implementing complete streets in ottawa - tcat
TRANSCRIPT
Implementing Complete Streets in
Ottawa
Project Delivery Process and Tools
Complete Streets Forum 2015
October 1, 2015
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
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
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
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
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
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 Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
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
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
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
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
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
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
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
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
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
9
MMLOS approach is Draft
subject to Council approval
Oct 7, 2015
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
MMLOS Ranges
10
MODE ELEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE
A B C D E F
Pedestrians (PLOS)
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
Bicycles (BLOS)
Segments High level of comfort Low level of comfort
Intersections Low level of risk / stress High level of risk / stress
Trucks (PLOS)
Segments Unimpeded movement Impeded movement
Intersections Unimpeded movement / short delay Impeded movement / long delay
Transit (TLOS)
Segments High level of reliability Low level of reliability
Intersections Short delay Long delay
Vehicles (LOS) Intersections Low lane utilization High lane utilization
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
Pedestrian Level of
Service (PLOS)
Primary intent of the tool is
to evaluate pedestrian
comfort, safety and
convenience
PE
DE
ST
RIA
N L
EV
EL
OF
SE
RV
ICE
11
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
PLOS Data Requirements
12
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)
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
PLOS Methodology – Example for Segments
13
30 >30 or 50 >50 or 60 >60 1
3000 N/A A A A B
Yes A B B N/A
No A B C D
3000 N/A A A A B
Yes A B C N/A
No A D D E
3000 NA A B C D
Yes B B D N/A
No D D E F
3000 N/A A A A B
Yes A B C N/A
No A C D E
3000 N/A A B B D
Yes A C C N/A
No B D E E
3000 N/A A B C D
Yes B C D N/A
No D E F F
3000 N/A C C C C
Yes C C D N/A
No C E E E
3000 N/A C C C D
Yes C C D N/A
No D E E E
0 F 2 F 2 F 2 F 2
< 1.5 F 3 F 3 F 3 F 3
3000 N/A C 4 F F F
> 3000 N/A F F F F
1.8
0 N/A
Notes:
1. On-street parking not provided on roadways with posted speed of 70 km/h or more
2. Sidewalk must be 1.8 m wide if no separation is provided (curb-face sidewalk)
3. Sidewalk must be 1.5 m wide to meet Provincial accessiblity standards
4. Ottawa’s Pedestrian Plan, 2014: “all new and reconstructed urban local roads where pedestrian facilities are required in accordance with these policies
but no dedicated pedestrian facility is provided, require that roads be designed for a speed of 30 km/h or lower (pending development of a new 30
km/h roadway design standard).” Consider providing "safe" space for visually impaired
> 3000
> 3000
1.5
0.5 to 2
0.5 to 2
> 2
> 2
N/A
0
2.0 or more
> 3000
> 3000
N/A
> 3000
> 3000
0.5 to 2
> 2
0
> 3000
> 3000
Sidewalk Width
(m)
Boulevard Width
(m)
Motor Vehicle
Traffic Volume
(AADT / lane)
Presence of On-
street ParkingOperating Speed (km/h)
Segment PLOS
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
PLOS Methodology –
Intersections
14
Exhibit 1 – PETSI Evaluation Table
Exhibit 2 – Pedestrian Delay Evaluation Table
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
Leading ped interval? ("LPI") Points
Points No 0
-9 Yes 5
-8
-6
-5
-4 Crosswalk treatment ("Crosswalk") Points
Less than/equal to 3m -3 Standard transverse markings -7
0 Textured/coloured pavement -4
-3 Zebra stripe hi-vis markings -4
2 Raised crosswalk 0
Right turn channel with receiving lane
Right turn "smart channel"
5.3 Corner Radius
5.4 Crosswalk Treatment
Greater than 25m
> 15m to 25m
> 10m to 15m
> 5m to 10m
> 3m to 5m
No right turn
5.1 Crossing Distance & Conditions
Total travel
lanes crossedNo median
With Median
(>2.4m)
Corner radius
Points threshold LOS
≥ 90 A
≥75 B
≥60 C
≥45 D
≥30 E
<30 F
Pedestrian Exposure to Traffic LOS
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
Average Pedestrian Crossing Delay Component
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
PLOS Methodology - Segments
15
• 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
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
PLOS Methodology - Signals
16
• ≤4 lanes to be crossed
assuming no major
penalties
• 4-6 lanes to be
crossed assuming no
major penalties
• 6 to 10+ lanes to be
crossed depending on
penalties
• <10s per intersection
leg
• >20 to 30s
• >60s
Segments Delay
Penalties: large corner radii,
unfavourable signal phasing, etc.
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
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
BIC
YC
LE
LE
VE
L O
F S
ER
VIC
E
17
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
BLOS Data Requirements
18
SEGMENTS SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Mixed Traffic (No cycling facility)
» 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
» 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
Pocket bike lanes
» 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)
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
BLOS Methodology – Segments
19
• 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)
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
BLOS Methodology – Signals
20
• 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
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
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
TR
UC
K L
EV
EL
OF
SE
RV
ICE
21
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
TkLOS Data Requirements
22
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
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
TkLOS Methodology
23
• 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
• Effective radius >15m
with more than one
receiving lane
• Effective radius >15m
with one receiving lane
• Effective radius <10m
with one receiving lane
Segments Signalized Intersections
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
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
TR
AN
SIT
LE
VE
L O
F S
ER
VIC
E
24
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
TLOS Data Requirements
25
SEGMENTS SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
» Level/exposure to congestion
delay, friction, and incidents
(qualitative assessment)
» Average transit travel speed
» Posted speed limit
» Number of driveways along
corridor and approximate crossing
volume
» Average Signal Delay
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
TLOS Methodology - Segments
26
Congestion FrictionIncident
Potential
No No No N/A A
No/limited parking/driveway friction No Low Low Cf ≤ 60 B
Frequent parking/driveway friction No Medium Medium Cf > 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
Notes:
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
Bus lane
Mixed Traffic
Segregated ROW
Quantitative
MeasurementLOS
Level/exposure to congestion delay,
friction and incidentsFacility Type
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
TLOS Methodology
27
• Segregated ROW
• Bus lane with frequent
parking / driveway
friction (Cf> 60)
• Mixed traffic w/ high friction
• Ratio of average transit
travel speed to posted
speed limit < 0.4
• Grade separated
crossing (Delay = 0s)
• Mid-level TSP (Delay
≤ 20 sec)
• No TSP & long cycle
length (Delay >40s)
Segments Signalized Intersections
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
Auto LOS
Methodology remains
consistent with what is
currently provided in the TIA
AU
TO
LO
S
28
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
Targets & Tradeoffs
29
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
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
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
Targets
31
Official Plan Designation /
Land Use
Pedestrian Bicycle Transit Truck Automobile
PLOS BLOS TLOS TrLOS MVLOS
Central Area / Mixed Use
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.
General Rural Areas Low Low N.A. Medium Medium
1 Values represent minimum targets to be exceeded wherever possible without negatively impacting other modes. 2 Not Applicable (N.A.)
Complete Streets Forum 2015
Project Delivery Process and Tools October 1 2015
OTTAWA COMPLETE STREETS
IBI GROUP
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