NOTE: A SIGNED ORIGINAL…

NOTE: A SIGNED ORIGINAL LETTER HAS BEEN MAILED

www.thefreewheelers.com

Rita Dillon, PresidentNovember 26, 2016
Niagara Freewheelers Bicycle Touring Club
P.O. Box 23118, 145 Carlton Street
St. Catharines, Ontario
L2R 7P6

Arielle Mayer, Senior Policy Advisor
Ministry of Transportation, Policy and Planning Division
Transportation Planning Branch, Environmental Policy Office (Toronto)
777 Bay Street, Suite 3000
Toronto Ontario
M7A 2J8

Re:MTO Discussion Paper on Cycling Initiatives under the Climate Change Action Plan
EBR Registry Number 012-8772

Dear Ms. Mayer:

In response to the above EBR posting, please accept these comments from the Niagara Freewheelers Bicycle Touring Club.

We are an independent cycling club of nearly 300 members, offering our members and public guests over 400 scheduled rides each year, some of which are located outside of the Niagara region. Our successive Board of Directors and members have a wide range of cycling experience, built up since the Club’s inception in 1991 with expertise in areas such as safe cycling instruction and participation on municipal cycling advisory committees. We draw on this background and knowledge of cycling to help inform these suggestions for your consideration. Input has also been received from our affiliate safe cycling group Bike Niagara, Share the Road Cycling Coalition and individual members of the Niagara Region’s Active Transportation Sub-Committee.

The Freewheelers Bicycle Touring Club is very pleased that the Ministry has established a $150 to $225 million funding proposal from cap and trade proceeds as part of the Climate Change Action Plan to meet some of its commitments identified within #CycleON: Ontario’s Cycling Strategy. Specifically, these funds focus on municipal urban areas and residential communities that give support to cycling safety, network connections, barrier removal and commuter/utilitarian trips through local and provincial cycling infrastructure and bike parking.

Our comments are listed in response to the four specific question areas posed in the discussion paper for your consideration:

1.Plan to Improve Commuter Cycling Networks

1a. What infrastructure should be prioritized to make cycling in Ontario safer and more convenient to support commuter cycling between residential communities, major transit stations, employment areas and other destinations travelled to on a frequent basis?

Suggestions:
Broad Infrastructure Choice - We believe that the list of eligible infrastructure for funding support should be very broad and encompassing to allow for choice and flexibility because the final selection will depend on the needs and circumstances of site specific projects and conditions on the ground. A broad choice for cycling infrastructure will also allow a greater potential to achieve policy objectives like “complete streets” that allow access to all roadway modes and users of all ages and disabilities. Infrastructure choices available are listed in table 1 attached, which are primarily taken from Book 18, Ontario Traffic Manual, Dec. 2013, Cycling Facilities. Attached table 2 provides general infrastructure priority preferences based on traffic volumes and speeds and bike volumes and collisions.

Applicable to all Community Sizes - This program should offer funding support to communities of
all sizes. Every community should be allowed to participate and contribute to active living and the
reduction of green house gases through cycling.

Local Municipal Cycling Network – An important consideration to help ensure that funding support is provided to the most appropriate cycling infrastructure locations, would be to require a local cycling network to be identified prior to project funding approval. This would help ensure that infrastructure funds support priority projects with high value destinations and overall route connectivity. Supportive funding for the network planning study could be conditional upon the start of project implementation. E.g. 50% Provincial funding support, with 25% given initially and the other 25% when the first project starts construction. To help ensure implementation it will also be important to incorporate the local cycling network into municipal Official Plans.

Regulatory Measures – Although not considered infrastructure, additional regulatory measures would also make cycling more convenient and safer such as:
•examining the possibility of adopting all or parts of the Idaho Bicycle Law which states “at stop signs, the Idaho bicyclist may slow, yield, and roll; at red lights when intending to turn right they can slow, yield and roll, but they must stop, yield, and then roll to make a left turn or to proceed straight through the intersection
•consider lifting HTA cycling prohibitions on roadways where there is no other nearby route alternative
•mandatory bicycle helmet law extension to all ages
•extending the distracted motor vehicle legislations to cyclists (e.g. no cell phone use, ear buds or headphones while cycling)
•consider enhanced bike equipment regulation (e.g. brakes)
•enhanced enforcement for all roadway and trail users
•lower speed limits on cycling routes

1b. What evidence can demonstrate the impact of cycling infrastructure investments on the number of cyclists and on GHG emissions?

