Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing

CCooootes DDriivvee aatt SSannddeerrss BBoouulevardd PPeddeessttrriiaann aanndd CCyycclliisstt Crrosssiinngg

SSaffeettyy RReevviieeww

FFor tthe Ciitty ooff HHaammiilltton

Fiinnaall RReepportt OOccttobeerr 2004 Project Number

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing

Hamilton, Ontario

Prepared for: City of Hamilton

Project No: 62-40184

Prepared by:

Jeff Suggett, M. Sc. Senior Research Specialist

Brian Malone, P. Eng, P.T.O.E Vice-President

FINAL REPORT October 2004

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Table of contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND...... 1 1.2 STUDY AREA ...... 1 1.3 STUDY OBJECTIVES ...... 1 1.4 DATA COLLECTION ...... 3 1.5 GLOSSARY...... 3

2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION...... 5

2.1 IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL HAZARDS AND REMEDIAL MEASURES ...... 5 2.2 CONFLICT ANALYSIS ...... 15

3.0 OFFICE REVIEW...... 25

3.1 SPEED DATA ...... 25 3.2 VEHICLE COUNTS ...... 27 3.3 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE COUNTS...... 27 3.4 GAP DATA ...... 28 3.5 COLLISION HISTORY...... 28 3.6 APPLICABLE WARRANTS ...... 30

4.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 31

5.0 PROPOSED TREATMENTS...... 34

5.1 TREATMENTS THAT ADDRESS HIGH PEDESTRIAN-CYCLIST CROSSING VOLUMES .....34 5.2 TREATMENTS THAT ADDRESS EXCESSIVE SPEED ...... 38 5.3 TREATMENTS THAT ADDRESS UNSAFE PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLIST BEHAVIOUR...... 41

6.0 EVALUATION OF TREATMENTS...... 43

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 46

7.1 CONCLUSIONS ...... 46 7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS...... 50

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

List of exhibits

Exhibit 1 – Location of study area Exhibit 2 – Site characteristics Exhibit 3A – Roadway and pathway facilities Exhibit 3B – Pathway facilities and signs Exhibit 3C – Signs (continued) Exhibit 3D – Pavement markings and accessibility issues Exhibit 4A – Conflict diagram Exhibit 4B – Results of conflict analysis Exhibit 4C – Results of conflict analysis (continued) Exhibit 4D – Results of conflict analysis (continued) Exhibit 5 – Speed data Exhibit 6 – Pedestrian and cyclist count data Exhibit 7 – Consequences of excessive speed

Appendices

Appendix A – Remedial measures Appendix B – Sight distance measurements Appendix C – Traffic conflict technique Appendix D – Speed and volume data Appendix E – Application of pedestrian traffic control warrants Appendix F – Explanation of scoring in short list matrix

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard i Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The pedestrian/cyclist crossing of Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard has been in existence for many years. It is used heavily, primarily by students attending McMaster University, but is also used by local residents and is an important component of the City’s bike route system. Recently, the location has received attention regarding the safety of road users crossing at the study site.

To that end, Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. has been retained by the City of Hamilton to conduct a safety review of the pedestrian-cyclist crossing.

The following are the objectives of this operation and safety review:

• Review office data provided to Synectics by the Region of Hamilton, McMaster University and Pyramid Traffic, including vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle volume counts, and speed data; • Conduct a field safety assessment including a site visit, examination of design elements, and a Positive Guidance review and propose remedial measures to address any safety deficiencies encountered; • Identify causal factors that may contribute to future collisions; • Propose and evaluate countermeasures that may address the causal factors identified; and • Document the above findings in a report to City of Hamilton.

Conflict analysis

A conflict analysis was undertaken to obtain further insight into potential road user risk at the study site. This study involved the observation of all ‘near misses’ involving movements of pedestrians and bicyclists across Cootes Drive at the study site. A total of fifty-nine conflicts were observed. Recorded conflicts involving pedestrian and vehicles included situations where the pedestrian or group of pedestrians commenced their crossing during a gap in traffic that required an approaching vehicle or vehicles to either brake or swerve or the pedestrian needed to either retreat back to the curb or break into a run to avoid a collision.

Traffic was free flowing on Cootes Drive with some platooning occurring. Motorists were driving in excess of the speed limit and generally did not adjust their speed when pedestrians were observed waiting to cross Cootes Drive.

Pedestrian activity at the study site was significant and would generally peak at the beginning or ending of class times (thirty minutes past the hour). During these times,

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard ii Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton pedestrians would cross Cootes Drive in large groups (up to twenty pedestrians at a time).

On McMaster Campus, it was noted that pedestrians dominate the internal campus road network. In all cases, vehicles yield to pedestrians. It is speculated that some pedestrians are taking this mindset with them as they cross at Cootes Drive, having the view that drivers should yield to them, which there is no legal obligation for motorists to do.

Bicycle-vehicle conflicts were also observed. These were less common in occurrence, but were identified as higher severity. Similar to the pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, the bicyclist commenced their crossing during a gap in traffic that required an approaching vehicle or vehicles to either brake or swerve or the bicyclist needed to either retreat back to the curb or accelerate to avoid a collision. In each of the bicycle-vehicle conflicts, it appeared that the bicyclists misjudged the adequacy of the gap in traffic due to this fact.

Speed data

Speed data was collected at two locations: Station 1 (north of the Westaway Road overpass) and Station 2 (immediately north of the study site). Measured speeds were significantly above the posted speed limits.

At Station 1, posted speed limit 80 km/h, the 85th percentile speeds in the northbound lanes were between 100 and 93 km/h and in the southbound lanes, between 90 and 87 km/h. At Station 2, the 85th percentile speeds in the northbound lanes were between 84 and 76 km/h, and between 75 and 73 km/h in the southbound lanes.

Vehicle counts

A total of 25,858 vehicles passed by the study site during the twenty-four hour period. The morning peak hour occurred between 7:45 – 8:45 am, (2,143 vehicles) and the afternoon peak hour occurred between 4:15 – 5:15 pm, (2,177 vehicles).

The ATR count data also provided information on headway. During the peak traffic periods, the average headway between vehicles ranged from 3 – 10 seconds in the northbound lanes and 4 – 6 seconds in the southbound lanes. During peak traffic conditions, both pedestrians and bicyclists encounter vehicular traffic at the study site that requires them to wait for gaps prior to crossing Cootes Drive. During periods of heavy traffic, pedestrians and bicyclists are accepting shorter gaps to achieve their crossing.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard iii Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Pedestrian and bicycle counts

During a count taken between 8:00 am and 6:00 pm, a total of 3,712 individuals were observed crossing at the study site. The observations were carried out while McMaster University was “in session”, as opposed to on summer break. Approximately 75% of the individuals crossing were pedestrians, 20% on bicycle, 4% rollerbladers and the remaining 1% were wheelchair users, pushing a stroller or on a skateboard.

Warranting conditions

Three different warrants (Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Transportation Association of Canada and City of Calgary) were reviewed to determine whether or not conditions exist at the study site that would warrant a higher degree of traffic control. Conditions in all three warrants were satisfied, indicating that some higher degree of traffic control may be warranted at the study site.

Problem Statement

Based on the site visit, the conflict analysis, the review of the vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle count and speed data, and the application of the volume and speed data to the three warrants, the following problem statement was developed.

While no collisions involving pedestrians or bicyclists have been recorded as having occurred at the study site, conditions exist such that the potential for a pedestrian- vehicle or bicyclist-vehicle collision could occur in the future. Several factors were noted that are contributing to these conditions, as follows:

High pedestrian-bicycle crossing volumes – Pedestrian-bicycle crossing volumes are extremely high averaging 6 crossings per minute. The study site represents a unique situation in that it is an uncontrolled mid block crossing with high volumes of pedestrians concentrated at single crossing location. Application of these volumes to the three warrants reviewed demonstrated that a higher level of traffic control should be considered;

Excessive speed – Despite the presence of a posted 60 km/h speed limit, speed data recorded in the vicinity of the crosswalk indicates that vehicles significantly exceed the posted speed limits. The combination of excessive speed and the high pedestrian-bicycle crossing volume create a particularly hazardous situation.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard iv Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Unsafe pedestrian-bicyclist behaviour – Some pedestrians and bicyclists are choosing short gaps in which to cross and either darting across the roadway or are requiring approaching vehicles to brake/swerve to avoid a collision.

Recommendations

Several treatments were identified that have the potential to reduce the likelihood of a pedestrian/cyclist-vehicle collision. In addition the identified treatments should not negatively impact vehicle operations, vehicle safety or pedestrian-cyclist operations. The following treatments are recommended for the consideration of the City of Hamilton in conjunction with the Hamilton Police Services and McMaster University.

To address the high pedestrian-cyclist crossing volumes:

• Install a midblock pedestrian signal, providing operation that would coordinate the signal with the existing traffic signal at Main and Cootes.

To address excessive vehicle speeds on Cootes Drive:

• Provision of horizontal deflection, in the form of lane narrowing; • Provide increased police speed enforcement or use of a speed trailer; and • Changing the roadside environment to discourage high vehicle operating speeds.

For the unsafe pedestrian-cyclist behaviour: • Provide enhanced pedestrian safety education and enforcement campaign, specifically aimed at McMaster University students crossing Cootes; and • Prevent pedestrians crossing upstream and downstream of location.

Other Remedial Measures

In addition to the identified treatments recommended above a number of potential hazards were identified at the crossing site, including:

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard v Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

• Advisory signing on Cootes Drive approaching the study site present a bicycle and pedestrian symbol – and as such is not a standard advisory sign according to OTM Book 6; • The advisory signs are also placed too close to the study site to adequately forewarn drivers; • Signage on the multiuse path has been placed too high and too close to the pathway; • Several of the signs have been damaged by graffiti or are obscured by foliage; • Stop bars are missing from the eastbound approach and faded on the westbound approach; and • No treatments have been provided for visually impaired pedestrians.

A series of remedial measures were identified to address identified potential hazards at the crossing location. The treatments, identified in Appendix A, would improve the conformance of the study site with available guidance and address minor deficiencies identified in the field investigation.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 1 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

To that end, Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. has been retained by the City of Hamilton to conduct a safety review of the pedestrian-cyclist crossing.

1.2 Study area

The study area will be limited to the pedestrian-cyclist crossing of Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard. Roadway, sidewalk, and pathway elements and road user behaviour identified at locations on Cootes Drive and on the pedestrian walkway and bicycle paths adjacent to the study area that may impact safety at the crossing itself will also be examined and discussed in this report. Exhibit 1 shows the location of the pedestrian/bicyclist crossing within the context of the surrounding road network and the study area.

1.3 Study objectives

The following are the objectives of this operation and safety review: • Review office data provided to Synectics by the Region of Hamilton, McMaster University and Pyramid Traffic, including vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle volume counts, and speed data; • Conduct a field safety assessment including a site visit, examination of design elements, and a Positive Guidance review and propose remedial measures to address any safety deficiencies encountered; • Identify causal factors that may contribute to future collisions; • Propose and evaluate countermeasures that may address the causal factors identified; and • Document the above findings in a report to City of Hamilton.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

ECoxothesi Dbriivte a1t S –andLeros Bcoauletviaordn of Study Area 2 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton Cootes Drive is an major arterial road that connects the community of Dundas to Main Street West. It is a four lane divided road N posted at 60 km/h at the crossing.

