters were calculated based on the longest crossing distance that a cyclist has to cover at the intersections along Harbord Street-Hoskin Avenue corridor. Among the 14 signalized intersections, 12 intersections have a typical width of 13.5 metres (+/- 1 m). The intersection width at Bathurst Street is 16 meters; and the width at Spadina Avenue is 29.5 metres. Therefore, the signal timing parameters for these two intersections were calculated separately. These recommended timing parameters were reviewed and confirmed by the City s Urban Traffic Control Systems Section. Table 4.1: Bike Phase Signal Timing Parameters Intersection Minimum Green Time Amber All Red Typical Intersection 7 3 3 Bathurst Street 7 3 4 Spadina Avenue 7 3 7-10 -
5 Operational Evaluation of Selected Potential Scenarios 5.1 Synchro Analysis of Cycle Track Operations To simulate the after operational conditions, once the bi-directional cycle track is built along the north side of Harbord Street and Hoskin Avenue, a fifth and sixth link were added at each signalized intersection to the baseline AM and PM Peak models to model the bi-directional cycle track. Bicycle directional movements and calibrated volume were then added to these developed models. Once the cycle tracks were added to the baseline models, the model was calibration to verify that at each intersection the bicycle movements followed the cycle tracks and the vehicular traffic followed the vehicle lanes. Next, the cycle track models for the AM Peak and PM Peak models were calibrated for signal phasing, offsets and turn restrictions. Finally, the signal phasing and turn restrictions specific to each scenario to be analyzed were built separately for the scenario. The description of each scenario is covered in detail in the following section. For each scenario, the analysis was conducted based on optimizing the traffic signal offsets first for vehicles (i.e., at an assumed travel speed of 40 km/hr) and then for bicycles (i.e., at an assumed travel speed of 25 km/hr). In all analyses, the before case represents the existing bicycle lanes and traffic signal phasing. 5.2 Potential Scenarios for Signalized Intersections Further to Section 4.4, additional measures would be needed to further reduce or eliminate the vehicle / cycle conflicts at the following six, more complex, signalized intersections: Ossington Ave; Clinton St; Bathurst St; Spadina Ave; Huron St; and St. George St. After consideration of several potential conflict mitigation measures, the following five scenarios were short-listed for further consideration. - 11 -
Scenario 1 - Concurrent Bicycle and Vehicle Phases Description o Bicycle and vehicles move together with bicycle signals generally displaying Green and Red concurrently with the vehicle (and pedestrian) signals (albeit with different / appropriate Amber and All Red clearance times). o Signing to instruct WB Right Turn vehicles and EB Left Turn vehicles (where applicable) to yield to bicycles on the cycle track. o No Vehicle SB Right Turn On Red. o Bicycle WB Left Turns and EB Right Turns are permitted across vehicle movements, but cyclists are encouraged to make a two-stage turn via bike boxes installed in front of the SB stop line. o Similar permissive signalized intersection operations (i.e., with respect to permitted conflicting movements) are currently deployed in Montreal, Quebec, along Rachael Street East (albeit with limited dedicated bicycle signals and no bike boxes) as well as on sections of a cycle track on 15 th Street in Washington, D.C. (albeit with no