MCGILL CYCLING WORKING GROUP:

RECOMMENDATIONS

July, 2014

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 2

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 4

1.1. History ...... 4

1.2. Mandate ...... 5

1.3. Membership ...... 5

2. PROCESS ...... 7

2.1. Transparency ...... 7

2.2. Methods ...... 7

3. EVALUATION CRITERIA ...... 9

4. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE & BEST PRACTICES ...... 10

4.1. Cycling Data on Campus ...... 10

4.2. Frequency of Pedestrian-Cyclist Incidents ...... 11

4.3. Costs of Enforcing a Dismount Policy ...... 11

4.4. Effectiveness of Gates ...... 12

4.6. Peer Best Practices ...... 13

4.7. Relevant Trends in Montreal ...... 14

5. POTENTIAL RISK-MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 16

6. SCENARIOS ...... 18

6.1. Status Quo ...... 18

6.2. Shared Space ...... 18

6.3. Cycle Paths ...... 19

6.4. SCENARIOS: Variations on the Status Quo ...... 19

6.5. SCENARIOS: Variations on Shared Space ...... 20

6.6. SCENARIOS: Variations on Cycle Paths ...... 20

7. EVALUATION OF SCENARIOS ...... 21

7.1. Eliminated Scenarios ...... 21

7.2. Remaining Scenarios ...... 23

7.3. Conclusions ...... 24

8. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 26

8.1. Short-Term ...... 26

8.2. Long-Term ...... 26

9. IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS PLANS ...... 28

9.1. Physical Design ...... 28

9.2. Monitoring ...... 28

9.3. Communications ...... 29

9.4. Norm-Strengthening & Behaviour Change ...... 30

9.5. Preliminary Timeline for Implementation ...... 30

10. APPENDICES ...... 31

APPENDIX A: Scenario Maps ...... 31

APPENDIX B: Summary of Evidence on the Effectiveness of Shared Space ...... 34

APPENDIX C: Examples of Shared Space ...... 36

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Cycling Working Group was struck by the Associate-Vice Principal, University Services, with the mandate to make recommendations on the following questions:

1. Should McGill allow cycling on its lower campus? 2. What risk-mitigation measures should be taken to ensure that pedestrian safety is not compromised by cyclist activity?

Members of the Working Group were selected both for their relevant expertise and to represent a broad range of perspectives from across the McGill community. The Working Group placed high value on transparency and sought to make its work visible to the McGill community and invite input from community members. Additionally, key experts and representatives of groups likely to be affected by any policy change were pro-actively consulted during the Working Group’s deliberations.

The Working Group followed a methodical process to arrive at the recommendations presented here: (1) develop evaluation criteria; (2) review evidence & best practices; (3) determine potential risk-mitigation measures; (4) develop scenarios; (5) evaluate scenarios; (6) develop recommendations. There was extensive research and discussion by the group at each of these steps of the process, which unfolded from November 2013 – June 2014.

Early in its process, the Working Group identified four “must-have” criteria that any recommendation made by the Working Group must meet:

• Safety: Ensures that all users of McGill’s campus (including pedestrians and cyclists) are safe and feel safe. • Happy Community (Internal): Reduces tension and promotes good relations between McGill community members around transportation issues. • Fiscal Responsibility: Cost of infrastructure, maintenance, and enforcement is within McGill’s means. • Accessibility: Ensures that McGill’s campus is physically accessible to all users.

