Item Notes Image Comments Owner 1 p. 14: These users may include pedestrians (both able-bodied and those

Potential Items for OTM Book 18 Update - WORKING DRAFT Updated 2-Jan-2018 Item Notes Image Comments Owner 1 p. 14: These users may include pedestrians (both able-bodied and those using powered mobility aids), in-line skaters and skateboarders, as well as riders of electric bikes, electric scooters and Segways. powered mobility aids is potentially problematic and could be interpreted to include a broader range of devices than intended suggestion is to replace with mobility devices 2 p. 49 / 50: parking edgeline should be delineated 2.0 m from the curb instead of the range (2.0 2.5 m) that is shown 3 p. 109: maximum spacing is stated as 20 m; this should be 200 m 4 p. 122: and elsewhere: bike stencil placement on crossrides we don t indicate that the stencil should be to the right in the direction of travel on bidirectional crossrides 5 p. 137: wrong sign number Wc-19 and Wc-19t should be replaced with Wc-24 and Wc-24t 6 p. 162: update on the approval of bicycle signal lenses in Ontario, and update Fig. 5.39 to an Ontario example 7 p. 175: Caption for Figure 7.6 on Cora bike rack : Since Cora is a brand, we should replace it with coat hanger instead. Caption is also shown in Table of Contents 8 p. 183: the word reasonable is misplaced: it should read, road authorities owe a duty of reasonable care to persons using their facilities, and not, road authorities owe a duty of care to reasonable persons using their facilities. 9 Update content: Discussion of protected intersection design 10 Update content: Cycle track and in-boulevard facilities and treatments to guide interaction between cyclists and pedestrians at intersections 11 Update content: Implications for the maintenance of cycling facilities emerging the current update to Ontario s Municipal Maintenance Standards (MMS) 12 Update content: A new section of OTM Book 18 to provide case studies and demonstration projects from Ontario municipalities 13 Development of a new OTC Training Course on OTM Book 18 The OTC AT committee should consider whether to proceed with the development of a new OTM Book 18 training course that would include a half day summary of OTM Book 18 and a half day of presentations on case studies and demonstration projects OTC AT committee members could be invited to showcase projects that were guided by OTM Book 18 in their municipalities and share what other municipalities could learn from the experience 14 Third-party critique of OTM Book 18 for consideration http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2013/06/ontario-traffic-manual- Shawn Smith, York Region 15 Crash barrier on bridge between vehicle lanes and cycling and pedestrian facility

16 Mountable curb & gutter as buffer between on-street parking and bike lane 17 Clarify guidance for uni-directional crossrides (e.g. width of crossride <2.5m) 18 Non-curb bike lanes allow exceptions to cantilevered overhead signage requirement. In particular this could be where the reserved nature of the lane is not required but I m sure there could be other instances. The example I give is of a parking adjacent bike lane there is likely to be both little demand for vehicles to park, or travel within the bike lane for any length and the bike lane will be crossed regularly by vehicles using the parking. The benefits of the reserved signage in this instance could be low. Other examples could include consideration of signage of parking-protected bike lanes (how and where the parking should be signed) and also a two-way protected facility (how is the non-curb lane signed). If there is a unsolveable conflict between all reserved lanes must be signed and non-curb bike lanes then perhaps we need to use another category of cycling facility in these instances such as a bike symbol and bike route sign (something to get around the reserved requirement), or edge lines with no symbols. There s certainly one location where we have not implemented a bike lane in the last month, adjacent to on-street parking, because of a perceived requirement to use overhead mounted reserved bike lane signs. http://www.clarington.net/en/be-active/resources/cycling/bike-lane-flyer.pdf 19 Address need for overhead signs for floating bike lanes, bike lanes next to See ZK email March 31, 2016 parking, etc. 20 Add sign for bicycle crossing of train track 21 Provide option for narrower crosswalk+crossride (i.e. Less than 5m) where ped and/or bike volumes are low 22 Confirm consistency in "dooring buffer" width Table 4.7 - no guidance; Table 4.4-0.8m min; Table 4.3-0.5m min or no buffer; Table 4.6-1.0m 23 Allow for some reduction in signs to reduce "sign clutter" (perhaps fewer https://hansonthebike.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/img_4606a.jpg?w=720 regulatory signs?) 24 Bicycle crossings at PXOs 25 Cycle track and MUP treatments across driveways and private accesses