dedicated bicycle signals and no bike boxes). Advantages o Minimum bicycle delays and optimum travel times. o Minimum vehicle delays and optimum travel times. Disadvantages o Numerous conflicts between bicycle and vehicle movements. Scenario 2 - Separate Bicycle Only Phase Description o Bicycle only phase is displayed separately from vehicle (and pedestrian) phase (i.e., so all bicycle movements are protected). o Bi-directional cycle tracks implemented along one-way streets (e.g., along Hornby Street in Vancouver, B.C.) have typically employed this approach; however, no example of similar signalized intersection operations for a cycle track implemented along a two-way street has been identified. Advantages o Eliminates all conflicts between bicycle and vehicle movements. Disadvantages o Longer traffic signal cycle length times required. o Significantly longer bicycle delays and travel times. o Significantly longer vehicle delays and travel times. o Longer pedestrian wait times. - 12 -
o With the possible exceptions of Bathurst St and Spadina Ave, where the vehicle volumes are heavier, cyclists are likely to travel through the Bike Red signal displayed concurrently with the Vehicle Green (and Pedestrian Walk) signal. Scenario 3 - Initial Vehicle No Turn Phase Description o Vehicle Green Through Only Arrow is initially displayed for a few seconds (e.g., 3 to 4 s) concurrently with the Bicycle (and Pedestrian) Green (i.e., to get the cyclists (and pedestrians) started across the street before the vehicles are permitted to Right Turn). o Then, same as in Option 1 above, there are concurrent bicycle / vehicle phases with Bicycle Green and Red generally displayed at the same time as the vehicle (and pedestrian) signals (although with different / appropriate Amber and All Red clearance times). o Note that, in the analysis, this option was applied to all 14 signalized intersections. o Similar traffic signal operations are typically deployed at all signalized intersections in Montreal, Quebec, including at intersections along on a bi-directional cycle track along Rachael Street East. Advantages o Reduces potential for near misses and/or collisions between Right Turn vehicles and cyclists (and pedestrians). o Minimal bicycle delays and travel times. o Minimal impact on vehicle delays and travel times. Disadvantages o Numerous conflicts between bicycle and vehicle movements. o No specific collision problem involving Right Turn vehicles and bicycles (and/or pedestrians) has been identified that needs to be addressed. o Non-standard traffic signal operations in Ontario. Scenario 4 - Protected / Permissive Bicycle Phase Description o Display an initial protected bicycle only phase (e.g., for about 10 or 12 s) (i.e., to enable all bicycle turning movements). o Then, same as in Option 1 above, there are concurrent bicycle / vehicle phases (i.e., the permissive phase) with Bicycle Green and Red are generally displayed at the same time as the vehicle (and pedestrian) signals (although with different / appropriate Amber and All Red clearance times). o For protected bicycle phase, use of Green Ball only vs. Green (and Amber) Arrows to be further considered. - 13 -