After evaluating potential scenarios against these criteria as well as a number of “nice-to-have” criteria and deliberating based on all available evidence, the Working Group reached consensus on the following conclusions:

• The dismount policy currently in place is an ineffective means of ensuring the safety of pedestrians and cyclists at McGill; • The level of risk associated with pedestrian-cyclist interactions on lower campus is likely to be higher than that which would be suggested by the incident reports being archived by McGill Security Services; • A change of policy is required in order to improve safety and reduce strife; • Of the alternative scenarios considered, the Shared Space approach is the option that appears best suited to the McGill context for a number of reasons; • It is plausible that the speed mitigation and norm strengthening measures associated with a Shared Space intervention would improve safety on McGill’s lower campus;

2

• The extent to which a Shared Space approach would result in increased levels of through traffic by non-McGill bound cyclists is unknown, but it is plausible that the measures associated with Shared Space would act as a disincentive for through traffic; • The Shared Space approach is compatible with the principles of McGill’s Master Plan, and the vision of the lower campus as an oasis of calm in the busy downtown core of Montreal.

Because of the uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of Shared Space and the extent to which a shift in policy would result in increased levels of through traffic by non-McGill bound cyclists, a carefully monitored and evaluated pilot project should precede full implementation.

On the basis of these conclusions, the group put forth the following recommendations:

RECOMMENDATION 1: Implement a Shared Space policy on the lower campus, east of McTavish;1 for a carefully monitored and evaluated pilot project.

RECOMMENDATION 2: Implement the new Shared Space policy in a comprehensive way, including:

• Develop an education and awareness campaign around Shared Space norms, including safe and respectful cyclist and pedestrian behaviour; • Install appropriate signage to support Shared Space norms; • Establish speed mitigation measures and pedestrian harbours at key points on campus to facilitate safe and respectful sharing of space;

RECOMMENDATION 3: Time the implementation of the new Shared Space policy so that the launch of the new policy is cohesive, coordinated, and clearly observable by the community;

RECOMMENDATION 4: Maintain the current ‘dismount policy’ until a Shared Space policy can be comprehensively implemented.2

RECOMMENDATION 5: Initiate an ongoing monitoring campaign prior to the implementation of the Shared Space policy, in order to be able to observe the impact of the Shared Space policy on measures such as safety, comfort, and cycling rates.

RECOMMENDATION 6: Complete an evaluation of the Shared Space policy 12 months after it is launched, and adapt or refine the policy as needed based on monitoring data. 3

1 A ‘dismount policy’ will remain in effect on McTavish Street, enforced by the City of Montreal. It is not within the jurisdiction of McGill to set policy for this street. 2 This amounts to a continuation of the status quo, reflecting current levels of enforcement of the ‘dismount policy’ and without reinstallation of the gates at the Milton entrance. 3 This interval will allow for the evaluation of data from a full cycling season. 3

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. HISTORY

The issue of cycling on and near McGill’s downtown campus has been the subject of significant discussion and activity over the past decade. To understand the context for the current situation, it is necessary to have a grasp on relevant past events.

The ‘dismount policy’ currently in effect is motivated by a desire to establish McGill’s lower campus as a “pedestrian realm”—a green and peaceful oasis in a busy downtown core dominated by motorized vehicles. This goal is expressed in McGill’s Master Plan.4 At the same time, the Master Plan also explicitly aims to promote cycling as a sustainable and healthy commuting option for McGill students and staff.5 Whether the pedestrian oasis concept is compatible with allowing mounted cyclists on campus, and, conversely, whether McGill can credibly claim to encourage cycling while requiring cyclists to dismount on campus have been the subject of much conversation on campus over the past several years.

DATE EVENT 2005-2007 McGill petitions the Ville de Montreal for a cycling path along University Street to divert through-traffic 2006-2008 Ville de Montreal opens cycling paths along Milton and de Maisonneuve, connecting McGill’s campus to the City’s cycling path network 2007-2009 McGill opens discussions with City on the need for a connecting path between the Milton and de Maisonneuve paths 2009 • University Street cycling path announced by City in August, established in Fall • McGill publicizes move toward a “pedestrian-friendly campus” 2010 (May) • Bylaw declaring McTavish as a ‘Pedestrian Zone’ passed by City. • The City removes 50 parking spaces • Bylaw restricts the use of bicycles on the street (punishable by fine) • McGill limits vehicular access to the street • McGill declares the lower campus as a ‘pedestrian zone’ • McGill removes 100 parking spaces from lower campus and limits motorized vehicular access to the campus • McGill initiates a ‘dismount policy’, asking cyclists to walk their bicycle while on- campus with pedestrian safety in-mind • McGill doubles the number of bicycle racks on-campus and places them close to entrances 2010 (Summer- In an effort to enforce the ‘dismount’ policy, the University posts Security Agents at the Fall) campus entrances and requests cyclists to dismount. 2010 University Services and SSMU co-host an open forum on cyclist and pedestrian safety. (September) There are no clear outcomes from this forum.