Suggestions:
Before and after information can provide useful evaluation data about a project’s impact such as:
I.Bike and motor vehicle counts before and after infrastructure placement on routes and at destinations.
II.Estimates of GHG reductions based on bike count increases and motor vehicle decreases.
III.Surveys to gauge potential and actual use of infrastructure. (e.g. Demand estimates for bike parking at major destinations)
IV.Bike Collison and fatality numbers would reflect the effectiveness of adding a bike facility.

Many research based studies also show the effectiveness of cycling infrastructure on increased cycling and reduced GHG emissions. A few examples are as follows:
•National Association of City Transportation Officials, July 20, 2016 – High Quality Bike Facilities Increase Ridership and Make Biking Safer
•Active Living Research, University of California, San Diego, May, 2013 - At the city level, bicycling infrastructure is strongly associated with overall levels of bicycling, especially with bicycling to work, school, or shopping
•Niagara Region, Making it Easier to Walk and Bike to School – Niagara’s results show a 5-10% shift in walking and cycling to school
•U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 20, 2016 - Leaving your car at home and biking to work just two days a week can reduce carbon pollution by an average of two tons per year
•European Cyclists’ Federation, Cycle More Often 2 Cool Down the Planet, November, 2011 - emissions from cycling are over 10 times lower than those stemming from the passenger car.

2.Local Cycling Infrastructure
2a. For local cycling networks, what types of cycling infrastructure would best support commuter cycling between residential communities, major transit stations, employment areas and other destinations travelled to on a frequent basis?
Suggestions:Same as the suggestions under 1a. above

3.Provincial Cycling Infrastructure
3a. What types of cycling infrastructure on provincial highways would best support commuter cycling between residential communities, major transit stations, employment areas and other destinations travelled to on a frequent basis?
Suggestions:Provincial Highways are characterized by having higher traffic volumes, more trucks
and higher speeds, although through smaller rural or northern towns many Provincial Highways act
as urban streets. Therefore, the choice of infrastructure types would depend on the needs and
circumstances on the ground. Choices available should include an examination of the same list as
for local municipal roads given in Suggestions 2a and 1a.

Niagara Region has concerns with cycling routes on local roads that cross numerous Provincial
Expressway interchanges (e.g. QEW, 406, 405, 420). The on and off-ramps present challenging
safety concerns that need to be addressed with support for proper infrastructure treatments.

4.Bicycle Parking
4a. What types of bike parking facilities (e.g., bike racks, lockers, fee-based enclosures) are needed to support cycling for commuting and other frequent trips?
Suggestions:
Primary ingredients for good bike parking include safety, security and weather protection, and the time exposure to possible bike harm or theft. High demand areas with long exposure times would need bike parking within safe and secure enclosures or bike lockers while short exposure time locations may need only outdoor bike racks. For specific bike parking design, all bike racks should provide two points of contact with the bike frame to allow secure placement, reducing the risk of pivoting and falling and allowing two points to lock the bike to the rack. The type of bike parking facility provided is also dependant on specific site conditions such as land use, urban densities, and needs and could include the following:
I.Fee-based enclosures
II.Non-fee-based enclosures
III.Lockers
IV.Bike racks with overhead weather shelters
V.Stand alone bike racks
VI.Bike Corals
VII.Lockers and showers at appropriate destinations such as work places
VIII.Bike repair station components

4b. What types of government-owned, publicly accessible facilities should have bike parking?
4c. What types of transit or transportation stations should have bike parking to support improved cyclist access (e.g., GO Stations, LRT stations, bus terminals)?
4d. What types of private facilities could potentially be eligible to receive provincial funding for bicycle parking facilities?

Suggestions:
Bicycle Parking Zoning Provision - The encouragement and adoption of a Bicycle Parking Zoning Provision as noted below by municipalities would go a long way towards implementing safe and secure bike parking in Ontario and providing suggestions for questions 4b, 4c and 4d.
Any types of land use that require access could potentially need some form of bike parking as identified in the document provided by this link to the Proposed Model Bicycle Parking Zoning Provisions for Niagara, Sept. 12, 2013. Guidelines are provided for short term and long term bicycle parking space requirements for numerous types of land uses and facilities, including recreation and could apply to tourism destinations which would compliment the links being developed as part of the Province-wide Cycling Network.

For question 4c regarding bike parking at transit stations, it will be important to include local train and bus stations in small and medium sized communities as well as rural regions to recognize the need for cycling infrastructure in these areas as well as at transit stations that serve larger municipalities.

Under 4d, we would like to emphasize the increasing demand for bike parking at higher density private facilities such as apartments and condominiums.

