Implementing Complete Streets in Ottawa October 1, 2015
The Essentials Complete Streets Implementation Framework will become part of the routine delivery of City transportation projects Approach uses every transportation project as a catalyst for improvements Integrates new approaches including Multi-modal Level of Service 2
Background Completed in 2013, Ottawa s Transportation Master Plan included the following actions related to Complete Streets Adopt a complete streets policy for road design, operation and maintenance; Update road design guidelines, standards, and processes to reflect complete streets principles; Use Multi-Modal Levels of Service (MMLOS) to assess road designs and allocate right of way. 3
Ottawa s Definition of Complete Streets Complete Streets incorporate the physical elements that allow a street to offer safety, comfort and mobility for all users of the street regardless of their age, ability, or mode of transportation. A Complete Streets approach uses every transportation project as a catalyst for improvements within the scope of that project to enable safe and comfortable access for all users. 4
Complete Streets Approach Integrates into the City of Ottawa s routine processes, guidelines and standards for transportation projects Strive first to accommodate the basic needs of all users Strive second to further improve conditions wherever possible within the scope of a transportation project, and with a balanced consideration of relevant plans and policies 5
Challenge The City of Ottawa delivers many different types of transportation projects Various branches are responsible for delivering different projects during various phases of the project development 6
Solution Goals are identified at project initiation to foster multi-modal and context-sensitive solutions Complete Street elements will align with the scope of transportation projects and Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) requirements Key constraints are recognized early in the process, including right-of-way ownership, major utility conflicts, and long-term maintainability Projects will anticipate opportunities to incrementally achieve Complete Streets and networks over time, and in future phases of projects Each project must be budgeted appropriately for implementation of the Complete Street approach 7
Supporting Tools Current tools: Master Plans, Planning & Design Guidelines, Accessibility Guidelines for Ontarians with Disabilities, and Construction, Operation & Maintenance Manuals Tools Under Development: Road Design Guidelines project Multi-Modal Level of Service: a new approach to be incorporated into the Transportation Impact Assessment guidelines 8
Multi-Modal Level of Service A Custom Approach MMLOS to be used for both City-lead and developer lead projects Substantially simpler than HCM approach Builds on other approaches including PETSI MMLOS Guidelines developed to provide details on the methodology for each mode & provide targets, TIA Guidelines to provide details on how the methodologies are to be applied MMLOS approach is Draft subject to Council approval Oct 7, 2015 9
MMLOS Ranges MODE ELEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE A B C D E F Pedestrians (PLOS) Bicycles (BLOS) Trucks (PLOS) Transit (TLOS) Segments High level of comfort Low level of comfort Intersections Short delay, high level of comfort, low risk Long delay, low level of comfort, high risk Segments High level of comfort Low level of comfort Intersections Low level of risk / stress High level of risk / stress Segments Unimpeded movement Impeded movement Intersections Unimpeded movement / short delay Impeded movement / long delay Segments High level of reliability Low level of reliability Intersections Short delay Long delay Vehicles (LOS) Intersections Low lane utilization High lane utilization 10
PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) Primary intent of the tool is to evaluate pedestrian comfort, safety and convenience 11
PLOS Data Requirements SEGMENTS SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS» Operating speed» Sidewalk width» Boulevard width» Motor vehicle volume (AADT / lane)» Presence of on-street parking Exposure to Traffic» Street width (number of through lanes to be crossed with or without a median) and presence of refuge island for crossing pedestrians» Right & left turn conflicts based on phasing (permitted, protected/permitted, protected, prohibited) and pedestrian-only phases (leading pedestrian interval)» Right turn on Red (RTOR) restrictions» Corner radius and type (smart right turn channel, right turn channel with receiving lane)» Crosswalk treatment (transverse marking, zebra stripe markings, textured/coloured crosswalks, raised crosswalks) Delay» Cycle length» Pedestrian green time (walk time) 12
