General Comments on Funding…

General Comments on Funding
_________________________

The City of Ottawa does not have a backlog of ‘shovel ready’ cycling projects waiting on the shelf for funding. The development of approved functional and detailed plans along with tender documents often takes two years, and then construction another year after tendering. The CCAP funding program should therefore allow time for each step to be completed – otherwise projects will be selected for simplicity rather than effectiveness.

The City of Ottawa has raised debt financing for the recent PTIF (Federal Public Transit Infrastructure Fund) for its 50% of the matching project funding. There is limited capacity to add more debt for CCAP projects, and so the City portion of any matching funding should be minimized.

The City of Ottawa uses Tax revenues to cover 51% of cycling projects identified within the 2013 Ottawa Cycling Plan, with the balance funded through Development Charges (DC funding). New projects identified under CCAP are unlikely to be covered by DC funding, either because they have not been included in the existing DC bylaws negotiated with the development community, or because the DC funding revenues collected have been exhausted. Therefore, the City portion of any matching funding should be minimized, since it is unlikely that the City would be able to leverage DC funding for its portion.

_Plan to Improve Commuter Cycling Networks

* Facility type: focus should be on ‘low stress’ cycling facilities, including protection and separation from vehicular traffic where necessary- especially at intersections.

* Multi-Modal: improving cycling links to transit, to enable ‘bike-ride-walk’ trips should be a priority. Necessary infrastructure improvements include secure bike parking at stations- but should also consider improved multi-modal trip planning, promotion, common use of transit cards etc. “Bike-ride-bike” is also an option via Rack & Roll, which promotes multi-modal transportation, and also feeds into the demand for bike parking at final destinations.

* Government Employment Nodes: Provincial and Municipal governments (along with colleges and universities) have major concentrated employment nodes within municipalities. They present an excellent opportunity to both improve linkages to these nodes (a municipal priority) , as well as improvements within the facility/campus related to cycling movements, secure parking as well as promotion (responsibility of the employer, college or university).

* Cross-Town Cycling Routes: Routes where cycling traffic levels is expected to be over 500 trips/day, and can be as high as 3,000 trips/day. These routes are direct, and follow urban desire lines for all kinds of trip purposes. The priorities are to remove missing links and locations of high stress/traffic conflicts. Investments in bike/pedestrian only crossings of natural or man-made barriers would be a key tool.

_What evidence can demonstrate the impact of cycling infrastructure investments on the number of cyclists and on GHG emissions?

Per corridor increases in cycling rates after improvements can be a useful measure, especially if complemented with screen-line counts capturing behaviour along potential alternate routes. Changes in travel habits often require 2-3 years to manifest after cycling improvements are made. Corridor cycling counts should be made over a minimum of 2-3 workdays, with full-season automated counts being the most reliable.

GHG emission reductions may be estimated by shifts in modal share towards active transportation, as determined by Stats Canada House-hold Survey data. This is normally done as a straight per-km substitution with other modes. This survey data is collected every 5 years, and due to survey resolution- it has limited ability to target localized improvements.

Methods of estimating GHG reductions through mode-shift substitution however likely miss the most significant impacts related to Cycling – namely structural shifts in transportation choices that extend both over an entire year, and also impact choices for length of trips beyond work. For example, if a sufficiently attractive basket of options is presented to a commuter consisting of both cycling and transit (transit may be considered for winter trips or inclement weather), such a resident may forgo the purchase of a first or second vehicle – or may forgo the purchase of an annual parking pass at their place of employment. These key ‘structural’ decisions have a strong impact on travel choices all year, for all seasons, and lead to GHG reductions that may exceed those related to simple trip modal substitution to work. If residents come to rely on cycling (in habit and practice) as their primary mode of transportation, they are far more likely to shop or use services that are nearby and easily reached by bicycle. They may also choose to manage chained trips (such as child drop-off) by bicycle. In this way, the choice of cycling may greatly reduce km’s traveled (and GHG’s) in relation to the same or similar services obtained when using a vehicle.

The Province may wish to pursue this complex issue through a research contract and find an appropriate method of GHG reduction estimation which can be used province wide, and hopefully would encompass some of the factors mentioned above. One option would be to develop a cycling model within the provincial transportation modelling framework. Such models are still quite new, but offer the potential to explore how people make travel choices in response to infrastructure projects (including GHG impacts). The City of Ottawa has a cycling model within its regional transportation model which in theory could be used for such analysis, but it requires additional validation and refinement before it can be used in practice. While this model may eventually be able to provide insight into the impact of cycling infrastructure investments, it does not account for the “structural” shifts noted above (and therefore may tend to under-estimate the benefits).

_Local Cycling Infrastructure

Increasing the number of residents who can directly access LRT/BRT stations is an important objective of Transit Oriented Development polices, which broadly aim to increase employment and residential density within walking range of transit stops and stations. Density changes can however take many years to achieve, thus the shift in land use patterns can be slow. A much quicker way to increase the number of residents which can directly access a LRT/BRT station is to expand the effective catchment area by adding an attractive cycling option. The catchment area covered by a transit user on bike is approximately 10x the area that would be accessible on foot. Cycling station access routes must however be high quality, low stress – and ideally accompanied by secure bike parking co-located with stations.