4 Master Plan Principles Report, Section 8.2 (Pedestrian Network). http://www.mcgill.ca/campusplanning/sites/mcgill.ca.campusplanning/files/2008_master_plan_principles_r eport_-_final.pdf 5 Master Plan Principles Report, Section 8.5 (Cycling). http://www.mcgill.ca/campusplanning/sites/mcgill.ca.campusplanning/files/2008_master_plan_principles_r eport_-_final.pdf 4

2010 The University removes the posted Security Agents, citing difficulty of enforcement. The (November) cost for additional Security Agents was $71,329 from June-October. 2013 (August- In an effort to enforce the ‘dismount policy’, the University places access-gates at the November) Milton entrance. This is poorly received by the McGill community and cyclists. Gates are subsequently removed for the winter after receiving significant vandalism. 2013 In an effort to improve the relationship between cyclists and pedestrians, the University (November) mandates the creation of a Cycling Working Group to evaluate options and make recommendations.

1.2. MANDATE

The Cycling Working Group was struck by the Associate-Vice Principal, University Services, with the knowledge of McGill’s senior administrators.

The mandate of the Cycling Working Group is to make recommendations on the following questions:

1. Should McGill allow cycling on its lower campus? 2. What risk-mitigation measures should be taken to ensure that pedestrian safety is not compromised by cyclist activity?

Many topics of interest to the McGill community were out of scope for this Working Group. These included, but were not limited to, means to promote cycling and other active transport (e.g. secure bicycle storage and shower facilities) and analysis of cycling on the Macdonald Campus.

Members of the Working Group were responsible for representing their different constituencies, providing their expertise, attending meetings, consulting with constituencies on key questions, staying updated with relevant material, and contributing “homework assignments” between meetings to help develop and evaluate scenarios and recommendations.

1.3. MEMBERSHIP

The Working Group members were selected both for their relevant expertise and to represent a broad range of perspectives from across the McGill community. The members are:

• Martin Krayer von Krauss, Manager, McGill Office of Sustainability (CHAIR) • Tanja Beck, Access Services Advisor, Office for Students with Disabilities; • Kevin Byers, Operations Administrator, Security Services; • Jessica Giles, Access Services Advisor, Office for Students with Disabilities;6 • Paul Guenther, Physical Planner, Campus and Space Planning; • Harald Kliems, The Flat Bike Collective; • Kevin Manaugh, Professor of Geography and School of Environment; • Lorraine Mercier, Director, Design Services, Facilities, Operations and Development;

6 Representation of the Office for Students with Disabilities was shared between Tanja Beck and Jessica Giles. 5

• Mitch Miller, Student Life Coordinator , Office of Campus Life and Engagement; • Joey Shea, SSMU Vice-President (University Affairs); • Virginie St-Pierre, Design Services, Facilities, Operations and Development; • Dea van Lierop, Graduate Research Assistant, Transportation Research at McGill in the School of Urban Planning; • Claudette van Zyl, SSMU Representative; • Amanda Winegardner, PGSS Environment Commissioner; • Wayne Wood, Associate Director, Environmental Health & Safety, University Safety.

In addition:

• Samuel Pivnick, an Urban Studies student, was hired to assist in content development for the group. • Lysianne Sévigny, Facilities, Operations and Development, served as secretary for the working group. • Julia Solomon, Senior Communications Specialist for University Services, and, • Doug Sweet, Director of Internal Communications, participated in the working group as ex officio observers.

