100 Commerce Valley Drive West Thornhill, ON Canada L3T 0A1 T: +1 905 882-1100 F: +1 905 882-0055 wsp.com MEMO TO: Peter Kavcic, Andrew Giesen & Doug MacRae, City of London FROM: Dave McLaughlin, James Schofield & Stephen Tam, WSP SUBJECT: Corridor Selection and Evaluation for an East-West Separated Bikeway DATE: January 17, 2019 OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY The East-West Separated Bikeway study comprised two phases. In the first phase, the five study corridors shown in Appendix A: London Separated Bikeway Evaluation and Feasibility Study Corridors were evaluated to identify a preferred corridor for further feasibility study. In the second phase, a preliminary concept design for the preferred corridor was developed. During the first phase of the study, WSP engaged with the London Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project team, the consultant and City team responsible for the Old East Village (OEV) Dundas Street Corridor Secondary Plan, and with members of the public at the Old East Village Dundas Street Corridor Secondary Plan public meeting on June 27, 2018. At the public meeting, feedback from the public, stakeholders and City staff overwhelmingly indicated that York and Dufferin were not preferred for an east-west separated bikeway. This and other feedback received was incorporated in applying 11 study corridor evaluation criteria. WSP then undertook a series of field investigations and documented observations. Further discussions with City Staff (who consulted with the OEV Business Improvement Area) and the OEV Study Team refined the scoring methodology and process. Through this evaluation process, the York, Dufferin, and King & Queens Couplet corridors were screened out. Subsequent discussions with City staff and with the OEV Study Team yielded a new Hybrid option, which featured: — eastbound and westbound unidirectional separated bike lanes on Dundas Street between Wellington Street and William Street; — a southbound separated bike lane on William Street between Queens Avenue and Dundas .....Street — an eastbound separated bike lane on Dundas Street between William Street and Ontario Street; and — a westbound separated bike lane on Queens Avenue between William Street and Quebec .....Street.
Transcript
100 Commerce Valley Drive West
Thornhill, ON
Canada L3T 0A1
T: +1 905 882-1100
F: +1 905 882-0055
wsp.com
MEMO
TO: Peter Kavcic, Andrew Giesen & Doug MacRae, City of London
FROM: Dave McLaughlin, James Schofield & Stephen Tam, WSP
SUBJECT: Corridor Selection and Evaluation for an East-West Separated Bikeway
DATE: January 17, 2019
OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY
The East-West Separated Bikeway study comprised two phases. In the first phase, the five study
corridors shown in Appendix A: London Separated Bikeway Evaluation and Feasibility Study
Corridors were evaluated to identify a preferred corridor for further feasibility study. In the
second phase, a preliminary concept design for the preferred corridor was developed.
During the first phase of the study, WSP engaged with the London Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
project team, the consultant and City team responsible for the Old East Village (OEV) Dundas
Street Corridor Secondary Plan, and with members of the public at the Old East Village Dundas
Street Corridor Secondary Plan public meeting on June 27, 2018.
At the public meeting, feedback from the public, stakeholders and City staff overwhelmingly
indicated that York and Dufferin were not preferred for an east-west separated bikeway. This and
other feedback received was incorporated in applying 11 study corridor evaluation criteria. WSP
then undertook a series of field investigations and documented observations. Further discussions
with City Staff (who consulted with the OEV Business Improvement Area) and the OEV Study
Team refined the scoring methodology and process. Through this evaluation process, the York,
Dufferin, and King & Queens Couplet corridors were screened out.
Subsequent discussions with City staff and with the OEV Study Team yielded a new Hybrid
option, which featured:
— eastbound and westbound unidirectional separated bike lanes on Dundas Street between
Wellington Street and William Street;
— a southbound separated bike lane on William Street between Queens Avenue and Dundas
.....Street
— an eastbound separated bike lane on Dundas Street between William Street and Ontario
Street; and
— a westbound separated bike lane on Queens Avenue between William Street and Quebec
.....Street.
Page 2
The Hybrid option emerged as one of the top two options, the other being the continuation of
eastbound and westbound unidirectional separated bike lanes on Dundas Street through the OEV.
The Hybrid option scored the highest as it balanced priorities throughout the OEV within a
constrained right-of-way. This option includes a separated cycling facilities close to destinations,
wide sidewalks, opportunities for patios, merchandising displays, and on-street parking on one
side of the street. The Hybrid was selected for the development of a conceptual design, which was
presented to the public at a second public meeting on November 1, 2018.
At the second public meeting, some members of the public expressed a preference for facilities in
both directions on Dundas Street as well as cycling facilities on King and Queens throughout the
OEV. In addition, further consultation with the Cycling Advisory Committee resulted in an alter-
native two-way proposal with a bidirectional facility on the south side of the street through the
OEV. We have incorporated feedback received at this meeting to refine the original Dundas Street
two-way corridor design, and have considered the bidirectional facility in our final evaluation.
Through the study, WSP ultimately considered the following corridors:
1. Dundas Street Unidirectional (one-way facility on both sides of the street, including
through the OEV)
2. Dundas Street OEV Bidirectional (two-way facility on the south side of the street through
the OEV; one way on both sides through the rest of Dundas)
3. Dundas & Queens OEV Hybrid (eastbound on Dundas Street and westbound on Queens
Avenue through the OEV)
4. King & Queens Couplet
5. Dufferin Street until Adelaide Street, then Lorne Avenue
6. York Street
This memo outlines the process and methodology used to evaluate and rank the corridors, and
identifies key insights that were revealed during the evaluation.
EVALUATION PROCESS
The intent of the evaluation process was to identify a preferred corridor that would function as a
continuous east-west spine route and provide continuous spatial and physical separation.
SCORING CRITERIA
The criteria developed and used in the evaluation process were informed by route selection and
evaluation criteria from Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 18: Cycling Facilities, City of
London Cycling Master Plan, as well as evaluation criteria used in the previous London Queens
and Colborne feasibility study. The criteria were presented to City staff who provided feedback
that resulted in modifications to draft criteria which was then incorporated into the “Proposed
Study Evaluation Criteria” board presented at the June 27, 2018 OEV Community Information
Page 3
Meeting. Following the public meeting, the criteria were further refined based on public and
stakeholder input and include the changes listed below:
• Conflict Mitigation includes considerations for pedestrians;
• Feasibility has been renamed Constructability to provide some differentiation between
the Cost criteria;
• Clarification was added to Cost to ensure that it clearly communicated a high-level cost
assessment;
• Tree Impacts has been revised to Streetscaping & Public Realm to address potential
boulevard uses for the public and to stress the importance of integrating urban design into
bicycle planning and design; and
• Retail Economic Impact was added as a new scoring criteria. This criteria acknowledges
that cycling infrastructure has a major effect on local businesses due to potential changes
in pedestrian, cyclist, transit and vehicle travel patterns.