PLOS Methodology Example for Segments Sidewalk Width (m) Boulevard Width (m) Motor Vehicle Traffic Volume (AADT / lane) Presence of Onstreet Parking Segment PLOS Operating Speed (km/h) 30 >30 or 50 >50 or 60 >60 1 3000 N/A A A A B > 2 > 3000 Yes A B B N/A No A B C D 3000 N/A A A A B 2.0 or more 0.5 to 2 > 3000 Yes A B C N/A No A D D E 3000 NA A B C D 0 > 3000 Yes B B D N/A No D D E F 3000 N/A A A A B > 2 > 3000 Yes A B C N/A No A C D E 3000 N/A A B B D 1.8 0.5 to 2 > 3000 Yes A C C N/A No B D E E 3000 N/A A B C D 0 > 3000 Yes B C D N/A No D E F F 3000 N/A C C C C > 2 Yes C C D N/A > 3000 No C E E E 1.5 3000 N/A C C C D 0.5 to 2 Yes C C D N/A > 3000 No D E E E 0 N/A F 2 F 2 F 2 F 2 < 1.5 N/A F 3 F 3 F 3 F 3 0 N/A 3000 N/A C 4 F F F > 3000 N/A F F F F 13
PLOS Methodology Intersections 5.1 Crossing Distance & Conditions Total travel lanes crossed 5.2 Signal Phasing & Timing Features Left turn conflict ("Left_turns") Points Permissive -8 2 120 120 Protected/permissive -8 3 105 105 Protected 0 4 88 90 No left turn/prohibited 0 5 72 75 Right turn conflict ("Right_turns") Points 6 55 60 Permissive or yield control -5 7 39 45 Protected/permissive -5 8 23 30 Protected 0 9 6 15 No right turn 0 10-10 0 Right turns on red ("RTOR") Points Island Refuge Points No right turns 0 No -4 RTOR allowed 0 Yes 0 RTOR prohibited at certain time(s) 3 RTOR prohibited 5 5.3 Corner Radius Leading ped interval? ("LPI") Points Corner radius Greater than 25m > 15m to 25m > 10m to 15m > 5m to 10m No median With Median (>2.4m) Points No 0-9 Yes 5-8 -6-5 -4 5.4 Crosswalk Treatment Crosswalk treatment ("Crosswalk") Points > 3m to 5m Less than/equal to 3m -3 Standard transverse markings -7 No right turn 0 Textured/coloured pavement -4 Right turn channel with receiving -3 Zebra stripe hi-vis markings -4 Right turn "smart channel" 2 Raised crosswalk 0 Exhibit 1 PETSI Evaluation Table Pedestrian Exposure to Traffic LOS Points threshold LOS 90 A 75 B 60 C 45 D 30 E <30 F Exhibit 2 Pedestrian Delay Evaluation Table Average Pedestrian Crossing Delay Component Delay = < 10 s per intersection leg LOS A 10 to 20 sec LOS B >20 to 30 sec LOS C >30 to 40 sec LOS D >40 to 60 sec LOS E > 60 sec LOS F 14
PLOS Methodology - Segments Sidewalks 1.8m + Streets with low volume ( 3000 AADT) or low operating speeds ( 30 km/hr) Sidewalks 1.8-2.0m adjacent to roads with high operating speeds (typically <50 or 60) and higher volumes Sidewalks 1.5m with boulevards No sidewalk or substandard width Sidewalk adjacent to high volume, high speed roadways without any boulevard 15
PLOS Methodology - Signals Segments 4 lanes to be crossed assuming no major penalties 4-6 lanes to be crossed assuming no major penalties Delay <10s per intersection leg >20 to 30s 6 to 10+ lanes to be crossed depending on penalties >60s Penalties: large corner radii, unfavourable signal phasing, etc. 16
BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) Primary intent of the tool is to evaluate the level of traffic stress (or degree of comfort) experienced by a cyclist Methodology is based on the Mineta Transportation Institute report, but adapted to City of Ottawa LOS A-F 17
BLOS Data Requirements SEGMENTS SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Mixed Traffic (No cycling facility) Pocket bike lanes» Street width (total number of lanes in both directions)» Operating speed Bike Lanes» Street width (number of through lanes per direction)» Bike lane width (including marked buffer and paved gutter width)» Parking lane width (where bike lane is adjacent to parking lane)» Operating speed» Qualitative assessment of commercial deliveries for commercial areas Physically Separated Bikeway» Right turn lane characteristics (number of right turn lanes, length of turn lane, turning speed)» Operating speed» Left turn accommodation (presence of bike box, number of left turn lanes, number of lanes crossed) Mixed Traffic (No cycling facility)» Right turn lane characteristics (number of right turn lanes, length of turn lane, turning speed)» Operating speed» Left turn accommodation (presence of bike box, number of left turn lanes, number of lanes crossed)» No additional information needed Unsignalized Crossings» Presence of median refuge suitable for bicycle storage ( 1.8m wide)» Width of street being crossed (number of lanes in both directions)» Speed limit of street being crossed 18
BLOS Methodology Segments Physically separated bikeway Wide bike lanes on 2-lane roads with low operating speed ( 40-50 km/h depending on parking lanes) Mixed traffic on 2-lane low speed residential streets Narrow bike lanes on roads with >2 lanes and higher speeds (60 km/h) Frequent bike lane blockage due to commercial activity Mixed traffic on high speed roads ( 60km/h) High stress unsignalized crossings (4+ lane roads with higher speeds) 19