North of the crossing on Cootes Drive, a multi-use path is provided for pedestrians and bicylists.

The study area is the pedestrian bicyclist crossing of Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard. Sanders Boulevard is a minor residential street that is also a signed bike route.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004 Cootes Drive Sanders Boulevard Cootes Drive Sanders Boulevard Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 3 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

1.4 Data collection

Table 1.1 outlines the data collection processes undertaken to obtain the information required for the review.

Table 1.1 Data collection summary Item Location Source Date August 10, 2004 Cootes Drive at Sanders August 25, 2004 Site Visit Boulevard Pedestrian- Synectics September 22, 2004 Bicyclist Crossing September 23, 2004 Cootes Drive at Sanders September 22, 2004 Conflict Study Boulevard Pedestrian- Synectics September 23, 2004 Bicyclist Crossing Appendix L Cootes Drive at Sanders Sanders Boulevard and City of Boulevard Pedestrian- Undated Cootes Drive Crossing Hamilton Bicyclist Crossing Alternatives Evaluation Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian- Bicyclist Crossing Pyramid Speed Data October 7, 2004 Traffic North of Westaway Road on Cootes Drive Cootes Drive at Sanders Pedestrian and Bicyclist Pyramid Boulevard Pedestrian- October 7, 2004 Count Data Traffic Bicyclist Crossing

1.5 Glossary

The following terms have been established for this operation and safety review:

Conformance check - A conformance check is an assessment of the roadway, signage, illumination, pavement markings and other associated physical and operating attributes to ensure they reflect current accepted guidelines and standards.

Positive guidance review - Positive guidance review (PGR) is a process that uses a knowledge of human factors and the driving task to screen roadways for information deficiencies, expectancy violations, workload issues, environmental factors and operational scenarios that may potentially contribute to the occurrence of driver error and collisions. Although positive guidance techniques are generally applied to the driving task, these concepts and techniques can easily be considered from the perspective of all road users.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 4 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

For an intersection, the vehicular review is generally initiated approximately one kilometer upstream on each approach. A pedestrian review includes walking all roadways approaching the intersection, and crossing all intersection approaches at an intersection.

Potential hazards – identified deficiencies in safety, operations and/or positive guidance at a location that may or may not be contributing to a specific collision concern.

Remedial measures – improvements that should be undertaken to correct/address potential hazards associated with safety, operations and/or positive guidance.

Treatments – are physical or operational improvements identified as having the potential to address one or more dominant collision types currently being experienced at a location.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 5 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

2.0 Field Investigation

The field investigation included an identification of potential hazards and remedial measures and a conflict analysis. Each of these is discussed in the following sections.

Exhibit 2 provides a summary of the characteristics of the pedestrian-bicyclist crossing of Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard.

2.1 Identification of potential hazards and remedial measures

A site review was undertaken to review road user operations and interactions. This included a positive guidance review and a conformance check to facilitate the identification of potential hazards. The following was identified.

Roadway facilities

Cootes Drive is a four lane divided arterial road connecting Main Street to the south with the community of Dundas to the north and west. The absence of driveways, the Westaway Road overpass structure and accompanying on and off ramps, and the centre median means that it shares many similar attributes to an expressway. The roadway forms the boundary between the main campus of McMaster University on the east side and a residential area on the west side.

At its southern terminus, Cootes Drive intersects with Main Street West. Traffic turning onto Cootes Drive from Main Street West either makes a left turn from eastbound Main Street West at a traffic signal, or a right turn from an unsignalized right turn channelization from westbound Main Street West. There is a gentle horizontal curve approaching the study site from the south. The curvature of Cootes Drive and landscaping on the grounds of McMaster University limit approaching driver’s view of the study site.

Beyond the study site, Cootes Drive begins to slope downward. An off ramp provides access to the campus and the Westaway Road overpass. The Westaway Road overpass provides access to additional student parking for the campus. In the vicinity of the overpass, Cootes Drive begins to curve westward towards Dundas. For traffic approaching the crossing from the north, the curvature and slope of the road would limit approaching driver’s view of the pedestrian-bicycle crossing.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 6 PeEdexsthriainb aintd 2Cy c–lisSt Cirtoess iCng hSaafertya Rcetveiewr istics City of Hamilton

Cootes Drive

Cootes Drive Multi-use path

Looking north on multi-use path Entrance to Cootes Drive Multi-Use Path McMaster University

A 4.2 metre wide multi-use path Entrance to Pedestrian runs along Cootes Drive starting at Sanders Boulevard Refuge the pedestrian cyclist crossing. The multi-use path and the crossing on Cootes Drive is part of a wider network of bicycle routes.

Crossing at Cootes Drive Lane width – 3.6 metres Centre median width – 4.4 metres Length of pedestrian refuge – 6.9 metres Bollard height – 1.22 metres Bollard spacing – 1.90 metres

Looking west towards Sanders Boulevard Looking east towards McMaster University Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 7 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

The adequacy of the sight lines, both for northbound and southbound Cootes Drive approaching the study site, are verified later on this report.

The road surface is in good condition throughout the study area.

Pathway Facilities

North of the study site, a 4.2 metre wide multi-use path runs parallel to Cootes Drive. A generous grassy boulevard (15.6 metres wide) separates traffic on Cootes Drive from pedestrian/cyclists on the multi-use pathway.

Pedestrians may also cross Cootes Drive further to the north on the Westaway Road overpass, which is located approximately 400 metres away from the study site. A sidewalk is provided on the overpass structure.

To the south, a marked crosswalk is provided across southbound Cootes Drive at Main Street West and the channelized right turn off Main Street West onto northbound Cootes Drive. This crossing is located approximately 300 metres away from the study site.

Pedestrian and bicyclist access at the west end of the study site is provided to Sanders Boulevard, a low-volume residential road, by means of a 4-metre wide asphalt path. Approaching Cootes Drive from Sanders Boulevard, pedestrians and bicyclists may either turn north along the multi-use path alongside Cootes Drive or proceed across Cootes Drive. A significant amount of foliage overhangs the path on the approach to Cootes Drive. This restricts pedestrian and bicyclist visibility of the approach to Cootes Drive and also presents a potential hazard to cyclists in particular. According to the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Centre (www.bicyclinginfo.org), a clearance of 3 feet (1 metre) should be maintained between the edge of the trail and trees, poles, walls, fences, guardrails or other lateral obstructions.

Pedestrian and bicyclists crossing Cootes Drive at the study site cross in stages. Crossing from west to east, they first must cross two 3.6 metre wide southbound lanes to access the pedestrian refuge and two 3.6 metre wide northbound lanes to access the far side of the crossing.

In the centre of Cootes Drive, a pedestrian refuge is provided within the median. The dimensions of the pedestrian refuge are 6.9 metres across and 4.4 metres from side to side. Pedestrian refuges significantly improve safety at mid-block crossings as pedestrians and bicyclists:

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 8 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

• Are only required to look in one direction at a time to determine if there is an adequate gap in traffic; • Are less exposed to traffic due to a shorter crossing distance; and • Are less likely to choose an inappropriate gap as their waiting time will be shorter.

The pedestrian refuge on Cootes Drive more than adequately meets dimension requirements set out in a number of different standards (FHWA, AASHTO).

The east end of the study site leads into a large paved area that forms part of the McMaster University campus road network and a parking lot. The path to be taken by pedestrians and bicyclist once they enter the campus is not well defined.

Bollards have placed in several locations within the study area. The bollards are approximately 1.2 m in height and are spaced approximately 1.9 metres apart. The bollards prevent vehicles from leaving the roadway and using the pedestrian and bicyclist pathways. First, there is a set of three yellow concrete bollards at the east end of Sanders Boulevard to prevent motorists from using the pedestrian/bicycle access. Second, there is a set of three yellow concrete bollards on both the far east and west sides of Cootes Drive. These bollards are not reflectorized. FHWA recommends that all bollards used on multi-use paths be reflectorized.1

Finally, there is a single concrete bollard at the beginning of the paved area within the McMaster University parking lot – this bollard has been knocked askew by a vehicle.

The bollards adjacent to Cootes Drive are located a sufficient distance away from the roadway edge (5.3 metres on west side and 3.1 metres on east side) such that they do not pose a significant roadside safety risk.

There is also a set of five hollow plastic bollards within the pedestrian refuge: three on the west side of the refuge and two on the east side of the refuge. It appears that there was once a third plastic bollard on the east side of the refuge – which has either been removed or impacted and never replaced. The five remaining bollards are within the clear zone, however they would yield to any vehicle impact.

The asphalt surface is in good condition throughout the study area

1 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/pedbike/univcourse/pdf/swless10.pdf

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 9 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Recommendations: Add retroreflective material to concrete bollards. Trim vegetation surrounding pathway connecting Cootes Drive to Sanders Boulevard to provide a one metre clear zone.

Recommend to McMaster University that they define a pathway for pedestrian and bicyclists through the parking lot on the east side of the study site.

Reinstall third plastic bollard on east side of pedestrian refuge.

Recommend to McMaster University that they repair the bollard that has been struck by a vehicle.

Exhibits 3A and 3B present some of the issues identified in the review of roadway and pathway facilities at the study site.

Sight distance

Due to the limited visibility on Cootes Drive approaching the crossing, the sight distance was confirmed to verify that an approaching vehicle would have enough time to perceive and react to a pedestrian or cyclist within the traveled portion of Cootes Drive (by coming to a full stop).

The observed sight distance approaching the study site from the south was measured to be approximately 264 metres. The required sight distance, considering the 85th percentile speed (see Section 3.0) was measured to be approximately 93 metres.

The observed sight distance approaching the study site from the north was measured to be approximately 210 metres. The required sight distance, considering the 85th percentile speed (see Section 3.0) was measured to be approximately 102 metres.

Therefore, in both cases, the observed sight distance is greater than the required sight distance, suggesting that motorists approaching from both directions would have sufficient time to perceive and react to a pedestrian or cyclist within the traveled portion of Cootes Drive.

Detailed sight distance calculations are presented in Appendix B.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 10 PeEdexsthriainb aintd 3CyAcli s–t CrRososinagd Swafeaty yRe avienwd pathway facilities City of Hamilton

Roadway facilities Pathway facilities

High speed Overhanging foliage road environment A one-metre clearance Cootes Drive should be has the look provided and feel of a between the high speed path edge and road facility any foliage or similar to an other expressway. obstructions.

Limited Path into visibility McMaster ill- Visibility is defined somewhat Pedestrians limited to the crossing into south due to McMaster the curvature University have of the roadway no clear and delineated path landscaping through the parking area

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 11 PeEdexsthriainb aintd 3CyBcli s–t CrPosasitnhg wSafaety R feaviecwi lities and signs City of Hamilton

Pathway facilities

Nighttime Missing bollard visibility of bollards A single bollard is The concrete missing from bollards the pedestrian located on refuge area. both sides of Cootes are not reflectorized.

Damage to bollard Signs

A single bollard has been Signs non-compliant knocked askew due to vehicle contact (McMaster parking lot). Advisory signs (northbound and southbound on Cootes Drive that combine a pedestrian and bicyclist logo are not compliant with OTM Book 6. In addition, the signs are posted too close to the study site to provide adequate forewarning to drivers.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 12 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Signs

Roadway signs

On Cootes Drive, approaching from the north and south, an advisory sign has been installed presenting a bicycle and a pedestrian symbol. The sign is not a standard advisory sign, according to OTM Book 6, which recognizes pedestrians and bicyclists individually (WC-7 Pedestrian Ahead and WC-14 Bicycle Crossing). Combining the pedestrian and bicyclist symbols on a single sign potentially reduces the motorist’s recognition of pedestrian and bicyclist activity at the crossing.