Throughout the evaluation, we adopted a climate change based lens when assessing a corridor
against any given criteria. Climate change and resilience have become central themes in urban and
transportation planning that should be considered throughout a project’s life-cycle from planning to
operations & maintenance. The objective of the project is to improve accessibility to and from the
core of the City and to various built up areas. Increased cycling ridership provides benefits in
terms of climate change mitigation and improved physical and social health. It is also recognized
that climate change mitigation benefits may also be attributed to minimizing construction impacts,
mitigating tree impacts, or providing for future planting zones or other green infrastructure. The
following 11 criteria were applied in the evaluation process:
1. Conflict Mitigation: Minimize conflicts between motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.
2. Constructability: Assess the suitability of a roadway/corridor and the level of effort to
implement a separated bikeway.
3. Parking: Impact to on-street parking supply.
4. Transit Operations: Impact and compatibility with local transit and the future BRT.
5. Traffic Operations: Impact to roadway capacity and intersection operations.
6. Streetscaping & Public Realm: Potential impacts to the public space within the boulevard
that would affect urban design, streetscaping and the public realm (e.g. implementation of
patios and street furniture).
7. Connectivity & Directness: Potential to connect to existing and proposed cycling routes
in the Cycling Master Plan and Transportation Master Plan.
8. Destination Access: Connect to significant destinations or attractions.
9. Cost: Anticipated cost to construct a separated bikeway on a corridor. This is a high-level
costing assessment based on the level of effort required.
10. Social Health & Equity: Provides a fair and accessible environment to users.
Page 4
11. Retail Economic Impact: Recognizing the importance of providing customer access by all
modes of travel, this criteria assesses the overall impacts to walking, cycling, and parking
access.
SCORING METHODOLOGY
Each corridor was evaluated against the 11 different criteria and was given a score from 1 to 4 for
each criterion. A score of 1 indicates least desirable conditions for the criteria in question, while 4
indicates most desirable conditions. Desirability refers to maximizing the benefit of the separated
bikeway while reducing the overall impacts on the local neighbourhood and the City. The
maximum score that a corridor could receive is 44 points (4 points × 11 criteria).
During discussions with City staff, it was decided that criteria should not be weighted, as each
stakeholder will have different opinions regarding the relative importance of the criteria. During
WSP’s evaluation process, several criteria were identified as being essential in meeting the goals
and objectives of the study. These criteria were Conflict Mitigation, Connectivity & Directness,
Destination Access, On-Street Parking, Social Health & Equity and Retail Economic Impact.
These criteria are highlighted in green in the Corridor Selection and Evaluation Matrix. If any
given corridor scores poorly on these categories, it would be difficult to justify it as a preferred
east-west spine. For example, if a corridor receives a high total score, but presents major impacts
in terms of Conflict Mitigation, it may not be an ideal spine route. The highlighted criteria were
not weighted differently but applied as a consideration to look beyond the total score of each
route.
The Corridor Selection and Evaluation Matrix is presented in the following pages. The first sheet
is a summary table that uses “pie charts” to graphically show the scores associated with each
corridor. The second sheet has commentary that documents the observations and analysis that
were used throughout the decision making process and in scoring each criteria. This sheet is
intended for internal use only.
TYPICAL CROSS-SECTIONS
Typical cross-sections were developed to inform the scoring process. The cross-sections were
developed using the same section of road along each of the candidate corridors. Curb-to-curb road
widths were determined using the City’s ortho and road CAD data (with the exception of King St,
which uses dimensions from the BRT Plan), and field investigations. A location at each corridor
east of Maitland Street was chosen as a representative area to develop cross-sections. This area has
a mix of existing cross-sections with parking, bike lanes and through lanes that resulted in various
solutions to accommodate a separated bikeway.
A separate set of cross-sections were created to aid in the evaluation of the OEV Hybrid and
Dundas Two-way Bidirectional concepts. The OEV Hybrid shows an eastbound unidirectional
facility on Dundas and a westbound unidirectional facility on Queens. The two-way bidirectional
cross-section was adapted from a proposal provided by London Cycle Link and modified to fit
within a typical 20 metre right-of-way. The block between Adelaide Street and Elizabeth Street
was chosen for these cross-sections due to the constrained nature of Dundas with the parking
laybys. Cross-sections for the OEV Hybrid and Dundas (both the two-way unidirectional and
bidirectional options) were drawn to provide a visual comparison during the evaluation process.
1 2 3 4
This evaluation table is meant to be for internal use and only for discussion with City Staff.
INTERNAL CORRIDOR SELECTION AND EVALUATION MATRIX
Conflict Mitigation Constructability Parking Transit Operations Traffic Operations Streetscaping & Public Realm Connectivity & Directness Destination Access Cost Social Health & Equity Retail Economic Impact
Minimize conflicts between motorists, cyclists and pedestrians
Assess the suitability of a roadway/corridor and the level of effort to implement a separated bikeway
Impact to on-street parking supply Impact and compatibility with local transit and the future BRT project
Impact to roadway capacity and intersection operations
Potential impacts to the public space within the boulevard that would affect urban design, streetscaping and the public realm (i.e. implementation of patios and street furniture)
Potential to connect to existing and proposed cycling network routes identified in the Cycling Master Plan and Transportation Master Plan
Connect to significant destinations or attractions
Anticipated cost to construct a separated bikeway on a corridor. This is a high-level costing assessment based on the level of effort required.
Provides a fair and accessible environment for users
Recognizing the importance of providing customer access by all modes of travel, this criteria assesses the overall impacts to walking, cycling, and parking access.
2 3 2 3 2 2 4 4 3 4 210,000 average AADT along corridor. Traffic volumes are heavier east of Colborne St; should be lower along the flex street area. Along the flex street cyclists would have to share space with motorists. There are only four driveway accesses along Dundas according to London's internal memo.
Dundas will require some curb reconstruction where the area is narrow. However, the section from Adelaide to Ontario will be undergoing infrastructure renewal, and there may be more flexibility to develop a solution appropriate for the corridor.
Potential reduction of 166 spots across the study corridor including 55 spots that have been removed as a result of the Dundas Place project (City staff memo indicated a reduction of 78 spots from Ridout to Colborne in addition reduction from the Dundas Place). Parking reductions through the OEV have been assumed to be through the removal of parking on the south side to provide room for separated bikeways. As a result of the parking reductions, the projected utilization with the current parking demand for the corridor is 76%. The projected parking utilization through the OEV with parking removal is expected to be around 46%.