26 Accessible delineation between cycle track and sidewalk 27 Buffer/offset width for cycle tracks (current guide says "varies") RB: Is more important to have 'varies' than to set a max or min or range because there will be occasions where space is constrained. Some locations we may have a cycle track that is adjacent to the roadway, but still lower stress for cyclists than a regular bike lane because of gradeseparation. Not sure if there is an ideal - is more a question of contextspecific 28 "Dashed" green blocks through conflict zones (reduce costs for application) 29 Left turn bike pocket where no vehicle turn lane exists (need to include other E.g. Eastbound Gladstone onto Bay St southbound examples with different design to ensure they are still available/recommended, ie left side left turn pocket) RB: Note that we might have left turn pockets on the left of travel lanes as well (with or without regular turn lanes) and OTM should provide guidance/acceptance on both types of pockets. I checked for the location of the example at Gladstone and Bay, can t find it (in Toronto or Ottawa). Please recheck location of example. An Ottawa example of left turn pocket on left side without a left turn lane (because motorists cannot turn left) is found southbound QED at Pretoria Bridge. Current OTM18 has example (Fig 4.48) where left turn lane also exists, adapted from TAC 2008 Bikeways Guide. 30 Warning grooves for "stay in the cycle track" 31 Double headed Sharrows (one bike symbol, chevrons at each end pointing in opposite directions); used in the middle of narrow roads, where the bikes take the lane- but effectively are running in middle of the single lane 32 MUP to bike lane transition over sidewalk (used for MUP/overpass connections) See example on Bank Street (NB, just north of the bridge over the Rideau Canal); typical location MacKenzie Bridge MUP to Sussex interconnect (NCC rejected it since it ws not in a design standard) 33 New Thermoplastic Cycling Stencil 34 Bend out at intersections Highlight benefits and trade-offs 35 Ability to have a standardised cross ride at every type of intersection KM suggestion 36 Cycle track width range Relationship with volumes given the understanding that bicycles do not operate within a lane as do other vehicles (ie not single file; hence greater capacity per lane) 37 location of left turn bike box along cycle track route vis a vis pedestrian crosswalk Behind the crosswalk or in front of it (between crossride and crosswalk)

38 coloured pavement guidance (various examples, eg where cross rides continue through irregular or large intersections - may be moot if all crossrides are to be coloured but there should be options) 39 coloured pavement guidance (various examples, eg delineate space adjacent to bus route through transit station) 40 coloured pavement guidance (various examples, eg. right side left turn bike boxes develop at large multilane intersections) 41 Standard small dimensioned bike stencil (for application where standard full size does not fit) 42 Mid-block crossings, as per O-Train at Gladstone which we have SR suggestion acceptance on. i.e. no facilities, no priority but good design, recognizing that people will cross regardless, requires a curb depression, pathway signs? 43 Directional Signage SR suggestion 44 Off-road (cycle track / MUP) to on-road transitions at intersections and SR suggestion mid-block 45 Bike lanes through intersections (2-way stop, 4-way stop, etc.) busy driveways, and less-busy driveways 46 Bicycle-friendly curb extensions ("bulb outs") Refer to study completed for Glebe Neighbourhood Cycling Plan (Heidi Cousineau) 47 Two-way buffered paved shoulder MUP alongside rural road Example: montée Kavanagh, Mont-Tremblant, Quebec

48 Cycle track bypass at mid-block pedestrian crossing Example: draft design for MacKenzie Avenue 49 Protected intersection design 50 Advisory bike lanes 51 Visual cue line painting: Line painting that gives the impression that the cyclist is moving quickly and in turn, will slow down. Mobycom included it within their presentation where painted lines become closer and closer together within shared ped and bike spaces. (JL) 52 Cycle track bypass at the top of T intersections (in addition to the midblock KM crossing) 53 Curb to curb distance for ped signalisation at protected intersections (yield KM control between cyclists and peds) 54 Review the HTA definition of bicycles as vehicles; is it time for a third category (bikes are neither vehicles nor pedestrians)? 55 Provide design guidance for MUP "T-intersection" at roadway (where a MUPSee ZK email October 3, 2016 intersects a street mid-block and no crossing or intersection is provided) 56 Wayfinding sharrows As applied by City of Toronto 57 Clarfiy sharrows application (given new 1 metre passing law) See Dave McLaughlin email of Jan. 24/17 58 Provide guidance for "rural road side path" http://www.otc.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/line-58-1.pdf 59 Shallow rumble strip to reduce vehicle noise Can be used as a buffer for paved shoulder cycling route in residential areas where noise from conventional rumble strips is a concern 60 Instead of "wide" (e.g., 4.1m) shared-use curb lane, provide "narrow" (e.g., Refer to City of Ottawa pilot project (St. Patrick Street) 1.3m) bike lane, striped buffer (e.g., 0.5m) and "narrow" vehicle lane (e.g., 3.0m) http://www.otc.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/line-59.pdf 61 Decision criteria for when vehicular left-turns across a two-way cycling facilit Ottawa could generate a table of such existing cases, and estimate the total at a signalised intersection must be fully protected (e.g., turning movement # of cyclist that have crossed vs. known crashes. Although we don t have volume, cyclist volume by direction, operating speeds, number of lanes, crossirdes in many places (certainly not historically), cyclist behaviour is etc.) identical to a cross-ride. In the same effort we might define conditions where mixed signalized crossrides are feasible.