Throughout the Working Group’s deliberations, additional experts and representatives were consulted as needed. These included Janice McGraw (Associate Director, Risk Management & Insurance), Lisa Gallagher (Executive Director, CPE McGill), and members of McGill’s senior administration. Their feedback was given due consideration by the Working Group.

To facilitate the progress of the Working Group, a smaller group was formed. This group planned the meetings, led the discussions, developed the content presented at meetings, created the “homework assignments”, analyzed the results for distribution and developed the final report. The members of this group are:

• Martin Krayer von Krauss; • Paul Guenther; • Samuel Pivnick; • Lysianne Sévigny; • Julia Solomon; • Virginie St-Pierre.

6

2. PROCESS

2.1. TRANSPARENCY

From the start, the Cycling Working Group placed a high value on transparency. In order to earn the trust of the McGill community, the Working Group committed to:

• Make visible the work being done by the Working Group and clearly document the steps along throughout the process that led to decisions; • Be receptive to community input, so that anyone with an opinion on the topic would feel welcome to express it to the Working Group.

To fulfill this commitment, the Working Group took the following steps:

• A website was set up on the Campus and Space Planning site7 as a home for the group mandate, membership, meeting minutes, presentations, and supporting documents, contact information, and reports. This website was linked from several relevant places (Campus Space & Planning homepage, Transportation homepage) and was also publicized via an article in the McGill Reporter and an announcement in What’s New for staff and students. • Communication channels were developed, including the creation of a webform on the Working Group website, and also an email address ([email protected]). These channels were monitored regularly (2x/week). All messages received a response and were forwarded to the Chair and relevant group members. Alternate communication channels (e.g. comments on social media and McGill Reporter stories) were also monitored.8 • Working Group members consulted with their constituencies, and were responsible for collecting and consolidating information to report back to the Working Group. • The Working Group was publicized several times in campus media and social media: when it was created in November, in January when the website and email address were live, and again when recommendations were completed and made public .

2.2. METHODS

The Working Group strongly believed that a clear, well-documented, and methodical process would be necessary in order to arrive at consensus, develop robust recommendations, and communicate them clearly to the McGill community.

The process documented here was agreed to by the Working Group at their first meeting, and followed in order to arrive at the recommendations presented here:

7 http://www.mcgill.ca/campusplanning/planning-services/campus-planning/circulation/cycling-working- group 8 As of June 16, 2014, 20 messages had been received and responded to via email and webform. 7

1. Develop Evaluation Criteria

Each member of the Working Group was asked to develop a prioritized list of criteria for weighing the pros and cons of different options. The purpose of this exercise was to determine what mattered to each member of the Working Group and their constituency. These lists were synthesized into similar categories and voted on to determine priority. Criteria were grouped into “must-have” and “nice-to-have” categories based on the number of votes received and the consensus arrived at through deliberation.

2. Review Evidence & Best Practices

The Working Group members were selected for their expertise and to represent a broad range of perspectives from across the McGill community. Drawing on this expertise, many members were asked to share this knowledge with the group.

When information was missing, Working Group members were asked to do additional research in order to ensure that the group was well-informed.

The Working Group sought to explore what other university campuses have done to manage cycle-pedestrian interactions. Group members were asked to research and compile examples of the measures that have been implemented at other universities (or in similar settings) to mitigate the safety risks attributable to having bicycles circulate on campus in close proximity to pedestrians.

3. Determine Potential Risk-Mitigation Measures

Drawing on individual expertise, group discussion, research and best practices, a list of potential risk- mitigation measures were developed. These individual measures were analyzed through group discussion and individual review by Working Group members in terms of feasibility, cost, and effectiveness.