Dundas Street is served by local buses through the entire corridor. Field work noted that some of the bus stops are heavily utilized by students of the two high schools along Dundas. A separated bikeway would impact the operations of a transit stop. The loading zones for Catholic Central School also requires curb-side loading. As Dundas is the main attraction corridor, specific bus stop treatments may need to be considered.
Existing lane reductions are part of the Dundas Flex street from Ridout to Wellington. With the exception of a few constrained areas, Dundas should be capable of accommodating a separated bikeway through the removal of on-street parking. Through the OEV, buses on Dundas may be required to serve stops from the through travel lane, which may cause some delays to other vehicles.
There are some constrained locations (Adelaide to Lyle) where trees are close to the curb and may be impacted. London's internal memo indicated that approximately 9 boulevard trees may be impacted. Boulevard trees within Old East Village may be impacted to accommodate uni-directional separated bikeways. This option does not have sufficient space to implement patios, merchandise stands or other pedestrian realm improvements.
Dundas is in close proximity to existing cycling infrastructure on Queens and connects with the existing separated bikeway on Colborne. Continuing the Dundas flex street will lead to the Thames Valley Parkway on the east side of the Thames River. A cycling crossing over the river should be evaluated as part of second stage of the One River EA.
Dundas is in the centre of the Downtown core and passes through the heart of Old East Village. Dundas St is a destination road with businesses, social services and amenities along the corridor
A separated bikeway on Dundas could be achieved in most sections of the corridor without major curb impacts with the exception of school loading areas. As Ontario to Adelaide is due for major infrastructure renewal, costs associated with a separated bikeway could be tied in with road reconstruction. There may be some additional costs associate with creating more room within the boulevard to accommodate a separated bikeway.
Dundas is a highly mixed use corridor from commercial and institutional in the Downtown Core, to retail, education and social services to the east. . Two major high schools front on Dundas. The Old East Village Grocer is at Adelaide. There are two soup kitchens close to Elizabeth Street and two pharmacies on the corridor.
Dundas can accommodate a two-way uni-directional separated bikeway. However accommodating two directions of cyclist travel and parking limits the space that could be used to implement streetscaping, patios and pedestrian realm improvements. This option provides less flexibility to implement loading zones on both sides of Dundas through the OEV to accommodate key business operations.
1 2 2 2 1 2 4 4 2 4 210,000 average AADT along corridor. Traffic volumes are heavier east of Colborne St; should be lower along the flex street area. Along the flex street cyclists would have to share space with motorists. There appear to be more major driveways on the south side of Dundas. Bi-directional cycle track operations on two-way streets are complicated particularly at intersections and unsignalized driveways are unintuitive for both cyclists and motorists that may result in unexpected conflicts.
Dundas will require some curb reconstruction where the area is narrow. However, the section from Adelaide to Ontario will be undergoing infrastructure renewal, and there may be more flexibility to develop an appropriate solution for the Old East Village. In comparison with other Dundas options, traffic signals and potentially controllers would need to be replaced to accommodate for protected signal phasing which is required for this option.
Similar to the two-way unidirectional option, the south side of parking through the OEV would be removed to accommodate the separated bikeway. As a result parking reductions are expected to be similar to the two-way unidirectional option. Consideration should be given to further reduce the number of on-street parking spots to improve sightlines for turning vehicles. The projected parking utilization through the OEV with parking removal is expected to be around 46%.
Dundas Street is served by local busesthrough the entire corridor. Field worknoted that some of the bus stops areheavily utilized by students of the two highschools along Dundas. A bi-directionalbikeway through the south side of the OldEast Village could have major impacts ontransit stop configuration. Significantboulevard space would be needed toimplement transit islands and bidirectionalfacilities. An integrated LakeshoreBoulevard (Toronto) treatment could beconsidered that uses less space, but isunlikely to be preferred by LTC.
Existing lane reductions are part of the Dundas Flex street from Ridout to Wellington. While the bidirectional option would not remove any travel lanes, traffic operations would be significantly affected by the required signalization changes to accommodate a bidirectional bikeway. Due to the two-way cyclist operation on a two-way street, a protected phases for cyclists and turning vehicles would be required to mitigate potential conflicts.
There are some constrained locations (Adelaide to Lyle) where trees are close to the curb and may be impacted. London's internal memo indicated that approximately 9 boulevard trees may be impacted. Existing Boulevard trees within Old East Village will be impacted to accommodate the separated bikeway. This option does not provide the additional space that would be needed to implement patios, merchandise stand or other pedestrian realm improvements.
Dundas is in close proximity to existing cycling infrastructure on Queens and connects with the existing separated bikeway on Colborne. Continuing the Dundas flex street will lead to the Thames Valley Parkway on the east side of the Thames River. A cycling crossing over the river should be evaluated as part of second stage of the One River EA.
Dundas is in the centre of the Downtown core and passes through the heart of Old East Village. Dundas St is a destination road with businesses, social services and amenities along the corridor. Bidirectional facilities on the south mean that it is slightly inconvenient for all users to reach destinations on the north side
A separated bikeway on Dundas could be achieved in most sections of the corridor without major curb impacts with the exception of school loading areas. As Ontario to Adelaide is due for major infrastructure renewal, costs associated with a separated bikeway could be tied in with road reconstruction. There may be some additional costs associate with creating more room within the boulevard to accommodate a separated bikeway. A major additional cost that may be unforeseen as a result of the bidirectional option would be the engineering, traffic analysis, and implementation of new traffic signal systems required for protected phases.
Dundas is a highly mixed use corridor from commercial and institutional in the Downtown Core, to retail, education and social services to the east. Two major high schools front on Dundas. The Old East Village Grocer is at Adelaide. There are two soup kitchens close to Elizabeth Street and two pharmacies on the corridor.
A bi-directional facility could accommodate on-street parking, with no increase to the existing sidewalk width. This limits the ability to add streetscaping, patios and pedestrian realm improvements. In addition, loading zones would be challenging to implement adjacent to a bi-directional facility or the narrower north boulevard.
2 3 2 3 2 4 3 3 3 3 4Along Dundas, there are fewer driveways and conflicts that can be effectively mitigated. Along Queens, there are more frequent residential driveways which requires a design solution that would have less continuous separation than Dundas.
On Queens, existing curb extensions and bulb outs may need to be modified. Parking on William Street will need to be reconfigured. Slight Modifications may be required at intersections: Queens and William, Dundas and William, Queens and Ontario. On Dundas, full reconstruction is planned and the introduction of cycling facilities is not expected to significantly increase complexity or cost. The bike project will have less impact on Dundas through the OEV since one side is being modified.