o Similar traffic signal operations (with Bicycle Green Ball only) are deployed along a bi-directional cycle track implemented along Linden Avenue in Seattle, Washington. Advantages o Provides initial protected phase for bicycle turning movements. o Minimal impact on bicycle delays and travel times. Disadvantages o Numerous conflicts between bicycle and vehicle movements during permissive phase. o No bicycle clearance interval before start of Vehicle Green (with Green Ball Only). o Moderate adverse impact on vehicle delays and travel times. o Non-standard traffic signal operations in Ontario (and potentially complex operations if all movements are explicitly controlled with Green and Amber Arrows). 5.3 Evaluation of Potential Scenarios for Signalized Intersections Of the potential scenarios described in the above section, Scenario Nos. 1 to 4 were subsequently selected for further Synchro analysis of the impacts on vehicle and bicycle movements along the corridor. The analyses were conducted for each of the following: Vehicle and bicycle travel times; AM and PM Peak periods; and Traffic signal offsets optimized for vehicles (i.e., at an assumed travel speed of 40 km/hr) and then for bicycles (i.e., at an assumed travel speed of 25 km/hr). Appendix D provides a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the Scenario Nos. 1 to 4, and Table Nos. 5.2 to 5.9 provide a summary of the corridor average travel time performance for each scenario. Refer to Appendix E for the estimations of vehicle and bicycle delays due to signalized intersections; for individual intersections as well as for the corridor. - 14 -
Scenario 1 Concurrent Bicycle and Vehicle Phases Table 5.1 - Before and After Vehicle Travel Time Comparison (minutes) AM Before AM After Difference AM Before AM After Difference Travel Time (min) 10.2 9-1.2 11.2 10.2-1 PM Before PM After Difference PM Before PM After Difference Travel Time (min) 8.4 8.8 0.4 9 9 0 Cycle Track AM Before AM After Difference AM Before AM After Difference Travel Time (min) 13 9.5-3.5 9 10.4 1.4 Cycle Track PM Before PM After Difference PM Before PM After Difference Travel Time (min) 9.7 9.6-0.1 9.6 10 0.4 Table 5.2 - Before and After Vehicle Travel Time Comparison (minutes) AM Before AM After Difference AM Before AM After Difference Travel Time (min) 10.2 9-1.2 11.2 10-1.2 PM Before PM After Difference PM Before PM After Difference Travel Time (min) 8.4 9 0.6 9 11 2 Cycle Track AM Before AM After Difference AM Before AM After Difference Travel Time (min) 13 10-3 9 9.5 0.5 Cycle Track PM Before PM After Difference PM Before PM After Difference Travel Time (min) 9.7 8.5-1.2 9.6 9.5-0.1-15 -
Scenario 2 Separate Bicycle Only Phase Table 5.3 - Before and After Vehicle Travel Time Comparison (minutes) AM Before AM After Difference AM Before AM After Difference Travel Time (min) 10.2 16.5 6.3 11.2 14.6 3.4 PM Before PM After Difference PM Before PM After Difference Travel Time (min) 8.4 11.3 2.9 9 12 3 Cycle Track AM Before AM After Difference AM Before AM After Difference Travel Time (min) 13 27 14 9 10 1 Cycle Track PM Before PM After Difference PM Before PM After Difference Travel Time (min) 9.7 9.5-0.2 9.6 15 5.4 Table 5.4 - Before and After Vehicle Travel Time Comparison (minutes) AM Before AM After Difference AM Before AM After Difference Travel Time (min) 10.2 17.7 7.5 11.2 14.5 3.2 PM Before PM After Difference PM Before PM After Difference Travel Time (min) 8.4 9.6 1.2 9 19 10 Cycle Track AM Before AM After Difference AM Before AM After Difference Travel Time (min) 13 29 16 9 10 1 Cycle Track PM Before PM After Difference PM Before PM After Difference Travel Time (min) 9.7 9.2-0.1 9.6 20 10.4-16 -
