Dear Ms. Mayer, …

Dear Ms. Mayer,

B!KE: The Peterborough Community Bike Shop is pleased to be able to provide comment on the MTO’s proposed cycling infrastructure funding plan. B!KE is a local leader in cycling education and advocacy. Peterborough is a small municipality, with a large surrounding rural area and B!KE is able to speak to the importance of cycling infrastructure and education in this context. Through our programming, B!KE works with thousands of adults each year teaching bicycle maintenance and repair as well as teaching hundreds of fifth grade students how to ride a bicycle for transportation. It is our belief that B!KE is well positioned to understand the needs of commuter cyclists and we appreciate this opportunity to speak to those needs in terms of infrastructure.

Overall

B!KE would like to commend the MTO on an approach to cycling that clearly focuses on commuter cycling and the importance of increasing the number of people who choose to make daily trips by bicycle. Building low-stress infrastructure, such as grade or physically separated cycling lanes, is an essential strategy for ensuring reluctant riders feel safe while choosing to transition from travel by car to travel by bike. It is our understanding that while the bulk of GHG emissions reduction potential does exist within urban areas CO2 consumption per capita is higher in rural areas. As such, it is our strong belief that that diverting trips under 5km to from car to bicycle is equally important in the rural context. We hope that as the funding strategy is developed, consideration is given to projects in way that recognizes these differences and that some funding is specifically allocated for rural projects and projects in smaller municipalities while the majority of funds are allocated for high impact urban projects.

B!KE believes that funding for construction of cycling facilities on provincial highways will play an important role in increasing connectivity across the province. We are concerned however that describing these facilities “necessary for consideration wherever feasible” does not necessarily commit to the build-out of a provincial cycling network; particularly as financial feasibility is commonly cited as the primary case against rural cycling infrastructure. It is our hope that the MTO develop a provincial cycling network that is obligatory for completion within a given timeline as a core aspect of enacting the MTO mandate on cycling.

The current proposal for up to $225 invested in infrastructure ought to be fully allocated to cycling infrastructure funding. This amount is only a fraction of that spent on other modes of transportation, if cycling is to see an increased mode share a serious investment must be made by the MTO. As an educational organization, it is part of our mandate to remind the MTO that infrastructure alone will not result in widespread mode share for bicycles. The MTO has a mandate to provide road users with education. Additional funding for cycling education program to be delivered in 2017 ought to be allocated by the MTO. In 2016 Peterborough installed a variety of new cycling facilities, all of which have been met with questions from drivers and cyclists alike. Teaching the public about new infrastructure and its correct use is an essential part of increasing cycling rates. Funding for the education of children is a key way to shift mode share in the long term. Please allocate the full $225 Million for cycling infrastructure and provide further funding for cycling education programs.

Plan to Improve Commuter Cycling Networks

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?

B!KE’s position on the prioritization of cycling infrastructure is as follows:
•We support MTO identified projects such as grade separated bike lines, bike parking, cycling signals and signage.
•Additionally we advocate for the inclusion of the following types of projects: those that increase connectivity; protected intersections, physical barrier protections for cyclists, and the low-stress cycling facilities that are not grade separated.
•Finally, we hope that evaluation criteria will be contextually appropriate, for example in rural communities, paved shoulders with bollards may be significantly more appropriate than grade separation.

What evidence can demonstrate the impact of cycling infrastructure investments on the number of cyclists and on GHG emissions?
•Requirement of cyclist counters as a part of projects will create an effective data set with which to measure of short and long-term impacts.

Local Cycling Infrastructure
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?
•Painted bike lanes are an important and cost effective means of creating cycling infrastructure, and in some cases may be key for creating connectivity, however they ought to be excluded from this fund. Designing and painting bike lanes is more cost effective and understood than ever before but these facilities are not enough to incentivize ridership. This fund ought to be dedicated to projects of greater impact and innovation.
•Conversely, paved shoulders in rural areas are in many cases a very in-demand form of cycling infrastructure that is proven to improve safety of riders. Rural projects that include paved shoulders on provincial highways or along a locally identified cycling network ought to be included in this fund.
•Other types of local infrastructure that will best support commuter cycling include: cycling lanes separated by a curb or other physical barrier, raised cycle tracks, off-road multi-use paths, bicycle specific signs and signals, and protected intersections.
•Funded projects ought to include a plan for data collection.

Provincial Cycling Infrastructure
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?

•The identification of a provincial cycling network will play a key role in fostering a connected, structured, and supported approach to infrastructure building.
•Provincial highways would benefit from a minimum of painted lanes in low-stress environments and paved shoulders whenever possible.
•Active transportation bridges ought to be specifically funded particularly where connectivity and collision reduction are major factors (e.g. river or highway crossings).
•Cycling signage and signals along local and provincial cycling routes would strongly support new and reluctant commuters though normalization, visibility, and confidence building in cycling as a viable mode of transportation.
•Additional provincial infrastructure could include fully separated facilities including: off-road multi use paths and curb separated facilities.
•Rural projects ought to have a separate set of evaluation criteria and potentially a specifically allocated funding amount with the prioritization of cycling infrastructure that connects or crosses local or provincial cycling networks.

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

Transit and cycling can be highly synergistic when bicycle parking and/or transportation options are safe, secure, and reliable. Funding for projects that enhance connection across modes ought to be included within this fund. Types of facilities that ought to be considered for inclusion include:
•Secure, covered parking: lockers, enclosures, or other monitored indoor options.
•Schools and hospitals ought to have secure bicycle parking as well as other public service offices.
•Low-income or mixed rate housing, particularly in proximity to established cycling faculties ought to be eligible for some infrastructure funding relating to secure bike storage.
•Bicycle racks or spaces on transit vehicles also ought to be considered for inclusion.

Bicycle Education
As an education and advocacy organization B!KE feels it is essential to re-iterate our belief that bicycle education, in schools, for the public, and for drivers ought to be mandated and funded by the MTO. Ontario road users deserve a high standard of education around how to safely and comfortably use and share our infrastructure. Funding for bicycle education by third parties plays an essential role in making sure that road users are safe, and also that they feel confident and comfortable using their bike to commute. Infrastructure alone is not enough; please provide further funding for bicycle training and education.

Support of Share The Road Propositions
Finally, B!KE would like to iterate our support for several of the propositions made by Share the Road in their submission to the MTO. Key concepts not already identified above include:
•A specific division of funding between municipal and provincial commuter cycling projects.
•Consideration of different evaluation criteria based on geography and/or population.
•Launch of CCAP be accompanied by CycleON Action Plan 2.0

Conclusion
Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding this submission or if opportunities for further consultation arise. You can reach me at 705-931-4744 or director@communitybikeshop.org.

Sincerely,

Tegan Moss
Executive Director, B!KE

[Original Comment ID: 203028]