The placement of the sign in advance of the crossing was verified according to OTM Book 6. The results are shown in Table 2.1. According to OTM Book 6, the signs have been placed too close to the study site to adequately forewarn drivers that there is a pedestrian – cyclist crossing at the study site.

Table 2.1 Placement of advisory signing Direction Posted Speed Required Distance1 Actual Distance Northbound 60 km/h 225 metres 137 metres Southbound 80 km/h 335 metres 204 metres Note: 1 Required distance to come to full stop assuming 2.5 second reaction time and a 5.3 km/h/s deceleration (OTM Book 6 – Table 4).

Pathway signs

Two types of signage are used at the pedestrian/bicyclist crossing at Sanders Boulevard: regulatory and guide signing. Signage on multiuse paths represents a unique type of signing for which there are no Ontario standards. Standards for signage on multi-use paths were found at the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) website2. According to the standards, signage should be placed 1.0 metres from the edge of the traveled portion of the pathway and at a height of 1.5 metres. The lower height reflects the lower line of sight of pedestrians and cyclists using the pathway. The offset prevents a bicyclist from striking the sign. The height and offset of the STOP signs on both sides of Cootes Drive are shown in Table 2.2. While not every sign installation height was measured, they appear to be consistent with those normally used for vehicular applications and not with pathway standards.

2 http://www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk/toc-imag.htm

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 13 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Table 2.2 Placement of regulatory signing at study site Type Direction Offset Height (from pavement edge) (to base) STOP sign Eastbound 0.65 metres 2.27 metres STOP sign Westbound 0.10 metres 2.44 metres

Several of the signs along the path in the vicinity of the study site have been defaced by graffiti, obscured by foliage, or have stickers affixed to them.

Recommendations: Use separate advisory signs for WC-7 Pedestrian Ahead and WC-14 Bicycle Crossing.

Relocate signing further away from study site (225 metres northbound and 335 metres southbound).

Remove graffiti and clean sign faces.

Trim foliage to ensure signs are visible further upstream.

Lower and reposition signs to meet ODOT standards.

Exhibits 3B and 3C present some of the issues relating to signs discussed in this section.

Pavement markings

A stop bar has been placed on the westbound approach to Cootes Drive and is considerably faded. On the eastbound approach, no stop bars are marked. Reapplication of the stop bars on both approaches would emphasize the need for cyclists to stop prior to crossing Cootes Drive, as signed. Application of the word STOP on the pavement in front of the stop bar would further reinforce the need for cyclists to stop.

FHWA also recommends that centerline pavement striping be used to increase the visibility of bollards located in the centre of a multi-use trail.

No crosswalk markings are provided. The absence of crosswalk markings indicates that pedestrians and cyclists crossing do not have the right of way, which is consistent with the current crossing contols in place at the site.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

CoEotxesh Diribvei ta t 3SaCnd e-rsS Boiuglenvasrd (continued) 14 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

STOP sign at Signs defaced or incorrect height hidden from STOP signs view (westbound and Many of the signs eastbound at study are difficult to read site) have been due to fading and placed too high. graffiti (top and Other pathway middle photograph). signs are not placed at a sufficient offset Foliage growing 0.65 m 2.27 m from the pathway. along the pathway Correct standards has restricted the for the height and visibility of STOP offset of pathway signs. signs are indicated in the adjacent diagram below.

Oregon Department of Transportation standards Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 15 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Recommendations: Reapply stop bar markings on west approach to study site.

Apply stop bar markings on east approach to study site.

Mark the approach to the crossing with the word STOP.

Provide centreline pavement striping to increase the visibility of the bollards in the centre of the multi-use pathway.

Accessibility issues

Visually impaired and wheelchair bound pedestrians should be considered at this crossing site at Cootes Drive. The crossing (on both sides within the pedestrian refuge) is flush with Cootes Drive, therefore facilitating the movement of wheelchair users. Visually impaired pedestrians would however benefit from a pavement treatment that would provide a tactile cue to them that they are entering/leaving the traveled portion of Cootes Drive. Detectable warnings, a distinctive surface pattern of domes detectable by cane or underfoot, have been introduced in the United States to alert people with vision impairments of their approach to streets. The ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) require these warnings on the surface of curb ramps, which remove a tactile cue otherwise provided by curb faces, and at other areas where pedestrian ways blend with vehicular ways.

Recommendations: Consider providing detectable warnings on pavement surface to provide tactile cue to the visually impaired that they are entering/leaving the traveled portion of Cootes Drive.

Exhibit 3D presents some of the issues relating to pavement markings and accessibility discussed in this section.

2.2 Conflict analysis

A conflict analysis was undertaken on Wednesday, September 22nd and Thursday, September 23rd to obtain further insight into potential road user risk at the study site. This particular conflict study involved the observation and rates of all ‘near misses’ involving movements of pedestrians and bicyclists across Cootes Drive at the study site. Pedestrian were observed crossing at other locations upstream and downstream of the study site – these were not included in the conflict analysis, but are discussed later in this section.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

CoEotxesh Dirbivei ta t 3SaDnd e–rs PBoaulvevearmd ent marking and accessibility issues 16 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Oregon Department of Transportation standards for pathway crossings of roads

Faded stop bar and potential enhancements Stop bar on eastbound approach to crossing is faded and absent from the westbound approach. ODOT recommends the word STOP painted on the approach to the crossing. ODOT also recommends yellow pavement markings delineating a path around the centre bollard.

Enhancements for the visually impaired Detectable warnings, a distinctive surface pattern of domes detectable by cane or underfoot, have been introduced in the United States to alert people with vision impairments of their approach to Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. Octobsetrr e20e0ts4.

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 17 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

The conflict analysis was planned to coincide with periods of heavy pedestrian – bicycle movements across Cootes Drive in the morning, midday and afternoon. Conditions on the two days were warm and sunny.3 A total of twenty-four hours of observations were undertaken. A description of the traffic conflict technique is provided in Appendix C.

Exhibit 4A provides a visual representation of the various types and severities of conflicts observed in the form of a diagram.

Table 2.3 provides a summary of the traffic conflict analysis. A total of 59 conflicts occurred during twenty-four hours of observation. The results indicate that approximately 2.4 conflicts are occurring per hour with an average severity score of 2.6.

Table 2.3 Summary of conflicts observed

Type Number Average Score Score > or = 4 Across northbound Cootes Drive Eastbound Pedestrians 20 2.3 3 Eastbound Cyclists 1 4.0 1 Westbound Pedestrians 3 2.0 0 Westbound Cyclists 1 6.0 1 Rear Ends 3 3.0 1 Across southbound Cootes Drive Eastbound Pedestrians 12 2.2 1 Eastbound Cyclists 4 3.5 3 Westbound Pedestrians 12 3.0 5 Westbound Cyclists 1 2.0 0 Rear Ends 2 3.0 1 Total 59 2.6 16

3 It should be noted that on Wednesday, September 22nd, the ACT Office (Alternative Commuting & Transportation) proclaimed ‘Car-Free Day’ on campus. This may have increased the number of pedestrians and cyclists crossing at the study site.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 18 PeEdexsthriainb aintd C4yAclis –t CrCososinng fSlaifcetty RAevniewa lysis: Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Crossing City of Hamilton

P P P P P P To Sanders Boulevard To McMaster University

P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P

P P P P P P P P B P P P P P P P P P P Key: P Pedestrian P Bicycle B B B Low Severity B B High Severity B B Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 19 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Pedestrian-vehicle interactions and conflicts

The conflicts primarily involve pedestrians and vehicles, where the pedestrian or group of pedestrians commenced their crossing during a gap in traffic that required an approaching vehicle or vehicles to either brake or swerve or the pedestrian needed to either retreat back to the curb or break into a run to avoid a collision. Generally speaking, these conflicts were of a lower severity. The most common conflict of this type was a pedestrian (or group of pedestrians) crossing eastbound (into McMaster University campus) across the northbound lanes of Cootes Drive.

Over the course of the conflict analysis, the following general observations were made regarding the behaviour of pedestrians and vehicles at the study site.

On the two observation days, southbound traffic on Cootes Drive queued past the study site for a short period of time between 8:00 – 9:00 am and between 4:00 – 5:00 pm. During this time, southbound drivers generally stopped just upstream from the study site, allowing pedestrians to cross. At all other times, traffic was free flowing in both directions with some platooning occurring. Motorists appeared to be driving in excess of the speed limit and generally did not adjust their speed when pedestrians were observed waiting to cross Cootes Drive. Generally speaking, when a pedestrian chose an inadequate gap in crossing, the motorist would adjust their speed or change lanes to avoid conflict. Some of these resulted in rear end conflicts between lead and following vehicles. In a few rare instances, the motorist would come to complete stop to allow the pedestrian to complete their crossing. This would however present a potentially hazardous situation, as the other lane would remain open to traffic and following vehicles may not see pedestrians crossing in front of the lead vehicle.

Pedestrian activity at the study site was significant and would generally peak at the beginning or ending of class times (thirty minutes past the hour). During these times, pedestrians would cross Cootes Drive in large groups (up to twenty pedestrians at a time). At these times, the number of pedestrians appeared to exceed the capacity of the pedestrian refuge and some jostling was observed, as eastbound and westbound pedestrians repositioned themselves on opposite ends of the refuge, such that there was a potential for a pedestrian standing next to the roadway edge to be inadvertently pushed into oncoming traffic.

During these periods of high group pedestrian activity, in crossing Cootes Drive it was observed that one or two pedestrians would check for an adequate gap and commence their crossing. The remaining pedestrians would follow suit, generally without checking traffic. In some instances, by the time that the stragglers

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 20 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton commenced their crossing, the gap in traffic would have considerably closed, precipitating a pedestrian-vehicle conflict.

While a majority of pedestrians cross at the study site, a significant number of pedestrian cross upstream and downstream of the location. South of the study site, some of the houses that back onto Cootes Drive allow pedestrians to short cut from the residential area west of Cootes Drive to the campus. Pedestrians choosing to take this short cut walk diagonally across Cootes Drive at a point south of the study site.

Overall, the pedestrians observed appeared to be in their late teens and twenties, and could cross at a brisk pace.

Other pedestrians were observed: • Stepping out into the near lane while the far lane is still occupied by traffic; • Jogging along the centre median on Cootes Drive; • Listening to headphones/talking on a cell phone while crossing Cootes Drive; and • Stopping midway across Cootes Drive to engage in conversation with another pedestrian crossing in the opposite direction.

Bicycle-vehicle conflicts

Bicycle-vehicle conflicts were also observed. These were less common in occurrence, but had a higher overall severity. Similar to the pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, the bicyclist commenced their crossing during a gap in traffic that required an approaching vehicle or vehicles to either brake or swerve or the bicyclist needed to either retreat back to the curb or accelerate to avoid a collision.

In most instances, bicyclists were required to come to a complete stop on the approach to Cootes Drive due to the amount of traffic. During periods of lighter traffic, bicyclists did however continue across Cootes Drive without coming to full stop in compliance with the posted STOP sign.