Pedestrian Complementarity
In many cases increasing cycling facilities also compliments walking and therefore supports this primary mode of mobility in our quest to reduce green house gases. Examples of this complementarity include:
•Multi-use off-road paths for use by cyclists and pedestrians
•Bicycle parking regulations and requirements that bring order to bike parking spaces that could otherwise cause barriers to pedestrians on sidewalks
•Paved shoulders on rural highways and roads, especially at interchanges that offer a safer, more comfortable surface and space for pedestrians, where there are no sidewalks
•Generally providing a safer bike/pedestrian environment through the reduction of motor vehicle trips.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important funding proposal to support bicycling. Please feel free to contact us for any questions or points of clarification.
Yours sincerely,

Rita Dillon, President
Niagara Freewheeler Bicycle Touring Club

Cc – by E-mail
Niagara Freewheelers Bicycle Touring Club Board
Councillor Tony Quirk, Chairman, Niagara Region Active Transportation Sub-Committee
Jackie Gervais, Active Transportation List Serve, Niagara Region Public Health
Jamie Stuckless, Executive Director, Share the Road Cycling Coalition
David Hunt, Bike Niagara

Table 1 - Bicycle Infrastructure Types
Primarily from Book 18, Ontario Traffic Manual, Cycling Facilities, Dec. 2013

Separate Space for Cyclists on Roadway ROW
I.cycle tracks
II.bike lanes
III.paved shoulders
IV.contra-flow bike lanes
V.in-boulevard bikeway

Shared Roadway Measures
VI.treatments for interchanges, ramp crossings & grade separations
VII.wide curb lanes
VIII.bicycle priority or local bicycle streets – traffic calming measures such as traffic diverters, median barriers, curb extensions, roundabouts, road closures and parking removal

Multi-use Infrastructure
IX.grade separated underpass or overpass e.g. multi-use pedestrian/cycling bridges or tunnels across barriers (e.g. highways, canals, railroads)
X.off-road multiuse paths

Pavement Markings and Signage
XI.sharrows
XII.route signage (indicating distance, direction, destination)
XIII.safety/service signage (shared use, hospital, food & accommodation, barrier warnings, trail dog leach signs and km markings for EMS locators)
XIV.coloured conflict zone markings

Intersections
XV.bike priority signals – dedicated bike signal, activated signal, timing adjustment
XVI.bike boxes and advance stop lines
XVII.protected intersections
XVIII.launch pad/two stage left turn
XIX.median refuge

Retrofit and Design Upgrades
XX.surface treatment - soft gravel shoulder or path to pavement or stone dust
XXI.off-road barrier or bollard upgrades (eliminating, standardizing, enhanced visibility)

Maintenance of Existing Facilities
XXII.sweeping schedule to remove debris, gravel, etc.
XXIII.surface repairs for frost heaves, pavement breakdown, erosion, etc.

Table 1 Continued

Project Demand and Evaluation Equipment
XXIV.trip counters

Bike Share Stations
XXV.bicycles and parking stations for bike share programs

Trip End Facilities
XXVI.secure bike parking – for short and long term parking needs
XXVII.bike repair station components
XXVIII.lockers and showers at appropriate destinations such as work places

Other Bike Supportive Infrastructure and Measures
XXIX.railway track crossing treatment
XXX.drainage grates that are bike friendly
XXXI.other innovative infrastructure types and supportive measures that may be identified by best practices and perhaps funded as pilot projects

Table 2 – Bicycle Infrastructure Preferences and Rationale
Infrastructure Types Traffic Speeds & Volumes and/or Bike Collisions and Volumes
High Medium Low
Separate Space on
Roadway ROW
cycle tracksx
bike lanesxx
paved shoulders xx
contra-flow bike lanes x
in-boulevard bikewayxx

Shared Roadway
Measures
interchanges, ramp crossings, grade separationsxx
wide curb lanes xx
bicycle priority or local bicycle streetsxx

Multi-use Infrastructure
grade separated cycling bridge or tunnelxx
off-road pathsxx

Pavement Markings and Signage
sharrows x
route signage xxx
safety/service signagexxx
coloured conflict zone markingsxx

Intersections
bike priority signalsxx
bike boxes and advance stop lines xx
protected intersectionsxx
launch pad/two stage left turn xx
median refugexx

Retrofit and Design Upgrades
surface Treatmentxxx
path barrier/bollards xxx

Maintenance
sweepingxxx
surface repairs

Demand/Evaluation Equipment
trip counters xx

Bike Share Stationsxx

Trip End Facilities
secure bike parking xx
bike repair tools xx
lockers and showersx

Other Infrastructure & Measures
railway track crossingsxx
drainage gratesxxx
best practise pilot projectssite specificsite specificsite specific

[Original Comment ID: 201190]