4. Develop Scenarios

Utilizing the list of Potential Risk-Mitigation Measures, the Working Group developed a number of conceptual scenarios which sought to address the mandate of the Working Group. These scenarios presented several risk-mitigation measures packaged together in realistic and coherent combinations.

5. Evaluate Scenarios

Scenarios were evaluated by applying the previously-determined evaluation criteria to each of the scenarios. Each member of the Working Group was asked to evaluate each scenario individually, determining the degree to which it met each criterion. The results of these evaluations were compiled and presented to the Working Group for discussion. Consensus on the evaluation of scenarios (including the elimination of a number of possible scenarios) was achieved through group discussion.

6. Develop Recommendations

Based on a combination of expertise, research, discussion and the input of Working Group members to the evaluation criteria, risk mitigation measures and scenarios, the Working Group developed the recommendations outlined in this report.

8

3. EVALUATION CRITERIA

Early in its process, each member of the Working Group was asked to develop a prioritized list of criteria for weighing the pros and cons of different options. These lists were intended to reflect the values that each group member (and those they represent) considered important.

These lists were synthesized into similar categories and the revised criteria were confirmed with the Working Group and then voted on using a “dot-mocracy” exercise to determine their priority. Criteria were grouped into “must-have” and “nice-to-have” categories based on the number of votes received.

‘MUST HAVE’: It was made explicitly clear that any recommendation made by the Working Group must meet the following criteria:

Safety: Ensures that all users of McGill’s campus (including pedestrians and cyclists) are safe and feel safe.

Happy Community (Internal): Reduces tension and promotes good relations between McGill community members around transportation issues.

Fiscal Responsibility: Cost of infrastructure, maintenance, and enforcement is within McGill’s means.

Accessibility: Ensures that McGill’s campus is physically accessible to all users.

‘NICE TO HAVE’: These criteria were identified as having varying levels of importance for the Working Group. It was made clear that effort would be made to reflect these criteria when feasible in recommendations made by the Working Group:

Integration with Montreal: Maximizes integration of McGill’s campus with local transportation network and urban planning context.

Happy Community (External): Reduces tension and promotes good relations between McGill and Montreal.

Active Transport: Enables and encourages the use of cycling and walking at McGill

Positive Image: Contributes to the perception of McGill’s as an open, welcoming, inclusive community whose campus is a place of sanctuary. Demonstrates sustainability leadership.

Aesthetics: Harmonizes well with the historic aesthetics of McGill’s campus.

9

4. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE & BEST PRACTICES

Members of the Working Group reviewed research and collected data on a number of topics that were necessary for the Working Group to understand before making informed recommendations.

4.1. CYCLING DATA ON CAMPUS

• In 2013, approximately 16% of the McGill community commuted to the downtown campus by cycling when weather was favourable (this drops to 1% in the winter)9. This is an increase of 6 percentage points since 2011, and an increase of 9 percentage points since 200410. Applying this increasing trend to extrapolate from recent data suggests that “roughly 4,600 members of the McGill community currently cycle to campus”.11 In terms of transportation mode, cycling numbers are generally consistent between students, staff and faculty (proportionately).12

• Despite McGill’s ‘dismount policy’, traffic counts suggest that between 35% and 50% of cyclists destined for McGill remain mounted on their cycle while on campus.13 This displays the significant demand to circulate across the campus on-cycle.

• Being centrally located on the edge of the downtown core, there is a potentially-significant demand from the external community to ride through campus as a short-cut. Prior to the University Street Cycling Path being integrated into the City’s cycling path network in 2010, it was estimated that 25% of the cycle traffic through McGill was not destined for McGill, i.e. was using the campus as a short-cut.14 Anecdotal evidence suggests that the University Street Cycling Path has significantly reduced the number of cyclists using McGill as a shortcut as it has created another option for them. There are, however, currently no reliable data to confirm this conclusion.

• There is no East-West cycle corridor in close proximity for the majority of the McGill campus. The University Street Cycling Path (N-S) on the east side of campus links to the Maisonneuve Cycling Path (E- W), which is several blocks south and downhill from the Milton gates and the majority of destinations on campus.