Scenario 3 Initial Vehicle No Turn Phase Table 5.5 - Before and After Vehicle Travel Time Comparison (minutes) AM Before AM After Difference AM Before AM After Difference Travel Time (min) 10.2 9.2-1 11.2 10.3-0.9 PM Before PM After Difference PM Before PM After Difference Travel Time (min) 8.4 7.9-0.5 9 8.1-0.9 Cycle Track AM Before AM After Difference AM Before AM After Difference Travel Time (min) 13 12-1 9 10 1 Cycle Track PM Before PM After Difference PM Before PM After Difference Travel Time (min) 9.7 9-0.7 9.6 12 2.4 Table 5.6 - Before and After Vehicle Travel Time Comparison (minutes) AM Before AM After Difference AM Before AM After Difference Travel Time (min) 10.2 10-0.2 11.2 9-2.2 PM Before PM After Difference PM Before PM After Difference Travel Time (min) 8.4 7.6-0.8 9 8.5-0.5 Cycle Track AM Before AM After Difference AM Before AM After Difference Travel Time (min) 13 12-1 9 9 0 Cycle Track PM Before PM After Difference PM Before PM After Difference Travel Time (min) 9.7 9-0.7 9.6 11 1.4-17 -
Scenario 4 Protected / Permissive Bicycle Phases Table 5.7 - Before and After Vehicle Travel Time Comparison (minutes) AM Before AM After Difference AM Before AM After Difference Travel Time (min) 10.2 12.5 2.3 11.2 12 0.8 PM Before PM After Difference PM Before PM After Difference Travel Time (min) 8.4 11.6 3.2 9 10 1 Cycle Track AM Before AM After Difference AM Before AM After Difference Travel Time (min) 13 11-2 9 8-1 Cycle Track PM Before PM After Difference PM Before PM After Difference Travel Time (min) 9.7 10 0.3 9.6 13 3.4 Table 5.8 - Before and After Vehicle Travel Time Comparison (minutes) AM Before AM After Difference AM Before AM After Difference Travel Time (min) 10.2 10.5 0.3 11.2 11.7 0.5 PM Before PM After Difference PM Before PM After Difference Travel Time (min) 8.4 9.8 1.4 9 11 2 Cycle Track AM Before AM After Difference AM Before AM After Difference Travel Time (min) 13 11-2 9 9 0 Cycle Track PM Before PM After Difference PM Before PM After Difference Travel Time (min) 9.7 8-1.7 9.6 10 0.4-18 -
From a review of Table 5.1 to 5.8, the following observations can be drawn: In general, the model simulation results for Scenario 2 Separate Bicycle Only Phase, reported the maximum average corridor travel times, for both eastbound and westbound directions, for both vehicles and bicycles. Maximum average travel times of 17.7 minutes for eastbound vehicles and 29 minutes for eastbound cyclists were reported under Scenario 2 during the AM Peak period when the corridor was optimized for bicycles (i.e., with a travel speed of 25 km/hr). A minimum average vehicle travel time of 7.6 minutes for eastbound vehicles was reported under Scenario 3 Initial Vehicle No Turn Phase during the PM Peak period when the corridor was optimized for bicycles (i.e., with a travel speed of 25 km/hr). A minimum average travel bicycle time of 8 minutes was reported under in Scenario 4 Protected / Permissive Bicycle Phase for both westbound cyclists during the AM Peak period when the corridor was optimized for vehicles (i.e., with a travel speed of 40 km/hr), and for eastbound cyclists during the PM Peak hour when the corridor was optimized for bicycles (i.e., with a travel speed of 25 km/hr). Optimization of the traffic signal offsets for average vehicle or bicycle travel speeds had minimal impact on the average corridor travel times. (Of more significance were the traffic signal phasing and the resultant cycle lengths.) - 19 -
No. Appendix A List of Signalized Locations in Study Area Intersection Name Mode of Control System Existing Cycle Lengths in Study Areas AM Peak OFF Peak PM Peak 1 Ossington Ave FXT Awaiting TransSuite 70 70 70 2 Shaw St SAP TransSuite 70 60 70 3 Montrose Ave SAP TransSuite 70 60 70 4 Grace St SAP TransSuite 70 60 70 5 Clinton St SAP TransSuite 70 60 70 6 Manning Ave SAP TransSuite 70 60 70 7 Palmerston Ave SAP TransSuite 70 60 70 8 Bathurst St FXT MTSS 70 60 70 9 Brunswick Ave FXT MTSS 70 60 70 10 Spadina Ave FXT MTSS 90 90 90 11 Huron St SAP MTSS 70 70 70 12 St. George St FXT Awaiting TransSuite 70 70 70 13 Tower Rd PED MTSS 70 70 70 14 Queens Park Crescent W SAP UTC-SCOOT - - -