In contrast to pedestrians, bicyclists take a longer time to accelerate from a full stop. Several bicycle crossing times (from a full stop) were recorded, these averaged

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 21 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton between 5 – 7 seconds. In each of the bicycle-vehicle conflicts, it appeared that the bicyclists misjudged the adequacy of the gap in traffic due to this fact. In two instances, an individual mounted on a bicycle ‘pushed off’ from the curb, attempting to accelerate across Cootes, before realizing the gap was insufficient. They then immediately doubled back. In the meantime, a vehicle on Cootes Drive was required to brake heavily and in the most severe of the two instances, the driver sounded their horn. Similarly, pedestrians on roller blades were observed taking longer to cross Cootes Drive than their counterparts on foot.

Apart from disobeying the posted STOP signs, other Highway Traffic Act infractions were observed including the failure to have an operating light (as required at night), or reflective materials, or a bell for warning pedestrians. Failure to have an operating light or reflective materials is a legitimate concern, given that McMaster University has evening classes. These infractions, in addition to the failure to stop at the crossing, may be difficult to enforce. However, police enforcement initiatives conducted in the United States and elsewhere have had modest success when conducted by police officers on bicycles themselves.

It has been noted that McMaster University is taking an aggressive approach to the issue. Currently they have posted bicycle rules and regulations to their website4, including the Highway Traffic Act requirements mentioned above. According to their website, campus security in conjunction with Hamilton Police have also given out fifteen tickets to motorists and bicyclists for failing to stop at a STOP sign or a traffic signal during an enforcement campaign in September 2003.5 The location of these infractions is not indicated, nor it is known whether another enforcement campaign is currently being planned.

Exhibits 4B, 4C and 4D present visually some of the unsafe pedestrian-bicycle behaviours observed.

4 http://act.mcmaster.ca/cycling/rulesandregs.htm 5 http://www.mcmaster.ca/security/beat_Sept%204.htm

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

CoEotxesh Diribvei tat 4SaBnd e–rs BRouelesvaurdl ts of conflict analysis 22 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Approaching vehicle

A typical pedestrian – vehicle conflict Crossing behaviour in large groups The conflicts primarily involve pedestrians and vehicles, where During periods of high pedestrian activity, in crossing Cootes it the pedestrian or group of pedestrians commenced their was observed that one or two pedestrians would check for an crossing during a gap in traffic that required an approaching adequate gap and commence their crossing. The remaining vehicle or vehicles to either brake or swerve or the pedestrian pedestrians would follow suit without checking traffic. In some needed to either retreat back to the curb or break into a run to instances, by the time that the stragglers commenced their avoid a collision. crossing, the gap in traffic would have considerably closed, precipitating a pedestrian-vehicle conflict.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 23 PeEdexsthriainb aintd C4yCclis –t CrRosesinsgu Salftesty Roefv iecwo nflict analysis (continued) City of Hamilton

Pedestriians hidden from view

Lead vehicle stopped for Following vehicle pedestrians changing into median lane to pass llead vehicle

Pedestrian walking environment on campus Visibility issues On McMaster Campus, it was noted that pedestrians In a few rare instances, the motorist would come to complete dominate the internal campus road network. In all stop to allow the pedestrian to complete their crossing. This cases, vehicles yield to pedestrians. It is speculated would however present a potentially hazardous condition, as that some pedestrians are taking this mindset with them the other lane would remain open to traffic and following as they cross at Cootes Drive, having the view that vehicle may not see pedestrians crossing in front of the lead drivers should yield to them, rather than the other way vehicle. around.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 24 PeEdexsthriainb anitd C4yDclis t– CroRssiengs Suaflettys R eovife wc onflict analysis (continued) City of Hamilton

Crossing activity upstream and downstream of location While a majority of pedestrians cross at the study site, a significant number of pedestrian cross upstream and downstream of the location. South of the study site, some of the houses that back onto Cootes Drive allow Dirt path leading to Cootes Drive pedestrians to short cut from the residential area west of Cootes Drive to the campus (upper left). Pedestrians choosing to Bicyclist behaviour take this short cut walk diagonally across Cootes In contrast to pedestrians, bicyclists take a longer time to Drive at a point south of accelerate from a full stop (see above). In each of the bicycle- the study site (lower left). vehicle conflicts, it appeared that the bicyclists misjudged the adequacy of the gap in traffic due to this fact. In two instances, an individual mounted on a bicycle ‘pushed off’ from the curb, attempting to accelerate across Cootes Drive, before realizing the gap was insufficient.

Students crossiing upstream of study siite

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 25 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

3.0 Office review

The purpose of the office review was to examine the data provided to Synectics by Pyramid Traffic in order to: • Determine the operating speeds on Cootes Drive at and north of the study site; • Determine the vehicular volumes on Cootes Drive; and • Determine the number of pedestrians, bicyclists and other road users crossing at the study site.

ATR data was collected at two locations on Cootes Drive, referred to as Station 1 and Station 2. The location of these two stations is presented in Exhibit 5. Station 1 was located north of the Westaway Road overpass off ramps. The purpose of collecting ATR data at Station 1 was to determine how traffic on Cootes Drive responded to the posted 80 km/h speed limit north of the study site. Station 2 was located immediately north (approximately 20 metres) of the study site. The ATR data was collected on Thursday, October 7th over a twenty-four hour period. The ATR data allowed speed and volume data to be analyzed. The results of the analysis of speed and volume data are presented in the following sections.

3.1 Speed data

Based on a review of the speed data, it was determined that a majority of vehicles at Station 1 are traveling above the posted speed limit (80 km/h). The 85th percentile speeds in the northbound lanes were observed to be higher than speeds in the southbound lanes (100 and 93 km/h compared to 90 and 87 km/h). The relatively high speeds are not surprising, given the roadway environment north of the Westaway Road overpass.

Station 2 is located just at the beginning of the 60 km/h speed zone (a 60 km/h BEGINS sign is posted at the approximate location of Station 2). At this location, a very high percentage of vehicles were observed traveling above the lower speed limit (60 km/h). Overall, though, Station 2 speeds are lower than Station 1 speeds. The 85th percentile speeds in the northbound lanes were observed to be slightly higher than the 85th percentile speed in the southbound lanes (84 and 76 km/h compared to 75 and 73 km/h).

Exhibit 5 presents the results of the speed data analysis. Further information on the speed and volume data collected is presented in Appendix D.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 26 PeEdexsthriainb aintd 5Cy c–listS Cproseseingd S adfeatyt Raeview City of Hamilton

Posted Speeds 80 Immediately Station #1 north of the study site, the Direction Southbound Northbound km/h posted speed Lane 1 2 1 2 increases from 85th %tile 90 87 100 93 60 km/h to 80 km/h. Average 78 76 88 82

Station #2

Direction Southbound Northbound

Lane 1 2 1 2 85th %tile 75 73 84 76 Average 62 61 75 65

Sanders Blvd – McMaster 60 University pedestrian – bicycle crossing km/h

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 27 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

3.2 Vehicle counts

The vehicle counts for Station 2 immediately adjacent to the study site were examined. According to the ATR counts, a total of 25,858 vehicle counts were recorded during a twenty-four hour period. The morning peak hour occurred between 7:45 – 8:45 am, when a total of 2,143 vehicles were counted at Station 2. The afternoon peak hour occurred between 4:15 – 5:15 pm, when a total of 2,177 vehicles were counted at Station 2. It was noted that the directional split between the northbound lanes and the southbound lanes was roughly equal, with slightly more vehicles counted in the northbound lanes. Almost all vehicles (98 – 99%) counted were passenger vehicles.

Assuming a 1.2 m/s walking speed and a 7.2 metre wide crossing distance (two lanes of 3.6 metres), pedestrians require 6 seconds to cross either the northbound or southbound lanes of Cootes Drive. Similarly, based on field observations, it was determined that bicyclists require 5 – 7 seconds to cross either the northbound or southbound lanes of Cootes Drive when starting from a full stop. This indicates that during peak traffic conditions, both pedestrians and bicyclists are likely having difficulty crossing Cootes Drive. As observed in the conflict analysis, during periods of heavy traffic, pedestrians and bicyclists are in fact accepting shorter gaps.

3.3 Pedestrian and bicycle counts

On the same day, a count was made of all road users crossing at the study site between the hours of 8:00 am and 6:00 pm in fifteen-minute intervals. A total of 3,712 individuals were observed crossing the study site. Approximately 75% of the individuals crossing were pedestrians. Approximately 20% of the individuals were on bicycle. Another 4% were rollerbladers. The remaining 1% of the individuals crossing were wheelchair users, pushing a stroller or on a skateboard.

Movements across Cootes Drive at the study location were heaviest during the fifteen-minute period leading up to the half hour, corresponding to class start and end times. The highest fifteen-minute count at the study site was between 12:15 – 12:30 pm, when there were a total of 209 movements across Cootes Drive.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 28 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

It was noted that the directional split between westbound and eastbound movements favoured movements into McMaster University campus in the morning hours (eastbound). In the afternoon hours, there were more movements out of the campus (westbound).

Exhibit 6 presents a summary of the pedestrian and bicyclist count data collected on Thursday, October 7th.

3.4 Gap data

Initially, the study team had considered collecting gap data. Gap studies require that the study team record: • Gap availability – the number of seconds between vehicles at the study location; and • Gap acceptance – the number of seconds available when an individual chooses to cross at the study location.

Upon review of conditions at the study site, it was decided that such a study would not be possible. As mentioned earlier, pedestrians and bicyclists are often crossing in large groups and are often stepping out into traffic such that vehicles have to slow down. In essence, pedestrian and bicyclist activity at Cootes Drive is occurring in such large numbers that they are affecting the variables that would need to be collected (gap availability and gap acceptance), tainting the results.

3.5 Collision history

According to the City of Hamilton, in the last ten years, only one collision has occurred in the vicinity of Cootes Drive between Main Street and Westaway Drive, involving a vehicle and a cyclist. The collision occurred 75 metres north of Main Street on Cootes Drive. No collisions have occurred at the study site.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 29 PeEdexsthriainb aintd C6y c–listP Creosdsiengs Starfeitay nRe vaienw d cyclist count data City of Hamilton

Pedestrian, Bicyclist and Other Movements Across Cootes Drive: Thursday, October 7th between 8:00 am – 6:00 pm

250

Pedestrians Bicyclists

200 Other

s 150 n o i t a v r e s b

O 100

0 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 Time

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 30 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

3.6 Applicable warrants

Three different warrants were reviewed to determine whether or not conditions exist at the study site that would warrant a higher degree of traffic control. They were: • Ontario Ministry of Transportation, OTM Book 12 – Justification 5 – Pedestrian Volume and Delay6 • Transportation Association of Canada, Pedestrian Crossing Control Manual7 • City of Calgary, Traffic Control Policy Manual, Pedestrian Corridor Warrant8

The results of the application of the warrants are presented in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Results of pedestrian traffic control warrants Warrant Findings Ontario Ministry of Transportation, OTM Traffic control justified Book 12 – Justification 5 – Pedestrian Volume and Delay Transportation Association of Canada, Special crosswalk warranted Pedestrian Crossing Control Manual City of Calgary Traffic Control Manual Pedestrian corridor warranted

Further explanation of the application of the warrants is presented in Appendix E.