Parking reductions along Dundas is expected to be similar to the two-way unidirectional option (Reduction in 166 parking spots, 55 of those attributed to Dundas Place). Parking will be removed on the south side of the OEV to accommodate the separated bikeway and a wider pedestrian realm. William Street is expected to require some realignments what could impact parking. There are no expected major impacts on parking along Queen Street; current utilization along Queen Street is low. The projected parking utilization through the OEV on Dundas with parking removal is expected to be around 46%.
Dundas Street is served by local buses. Between William and Ontario St, 4 eastbound transit stops would be impacted by a separated bikeway. Transit stops in the OEV can be integrated with the cycling facility or constructed as island stops to minimize conflicts with cyclists. Queens does not have any existing or planned transit service between William and Ontario.
Through the OEV, buses on Dundas may be required to serve stops from the through travel lane, which may cause some delays to other vehicles. Cycling facilities on Queens are not expected to impact traffic operations. The cycling facility jog at William and Ontario Streets may require traffic signalization changes or right-turn on red restrictions to facilitate safe cycling turning movements, which may have impacts on intersection capacity.
With cycling facilities on one side of Dundas only, there is adequate right-of-way for landscaping zones on both sides of the street. Queens may have some limited impact to the bulb outs at the end of each block. This option provides sufficient space to accommodate wider sidewalks, room for patios, merchandise displays or other pedestrian realm improvements.
Jogs at Ontario and William result in a less direct cycling route and introduce a detour for westbound cyclists who would otherwise travel continuously on Dundas.
Dundas is the heart of the Old East Village. This configuration offers direct, eastbound cycling access to a commercial area with businesses, social services, and other amenities. The westbound route on Queens is a residential street with no significant destinations.
There is minimal incremental cost to provide cycling facilities on Dundas as part of planned reconstruction and streetscaping work. Queens will require some curb reconstruction for the removal of north side curb extensions between Elizabeth and Ontario St. There will be some costs to modify intersections along William and Ontario. The infrastructure upgrade project from Adelaide to Ontario would incur some of the cost.
Dundas is predominantly commercial and retail within the OEV. Small grocery stores and community health centres are locations within this corridor. Queens is mainly residential. In comparison with Dundas uni and bidirectional options, there are less amenities that the route connects to from the Queens westbound route.
This option provides strong access to businesses in the OEV by all modes of travel because it balances the various needs of the OEV. The OEV is a mixed retail, commercial and employment corridor that will benefit from a vibrant pedestrian realm, increased cycling flow and the retention of on-street parking. It is important to accommodate business traffic from all modes of transportation and to provide a dedicated cycling facility on at least one-side through OEV that may provide retail benefit from cyclists who choose to stop and shop. Pedestrians and transit usage is encouraged through wider sidewalks and a vibrant public realm. This option allows for loading zones to be implemented on both sides through the OEV to support local businesses.
Rank
CR
ITER
IA
The Two-Way Bi-Directional Facility would pass through the Old East Village on the south side. The transition from uni-directional to bi-directional would occur at William street and would continue throughout the Old East Village and tie into the proposed multi-use path on the southeast corner of Dundas and Ontario proposed by the London BRT.
DU
ND
AS
TWO
-WA
Y B
I-DIR
ECTI
ON
AL
26
DU
ND
AS
TWO
-WA
Y U
NID
IREC
TIO
NA
L
31 2
3
LegendLeast Desirable Most Desirable
Benefit - Impact Desirability
Total Score
DU
ND
AS
& Q
UEE
NS
OEV
HYB
RID
32 1
The Old East Village Hybrid consists of Dundas from Ridout to William, and eastbound on Dundas from William to Egerton and westbound on Queens from Quebec to William. This route is identical to the Dundas option until William. The scoring reflects the entire corridor while the text of the matrix is specific towards the Old East Village Section and identifies why the scoring is different from the Dundas Option.
1 2 3 4
This evaluation table is meant to be for internal use and only for discussion with City Staff.
INTERNAL CORRIDOR SELECTION AND EVALUATION MATRIX
Conflict Mitigation Constructability Parking Transit Operations Traffic Operations Streetscaping & Public Realm Connectivity & Directness Destination Access Cost Social Health & Equity Retail Economic Impact
Minimize conflicts between motorists, cyclists and pedestrians
Assess the suitability of a roadway/corridor and the level of effort to implement a separated bikeway
Impact to on-street parking supply Impact and compatibility with local transit and the future BRT project
Impact to roadway capacity and intersection operations
Potential impacts to the public space within the boulevard that would affect urban design, streetscaping and the public realm (i.e. implementation of patios and street furniture)
Potential to connect to existing and proposed cycling network routes identified in the Cycling Master Plan and Transportation Master Plan
Connect to significant destinations or attractions
Anticipated cost to construct a separated bikeway on a corridor. This is a high-level costing assessment based on the level of effort required.
Provides a fair and accessible environment for users
Recognizing the importance of providing customer access by all modes of travel, this criteria assesses the overall impacts to walking, cycling, and parking access.
Rank
CR
ITER
IA
LegendLeast Desirable Most Desirable
Benefit - Impact Desirability
Total Score
2 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 2 3 2Queens AADT 10,000, King AADT 8,000along the corridor. King Street, due to themixed land uses of commercial, high-riseresidential, and surface businesses has~50 driveway accesses on the south side.Queens Ave has less major driveways asmost of the corridor is residential, with ~25non-residential driveways on the northside from Adelaide to Ridout. The highvolume of driveways may compromisepotential continuous protection. A coupletconfiguration with wide one-way cycletracks may encourage wrong-way cycling,as experience in Toronto has shown.
King St is being reconstructed as part ofthe BRT project and incorporates a bikefacility from Wellington going eastbound.If parking is removed, the majority of workon Queens would involve painting andremarking the roadway. From discussionwith the BRT team, there is no available space to implement a cyclingfacility west of Wellington on both Kingand Queens.
WSP's analysis of City provided supplydata indicates that 80 parking spots willbe removed on King Street and QueensAvenue. The removal of parking for the2019 King Street project was taken intoconsideration. Utilization (demand di-vided by supply) on Queens goes upfrom 33% to 45% while, King goes upfrom 44% to 65%.
The BRT will operate along Kingthroughout the study corridor and in theDowntown core on Queens. The inclusion of BRT will improve transit operations. The changes in lane configuration could affect how left and right turning vehicles interact with cyclists. Cycling facilities on King aredesigned to go behind the bus stop, whichis a typical design treatment to minimizepassenger-cyclist conflict.
Traffic capacity will be impacted on Kingand Queens, as this option will require development of several north-south routes to link up with Dundas and to change direction of travel, there may be impacts on intersection operations.