• Based on geo-referenced data obtained from the 2013 TRAM McGill Commuter Survey, McGill assessed how many cyclists need to cross campus (East to West, or West to East) to reach their destination. Approximately 2,200 cyclists – roughly half (47.4%) of all cyclists destined for McGill – need to cross at

9 TRAM; McGill University. Findings from the 2013 McGill Commuter Survey. Summer 2013. 10 Adapte la Société : Pierre-Alain Cotnoir. Attitudes and Practices in Commuting by McGill University Students and Staff: Survey Report. September 2004. 11 St-Louis, E. & Manaugh, K. McGill Cycle Plan: An analysis of East-West cycling flows across McGill’s downtown campus. 2013. 12 TRAM; McGill University. Findings from the 2013 McGill Commuter Survey. Summer 2013. 13 McGill; Office of Campus & Space Planning. Bike and Vehicle Traffic Study (Downtown Campus). 2013 14 Vélo Québec. Circulation à vélo sur les campus universitaires; Quelques expériences canadiennes et américaines (2004). Pg 6. 10

least half of the lower campus to reach their final destination.15 Approximately 18% of East-originating cyclists’ destinations are north of Doctor Penfield and west of McTavish.

4.2. FREQUENCY OF PEDESTRIAN-CYCLIST INCIDENTS

The evidence that is currently available on incidents between pedestrians and cyclists has a number of limitations. McGill Security Services is only able to provide data on incidents that have been reported to them—an unknown number of incidents may go unreported, with anecdotal evidence suggesting that at least some do occur. There are also currently no records kept of “close calls,” “near misses,” or verbal altercations between cyclists and pedestrians, though these are also discussed anecdotally.

With these caveats, the following data should be interpreted cautiously, keeping in mind that the actual current situation on campus may be less safe than is implied by these figures.

According to McGill Security Services, based on an analysis of all reported incidents involving cyclists between July 2009 and March 2014:

• There were 8 reported cyclist incidents on-campus resulting primarily in minor injuries. None of these incidents involved pedestrians. • There were 8 reported cyclist incidents off-campus, but in the near vicinity.16 None of these involved pedestrians. • There were zero reported cyclist-pedestrian incidents during this 5-year period.

4.3. COSTS OF ENFORCING A DISMOUNT POLICY

Monetary Costs of Enforcement

In 2010, McGill Security Services personnel were mandated to enforce a bicycle ‘dismount policy’ whereby cyclists are instructed to dismount from and walk their bikes when entering McGill’s downtown campus.

This policy was carried out in 2 phases. During Phase 1, one a Security Agent was stationed at each of three posts at the McTavish Gates, Milton Gates, and Roddick Gates (total of three Agents). During Phase 2, only one Security Agent was stationed at the Y Intersection in order to cut costs.

The costs of implementing this policy were as follows:

• Phase 1 (3 agents, June-October) subtotal: $66,453.35 • Phase 2 (1 agent, October) subtotal: $4,785.90 • Total: $ 71,239.25

15 St-Louis, E. & Manaugh, K. East-West Cycling Flows. 2013. 16 These incidents were reported to McGill Security Services, but occurred off McGill property, e.g. along the University Street corridor. 11

After this period Security Services recommended changes in efforts to enforce the bicycle disembarking policy and reduce the costs associated with this endeavor. Although Security Agents continue to request that cyclists dismount, this is done during the course of their normal duties and does not have a quantifiable cost associated with it. Based on accounts from Security Agents and Security Services management, enforcing the dismount policy has proven extremely difficult, and has led to an increase in frustration with and disrespect toward this unit.