Appendix B Before Speed and Delay Survey Statistics [See separate files for Appendix B]
Appendix C Unsignalized Intersection Scenario Options [See separate files for Appendix C]
Appendix D Before and After Signalized Intersection Scenario Analyses Scenario 1 Concurrent Bicycle and Vehicle Phases AM Peak MOEs Comparison Before and After Cycle Track AM-Before AM-After Difference Intersection Int. v/c Delay Int. v/c Delay Int. v/c Delay LOS Ratio (sec/veh) LOS Ratio (sec/veh) LOS Ratio (sec/veh) Ossington Ave B 0.81 17.0 B 0.79 18.9 B>B -0.02 1.9 Shaw St A 0.43 7.4 B 0.44 11.7 A>B 0.01 4.3 Montrose Ave B 0.49 10.4 A 0.42 7.9 B>A -0.07-2.5 Grace St B 0.59 15.6 B 0.70 14.2 B>B 0.11-1.4 Clinton St A 0.44 9.8 A 0.41 8.7 A>A -0.03-1.1 Manning Ave B 0.55 11.7 A 0.51 6.2 B>A -0.04-5.5 Palmerston Blvd A 0.55 8.0 B 0.52 10.2 A>B -0.03 2.2 Bathurst St F 1.36 123.1 F 1.29 109.7 F>F -0.07-13.4 Brunswick Ave C 0.90 20.3 A 0.68 9.7 C>A -0.22-10.6 Spadina Ave D 1.09 40.5 C 0.93 32.5 D>C -0.16-8 Huron St B 0.68 17.7 A 0.53 8.4 B>A -0.15-9.3 St George St B 0.73 17.4 C 0.67 21.3 B>C -0.06 3.9 Tower Rd A 0.32 1.1 A 0.32 0.6 A>A 0-0.5 Queens Park Crescent C 0.88 26.1 C 0.82 22.7 C>C -0.06-3.4 Intersection PM Peak MOEs Comparison Before and After Cycle Track Int. LOS PM-Before PM-After Difference v/c Delay Int. v/c Delay Int. v/c Delay Ratio (sec/veh) LOS Ratio (sec/veh) LOS Ratio (sec/veh) Ossington Ave B 0.78 16.9 B 0.82 16.8 B>B 0.04-0.1 Shaw St B 0.61 14.1 B 0.66 10.3 B>B 0.05-3.8 Montrose Ave B 0.72 16.2 B 0.64 10.4 B>B -0.08-5.8 Grace St B 0.68 15.9 B 0.61 13.7 B>B -0.07-2.2 Clinton St B 0.59 13.1 A 0.58 9.8 B>A -0.01-3.3 Manning Ave A 0.49 7.3 A 0.44 8.1 A>A -0.05 0.8 Palmerston Blvd B 0.41 14.3 A 0.50 8.6 B>A 0.09-5.7 Bathurst St F 1.27 87.4 D 1.08 54.4 F>D -0.19-33 Brunswick Ave B 0.49 11.0 A 0.43 7.7 B>A -0.06-3.3 Spadina Ave C 0.78 27.2 C 0.78 25.1 C>C 0-2.1 Huron St A 0.57 9.6 B 0.50 10.7 A>B -0.07 1.1 St George St C 0.75 22.6 B 0.67 17.7 C>B -0.08-4.9 Tower Rd A 0.29 1.1 A 0.29 1.1 A>A 0 0 Queens Park Crescent C 0.87 22.2 B 0.84 19 C>B -0.03-3.2
Appendix D Before and After Signalized Intersection Scenario Analyses Scenario 1 Concurrent Bicycle and Vehicle Phases AM Peak MOEs Comparison Before and After Cycle Track AM-Before AM-After Difference Intersection Int. v/c Delay Int. v/c Delay Int. v/c Delay LOS Ratio (sec/veh) LOS Ratio (sec/veh) LOS Ratio (sec/veh) Ossington Ave B 0.81 17.0 C 0.79 20.4 B>C -0.02 3.4 Shaw St A 0.43 7.4 A 0.44 9.3 A>A 0.01 1.9 Montrose Ave B 0.49 10.4 A 0.42 7.5 B>A -0.07-2.9 Grace St B 0.59 15.6 B 0.70 14.1 B>B 0.11-1.5 Clinton St A 0.44 9.8 A 0.41 8.8 A>A -0.03-1 Manning Ave B 0.55 11.7 B 0.51 11.7 B>B -0.04 0 Palmerston Blvd A 0.55 8.0 B 0.52 11 A>B -0.03 3 Bathurst St F 1.36 123.1 F 1.29 109.4 F>F -0.07-13.7 Brunswick Ave C 0.90 20.3 A 0.68 7.2 C>A -0.22-13.1 Spadina Ave D 1.09 40.5 C 0.93 26.5 D>C -0.16-14 Huron St B 0.68 17.7 A 0.53 9.3 B>A -0.15-8.4 St George St B 0.73 17.4 B 0.67 17.3 B>B -0.06-0.1 Tower Rd A 0.32 1.1 A 0.32 0.5 A>A 0-0.6 Queens Park Crescent C 0.88 26.1 C 0.82 20.8 C>C -0.06-5.3 PM Peak MOEs Comparison Before and After Cycle Track PM-Before PM-After Difference Intersection Int. v/c Delay Int. v/c Delay Int. v/c Delay LOS Ratio (sec/veh) LOS