Boulevard space may be impacted as a result of a proposed bike facility. On Queens the boulevard space may need to be modified where there are bulb-outs and trees. The bulb-out removal would have limited effect on public realm and pedestrians.
The proposed bike facility on King St.terminates at Wellington St becausethere isn't enough available space west ofWellington St. Connectivity through twoone-way facilities on the couplet may notbe as effective as a single road with bothdirections of travel.
King has connectivity to the BRT stops,and passes through the south end of theDowntown Core. Key destinations includeHB Beal High School and a YMCA.Queens is mostly residential untilColborne, where it provides connectivity tosome commercial office buildings and theOntario Courthouse.
The couplet will have some costs accounted for due to the BRT project. However additional funds will be required to develop north-south connections to provide accessibility to Dundas and to and from King and Queens. In addition, there is currently no cycling connection west of Wellington.
King and Queens are two distinct streets. Queens has a character similar to Dufferin with a large portion being residential. The downtown sections of both King and Queens are highly commercial and institutional. King St passes through Citi Plaza Mall, a YMCA, and The Salvation Army.
This option does not connect the OEV to the East-West spine cycling route. There is no direct access to businesses in the OEV for customers arriving by bicycle. However, this option does not impact parking supply in the OEV. The commercial and retail environment along Dundas is better suited for cyclists in comparison with King and Queens.
2 1 2 3 3 4 1 1 2 1 2Average AADT of 7,250 in the DowntownSection. Traffic counts were unavailableeast of Colborne or on Lorne, but volumesare expected to be low given theresidential nature of the street. There are~35 driveway accesses that may need tobe accommodated, particularly in thedowntown area with commercial,institutional and business use. The jog onAdelaide from Dufferin to Lorne isunsignalized and provides a significantchallenge for users who want to transitionalong Adelaide.
Dufferin and Lorne would require signalization for a separated bikeway, and the jog between Adelaide would require the intersection to be reconfigured. This would be difficult given the complexity of signals and potential utility locations. Lorne Ave has a typical curb to curb width of 7.5 - 8m, which would pose significant challenges in implementing separated bikeways on both sides, even with removal of parking.
Potential reduction of 132 spots across the study corridor. The reduction in parking would result in utilization (Demand/Supply) going up from 27% to 75%. The most severe impact is in the east where parking will likely need to be removed on both sides of the road. In the Downtown core, parking would likely be reduced on one side to accommodate a separated bike lane.
There are a few bus stops on Dufferin from Richmond to Colborne. Beyond Colborne there are no transit stops on the corridor. A separated bikeway would have some impact on local transit stop operations.
A separated bikeway could be accommodated on Dufferin Avenue through the removal of on-street parking and would have minimal effect on traffic operations due to remarking of the road. However, signalizing the corridor may impact the flow of vehicles on Dufferin and intersecting streets.
No expected impact to the boulevard if a lane is provided by parking removal.
The corridor is indirect as a result of the Adelaide jog between Dufferin and Lorne. There are not as many destinations on Dufferin in comparison with Dundas and a lesser extent King.
Dufferin provides connectivity mostly from single detached residential to commercial and institutional offices in the downtown core. There is a major secondary school on Dufferin. Besides the downtown area and Victoria park, there are no major destinations along the route.
The separated bikeway implementation cost would not be very high. However, prospective intersection improvements and signalization would increase costs, particularly at Adelaide.
The corridor is highly residential, with some commercial, institutional and retail in the downtown core.
This option does not connect the OEV to the East-West spine cycling route. There is no direct access to businesses in the OEV for customers arriving by bicycle. However, this option does not impact parking supply in the OEV. The commercial and retail environment on Dundas is better suited to cycling traffic in comparison with Dufferin Street.
1 1 4 2 1 4 1 1 1 2 220,000 average AADT along corridor. As a result of the flex street and the BRT, it is expected that York St volumes will increase. The area has ~40 driveways to support the high-density residential and surface level retail. The corridor was not preferred by the public, and has relatively high vehicle operating speeds.
York is a four-lane road with an average ROW of 23.0m. Property allowances abut against the sidewalk. If lane widths cannot be further narrowed, private property may need to be acquired. If curb to curb widths are less than 13.0m wide, a separated bikeway cannot be implemented without moving curbs. The typical curb widths mean that a 1.5m bike facility and a 0.5m buffer could be implemented only if 3.0m travel lanes are adopted.
No parking reductions expected. There are bus stops along York Street and Florence St throughout the corridor. There will be some impact on local transit stop operations if a separated bikeway is implemented with lane width reductions. If a travel lane is removed to accommodate a separated bikeway, decreased road capacity may impact service reliability.
The reduction of roadway capacity through either lane losses and/or lane width reduction would have an adverse on traffic flow through the study area. York is expected to be a major vehicle arterial after the BRT is implemented.
If a travel lane were to be removed, there would be no expected boulevard impacts
York Street provides limited connectivity and is far away from other existing east west routes. There are not as many destinations on York in comparison with Dundas and a lesser extent King.
York St passes through the south end of downtown. The north side is commercial and institutional, and the south side features a significant amount of surface parking. Beyond the Greyhound Terminal, there are no major destinations of note, until Egerton where it passes Metroland Media Agriplex and Western Fair.
Costs could be reduced if a travel lane is removed (despite adverse traffic impacts). If a separated bikeway is desired with minimal traffic impact, there may be significant boulevard construction and property implications that greatly increase the cost of the project.
There is some high-rise residential alongthe corridor. However most of the corridoris commercial and retail serviced byvehicles. One retail location of note is St.Vincent de Paul by Adelaide whichoperates as a Thrift Store. There is agreyhound terminal at Talbot St.
This option does not connect the OEV to the East-West spine cycling route. There is no direct access to businesses in the OEV for customers arriving by bicycle. However, this option does not impact parking supply in the OEV. The commercial and retail environment on Dundas is better suited to cycling traffic in comparison with York Street.
Connectivity & Directness Destination Access Cost Social Health & Equity Retail Economic Impact
Minimize conflicts between motorists, cyclists and pedestrians
Assess the suitability of a roadway/corridor and the level of effort to implement a separated bikeway
Impact to on-street parking supply
Impact and compatibility with local transit and the future BRT project
Impact to roadway capacity and intersection operations
Potential impacts to the public space within the boulevard that would affect urban design, streetscaping and the public realm (i.e. implementation of patios and street furniture)
Potential to connect to existing and proposed cycling network routes identified in the Cycling Master Plan and Transportation Master Plan
Connect to significant destinations or attractions
Anticipated cost to construct a separated bikeway on a corridor. This is a high-level costing assessment based on the level of effort required.
Provides a fair and accessible environment for users
Recognizing the importance of providing customer access by all modes of travel, this criteria assesses the overall impacts to walking, cycling, and parking access.