Social Costs of Enforcement

Since the ‘dismount policy’ was put into place, cycling has become a contentious issue in the McGill community. This is due in part to the fact that the ‘dismount policy’ has been difficult to enforce for a number of reasons:

• McGill does not have the legal authority to enforce the policy by, for example, issuing tickets;17 • Attempts at enforcement are often ignored, with cyclists continuing to ride in spite of being asked to dismount; • As seen in 2010, comprehensive enforcement of the ‘dismount policy’ would be very expensive;

Inability to effectively enforce the ‘dismount policy’ causes Security Services to lose credibility in the McGill community, and sporadic enforcement of the ‘dismount policy’ has led to widespread confusion and frustration, both among those who are unhappy with the ‘dismount policy’ and among those who would like to see it more comprehensively enforced.

4.4. EFFECTIVENESS OF GATES

In August 2013, McGill extended the parking arm and installed gates on the sidewalks at the Milton entrance. These interventions were a pilot project that was intended to:

• Prevent cyclists from entering along the roadway, directing them onto the sidewalk instead; • Encourage cyclists to dismount on the sidewalk, and remain dismounted while on-campus.

Data collected after the gates were installed show that, in spite of the gates, 34% of cyclists entering at the Milton entrance remained mounted on-campus.18 In comparison, a study conducted in 2011, prior to the installation of the gates, found that 35% of the cyclists entering at the Milton entrance remained mounted while on campus19. While it is unknown what the proportion of mounted cyclists was just prior to the installation of the gates, the historic data available suggests that the gates had little impact on the behaviour of cyclists entering campus through the Milton Gates.

17 McTavish Street, unlike the rest of the lower downtown campus, is public property. The City of Montreal, therefore, has the right to enforce a pedestrians-only policy and issue tickets. 18 Mounted cyclists includes those cyclists that ride continually through the entry-point, in addition to those that dismount to pass the gates and then re-mount to ride through campus. 19 Office of Campus & Space Planning; McGill University. Cycling Data. October 2013. 12

For the other entry points to campus (McTavish & Roddick), approximately 50% of cyclists remained mounted in 2013; these proportions have remained consistent with data from 2010 and 201120.

There were complaints from student groups (AUS, SSMU), student media, the Office for Students with Disabilities, and members of the McGill community regarding the negative impact that the gates had on making the campus a welcoming space in addition to their negative impact on accessibility and a number of safety issues.

In November 2013, following significant vandalism, the gates were removed for the winter season. The decision of whether to reinstall them in spring was deferred pending the recommendations of this Working Group.

4.6. PEER BEST PRACTICES

The Working Group researched what comparable post-secondary institutions have done to mitigate risks between cyclists and pedestrians.

INSTITUTION CONTEXT POLICY Harvard Located in a dense Restricts motorized vehicle access on campus. Does not University residential area within a permit cycling within Harvard Yard; no speed mitigation large urban centre measures in place. Policy enforced by Campus Police.

McMaster Located within the core Restricts motorized vehicle access on campus. Provides a University of a medium-sized urban shared space for cyclists and pedestrians. No speed centre mitigation measures are taken.

University of Located on the periphery Is a pedestrian-friendly community with core roads closed to British Columbia of a large urban centre cars. Campus is divided between “pedestrian-only zones”, “shared pathways/slow cycling zones”, and “quicker cycling routes.” Pavement markings indicate biking areas. Installation of cycling signage, footpaths, and green space restrict motorized vehicle access. Cycle paths on both sides of main road.21 University of Located within the core Permits motorized vehicle access on campus. Provides cycle Guelph of a small urban centre lanes through campus along motorized vehicle routes. Integrated into city cycle path network. Shared space (cyclists/pedestrians) on main campus artery. University of Located within the core Permits motorized vehicle access on campus. No restrictions Toronto of a large urban centre on cyclists. Integrated into city cycle path network.

University of Located in the residential Permits motorized vehicles on campus perimeter. No Victoria periphery of a small controls, signage, or policy related to cyclist/pedestrian urban centre interaction.