6 Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Ontario Traffic Manual Book 12: Traffic Signals, 2001 7 Transportation Association of Canada, Pedestrian Crossing Control Manual, 1998 8 City of Calgary, Traffic Control Policy Manual

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 31 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

4.0 Problem statement

A problem statement is used to clearly define the predominant collision type being experienced at the location, and to capture the circumstances surrounding these occurrences. The problem statement allows possible causal factors to be examined; likely causal factors to be identified, leading to the development of potential countermeasures. The problem statement may be multi-faceted and encompass the physical and/or operational attributes of the intersection, driver behaviours and/or actions, environmental and/or temporal conditions, as well as transitory or peripheral events.

Based on the site visit, the conflict analysis, the review of the vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle counts and speed data, and the application of the volume and speed data to the three warrants, the following problem statement was developed.

High pedestrian-bicycle crossing volumes – Pedestrian and icycle crossing volumes are extremely high (3712 crossings in a 10 hour period) or approximately 6 crossings per minute. As such, the study site represents a unique situation in that it is an uncontrolled mid block location. Typically locations with a high number of pedestrian-bicycle activity are confined to downtown areas at signalized intersections where the pedestrian is provided with an opportunity to cross the roadway during a protected phase. Application of these volumes to the three warrants reviewed demonstrated that a higher level of traffic control may be considered;

Excessive speed – Despite the presence of a posted 60 km/h speed limit, the ATR speed data recorded in the vicinity of the crosswalk indicate that vehicles are for the most part traveling at excessive speeds. The combination of excessive speed and the high pedestrian-bicycle crossing volume create a particularly hazardous situation, as illustrated in the following scenario:

A vehicle traveling at 60 km/h requires 67.9 metres to come to a complete stop in an emergency (assuming a level grade, dry pavement, a 5.3 m/s2 deceleration and a 2.5 second reaction time). In a situation where a vehicle traveling at 60 km/h is just able to stop in time to avoid striking a pedestrian or bicyclist, the same vehicle traveling at

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 32 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton the highest reported 85th percentile speed (84 km/h in northbound lane 1) would still be traveling at 75.8 km/h. A vehicle striking a pedestrian or bicyclist at that speed would have a 99% likelihood of fatally injuring them. The above example is illustrated in Exhibit 7.

The above scenario illustrates how vehicles traveling at higher speeds require significantly more stopping distance to perceive and react to pedestrians and bicyclists, and due to this fact, may still be traveling at a speed that would be fatal to a pedestrian or bicyclists while a slower vehicle would be able to avoid a collision altogether.

Unsafe pedestrian-bicyclist behaviour – As evidenced in the conflict analysis, some of the pedestrians and bicyclists are choosing unsafe gaps in which to cross and as such are either darting across the roadway or are requiring approaching vehicles to brake/swerve to avoid a collision. It was speculated that pedestrians/bicyclists are assuming that they had the right of way as they do on the McMaster University campus.

In addition, where vehicles are stopping in one lane to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to cross, in some instances it was observed that the other lane remained open to traffic. This presents a hazardous situation, as motorists in the lane open to traffic may not realize that a pedestrian and bicyclist is crossing, and may proceed through the crossing on this assumption.

Other potential unsafe pedestrian-bicyclist behaviours were also observed as noted in Section 2.2.

Therefore, for the remainder of this report, treatments will be considered that: • Address the problem of the high pedestrian-bicycle crossing volumes by considering treatments that would reduce the exposure of pedestrians- bicyclists to traffic crossing Cootes Drive; • Address the problem of excessive speed associated with traffic on Cootes Drive by considering treatments that would reduce the speed of traffic on Cootes Drive; and • Address the problem of unsafe pedestrian-bicyclist behaviour by considering treatments that would encourage more awareness of the potential hazards represented at the study site while discouraging actions that increase the risk of a collision occurring.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

CoEotxesh Diribvei tat 7Sa n–dersC Boounlesvaerdq uences of excessive speed 33 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton Comparison of stopping sight distance between a Relationship between collision speed and probability vehicle traveling at the posted speed limit (60 km/h) of a pedestrian death (%) and the highest reported 85th percentile speed

90 Speed at impact (75.8 km/h) 80

70 Initial speed – 84 km/h (Highest reported 85th percentile speed)

) 60 h /

m 50 Initial speed – 60 km/h k

( (Posted speed limit)

d 40 Speed at impact (75.8 km/h) e e

p 30 S

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Distance Travelled (m)

A vehicle traveling at 60 km/h (shown in red) requires 67.9 metres to come A vehicle striking a pedestrian at 75.8 km/h would have a to a complete stop in an emergency (assuming a level grade, dry 99% likelihood of fatally injuring the pedestrian. pavement, a 5.3 m/s2 deceleration and a 2.5 second reaction time). In a situation where a vehicle traveling at 60 km/h is just able to stop in time to avoid striking a pedestrian, the same vehicle traveling at the highest reported 85th percentile speed (shown in blue) would still be traveling at 75.8 km/h at the point of impact.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 34 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

5.0 Proposed Treatments

To addresses identified problems, a long list of treatments that could possibly address one or more of the following issues identified in the previous section, as follows:

• Treatments that address high pedestrian-cyclist crossing volumes; • Treatments that address excessive speed; and • Treatments that address unsafe pedestrian-bicyclist behaviour.

5.1 Treatments that address high pedestrian-cyclist crossing volumes

The first set of treatments considered may address the problem of high pedestrian- cyclist crossing volumes by reducing the exposure of these pedestrians-cyclists to traffic on Cootes Drive. Initially, the following treatments were considered:

• Install crosswalk markings; • Install a special crosswalk; • Install special crosswalk lighting; • Install a mid-block pedestrian signal; • Install a pedestrian overpass/underpass; and • Provide free transit service to students.

Install crosswalk markings

Crosswalk markings at mid-block locations have commonly been recommended as a means of providing safer conditions for pedestrians crossing a roadway. A recent study in the United States represents one of the most definitive studies on the effectiveness of crosswalk (Zegeer et al 2001)9. The study involved the examination of collisions at 1,000 marked crosswalk sites and 1,000 matching unmarked crosswalk sites in thirty U.S cities. At sites similar to Cootes Drive, having multiple lanes and a median, collisions were significantly (p=0.004) more likely to occur at those locations with marked crosswalks as opposed to those locations without marked crosswalks, as shown in Table 5.1. The authors noted that one of the reasons for the higher collision rate is an increase in ‘multiple threat collisions’. This

9 Zegeer, C; Stewart, J; Huang, H; and Lagerway, P; Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines, FHWA-RD-01-075, 2001

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 35 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton type of collision arises when a motorist stops to let a pedestrian cross and a motorist traveling in the same direction in an adjacent lane whose view of the pedestrian is blocked by the stopped vehicle strikes the pedestrian. This condition has already been observed at the study site in the conflict analysis. Another difficulty with marked crosswalks is that they leave many pedestrians and cyclists with the impression that they have the right of way. As noted at the study site, many pedestrian and cyclists already appear to be behaving as if they have the right of way and any encouragement of that mindset without a higher degree of traffic control would further reduce safety at the study site.

Table 5.1 Pedestrian Collision Rates at Sites with > 15,000 AADT, raised median and 3 to 8 lanes With marked crosswalk Without marked crosswalk

Pedestrian Collision 0.74 collisions per million 0.17 collisions per million Rate crossings crossings

Another consideration for marked crosswalks is the Highway Traffic Act requirement that cyclists dismount and walk their bicycle while crossing within a crosswalk. Most of the cyclists observed at the study site are currently riding their bikes across Cootes Drive.

For these reasons, it is not recommended that the City of Hamilton install crosswalk markings at the study site – unless in conjunction with one of the treatments described below (i.e. special crosswalk or pedestrian signal).

Install a special crosswalk

As noted in Section 3.0, according to the 1998 TAC Pedestrian Crossing Control Manual, a special crosswalk is warranted for the study site. A special crosswalk consists of crosswalk pavement markings, two white on black Pedestrian Crosswalk signs, overhead signs that are internally illuminated, downlighting on the crosswalk area and flashing amber beacons. Pavement stop bars are recommended 30 metres upstream on each approach. At special crosswalks, the pedestrian/cyclist may press a button to activate the flashing amber lights. When the flashing amber lights are activated, traffic on Cootes Drive would be required to stop in both directions.

Installation of a special crosswalk would reduce pedestrian and cyclists’ exposure to traffic on Cootes, but would do so at the expense of traffic on Cootes Drive. It should

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 36 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton be noted that given the amount of pedestrian-cyclist movements across Cootes Drive, particularly during the times corresponding to the start and end of class times, it is likely that the flashing amber light would be continuously activated for extended periods of time, adversely impacting operations on Cootes Drive. Long vehicle queues may form, leading to an increase in rear end conflicts (at the queue end).

While more commonly used in other areas of the country, special crosswalks are not a typical treatment in Ontario. The City of Hamilton, in particular, does not have any of the installations that we are aware of. Lack of local familiarity with the device may render its benefit limited in this location.

Install special crosswalk lighting

Several jurisdictions in North America have experimented with special crosswalk lighting. The systems alert motorists that they are approaching an occupied crosswalk using amber LED flashing lights embedded in the roadway surface on both sides of a crosswalk facing oncoming traffic. When activated by a pedestrian push button or automatic activation mechanism, the flashing amber lights are visible to the approaching motorist as an advance warning to permit vehicles to slow down and stop for a crossing pedestrian. The flash-rate, placement, and aiming of the in- roadway LED signal heads captures the attention of motorists and are visible down the entire motorist viewing path.

Special crossing lighting is activated only when a pedestrian wants to cross. This ensures optimum effectiveness on driver behavior over time to command the respect of road users. No additional markings or signage are required. Automatic activation bollards and/or pedestrian push buttons on either side of the crosswalk activate the system. A row of LED lights on the push button sign flash to indicate that the system has been activated, however, the in-roadway LED lights were designed to alert the approaching motorist, not the pedestrian, that the system is operating.

Such a treatment would raise approaching motorists’ awareness that pedestrians and/or bicyclists are crossing the roadway. Again, as mentioned earlier, there would be instances where the LED lights would be on almost continuously, due to the high amount of pedestrian traffic. Assuming however that the motorists regard them as a warning device as opposed to a formal traffic control device, it is assumed that operations on Cootes Drive would not be adversely impacted.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 37 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Install a midblock pedestrian signal

According to the TAC 1998 Pedestrian Crossing Control Manual, a midblock pedestrian signal is recommended for use where pedestrian volumes are high and sufficient gaps in vehicular traffic are not available to accommodate the pedestrian demand, and the crosswalk location is a minimum of 200 metres from an adjacent traffic control signal or special crosswalk. Pedestrian signals should have crosswalk pavement markings, two sets of two signal heads (for both directions of traffic), and standard pedestrian activated ‘WALK/DON’T WALK’ signal heads placed at either side of the crosswalk and oriented to face across the roadway. The vehicular signal heads would rest on green and the pedestrian heads in solid ‘DON’T WALK’ until the signal is pedestrian activated. Following the vehicular clearance period, the pedestrian ‘WALK’ would be displayed, followed by a flashing ‘DON’T WALK’ and steady ‘DON’T WALK’. The signal then returns to the green rest mode.

Other municipalities in Ontario have installed pedestrian signals at locations adjacent to universities. The Region of Waterloo was contacted to determine if they had any mid block pedestrian crossing locations adjacent to the University of Waterloo and Wilfred Laurier University. According to the Region, there are two mid block pedestrian crossing locations adjacent to both universities. Both locations have a pedestrian traffic signal that requires vehicles to come to a full stop. A recent count of volumes at the Wilfred Laurier University location indicated crossing volumes similar to Cootes Drive (2100 crossings in an eight hour period).