Mos
t Des
irabl
e
●
DU
ND
AS
TWO
-WA
Y U
NID
IREC
TIO
NA
L
◑ ◕ ◑ ◕ ◑ ◑ ● ● ◕ ● ◑ 31 2
◕
DU
ND
AS
TWO
-WA
Y B
I-DIR
ECTI
ON
AL
◔ ◑ ◑ ◑ ◔ ◑ ● ● ◑ ● ◑ 26 3
◑
DU
ND
AS
& Q
UEE
NS
OEV
HYB
RID
◑ ◕ ◑ ◕ ◑ ● ◕ ◕ ◕ ◕ ● 32 1
Leas
t Des
irabl
e ◔
KIN
G A
ND
QU
EEN
S C
OU
PLET ◑ ◔ ◑ ◕ ◔ ◕ ◔ ◑ ◑ ◕ ◑ 22 4
DU
FFER
IN
◑ ◔ ◑ ◕ ◕ ● ◔ ◔ ◑ ◔ ◑ 22 3
YOR
K ◔ ◔ ● ◑ ◔ ● ◔ ◔ ◔ ◑ ◑ 20 6
CR
ITER
IA
Total RankLegend
Ben
efit-
Impa
ct D
esira
bilit
y
Page 5
It is acknowledged the cross-sections will vary along the length of each corridor. These cross-
sections are intended to inform the high-level evaluation of Constructability, Cost and Traffic
Operations. The cross-sections inform what changes are required for a separated bikeway along
each corridor. Unique and constrained locations such as several locations in the Old East Village
or near the Catholic Central High School bus loading zone are likely to require design treatments
that vary from the typical cross-sections.
In the development of the cross-sections, it was assumed that no curbs would be moved, and the
curb to curb width would stay constant, except for minor modifications at specific locations. It is
also assumed that the bike lane width is measured from the face of curb to the edge of the bike
lane. As major infrastructure renewal is planned in the Old East Village on Dundas Street from
Adelaide Street to Ontario Street, opportunities to reallocate roadway space to the public realm
were considered in this section. Where the separation on the cross-section shows a buffer, there
would be a precast concrete curb and bollards in the buffer space (similar to Colborne Street). At
these locations, the bike lane width is measured from face of curb to the curbside edge of the
buffer zone.
Corridor
Dundas
Two-way
Unidirectional
Right of Way
Width
20.0 m
Existing
Configuration
2 through
lanes and 2
parking
lay-bys
North South
Dundas Two-way
Unidirectional: Typical OEV
Page 6
Corridor
Dundas
(Outside of
OEV)
Curb-to-Curb
Width
~11.7 m
Existing
Configuration
2 through
lanes
Corridor
Dundas OEV
Hybrid
Right of Way
Width
20.0 m
Existing
Configuration
2 through
lanes and 2
parking
lay-bys
North South
North South
Dundas OEV
Hybrid: Typical OEV
Page 7
Corridor
Dundas
Two-way
Bidirectional
Right of Way
Width
20.0 m
Existing
Configuration
2 through
lanes and 2
parking
lay-bys
Corridor
Queens (OEV
and King &
Queens
Couplet)
Curb-to-Curb
Width
~8.0 m
Existing
Configuration
2 through
lanes with a
westbound
bike lane on
the north side
North South
North South
Dundas Two-way
Bidirectional: Typical OEV
Page 8
Corridor
King (BRT
Proposal)
Right of Way
Width
20.0 m
Proposed
Configuration
2 BRT lanes,
eastbound
travel lane,
eastbound
raised cycle
track
Corridor
Dufferin
Curb-to-Curb
Width
~8.7 m
Existing
Configuration
2 travel lanes
with parking
on both sides
North South
North South
Page 9
Corridor
York
Curb-to-Curb
Width
~13.0 m
Existing
Configuration
4 through
lanes
APPLICATION OF BIDIRECTIONAL BIKEWAYS
Bidirectional bikeways are occasionally considered as an alternative to two-way unidirectional
facilities or couplet based corridors. As part of the evaluation, a bidirectional option through the
OEV was considered at the suggestion of the Cycling Advisory Committee and at the request of
City staff. Prior to scoring the bidirectional option, a comprehensive review of bidirectional
bikeway design guidance was undertaken to evaluate whether the OEV provides a suitable context
for a bidirectional facility. As part of this review the following design guidelines were reviewed
that reflect a broad set of local and international best practices:
• Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 18 [Ontario]
• National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Bikeway Design Manual
[North American and International Design Guidance]
• CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic [Netherlands]
• MassDOT Separated Bike Lane & Design Guide [Massachusetts, USA]
• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design
Guide [USA]
• Trafikverket Pedestrian, Bicycle and Moped (PBM) Manual [Sweden]
• Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) Geometric Design Guide for Canadian
Roads [Canada]
North South
Page 10
TYPICAL DEPLOYMENT SCENARIOS
Bidirectional bikeways are typically implemented in areas where there are significant constraints
that do not feasibly allow for unidirectional facilities. Common reasons for implementing a
bidirectional bikeway include situations where:
• one side of the roadway has significantly more attractions and destinations;
• the opposite side has significantly more major conflict points such as driveways or
intersections;
• one side has long, continuous and uninterrupted blocks;
• one side of the roadway has extra right of way that can be easily converted to a bikeway;
• a bidirectional facility provides a logical and short connection between two different
cycling routes; or
• conflicts at intersections can be managed using intersection and roadway geometry and
signal operation modifications.
It should be noted that bidirectional bikeways (excluding in-boulevard shared paths) are most
commonly deployed on one-way roads. However, if a segment of roadway meets one or more of
the criteria outlined above, a bidirectional facility may be considered on a two-way road. The
following sections provide a consolidated summary of advantages and disadvantages of
bidirectional bikeways.
ADVANTAGES
• Bidirectional facilities may use less roadway and boulevard space than two unidirectional
facilities as buffer space from the adjacent roadway and sidewalk is only required on one
side of the road.
• Potential cost savings if only one side of the road would require modifications.
• Possibility to provide a more direct route, depending on the context.
DISADVANTAGES
• Transitions from unidirectional to bidirectional facilities add complexity at intersections
and may increase risk to vulnerable road users. Bidirectional facilities are also
incompatible with several intersection treatments such as bike boxes.
• Bidirectional facilities in urban areas introduce more conflicts with turning vehicles and
are less intuitive for motorists who may not anticipate cyclists approaching from the
opposite direction. From a road safety and vision zero perspective, it is difficult to
recommend a bidirectional facility.
• Transit operations and stop configuration are more difficult to implement and require
additional boulevard space to accommodate transit platforms and pedestrian crossings.