Ratio (sec/veh) LOS Ratio (sec/veh) Ossington Ave B 0.78 16.9 B 0.82 18.8 B>B 0.04 1.9 Shaw St B 0.61 14.1 B 0.66 12.6 B>B 0.05-1.5 Montrose Ave B 0.72 16.2 A 0.64 8.6 B>A -0.08-7.6 Grace St B 0.68 15.9 B 0.61 15.4 B>B -0.07-0.5 Clinton St B 0.59 13.1 B 0.58 10.6 B>B -0.01-2.5 Manning Ave A 0.49 7.3 A 0.44 7.5 A>A -0.05 0.2 Palmerston Blvd B 0.41 14.3 A 0.50 7.8 B>A 0.09-6.5 Bathurst St F 1.27 87.4 E 1.08 56.8 F>E -0.19-30.6 Brunswick Ave B 0.49 11.0 B 0.50 12.4 B>B 0.01 1.4 Spadina Ave C 0.78 27.2 C 0.78 23.9 C>C 0-3.3 Huron St A 0.57 9.6 A 0.50 8.4 A>A -0.07-1.2 St George St C 0.75 22.6 B 0.67 19.2 C>B -0.08-3.4 Tower Rd A 0.29 1.1 A 0.29 1.5 A>A 0 0.4 Queens Park Crescent C 0.87 22.2 B 0.84 19.3 C>B -0.03-2.9
Appendix D Before and After Signalized Intersection Scenario Analyses Scenario 1 Concurrent Bicycle and Vehicle Phases AM Peak Before and After Vehicle Delay Comparison (minutes) Intersection AM Before AM After Difference AM Before AM After Difference Ossington Ave 158 85-73 159 296 137 Shaw St 21 117 96 44 60 16 Montrose Ave 70 45-25 56 37-19 Grace St 133 55-78 45 36-9 Clinton St 50 43-7 71 50-21 Manning Ave 76 28-48 101 19-82 Palmerston Blvd 26 12-14 28 36 8 Bathurst St 626 529-97 821 946 125 Brunswick Ave 85 52-33 68 34-34 Spadina Ave 252 111-141 117 103-14 Huron St 136 71-65 109 24-85 St George St 84 139 55 90 141 51 Tower Rd 6 7 1 8 2-6 Queens Park Crescent 427 328-99 71 186 115 Total Delay (min) 2150 1622-528 1787 1970 183 AM Before AM After Difference AM Before AM After Difference Average Delay/ Trip (min) 6 4.3-1.7 6.7 6.3-0.4 PM Peak Before and After Vehicle Delay Comparison (minutes) Intersection PM Before PM After Difference PM Before PM After Difference Ossington Ave 92 87-5 253 231-22 Shaw St 42 23-19 136 67-69 Montrose Ave 9 47 38 249 83-166 Grace St 34 60 26 214 84-130 Clinton St 72 54-18 62 72 10 Manning Ave 29 29 0 68 66-2 Palmerston Blvd 87 34-53 55 20-35 Bathurst St 114 364 250 106 310 204 Brunswick Ave 59 41-18 57 56-1 Spadina Ave 136 109-27 204 134-70 Huron St 79 39-40 86 129 43 St George St 109 78-31 174 108-66 Tower Rd 4 2-2 11 6-5 Queens Park Crescent 175 92-83 60 354 294 Total Delay (min) 1042 1059 17 1735 1720-15 PM Before PM After Difference PM Before PM After Difference Average Delay/ Trip (min) 3.6 4 0.4 4.4 5 0.6
Appendix D Before and After Signalized Intersection Scenario Analyses Scenario 1 Concurrent Bicycle and Vehicle Phases AM Peak Before and After Bicycle Delay Comparison (minutes) Intersection AM Before AM After Difference AM Before AM After Difference Ossington Ave 98 54-44 5 3-2 Shaw St 39 43 4 10 2-8 Montrose Ave 93 38-55 7 6-1 Grace St 110 85-25 21 5-16 Clinton St 31 13-18 19 7-12 Manning Ave 71 38-33 1 1 0 Palmerston Blvd 74 63-11 1 4 3 Bathurst St 1558 1189-369 11 15 4 Brunswick Ave 403 108-295 13 19 6 Spadina Ave 1024 590-434 21 30 9 Huron St 156 8-148 24 7-17 St George St 98 18-80 20 20 0 Tower Rd 7 1-6 0 0 0 Queens Park Crescent 340 245-95 57 23-34 Total Delay (min) 4102-1609 -1609 210 142-68 AM Before AM After Difference AM Before AM After Difference Average Delay/ Trip (min) 7.6 4.6-3 2.7 1.9-0.8 PM Peak Before and After Bicycle Delay Comparison (minutes) Intersection PM Before PM After Difference PM Before PM After Difference Ossington Ave 15 13-2 9 47 38 Shaw St 3 4 1 54 9-45 Montrose Ave 17 12-5 113 82-31 Grace St 15 5-10 78 79 1 Clinton St 47 23-24 96 6-90 Manning Ave 13 7-6 37 48 11 Palmerston Blvd 27 1-26 80 17-63 Bathurst St 9 68 59 285 274-11 Brunswick Ave 2 2 0 104 15-89 Spadina Ave 46 74 28 167 177 10 Huron St 21 23 2 24 17-7 St George St 26 15-11 89 17-72 Tower Rd 1 1 0 0 0 0 Queens Park Crescent 67 62-5 287 47-240 Total Delay (min) 308 310 2 1423 835-588 PM Before PM After Difference PM Before PM After Difference Average Delay/ Trip (min) 3 2.9-0.1 4 2-2