The operation of a mid-block signal would require appropriate consideration at this location. The crossing is in relatively close proximity to an existing traffic signal at Main and Cootes. Coordination with the operation of the two sets of signals would needed. Signal coordination has the potential to reduce the usefulness of the midblock signal. If pedestrians fail to wait for a right-of-way display before crossing, because of delayed response as the signal seeks the appropriate point in the cycle before changing, the benefit would be reduced. However, at this location, the high volume of pedestrians crossing will likely result in the signal being actuated each cycle, operating on virtually a fixed-time operation. This allows for the potential of improving coordination with Main Street and Cootes Drive and, because of heavy pedestrian demand and regular cycling of the delay experienced would be limited.

A midblock pedestrian signal would provide the right-of-way for pedestrians and cyclists to safely cross the roadway, as vehicles would legally be required to come to a complete stop. However, as with the other treatments that require vehicles to yield to pedestrians, operations on Cootes Drive would be impacted. The likelihood of end

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 38 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton of queue rear end conflicts would increase. However, the trade-off between increased low-severity vehicle-vehicle collisions and possibly preventing high-severity pedestrian or cyclist-vehicle collisions is reasonable.

Install a pedestrian overpass/underpass

Pedestrian overpasses and underpasses provide full protection for pedestrians and cyclists by completely separately them from traffic, and as such provide the highest level of crossing protection. Because they are high cost, require extensive time to implement and are visually intrusive, they are primarily used as a measure of last resort. According to the 1998 TAC Pedestrian Crossing Control Manual, conditions where pedestrian overpasses/underpasses may be considered are in locations where a pedestrian crossing is permanent and is located in a substantially developed area with established high volumes of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Perhaps most importantly, the manual also highlights that pedestrian overpasses/underpasses are only effective if the additional protection provided by the crossing is worth the extra time and effort require to climb the stairs or ramp by those crossing. Currently, pedestrians are crossing both upstream and downstream of the study site, and would likely continue to do so after a pedestrian overpass/underpass is built. A final consideration for this treatment is that it would be significantly expensive and difficult to build due to property constraints on the west side.

Provide shuttle service to students

McMaster University currently operates a shuttle bus service that runs between the main campus and a student parking lot located on the west side of Cootes Drive. If additional shuttle buses were to run free of charge between the residential area on the west side of Cootes Drive and the main campus, it would likely be used by some students, particularly those attending night classes and in poor weather (rain or snow). Nighttime and poor weather conditions represent an even less safe situation at the study site, therefore any means of encouraging students to use transit, or other alternatives to reduce crossing activity at this location should be explored.

5.2 Treatments that address excessive speed

The second set of treatments considered may address the problem of excessive speed by encouraging motorists on Cootes Drive to slow down. Vehicles traveling at a slower speed are more likely to be able to come to a complete stop when encountering a pedestrian or cyclist crossing that is unexpected, or if an impact

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 39 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton occurs, the likelihood of causing an injury or fatality is greatly reduced. Initially, the following treatments were considered: • Rumble strips; • Vertical deflection; • Horizontal deflection; • Police enforcement of posted speed and/or speed trailers; and • Changing the roadside environment.

Rumble strips

Transverse rumble strips are a series of intermittent, narrow areas of rough-textured, slightly raised or depressed road surface. Rumble strips provide an audible and a vibro-tactile warning to the driver. Typically, they are used on approaches to STOP controlled or signalized intersections. At the study site, rumble strips could be used to alert drivers to the crossing. Rumble strips have limited effectiveness on their own and would have to be supplemented with warning signs. While they may highlight the presence of the crossing to unfamiliar drivers, research suggests that regular drivers may see them as nuisances and will actually accelerate over them. As well, residents backing onto Cootes Drive may find them a nuisance due to the noise they create when vehicles drive over them.

Vertical deflection

Several traffic calming treatments involve vertical deflection and as such may reduce speeds approaching the study site. These include speed humps and raised crosswalks. In contrast to speed bumps, speed humps are an elongated hump with a circular-arc cross section (round-top) or flat top. As such, they are appropriate for public roadways. Raised crosswalks are similar to speed humps, but are specifically used at a pedestrian crossing, and often have a different surface treatment (such as bricks) so that they contrast with the surrounding pavement. Both speed humps and raised crosswalks are effective at reducing speeds. Raised crosswalks, with their raised profile and contrasting surface treatment also will draw further attention to crossing pedestrians/bicyclists.

While these treatments have widely been recognized as being effective at reducing speeds, they are inappropriate for use on high volume arterial roads such as Cootes Drive (1998 TAC Traffic Calming Guide). Another consideration is increased noise for residents backing onto Cootes Drive, and emergency vehicle access to the campus. Their use on a high speed arterial may contribute to sudden vehicle braking, in turn increasing the likelihood of rear end conflicts.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 40 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Horizontal deflection

A wide variety of traffic calming treatments involve horizontal deflection and may also reduce vehicular speed approaching the study site. Possible treatments that may be considered on an arterial road include narrowing the lane width or curb extensions. Narrowing lane widths may be done along an entire road section by simply shifting the white edge lines away from the curb. NCHRP 500 Volume 10 A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Pedestrians recommends reducing lane widths from 3.6 m to 3.0 – 3.4 metres and striping the excess pavement as a shoulder as a possible treatment for enhancing pedestrian safety by reducing speeds and reducing crossing distances.

Alternatively, curb extensions are commonly used at intersections or midblock locations where high pedestrian crossing volumes exist. The curbs extend into the roadway forcing motorists to slow down, as only one through lane of traffic is provided. As such they also reduce the pedestrian/cyclist crossing distance.

However, according to NCHRP 500 Volume 10, horizontal deflection measures that involve lane removal must always be considered in context of the potential tradeoff between pedestrian safety and vehicle operations and safety. Curb extensions may not be appropriate for an arterial road such as Cootes Drive and may cause sudden vehicle braking, increasing the likelihood of rear end conflicts, or encouraging motorists to take alternative routes (in turn causing operational and safety problems elsewhere). Emergency access to the campus would also be negatively impacted.

Police enforcement/speed trailers

Police enforcement can be an effective means of reducing speeds. Such an initiative would have to be ongoing for an extended period of time to change the habits of commuters.10 In order to be effective, police enforcement would have to be sustained and repeated, and part of an overall community-wide enforcement initiative coupled with a publicity campaign.

A complementary tool to police enforcement is the use of a speed trailer. Speed trailers display the speeds of passing cars on a variable message display. Speeds may be measured by an integrated radar or lidar unit or by sensors in the pavement for permanent installations. Speed indicators are intended to increase awareness of

10 FHWA, Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Speed - http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 41 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton excessive speeds and to encourage drivers to slow down. Speed trailers have had limited success at reducing speeds – but as with police enforcement, its application would need to be repeated and sustained for an extended period of time to change the habits of commuters. Some research however suggests that over a prolonged period of time at the same location (without accompanying police enforcement), motorists tend to tune speed trailers out.

Changing the roadside environment

Cootes Drive is a four lane divided arterial road. The absence of driveways, the Westaway Road overpass structure and accompanying on and off ramps, and the centre median means that it shares many similar attributes to an expressway. These attributes encourage motorists to drive at a higher speed.

Changing the roadside environment in the vicinity of the study site would encourage motorists to choose a lower speed. Several treatments are applicable to an arterial road like Cootes Drive and would encourage lower speeds. Low drought resistant landscaping (shrubs and flower beds) may be considered, both along the road edge and within the median. The study site may be highlighted by means of different coloured pavement surfaces, benches, rocks, sculptures and other roadway appurtenances – each of which can also highlight the presence of McMaster University. All of the above could slow vehicle-operating speeds while maintaining sight lines. Treatments would need to be designed so that they do not present a roadside safety hazard.

5.3 Treatments that address unsafe pedestrian-bicyclist behaviour

The final set of treatments considered may address the identified unsafe pedestrian- bicyclist behaviour observed at the study site. Initially, the following treatments were considered: • Education and enforcement campaign; and • Prevent pedestrians crossing upstream and downstream of location.

Education and enforcement campaign

Within McMaster University, the ACT Office (Alternative Commuting & Transportation) exists to inspire McMaster faculty, staff and students to use alternative transportation. ACT Office holds workshops (e.g. the Cycle with Confidence workshop), has an extensive website, holds public events on campus, and publishes a wide variety of materials promoting alternative transportation. The ACT Office is in a unique position

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 42 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton to promote safety awareness among pedestrians and cyclists on campus. Several messages that can be promoted of specific application to the study site are: • Pedestrians and cyclists must yield to motorists when crossing at an uncontrolled crossing (where crosswalk markings are absent); • High speed vehicle impacts can be fatal; • Pedestrians should have reflective material to increase their visibility at night and in poor visibility conditions (fog, rain or snow); and • Cyclists must adhere to the Highway Traffic Act by having an operating bicycle light, having a bell to warn pedestrians, wearing reflective materials, and coming to a full stop where STOP signs are posted.

With regard to the last point, City of Hamilton may consider conducting police enforcement (on bicycle) campaigns, specifically in the McMaster University area, that would target cyclists who are not adhering to the Highway Traffic Act.

Lastly, to remind cyclists and pedestrian that they do not currently have the right of way, the City of Hamilton may consider placing signs at the Cootes Drive crossing that state ‘YIELD TO TRAFFIC’.

Prevent crossing upstream and downstream of location

Another unsafe behaviour noted during the conflict analysis were pedestrians crossing upstream and downstream of the location. Motorists traveling along Cootes Drive are less likely to perceive and react to a pedestrian crossing at a location away from the study site. As such, these pedestrians are more likely to be involved in a pedestrian-vehicle collision. A barrier placed along the median upstream and downstream of the study site would discourage/prevent pedestrians from crossing Cootes Drive elsewhere. A low cost option may be a fence, however a more aesthetic alternative would be landscaping. Any landscaping placed on the median should be low growing drought resistant shrubs and bushes that would not impact sight lines between the pedestrians/cyclists crossing at the study site and approaching traffic.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 43 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

6.0 Evaluation of Treatments

A cost-benefit analysis, as used when evaluating treatments in a traditional safety review, was not used in this report as no collisions have been reported at the study site in the past ten years. Instead, as shown in Exhibit 6.1, the treatments were evaluated using a decision matrix. This decision matrix has been a useful tool in evaluating options in terms of their impact on safety and operations and overall feasibility. Each of the treatments considered in this report were scored according to a eight-cell matrix, evaluating each on the basis of different categories. Each element was given a score ranging from + 2 to - 2 depending in its relative merit according to each of the categories. These elements cover a broad range of categories.

Scoring of proposed treatment in the decision matrix is a relative exercise. For example, a treatment that scores a +2 when being considered for one application may receive a different score when considered in another. The reason is that scoring is relative not only between the different treatments being considered but also depending upon the scenario under which the treatment is being applied.

In each case the treatment must be considered against the matrix element, in the context of the application and of the alternative countermeasures that are also being evaluated. This scoring of options is intended to reduce the list of options for the City of Hamilton. The effort should be objective not subjective, but must also recognize the realities of application, which may vary within a jurisdiction. Further information regarding the scoring of the different options is shown in Appendix F.