Page 11
• Bidirectional facilities increase sight distance requirements for both cyclists and drivers.
Increased precaution must be taken when placing street fixtures or parking near
driveways and intersections.
• OTM Book 18, MassDOT, FHWA, and NACTO note that when implementing
bidirectional facilities within or directly adjacent to the roadway, dedicated bike signals
and protected signal phases should be implemented to mitigate conflicts between turning
vehicles and cyclists. These measures may negatively impact intersection capacity, and
may also introduce increased delays for all road users.
• Bidirectional facilities are not typically implemented along commercial main retail streets
as it may result in greater conflicts with pedestrian flow in comparison with
unidirectional bikeways.
DISCUSSION
Our review of bidirectional facility guidance confirms that there are several major disadvantages
associated with a bidirectional facility. Based on lessons learned and resources noted above, there
is not a strong rationale to support the implementation of a bidirectional facility in the OEV.
As in any planning and design decision, the context of the facility should be carefully considered.
Two-way cycle tracks are typically not implemented in main street settings similar to the OEV.
They tend to be used more as a linear travel corridor (highway) and are not as conducive to
support street level activity and retail/commercial businesses. In the OEV, destinations and
driveways are relatively evenly distributed on both the north and south side of the street.
Additionally, there is minimal cost benefit to implementing a bidirectional facility in comparison
with the OEV Hybrid or two-way unidirectional alternatives in the OEV, as the corridor is planned
to be reconstructed. This suggests a bi-directional facility is less suitable in the OEV context.
A bidirectional facility on Dundas would be challenging to implement from a conflict mitigation
perspective. For example, protected signal phasing is recommended in conjunction with
bidirectional facilities, but geometric constraints limit the ability to introduce dedicated turn lanes.
Four guidelines reviewed also spoke specifically against implementing bidirectional facilities in a
context similar to the OEV:
• “Bidirectional cycle/moped paths in built-up areas is strongly discouraged”, CROW
Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic
• “On two-way roadways, the design challenges associated with bi-directional protected
bikeways can be avoided by designing protected bike lanes on each side of the road”,
TAC Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
• “The reason that paths with two-way traffic are less safe than those with one-way is that
they provide poor safety in crossings where the interplay among pedestrians, bicyclists,
and drivers worsens…in a city environment where the crossings are close to each other,
bicycle paths with one-way traffic are often preferable and should be the goal for new
construction”, PBM Manual
• “Practitioners may wish to only apply two way raised cycle tracks alongside one-way
streets. Vehicles in the roadway parallel to the raised cycle track will only approach from
one direction, thus reducing the number of conflicts with cyclists.”, OTM Book 18
Page 12
The findings summarized above have informed the evaluation of the OEV bidirectional option. As
a result of additional conflict mitigation challenges, potential traffic operations impacts and costs
for new signals and protected phasing, this option is not recommended.
PARKING IMPACTS
During the OEV Community Information Meetings, it was acknowledged that parking was a
significant issue for local business owners. A parking impact assessment was completed through a
review of the Draft 2018 BRT Environmental Project Report and parking capacity and utilization
data provided by the City. After establishing a baseline for parking, WSP estimated the potential
parking reductions based on the implementation of a separated bikeway and determined the
anticipated new parking utilization rates. Table 1 provides a high-level overview of the existing
conditions of the corridor, and shows how a separated bikeway would affect parking capacity and
utilization.
CORRIDOR
EXISTING
CAPACITY
CURRENT
USAGE
NEW
CAPACITY
EXISTING
UTILIZATION
NEW
UTILIZATION
Dufferin 206 56 74 27% 75%
Queens 131 43 95 33% 45%
Dundas (uni or
bidirectional) 288 93 122 32% 76%
King 39 17 26 44% 65%
York N/A
OEV Hybrid Parking Breakdown
Overall 336 97 170 29% 57%
Dundas 288 93 122 32% 76%
Queens 48 4 48 8% 8%
Table 1: Summary of Estimated Parking Impacts
It is important to note that the parking impacts for Dundas unidirectional and bidirectional options
and the OEV Hybrid are expected to be similar. During the parking impact analysis, it was
assumed that the north side on-street parking would be retained, and south side on-street parking
would be removed through the Old East Village to accommodate a separated bikeway for each
option through Dundas. As a result of the consistent parking configuration, the boulevard and
pedestrian realm widths would vary in each option.
The current utilization of parking is low across all corridors. With the implementation of a
bikeway the projected reduction of parking capacity does not bring any corridor above 100%.
Page 13
Additional parking spots have been reduced as part of the Dundas Place project.
While the table above provides a high-level overview, it is important to note that parking
reductions varies significantly on a block by block basis. Parking reductions tend to be greater in
the eastern portion of the corridors where there is less boulevard space available for a separated
bikeway. However, the parking utilization around the Old East Village tends to be below 25%,
with the exception of the block between Adelaide and Lyle, which sees higher utilization. Existing
parking utilization is generally higher around the downtown core, where it is not uncommon to
have utilization above 50%.
Potential parking reductions could be mitigated by encouraging the use of municipal and private
off-street parking lots. For example, in the downtown core, there are several surface and parking
structures that provide alternatives. In the Old East Village, there are four off-street parking lots
with a total capacity of 432 spots. Strategies may also be explored to increase the turnover of on-
street parking and ensure an adequate supply of vacant spaces.
KEY INSIGHTS FROM THE EVALUATION
The following discussion outlines the major themes that arose in the evaluation process. Detailed
commentary relating to each evaluation criteria and each corridor is included in the internal
Corridor Selection and Evaluation Matrix.
YORK AND DUFFERIN
After the benefits and impact analysis and the development of cross-sections, several key results
emerged. First, it was confirmed that York and Dufferin were both low scoring corridors. The
primary issues with York and Dufferin are the lack of connectivity to the downtown core and key
social services. York is primarily industrial and commercial, while Dufferin is mostly single-
detached residential until the downtown segments. Due to the narrow roadway widths, neither
corridor could support a continuous 1.5 metre bikeway with a 0.5 metre separation space unless a
travel lane is removed. The loss of a travel lane on York would be detrimental to the City’s traffic
capacity as it will be a main arterial after the construction of the BRT. Finally, the Dufferin
corridor is indirect and requires a jog through unsignalized intersections to connect from Dufferin
to Lorne via Adelaide Street, which negatively affects constructability and conflict mitigation.
KING & QUEENS COUPLET & BRT CHALLENGES
During the analysis of the BRT’s drawings, conceptual renderings, and the May 2018 Draft
Environmental Project Report, it became apparent that the King and Queens couplet would not be
an ideal east-west corridor, as there is not sufficient space on King Street and Queens Avenue
between Ridout Street and Wellington Street.