Appendix D Before and After Signalized Intersection Scenario Analyses Scenario 1 Concurrent Bicycle and Vehicle Phases AM Peak Before and After Vehicle Delay Comparison (minutes) Intersection AM Before AM After Difference AM Before AM After Difference Ossington Ave 158 85-73 159 337 178 Shaw St 21 76 55 44 46 2 Montrose Ave 70 37-33 56 21-35 Grace St 133 71-62 45 41-4 Clinton St 50 49-1 71 35-36 Manning Ave 76 57-19 101 18-83 Palmerston Blvd 26 15-11 28 40 12 Bathurst St 626 485-141 821 653-168 Brunswick Ave 85 55-30 68 20-48 Spadina Ave 252 145-107 117 88-29 Huron St 136 71-65 109 33-76 St George St 84 92 8 90 57-33 Tower Rd 6 4-2 8 1-7 Queens Park Crescent 427 333-94 71 186 115 Total Delay (min) 2150 1575-575 1787 1576-211 AM Before AM After Difference AM Before AM After Difference Average Delay/Trip (min) 6 4.2-1.8 6.7 6-0.7 PM Peak Before and After Vehicle Delay Comparison (minutes) Intersection PM Before PM After Difference PM Before PM After Difference Ossington Ave 92 88-4 253 317 64 Shaw St 42 22-20 136 106-30 Montrose Ave 9 73 64 249 92-157 Grace St 34 4-30 214 87-127 Clinton St 72 51-21 62 69 7 Manning Ave 29 41 12 68 67-1 Palmerston Blvd 87 21-66 55 20-35 Bathurst St 114 352 238 106 317 211 Brunswick Ave 59 66 7 57 59 2 Spadina Ave 136 131-5 204 154-50 Huron St 79 59-20 86 61-25 St George St 109 57-52 174 91-83 Tower Rd 4 6 2 11 9-2 Queens Park Crescent 175 138-37 60 350 290 Total Delay (min) 1042 1109 67 1735 1799 64 PM Before PM After Difference PM Before PM After Difference Average Delay/Trip (min) 3.6 4.3 0.7 4.4 5.5 1.1
Appendix D Before and After Signalized Intersection Scenario Analyses Scenario 1 Concurrent Bicycle and Vehicle Phases AM Peak Before and After Bicycle Delay Comparison (minutes) Intersection AM Before AM After Difference AM Before AM After Difference Ossington Ave 98 54-44 5 8 3 Shaw St 39 38-1 10 12 2 Montrose Ave 93 55-38 7 5-2 Grace St 110 60-50 21 6-15 Clinton St 31 31 0 19 1-18 Manning Ave 71 145 74 1 6 5 Palmerston Blvd 74 64-10 1 15 14 Bathurst St 1558 1200-358 11 35 24 Brunswick Ave 403 62-341 13 1-12 Spadina Ave 1024 266-758 21 14-7 Huron St 156 22-134 24 8-16 St George St 98 46-52 20 31 11 Tower Rd 7 1-6 0 0 0 Queens Park Crescent 340 151-189 57 23-34 Total Delay (min) 4102 2195-1907 210 165-45 AM Before AM After Difference AM Before AM After Difference Average Delay/Trip (min) 7.6 4-3.6 2.7 2-0.7 PM Peak Before and After Bicycle Delay Comparison (minutes) Intersection PM Before PM After Difference PM Before PM After Difference Ossington Ave 15 14-1 9 33 24 Shaw St 3 3 0 54 25-29 Montrose Ave 17 15-2 113 90-23 Grace St 15 15 0 78 99 21 Clinton St 47 51 4 96 5-91 Manning Ave 13 3-10 37 20-17 Palmerston Blvd 27 2-25 80 12-68 Bathurst St 9 71 62 285 428 143 Brunswick Ave 2 21 19 104 106 2 Spadina Ave 46 45-1 167 57-110 Huron St 21 9-12 24 21-3 St George St 26 15-11 89 121 32 Tower Rd 1 1 0 0 5 5 Queens Park Crescent 67 22-45 287 47-240 Total Delay (min) 308 287-21 1423 1069-354 PM Before PM After Difference PM Before PM After Difference Average Delay/Trip (min) 3 3 0 4 3-1