Based on the results of the decision matrix, several treatments scored positively. These treatments will seen as being beneficial in that they possessed most of the following attributes: • They could be implemented with minimal effort in the short term; • They had modest or no installation/maintenance costs; • They would reduce the risk of a pedestrian/cyclist – vehicle collision occurring; • They would reduce the likelihood of a pedestrian/cyclist – vehicle collision resulting in a fatality or injury; • They would not negatively impact vehicle safety; • They would not negatively impact or would have minimal impact on pedestrian-cyclist operations; and • They would not negatively impact or would have minimal impact on vehicle operations.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 44 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Exhibit 6.1 Evaluation Matrix Problem Treatment FIM IMC PCF PCS VCF IPO IVO Score High pedestrian-cyclist crossing Install a special crosswalk 1 0 0 0 -1 1 -1 0 volumes Install special crosswalk lighting 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Install a midblock pedestrian signal 1 0 1 1 -1 2 -1 3 Install a pedestrian overpass/underpass -2 -2 2 0 0 0 0 -2 Provide free transit service to students -1 -2 0 0 0 1 0 -2 Excessive vehicle speeds on Rumble strips -1 -1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Cootes Drive Vertical deflection: speed humps -1 -1 0 2 -1 0 -1 -2 Vertical deflection: raised crosswalk 1 -1 0 1 0 0 -1 0 Horizontal deflection: lane narrowing 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 4 Horizontal deflection: curb extensions -1 -1 1 2 -1 2 -2 0 Police enforcement/speed trailers 1 -2 1 1 1 1 0 3 Changing the roadside environment -1 -1 1 2 0 1 0 2 Unsafe pedestrian-cyclist Education and enforcement campaign 1 -1 1 0 0 0 0 1 behaviour Landscaping barrier on median -1 -1 1 2 0 1 0 2 Category Key Scoring Key Score FIM – Feasibility and Implementation Extremely undesirable/ extremely unfeasible/ very costly -2 IMC – Installation and Maintenance Costs Not desirable/ not feasible/ significant cost -1 PCF – Reduction in Pedestrian/Cyclist Collision Frequency No effect/ effect unknown/ not applicable 0 PCS – Reduction in Pedestrian/Cyclist Collision Severity Desirable/ feasible/ not costly 1 VCF – Reduction in Vehicle Collision Frequency Extremely desirable/ very feasible/ minimum cost 2 IPO – Impact on Pedestrian/Cyclist Operations IVO – Impact on Vehicle Operations

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 45 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

The following treatments are therefore put forward for the consideration of the City of Hamilton in conjunction with the Hamilton Police Services and McMaster University.

To address the high pedestrian-cyclist crossing volumes: • Install a midblock pedestrian signal, providing operation that would coordinate the signal with the existing traffic signal at Main and Cootes.

To address excessive vehicle speeds on Cootes Drive: • Provision of horizontal deflection, in the form of lane narrowing; • Provide increased police speed enforcement or use of a speed trailer; and • Changing the roadside environment to discourage high vehicle operating speeds.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 46 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

The operation and safety review of the pedestrian and cyclist crossing on Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard supports the following conclusions and recommendations.

7.1 Conclusions

The site investigation identified a number of potential hazards, including:

• A significant amount of foliage overhangs the path on the west approach to Cootes Drive; • Concrete bollards placed on both sides of Cootes Drive are not reflectorized; • A concrete bollard on the McMaster University side of the crossing has been knocked askew by a vehicle; • A plastic bollard within the pedestrian refuge is missing; • Advisory signing on Cootes Drive approaching the study site present a bicycle and pedestrian symbol – and as such is not a standard advisory sign according to OTM Book 6; • The advisory signs are also placed too close to the study site to adequately forewarn drivers; • Signage on the multiuse path has been placed too high and too close to the pathway; • Several of the signs have been damaged by graffiti or have been obscured by foliage; • Stop bars are missing from the eastbound approach and faded on the westbound approach; • Application of the word STOP on the pavement would further reinforce the need for cyclists to stop; • Centreline pavement strips would increase the visibility of the bollards in the centre of the trail; and • No treatments have been provided for visually impaired pedestrians.

A number of remedial measures are recommended in Appendix A of this report.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 47 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Conflict analysis

A conflict analysis was undertaken to obtain further insight into potential road user risk at the study site. This particular conflict study involved the observation of all ‘near misses’ involving movements of pedestrians and bicyclists across Cootes Drive at the study site.

A total of fifty-nine conflicts were observed between pedestrians-vehicles, bicyclists- vehicles or vehicles-vehicles (rear end conflicts approaching the study site). Primarily the conflicts involved pedestrian and vehicles, where the pedestrian or group of pedestrians commenced their crossing during a gap in traffic that required an approaching vehicle or vehicles to either brake or swerve or the pedestrian needed to either retreat back to the curb or break into a run to avoid a collision. Generally speaking, these conflicts were of a lower severity.

Traffic was free flowing on Cootes Drive with some platooning occurring. Motorist appeared to be driving in excess of the speed limit and generally did not adjust their speed when pedestrians were observed waiting to cross Cootes Drive.

In contrast to pedestrians, bicyclists take a longer time to accelerate from a full stop. Several bicycle crossing times (from a full stop) were recorded, these averaged between 5 – 7 seconds. In each of the bicycle-vehicle conflicts, it appeared that the bicyclists misjudged the adequacy of the gap in traffic due to this fact.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 48 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Speed data

Speed data was collected at two locations: Station 1 (north of the Westaway Road overpass) and Station 2 (immediately north of the study site). Based on a review of the speed data, it was determined that a majority of vehicles at Station 1 are traveling above the posted speed limit (80 km/h). The 85th percentile speeds in the northbound lanes were observed to be higher than speeds in the southbound lanes (100 and 93 km/h compared to 90 and 87 km/h). The relatively high speeds are not surprising, given the roadway environment.

At Station 2, a very high percentage of vehicles were observed traveling above the lower speed limit (60 km/h). Overall, though, speeds are lower than at Station 1. The 85th percentile speeds in the northbound lanes were observed to be slightly higher than speed in the southbound lanes (84 and 76 km/h compared to 75 and 73 km/h).

Vehicle counts

According to the ATR counts at Station 2 immediately north of the study site, a total of 25,858 vehicles passed by the study site during the twenty-four hour period. The morning peak hour occurred between 7:45 – 8:45 am, when a total of 2,143 vehicles were counted at Station 2. The afternoon peak hour occurred between 4:15 – 5:15 pm, when a total of 2,177 vehicles were counted at Station 2.

The ATR count data also provided information on headway. During the peak traffic periods, the average headway between vehicles ranged from 3 – 10 seconds in the northbound lanes and 4 – 6 seconds in the southbound lanes. During peak traffic conditions, both pedestrians and bicyclists are likely having difficulty crossing Cootes Drive. As observed in the conflict analysis, during periods of heavy traffic, pedestrians and bicyclists are in fact accepting shorter gaps.

Pedestrian and bicycle counts

A count was made of all road users crossing at the study site between the hours of 8:00 am and 6:00 pm. A total of 3,712 individuals were observed crossing at the study site. Approximately 75% of the individuals crossing were pedestrians. Approximately 20% of the individuals were on bicycle. Another 4% were rollerbladers. The remaining 1% of the individuals crossing were wheelchair users, pushing a stroller or on a skateboard.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 49 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Warranting conditions

Problem Statement

While no collisions involving pedestrians or bicyclists have occurred at the study site, unsafe conditions exist at the site that make a pedestrian or bicyclist-vehicle collision likely sometime in the future. Several factors were noted that are contributing to these unsafe conditions, as follows:

High pedestrian-bicycle crossing volumes – Pedestrian – bicycle crossing volumes are extremely high (3712 crossings in a 10 hour period) or approximately 6 crossings per minute. As such, the study site represents a unique situation in that it is an uncontrolled mid block location. Typically locations with a high number of pedestrian-bicycle activity are confined to downtown areas at signalized intersections where the pedestrian is provided with an opportunity to cross the roadway during a protected phase. Application of these volumes to the three warrants reviewed demonstrated that a higher level of traffic control should be considered;

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 50 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton pedestrians/bicyclists are assuming that they had the right of way as they do on the McMaster University campus.

7.2 Recommendations

To address the concerns identified in the problem statement, a long list of potential treatments was identified and evaluated. This list was reduced using to a short list of viable treatments using a decision matrix. Based on the results of the decision matrix, several treatments scored positively. These treatments will seen as being beneficial in that they possessed most of the following attributes:

• They could be implemented with minimal effort in the short term; • They had modest or no installation/maintenance costs; • They would reduce the risk of a pedestrian/cyclist – vehicle collision occurring; • They would reduce the likelihood of a pedestrian/cyclist – vehicle collision resulting in a fatality or injury; • They would not negatively impact vehicle safety; • They would not negatively impact or would have minimal impact on pedestrian-cyclist operations; and • They would not negatively impact or would have minimal impact on vehicle operations.

The following treatments are therefore put forward for the consideration of the City of Hamilton in conjunction with the Hamilton Police Services and McMaster University.

To address the high pedestrian-cyclist crossing volumes:

• Install a midblock pedestrian signal, providing operation that would coordinate the signal with the existing traffic signal at Main and Cootes.

To address excessive vehicle speeds on Cootes Drive:

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard 51 Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

For the unsafe pedestrian-cyclist behaviour:

• Provide enhanced pedestrian safety education and enforcement campaign, specifically aimed at McMaster University students crossing Cootes; and • Prevent pedestrians crossing upstream and downstream of location.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Appendix A – Remedial measures

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

The following remedial measures presented in Table A-1 were suggested to address the potential hazards identified in Section 2.0.

Table A-1 Remedial measures Potential hazard Remedial measure A significant amount of foliage overhangs Trim vegetation surrounding pathway the path on the west approach to Cootes connecting Cootes Drive to Sanders Drive. Boulevard to provide a one metre clear zone.

Concrete bollards placed on both sides of Add retroreflective material to concrete Cootes Drive are not reflectorized. bollards.

A concrete bollard on the McMaster Recommend to McMaster University that University side of the crossing has been they repair the bollard that has been knocked askew by a vehicle. struck by a vehicle.

A plastic bollard within the pedestrian Reinstall third plastic bollard on east side refuge is missing. of pedestrian refuge.

Advisory signing on Cootes Drive Use separate advisory signs for WC-7 approaching the study site present a Pedestrian Ahead and WC-14 Bicycle bicycle and pedestrian symbol – and as Crossing. such is not a standard advisory sign according to OTM Book 6.

The advisory signs are placed too close Relocate signing further away from study to the study site to adequately forewarn site (225 metres northbound and 335 drivers. metres southbound).

Signage on the multiuse path has been Lower and reposition pathway signs to placed too high and too close to the meet ODOT standards – See Exhibit 3C. pathway. Several of the signs have been damaged Remove graffiti and clean sign faces. by graffiti or obscured by foliage. Trim foliage to ensure signs are visible further upstream.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Potential hazard Remedial measure Stop bars are missing from the Apply stop bar markings on eastbound eastbound approach and faded on the approach to study site. westbound approach. Reapply stop bar markings on westbound approach to study site.

Application of the word STOP on the Mark the approach to the crossing with pavement would further reinforce the the word STOP. need for cyclists to stop.

Centre line pavement strips would Provide centreline pavement striping to increase the visibility of the bollards in the increase visibility of the bollards – See centre of the trail. Exhibit 3D.