BLOS Methodology Signals Left turn bike boxes provided for left turns No right-turn lanes or right-turn lanes to the left of cycling infrastructure 0-1 lane crossed to make a left turn at moderate speeds Short, low speed right-turn lane where cycling facilities are provided 2 or more lanes crossed to make a left turn with speeds 50 km/h Long / dual right-turn lanes 20
TRUCK LEVEL OF SERVICE OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS Truck Level of Service (TkLOS) Primary intent of the tool is to complement motor vehicle LOS by considering the physical space available for trucks to negotiate corners quickly and easily, and to operate safely within travelled lanes 21
TkLOS Data Requirements SEGMENTS SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS» Street width (number of through lanes per direction)» Curb lane width (m)» Effective radius» Number of receiving lanes on departing leg of intersection 22
TkLOS Methodology Segments Curb lane width 3.5m+ Two travel lanes Curb lane width 3.3m with two travel lanes One travel lane width 3.5m One travel lane width <3m Signalized Intersections Effective radius >15m with more than one receiving lane Effective radius >15m with one receiving lane Effective radius <10m with one receiving lane 23
TRANSIT LEVEL OF SERVICE OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS Transit Level of Service (TLOS) Primary intent of the tool is to evaluate the relative attractiveness of transit based on transit travel time and the transit priority afforded to transit vehicles 24
TLOS Data Requirements SEGMENTS SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS» Level/exposure to congestion delay, friction, and incidents (qualitative assessment)» Average Signal Delay» Average transit travel speed» Posted speed limit» Number of driveways along corridor and approximate crossing volume 25
TLOS Methodology - Segments Notes: Bus lane Mixed Traffic Facility Type Segregated ROW Level/exposure to congestion delay, friction and incidents Incident Congestion Friction Potential No No No N/A A No/limited parking/driveway friction No Low Low C f 60 B Frequent parking/driveway friction No Medium Medium C f > 60 C Limited parking/driveway friction Yes Low Medium Vt/Vp 0.8 D Moderate parking/driveway friction Yes Medium Medium Vt/Vp 0.6 E Frequent parking/driveway friction Yes High High Vt/Vp < 0.4 F Cf, Conflict Factor = = (Number of driveways x crossing volume) / 1 km Vt/Vp is the ratio of average transit travel speed to posted speed limit Quantitative Measurement LOS 26
TLOS Methodology Segments Segregated ROW Signalized Intersections Grade separated crossing (Delay = 0s) Bus lane with frequent parking / driveway friction (C f > 60) Mid-level TSP (Delay 20 sec) Mixed traffic w/ high friction Ratio of average transit travel speed to posted speed limit < 0.4 No TSP & long cycle length (Delay >40s) 27
AUTO LOS OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS Auto LOS Methodology remains consistent with what is currently provided in the TIA 28
Targets & Tradeoffs 29
Ultimate objective of developing a MMLOS program is to enable designers, City staff and the public to evaluate and understand transportation choices Towards this end, modal level of service targets have been developed Targets must cover a wide range of conditions (i.e. varying built form and context) and therefore should be considered to provide broad guidance rather than absolute cut-offs Targets are likely to shift over time as they are better calibrated to reflect outcomes and initiatives 30
Targets Official Plan Designation / Land Use Central Area / Mixed Use Pedestrian Bicycle Transit Truck Automobile PLOS BLOS TLOS TrLOS MVLOS Centres High High High Low Low Transit Station Areas High High High Low Low School Areas High High Medium Low Low Traditional Main Streets High Medium Medium Low Low Arterial Main Streets Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium General Urban / Village Areas Medium Medium Medium Low Low Rapid Transit Corridors Medium Medium High Low Low Transit Priority Corridors Medium Medium Medium Low Low Crosstown Bike Routes N.A. High N.A. N.A. N.A. Bike Spine Routes N.A. Medium N.A. N.A. N.A. Truck Routes N.A. N.A. N.A. High N.A. 1 Values represent minimum targets to be exceeded wherever possible without negatively impacting other modes. 2 Not Applicable (N.A.) General Rural Areas Low Low N.A. Medium Medium 31
Summary Small changes to processes should yield big dividends for Complete Streets Adopting MMLOS will support decision making process around trade-offs Approaches do not replace need for good planning and design 32