The BRT does not propose to include any eastbound cycling facilities on King Street between
Ridout and Wellington, and it does not include any cycling facilities on Queens Avenue. Figure 1
shows the proposed configuration of the intersection of King and Wellington, where the eastbound
cycling facility begins. The King and Queens couplet would result in a significant gap in
connectivity between Ridout and Wellington. These challenges result in low scores for destination
access, connectivity, constructability, and cost.
Page 14
In addition to the space constraints noted above, there are other significant concerns with a King
and Queens couplet. Along King and Queens, there are many driveways, which reduce the
amount of separation that could be provided and introduce more conflicts to be managed.
North-south connectivity is more challenging with the couplet. Cyclists will require one or
more north-south routes to provide connections between King, Dundas and Queens. This
adds complexity to the project and may increase costs.
Figure 1: Proposed BRT Bike Facility at Wellington
OEV HYBRID AND DUNDAS (TWO-WAY UNIDIRECTIONAL)
In the scoring process, the Dundas two-way unidirectional (“Dundas” option) and the Dundas &
Queens OEV Hybrid (“Hybrid” option) have comparable scores, with the Hybrid option having a
slightly higher overall score than the Dundas option. It is important to note that the evaluation
assumed a separated bikeway would be the only suitable facility type along either corridor. For
both options, one side of parking along Dundas Street would be lost to accommodate a separated
bikeway. The Hybrid would also require the reconfiguration of angled parking on William Street,
resulting in some potential reduction of capacity.
The OEV Hybrid option allows for an increase in sidewalk space as well as the opportunity to
include loading zones on both sides of Dundas to support the local businesses. The two-way
unidirectional Dundas option would make implementing loading zones on Dundas more
challenging on north and south sides due to space constraints that limit the ability to provide wider
sidewalks and additional public realm features such as patios and merchandising stands. An
alternative strategy that could be applied to both options is to provide more loading zones on side
streets.
East of William Street, the Hybrid would include a unidirectional eastbound facility on Dundas
Street, while westbound cycling traffic is shifted to Queens Avenue. The Hybrid option scores
significantly higher for Streetscaping & Public Realm/Trees because this option preserves
sufficient boulevard space to accommodate a wide landscaping zone on both sides of the street. In
addition, the Hybrid scores significantly higher in retail economic impact as this option can
preserve more space for on-street parking and flexible boulevard spaces for businesses to use (for
Page 15
example to implement patios or merchandise stands). However, Connectivity and Directness,
Destination Access, and Social Health and Equity are slightly lower in the Hybrid option, as
Queens provides less connectivity than Dundas to the Old East Village for westbound cyclists.
The OEV Hybrid and Dundas two-way unidirectional options both achieve a strong score due to
the connectivity and directness through downtown London. The corridors pass through the
downtown core, and provide connectivity to the Colborne Street cycle tracks, two major high
schools, and the Old East Village. In addition to these major destinations, both options provide
direct connections to important social services such as pharmacies and food banks. There are
opportunities for cost savings in implementing a separated bikeway on Dundas in conjunction with
the planned OEV infrastructure renewal works. Both options would take a similar level of effort to
construct and implement.
At the western end of the corridor, both Dundas and the Hybrid options would continue a cycling
route though Dundas Place from Wellington Street to Ridout Street which accommodates cyclists
in a “shared space” design.
RECOMMENDATION
As a result of the evaluation process, the findings documented to date, and given the goals
for renewal of the Old East Village, WSP, in consultation with the Old East Village Dundas
Street Corridor Secondary Plan team and City Staff, recommends proceeding with the OEV
Hybrid option.
APPENDIX A
A
YORK
DUNDAS
DUFFERIN
QUEENS (COUPLET WITH KING)
KING (COUPLET WITH QUEENS)
DUNDAS ST
YORK ST
KING ST
GREY ST
BATHURST ST
HORTON ST E
WIL
LIA
M S
T
ELIAS ST
RIC
HM
ON
D S
T
CO
LBO
RN
E S
T
SIMCOE ST
TA
LBO
T S
T
LORNE AVE
RID
OU
T S
T N
WE
LLIN
GT
ON
ST
AD
ELA
IDE
ST
N
WA
TE
RLO
O S
T
QU
EB
EC
ST
FLORENCE ST
RE
CT
OR
Y S
T
PRINCESS AVE
EGE
RT
ON
ST
CLA
REN
CE
ST O
NT
AR
IO S
T
HYMAN ST
ENG
LIS
H S
T
CENTRAL AVE
HAMILTON RD
ELIZ
AB
ETH
ST
KENT ST
DUFFERIN AVE
JOHN ST
DO
RIN
DA
ST
ALBERT STWIL
SON
AVE
LYLE
ST
BRYDGES ST
TH
AM
ES
ST
MA
ITLA
ND
ST
LITTLE SIMCOE ST
FRANCES ST
LITTLE GREY ST
BU
RB
RO
OK
PL
CH
AR
LOT
TE
ST
QUEENS AVE
SALISBURY ST
FULLARTON ST
KEL
LOG
G L
AN
E
WO
OD
MA
N A
VE
WOLFE ST
MARGARET ST
PA
LAC
E S
T
CONNAUGHT AVE
CABELL ST
BU
RW
ELL
ST
S
NAP
IER
ST
RID
OU
T S
T S
CARLING ST
CA
RT
WR
IGH
T S
T
GLE
BE
ST
PE
AR
L S
T
PIC
TO
N S
TH
EN
RY
ST
MARSHALL ST
QU
EE
NS
PL
GLA
SG
OW
ST
ANGEL ST PRINCESS AVE
YORK ST
PRINCESS AVET
ALB
OT
ST
MA
ITLA
ND
ST
ELIAS ST
WA
TE
RLO
O S
T
DUFFERIN AVE
CLA
REN
CE
ST
CENTRAL AVE
KING ST
AD
ELA
IDE
ST
N
0 0.2 0.40.1KM
I
VICTORIA
PARK
HARRIS
PARK
QUEENS
PARK
THAMESPARK
NANCY CAMPBELL
COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE
GALT
HOUSE
LORD ROBERTS
PUBLIC SCHOOL
CATHOLIC CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL
LONDON INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY
LONDON CENTRAL
SECONDARY SCHOOL
H.B. BEAL SECONDARY SCHOOL
ST MARY SCHOOL
ABERDEEN
PUBLIC SCHOOL
CARLING HEIGHTS OPTIMISTS
COMMUNITY CENTRE
BOYLE MEMORIAL
COMMUNITY CENTRE
Park
School
Community Centre
Proposed On-Road Cycling Facilities Community FeaturesExisting Cycling Facilities