No treatments have been provided for Consider providing detectable warnings visually impaired pedestrians. on pavement surface to provide tactile cue to the visually impaired that they are entering/leaving the traveled portion of Cootes Drive – See Exhibit 3D.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Appendix B – Sight distance measurements

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Sight distance measurements

The observed sight distance approaching the study site from the south was measured to be approximately 264 metres. The observed sight distance approaching the study site from the north was measured to be approximately 210 metres. The required sight distance was calculated, assuming a 2.5 second reaction time and an emergency braking deceleration of 5.3 m/s2. The initial velocity was assumed to be the 85th percentile speed. The 85th percentile speed is approximately 80 km/h in the northbound lanes and 75 km/h in the southbound lanes.

Northbound Cootes Drive

The formula used to calculate the stopping sight distance for northbound traffic was:

SSD = Reaction distance + Stopping distance

Where:

Reaction distance = Initial velocity (80 km/h or 22.2 m/s) x 2.5 second reaction time Reaction distance = 55.6 metres

Stopping distance = Initial velocity (22.2 m/s)2 / (2 x 5.3 m/s2) Stopping distance = 46.6 metres

SSD therefore equals 102.2 metres for northbound Cootes Drive.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Southbound Cootes Drive

The formula used to calculate the stopping sight distance for southbound traffic was:

SSD = Reaction distance + Stopping distance

Where:

Reaction distance = Initial velocity (75 km/h or 20.8 m/s) x 2.5 second reaction time Reaction distance = 52.1 metres

Stopping distance = Initial velocity (20.8 m/s)2 / (2 x 5.3 m/s2) Stopping distance = 40.9 metres

SSD therefore equals 93.0 metres for northbound Cootes Drive.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Appendix C – Traffic conflict technique

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

C.1 Traffic conflict procedures and methodology

The motor vehicle collision propensity of the intersections was evaluated using the traffic conflict technique documented in the Update to the Traffic Conflict Procedures Manual (University of British Columbia (UBC), Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC), Hamilton Associates, 1996). The technique involves the systematic observation and reporting of traffic conflicts, or “near collisions” and assessing the degree of severity for each conflict.

When two or more road users approach the same point in time and space, one or both road users must take evasive action to avoid a collision. At this point, one of two events may occur. If the evasive action is unsuccessful, then a collision occurs. If the evasive action is successful, a traffic conflict occurs. In general, the presence of a significant number of traffic conflicts is indicative of operational deficiencies and collision potential.

The severity of the traffic conflict is measured by the summation of two scores assigned by the observer: the “time to collision” score and the “risk of collision” score. The time to collision score is a measure of the time before a collision would have occurred had no evasive action been taken, and is a function of the travel speeds of the vehicles involved. The risk of collision score is a subjective measure of the collision potential, and is dependent on the perceived control that the motorist had over the traffic conflict event. Factors such as manoeuvering space and severity of the evasive action taken are considered in the assignment of the risk of collision score.

The range of time to collision and risk of collision scores is summarized in Exhibit A.1. The summation of these scores is known as the “overall severity score”, which ranges between two and six. The results of studies performed at UBC indicate that traffic conflicts which resulted in overall severity scores of four or higher exhibited a correlation to motor vehicle collisions and are therefore indicative of a statistically more significant collision risk.

Exhibit A1 - Time to Collision and Risk of Collision Indices

Time to Collision and Time to Collision Risk of Collision Risk of Collision (seconds) 1 Between 1.6 and 2.0 Low risk 2 Between 1.0 and 1.5 Moderate risk 3 Between 0.0 and 0.9 High risk

C.2 On-site Observation Period

The site was visited on Wednesday, September 22nd and Thursday, September 23rd. The observers rotated between two locations, situated to the north and south of the study site. A total of twenty-four hours of observation occurred on the two days. The observation schedule is shown in Exhibit A2.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Exhibit C2 - Conflict Observation Schedule Duration Number of Days of Observation Time Period (Hours) Person hours 8:00 – 10:00 Wednesday, September 22nd 11:00 – 1:00 6 12 3:00 – 5:00 8:00 – 10:00 Thursday, September 23rd 11:00 – 1:00 6 12 3:00 – 5:00 Total 24

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Appendix D – Speed and volume data

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Appendix E – Application of pedestrian traffic control warrants

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

E-1 Ontario Ministry of Transportation (OTM Book 12) warrant

According to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, a traffic control device shall be considered at an intersection or mid-block location if a specified minimum pedestrian volume and delay criteria are met.

The Pedestrian Volume Justification (Table 20) indicates that justification is met where the 8 hour vehicular volume is greater than 7000 and the 8 hour pedestrian volume is greater than 1000. According to the data collected in the field, both of these criteria are more than met.

The Pedestrian Delay Justification (Table 21) indicates that justification is met where the 8 hour pedestrian volume is greater than 300 and the 8 hour volume of delayed pedestrians is greater than 75 (a delay being defined as 10 seconds). Pedestrian delays were not collected at the study site. Based on field observations, it is safe to assume that more than 75 pedestrians were delayed 10 seconds.

Therefore, according to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation warrant, some form of traffic control is justified.

E-2 Transportation Association of Canada, Pedestrian Crossing Control Manual warrant

According to the 1998 TAC Pedestrian Crossing Control Manual, justification is determined based on number of travel lanes to cross, stopping sight distance, distance to alternative crossing offering equal or higher control, one hour pedestrian volumes, crossing opportunities per hour and the community size. Table E.1 presents the criteria applied to the study site. Application of the criteria to the Pedestrian Crossing Control Warrant chart (Figure 13) indicated that a special crosswalk was warranted.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Table E.1 Application of warranting criteria to study site Criteria Application One hour pedestrian volumes 437 – (12:15 pm – 1:15 pm) (Includes all road users) Crossing opportunities per hour 70 crossing opportunities Calculated from Figure 9: Estimated Crossing Opportunities for a 2 Lane Cross Section using Pattern B – signals uncoordinated and assuming a traffic volume of 1496 (12:15 pm – 1:15 pm) Community Size > 250,000 population

Additional conditions that must be met are:

o A posted speed of no greater than 60 km/h; o No more than two through lanes in each direction (for two-way streets); o The installation would not disturb traffic flow at an adjacent traffic control signal (or another special crosswalk). A minimum spacing of 200 metres from an adjacent traffic control signal is recommended; and o Safe stopping sight distance must be available for motorists approaching the crosswalk.

The study site location appears to meet each of the above conditions, as the nearest traffic signal is located at King Street and Cootes Drive, approximately 270 metres away. Therefore, based on the Pedestrian Crossing Control Manual warrant, a special crosswalk is warranted. (Special crosswalks are discussed further in the next section.).

E-3 City of Calgary Traffic Control Policy Manual

The City of Calgary Traffic Control Policy Manual provides a warrant for a pedestrian corridor (a controlled pedestrian crossing). Criteria include average hourly vehicular approach volume, average hourly pedestrian crossing volume, an age factor, a speed factor, type of facility, distance to nearest pedestrian corridor or traffic signal, collision history, and visibility.

The pedestrian – vehicle warrant is calculated as:

Vw = V * P / 750

Where

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

V = Total average hourly vehicular approach volume based on 8:00 – 9:30 am, 11:30 am – 1:30 pm, and 3:00 pm – 4:30 pm counts; and P = Total average hourly pedestrian crossing volume based on 8:00 – 9:30 am, 11:30 am – 1:30 pm, and 3:00 pm – 4:30 pm counts;

P must be multiplied by 0.5 (an age factor) for pedestrians aged 19 – 64 years. Vw is multiplied by 1.25 (a speed factor) for roads with a speed limit of 60 km/h.

Therefore the pedestrian – vehicle warrant is calculated as 563.4 points.

The facility type warrant is calculated as:

Fw = (L – 2) x 3.75 + Ft

Where L = number of travel lanes Ft = facility type (3 points for a painted or raised median

Therefore the facility type warrant is calculated as 10.5 points.

The distance warrant is calculated as:

Dw = D – 200/ 13.3

Where D = distance in metres, to the nearest pedestrian corridor or traffic signal (270 metres)

Therefore the distance warrant is calculated as 7.5 points.

For the collision warrant, 10 points are given for any pedestrian collision in the past two years that could have been prevented by a pedestrian corridor. No pedestrian collisions have occurred in the past two years. Therefore the collision warrant is calculated as 0 points.

For the visibility warrant, 10 points are given if the visibility on either approach to the location does not meet the minimum safe stopping distance. Minimum safe stopping distance is achieved. Therefore the visibility warrant is calculated as 0 points.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Table E.2 presents the calculation of the warranting score.

Table E.2 Calculation of warranting score Criteria Score Pedestrian Vehicle Warrant 563.4 points Facility Type Warrant 10.5 points Distance Warrant 7.5 points Collision Warrant 0 points Visibility Warrant 0 points Total Score 581.4 points

According to the Pedestrian Corridor Warrant, a pedestrian corridor is considered to be warranted if the total number of points is equal to or greater than 80.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

Appendix F – Explanation of scoring in short list matrix

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

F-1 Evaluation Criteria

The following elements were considered for the decision matrix. It is important to consider the context of the application of the countermeasure and the relative comparison between various countermeasures proposed when assigning a score.

° Feasibility and Implementation– How soon could the treatment be implemented? How feasible would it be to implement the treatment? If the treatment could be implemented immediately or very shortly and was feasible, it scored positive. If the treatment cannot be implemented immediately or very shortly or it was not feasible, it scored negative.

° Installation and Maintenance Cost – What would be the significance of the cost of installing/implementing and maintaining the treatment? If the treatment did not involve any physical change to the road environment or any related traffic control device, it is given a score of zero. Treatments that are expensive to implement/maintain score a negative value. Treatments that involve no cost score a positive value.

° Reduction in Pedestrian/Cyclist Collision Frequency – Is the treatment expected to bring about a reduction in the risk of a pedestrian/cyclist collision occurring? If so, it is given a positive score. If the treatment is expected to bring about an increase in the risk of a collision occurring, it is given a negative score. Treatments that were expected to only have a marginal effect on the risk of a collision occurring were scored zero.

° Reduction in Collision Severity – Is the treatment expected to bring about a reduction in the probability that a pedestrian/cyclist collision will result in a fatality or injury? If so, it is given a positive score. If the treatment is expected to bring about an increase in the probability that a collision will result in a fatality or injury, it is given a negative score. Treatments that were expected to only marginally affect the severity of a collision were scored zero.

° Reduction in Vehicle Collision Frequency – Is the treatment expected to bring about a reduction in the risk of a vehicular collision occurring? If so, it is given a positive score. If the treatment is expected to bring about an increase in the risk of a collision occurring, it is given a negative score. Treatments that were expected to only have a marginal effect on the risk of a collision occurring were scored zero.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004

Cootes Drive at Sanders Boulevard Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Safety Review City of Hamilton

° Impact on Pedestrian/Cyclist Traffic Operations – Is the treatment expected to improve operations (gap availability) for pedestrians and cyclists at the study site? If so, it is given a positive score. If the treatment is expected to degrade operations (gap availability) for pedestrians and cyclists at the study site, it is scored negative.

° Impact on Vehicle Operations - – Is the treatment expected to improve vehicular operations at the study site? If so, it is given a positive score. If the treatment is expected to degrade operations at the study site, it is scored negative.

Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. October 2004