Appendix D Before and After Signalized Intersection Scenario Analyses Scenario 2 Separate Bicycle Only Phase AM Peak MOEs Comparison Before and After Cycle Track Intersection AM-Before AM-After Difference Harbord St/Hoskin Int. v/c Delay Int. v/c Delay Int. v/c Delay Ave LOS Ratio (sec/veh) LOS Ratio (sec/veh) LOS Ratio (sec/veh) Ossington Ave B 0.81 17.0 C 0.90 27.1 B>C -0.09-10.1 Shaw St A 0.43 7.4 A 0.50 8.0 A>A -0.07-0.6 Montrose Ave B 0.49 10.4 B 0.52 11.4 B>B -0.03-1 Grace St B 0.59 15.6 B 0.61 13.2 B>B -0.02 2.4 Clinton St A 0.44 9.8 D 0.92 35.8 A>D -0.48-26 Manning Ave B 0.55 11.7 B 0.57 11.3 B>B -0.02 0.4 Palmerston Blvd A 0.55 8.0 A 0.58 8.3 A>A -0.03-0.3 Bathurst St F 1.36 123.1 F 1.90 294.6 F>F -0.54-171.5 Brunswick Ave C 0.90 20.3 C 0.93 23.6 C>C -0.03-3.3 Spadina Ave D 1.09 40.5 F 1.41 132.9 D>F -0.32-92.4 Huron St B 0.68 17.7 E 1.0 66.2 B>E -0.32-48.5 St George St B 0.73 17.4 E 1.04 76.7 B>E -0.31-59.3 Tower Rd A 0.32 1.1 A 0.33 1.7 A>A -0.01-0.6 Queens Park Crescent C 0.88 26.1 C 0.82 24.8 C>C 0.06 1.3 PM Peak MOEs Comparison Before and After Cycle Track Intersection PM-Before PM-After Difference Harbord St/Hoskin Int. v/c Delay Int. v/c Delay Int. v/c Delay Ave LOS Ratio (sec/veh) LOS Ratio (sec/veh) LOS Ratio (sec/veh) Ossington Ave B 0.78 16.9 D 0.94 41.1 B>D -0.16-24.2 Shaw St B 0.61 14.1 B 0.58 12.1 B>B 0.03 2 Montrose Ave B 0.72 16.2 A 0.65 6.4 B>A 0.07 9.8 Grace St B 0.68 15.9 B 0.69 14.9 B>B -0.01 1 Clinton St B 0.59 13.1 D 0.93 39.2 B>D -0.34-26.1 Manning Ave A 0.49 7.3 A 0.44 6.7 A>A 0.05 0.6 Palmerston Blvd B 0.41 14.3 B 0.60 12.0 B>B -0.19 2.3 Bathurst St F 1.27 87.4 F 1.58 229.6 F>F -0.31-142.2 Brunswick Ave B 0.49 11.0 A 0.43 8.5 B>A 0.06 2.5 Spadina Ave C 0.78 27.2 F 1.67 86.7 C>F -0.89-59.5 Huron St A 0.57 9.6 D 0.95 43.7 A>D -0.38-34.1 St George St C 0.75 22.6 D 0.98 52.6 C>D -0.23-30 Tower Rd A 0.29 1.1 A 0.29 1.6 A>A 0-0.5 Queens Park Crescent C 0.87 22.2 B 0.79 17.8 C>B 0.08 4.4
Appendix D Before and After Signalized Intersection Scenario Analyses Scenario 2 Separate Bicycle Only Phase AM Peak MOEs Comparison Before and After Cycle Track AM-Before AM-After Difference Intersection Int. v/c Delay Int. v/c Delay Int. v/c Delay LOS Ratio (sec/veh) LOS Ratio (sec/veh) LOS Ratio (sec/veh) Ossington Ave B 0.81 17.0 C 0.90 24.0 B>C -0.09-7.0 Shaw St A 0.43 7.4 B 0.50 10.9 A>B -0.07-3.5 Montrose Ave B 0.49 10.4 A 0.52 8.4 B>A -0.03 2.0 Grace St B 0.59 15.6 B 0.61 13.5 B>B -0.02 2.1 Clinton St A 0.44 9.8 D 1.03 48.5 A>D -0.59-38.7 Manning Ave B 0.55 11.7 B 0.57 11.4 B>B -0.02 0.3 Palmerston Blvd A 0.55 8.0 A 0.58 8.3 A>A -0.03-0.3 Bathurst St F 1.36 123.1 F 1.88 316.2 F>F -0.52-193.1 Brunswick Ave C 0.90 20.3 C 0.93 23.6 C>C -0.03-3.3 Spadina Ave D 1.09 40.5 F 2.06 153.4 D>F -0.97-112.9 Huron St B 0.68 17.7 E 1.07 65.3 B>E -0.39-47.6 St George St B 0.73 17.4 E 1.04 73.2 B>E -0.31-55.8 Tower Rd A 0.32 1.1 A 0.33 1.7 A>A -0.01-0.6 Queens Park Crescent C 0.88 26.1 C 0.82 24.8 C>C 0.06 1.3 PM Peak MOEs Comparison Before and After Cycle Track PM-Before PM-After Difference Intersection Int. v/c Delay Int. v/c Delay Int. v/c Delay LOS Ratio (sec/veh) LOS Ratio (sec/veh) LOS Ratio (sec/veh) Ossington Ave B 0.78 16.9 D 0.93 37.9 B>D -0.15-21 Shaw St B 0.61 14.1 B 0.58 13.6 B>B 0.03 0.5 Montrose Ave B 0.72 16.2 A 0.65 7.8 B>A 0.07 8.4 Grace St B 0.68 15.9 B 0.69 12.5 B>B -0.01 3.4 Clinton St B 0.59 13.1 D 1.04 49.0 B>D -0.45-35.9 Manning Ave A 0.49 7.3 B 0.57 11.6 A>B -0.08-4.3 Palmerston Blvd B 0.41 14.3 A 0.58 8.4 B>A -0.17 5.9 Bathurst St F 1.27 87.4 F 1.90 294.6 F>F -0.63-207.2 Brunswick Ave B 0.49 11.0 C 0.93 23.6 B>C -0.44-12.6 Spadina Ave C 0.78 27.2 F 1.38 131.8 C>F -0.6-104.6 Huron St A 0.57 9.6 E 1.07 65.3 A>E -0.5-55.7 St George St C 0.75 22.6 E 1.04 75.9 C>E -0.29-53.3 Tower Rd A 0.29 1.1 A 0.33 1.7 A>A -0.04-0.6 Queens Park Crescent C 0.87 22.2 C 0.82 24.8 C>C 0.05-2.6