Local low-stress cycling links from residential areas to major high order transit stations along with adequate secure parking at stations should therefore be prioritized for funding. An illustrative example within Ottawa would be the pairing of a residential area to the north of Innes road and bike access to Cyrville station. Currently, a 500m missing cycling link separates this residential area from being connected to the LRT Station by a comfortable 15 minute bike ride.

Major employment areas (or ‘nodes’) are well connected to the rest of the city by major Arterial roadways- which often including urban highway crossings. To encourage cycling commuting to these employment nodes, cycling facilities must be provided along arterials which are protected and separated in nature. Opportunities may also exist to bypass major arterial routes and establish bike friendly routes that take advantage of new bike/pedestrian crossings of natural or man-made barriers. The Province is encouraged to incorporate improved urban highway crossings as a policy requirement when building or upgrading MTO owned overpasses. CCAP funding may be considered to cover the incremental change in cost of these structures.

While the intent of the CCAP is to fund and construct new cycling facilities, the effectiveness of such investment may often be limited by current Provincial technical standards and design guidelines, which in many cases do not represent best practices already in wide use in leading global cycling cities. It is therefore recommended that a part of the CCAP cycling fund be invested in piloting and evaluating advanced cycling faculties which can inform the on-going OTC/AT Book18/Book12 update process. Such explicit support will greatly increase the effectiveness and cost efficacy of future facilities designed to such improved standards, even within the short-term (i.e. within 5-10yrs).

_Provincial Cycling Infrastructure

Overpasses in urban areas crossing urban highways should be upgraded on re-habilitation or re-building to include protected crossings, and safer low-stress crossings at ramps. The key principle is to shift the location of the vehicular crash barrier to separate vehicles from bicycles and pedestrians.

The MTO should allow use of their rights of way along highways or near interchanges for cycling links that may not otherwise be feasible. In some cases, temporary use may allow for an improved cycling connection to be realized in the vicinity of an urban highway interchange, until major arterials (which cross urban highways) are upgraded to incorporate bike tracks.

The MTO should consider investing in new bike/pedestrian crossings located between urban highway overpasses, in cases where it is not practical to make overpasses suitable and comfortable for crossings.

_Bicycle Parking

City zoning bylaws should differentiate and require two kinds of parking for newly built mixed-use buildings; both convenient short-term bike parking (for visitors/clients) and more secure long-term bike parking (for employees or condo or rental unit residents).

Subscription fee based models are an effective way to establish commuting patterns since they provide a reliable end-point for commuter cyclist to leave their bike, allow them to also securely leave related equipment (helmets/rain gear) and make the transition to a normal transit commuter.

In the future, eBikes will become more popular, but they face higher theft risks (given their value) if left in unsecured daytime parking.

City core areas often lack bicycle parking, since office buildings designed before 2005 often lack explicitly defined storage space for bicycles and do not have safe access ramps to underground parking areas. The Province may consider supporting ‘cycling amenity centers’ within these core employment areas. These centers are often run as public-private-volunteer partnerships and besides bike parking may include other complementary services that support a bike commuting eco-system such as bike repair, showers, coffee-shops or cleaners.

Major transit stations (especially near park and rides) would benefit from secure bike lockers that can be rented for longer periods (i.e. 3 months). Secure bike parking at park and ride locations can free up car parking spots at a much lower capital cost and footprint.

_What types of government-owned, publicly accessible facilities should have bike parking?

Schools (Elementary, Secondary, Colleges and Universities), Community Centres, Libraries, Clinics, Hospitals.

Major Provincial and Municipal employment centres should act as leaders in terms or providing secure parking for staff. The City of Ottawa for example, is the fourth largest employer in the municipality. As part of the 2011 Federal Stimulus package, funding was made available to add a secure bike locker for staff at City Hall. This bike parking facility is now routinely full, and a second site needs to be established. Other major city locations to not offer secure bike parking for employees.

_What types of transit or transportation stations should have bike parking to support improved cyclist access

o Major transit stations: LRT/BRT which are located in residential areas, or near park and rides- should include:
-Public bike parking; and
-Long-term rented secure parking; bike lockers would be preferred.
o Other busy transit stops should include public bike parking, preferably covered, and well lit.
o VIA rail and bus stations (privately owned) would also be targets for secure parking- on a pay-by use basis (vs. longer term rental for LRT/BRT stations).

_What types of private facilities could potentially be eligible to receive provincial funding for bicycle parking facilities?

Many retail malls were constructed without adequate bike parking; this includes malls where there are large retail chains. A cost-sharing fund could be provided with private mall owners, including support from major retail chains to implement for upgrades to bike parking, including improved bike visibility for cyclists passing through retail parking lots.

[Original Comment ID: 202858]