62 Standardize sign for "1 metre rule / share the road". Shawn Smith, York Region 63 Bike box design: I strongly support a stop bar in the bike lane to define the Daryl Bender, City of Hamilton entry into the bike box. It would help to clarify I think (also consider only this single stop bar, and eliminate the one closer to the ped crossing). Inclusion of a turn arrow on the BB will help educate all as to the purpose of the green box 64 Dooring sign 65 Clarify guidance for bike lanes at right turns (Figures 4.39, 4.40, 4.41) - when and why to use each treatment (solid line, dashed line, advanced stop bar); ideally specify dashed or solid line as a standard for consistency, provide warrants for advaned stop bar 66 Confirm the requirement for vehicular left turns across two-way cycling facilities at signalised intersections to be fully protected (City of Ottawa practice) 67 Guidance for transition from cycle track to bike lane at signalized Ottawa example: St. Patrick Street westbound at Island Lodge Road intersection 68 Figures 4.101 and 4.102 - the pushbutton sign is incorrectly oriented on the left side of the intersection 69 Figures 4.101 to 4.103 - Provide more detailed figures showing appropriate treatment at corners, such as concrete/asphalt treatments, clarify AODA tactile plate requirements for ped and bike portions, signage for cyclists to yield to pedestrians. 70 Multi-use trails - criteria for application on one side of the road vs. both sides 71 Table 3.4 -Vehicle Mix and Trucks - Provide more specific guidance about appropriate measures for roads with heavy truck volumes. Threshold of 30 trucks or buses an hour seems rather low. 72 4.2.2 Separated Bicycle Lanes - provide additional guidance about the types of buffers and the situations where they are appropriate or less appropriate. 73 Multi-use trail interaction with right turn channelized islands - Would be very helpful if guidance can be developed for bike friendly approach, and potential PXO for cyclists 74 Transition points between multi-use pathways and cycle tracks or bike lanes 75 Real examples of multi-use pathways and cycle tracks at intersection approaches specifically with respect to retrofits and constrained situations 76 More information and discussion around new construction and retrofits, can speak to some of the information that Ottawa found on the cost of building bike lanes versus separated facilities for new build/reconstruction projects

77 Facility types as they relate to speed and volume but also land use in the corridor 78 Consider re-ordering the book from most separated to lease separated facility 79 More information about safety of different facility types (e.g. the safety concerns of multi-use pathways in roadway corridors) 80 Bicycle parking guidance more details on layout, set backs from buildings, locations, examples of good bicycle parking (i.e. 2 points of contact) 81 More guidance and discussion around AODA standards for example a mixed multi-use pathway versus separated facilities in general separated facilities are safer from my understanding but what if there is not sufficient space to provide a 1.5 m sidewalk adjacent to a 1.5 m cycle track with a 0.3 m separator between the two facilities what else can be done to provide separated facilities 82 More details and discussion around maintenance and operations of facilities building the facility is one thing but maintaining it and operating it is another 83 Some highlevel information about e-bikes? E-scooters? And whether or not they below in dedicated cycling facilities? Alignment with HTA, etc.? 84 Cross-ride examples where separate ped and cycling facilities approach the intersection 85 More emphasis on the need to provide separated facilities on roadways with speed limits higher than 50km/hr specifically for road reconstruction or new construction projects and more discussion around reducing speed limits 86 For bridge crash barrier positioning to protect cyclists, address "gaps" in MTO table for side clearances by supplementing with guidance for lower design speeds (i.e., arterials below 80km/h, collectors and locals below 60km/h) 87 Signage and other guidance for "bike guest zones" (where pedestrians have priority), e.g., Sparks Street in Ottawa 88 Learn from the UK example of "Toucan crossings" which allow pedestrians http://www.highwaycode.info/pages/about Note the use of tactile warning strips in the illustration. and cyclists to cross together at signal-controlled midblock locations. 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96