20 Office of Campus & Space Planning; McGill University. Cycling Data. October 2013. 21 In response to McGill inquiry, UBC Security Services performed a search in their database and found <10 incidents involving cyclists in 2013. None of the incidents were major or of significant importance. It is unknown whether any involved pedestrians. 13

University of Located within the core Permits motorized vehicle access on campus. Provides cycle Wisconsin- of a medium-sized urban paths for roads with motorized vehicles. Provides shared Madison centre space for areas without cars. No speed mitigation measures are taken.

In summary, the large majority of best practices reflect that motorized vehicle-free areas are typically considered as a form of ‘shared space’ for cyclists and pedestrians, and that little effort is made to mitigate risks between cyclists and pedestrians.

In investigating the best practices, members of the Working Group spoke with professionals in the planning and traffic departments of the universities listed above. None of these professionals identified safety concerns or other major issues with their current policies. Comments in regard to cyclists on campus and shared space were generally positive.

4.7. RELEVANT TRENDS IN MONTREAL

The Ville de Montreal actively promotes active transit and pedestrian culture, and has taken a number of steps which are relevant for McGill’s decision-making because our infrastructure and transit culture are closely tied with those of Montreal.

• Promotion of cycling for citizens: o Providing the popular Bixi cycle-sharing infrastructure; o Hosting and promoting a number of cycle-related events; o Continuously expanding its cycle-path network (over 600km presently)

• Promotion of a pedestrian environment: o The Ville de Montreal has created a number of permanent and seasonal pedestrian streets throughout the city, which restrict motorized vehicle and cycle access on the street; this o Restriction is enforceable by fine. Rue McTavish, adjacent to McGill’s lower campus, is one of these streets and subject to the same bicycle restrictions as other Rues piétonnes. o Recently, this bylaw was relaxed on Rue Prince Arthur, which is primarily pedestrianized, but now permits bicycle traffic from 7-11AM, making the street a shared space.22 o Montreal created its first entirely shared space in Saint-Henri in 2013. • Greening roadways: o The borough of Plateau-Mont Royal has been permanently converting underused roadways into green pedestrian spaces. These transformations resulted in the loss of parking, a loss or restriction in general motorized vehicle access (while preserving access for service and emergency vehicles), and the replacement of hard surfaces with grass and gravel pathways. o In preparation for the 375th anniversary of Montreal, the Ville de Montreal has been developing the concept of “promenades urbaines,” green corridors that will connect the Saint Lawrence

22 http://tvanouvelles.ca/lcn/infos/regional/montreal/archives/2013/06/20130604-201234.html 14

River to Mount Royal. McTavish Street will be one of these “promenades urbaines” and there is currently conversation around the greening of University Street as well. o Some examples of such radical transformations of roadways elsewhere in Montreal can be seen in Parc Baldwin, Parc Laurier and Parc Lahaie (Appendix D).

15

5. POTENTIAL RISK-MITIGATION MEASURES

Drawing on individual expertise, discussion, research and best practices, a list of potential risk mitigation measures were developed. These were measures which, in the opinion of the Working Group, might reasonably be expected reduce the potential risk of cyclist-pedestrian accidents on campus if a decision were made to allow mounted cycling.

The Working Group assessed these measures within the context of the evaluation criteria. These individual measures were analyzed through group discussion and individual review in terms of feasibility, cost and effectiveness. It is important to note that while the Working Group began by considering the measures individually, the intention from the start was to build packages of compatible measures into scenarios.

RISK-MITIGATION REDUCES RISK BY… COST BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE GATES: Install gates at Forces cyclists onto Low Unwelcoming, poor reception from the campus entrances sidewalks, encourages internal and external community, cyclists to dismount, creates congestion, possible discourages through- accessibility & safety issues, little traffic impact on the number of mounted cyclists

TEXTURED PAVING: Discourages speed High Expensive and long to implement, Permanently change the through discomfort poses issues to snow removal, could surface material on impact accessibility, does not separate campus roads to a cyclists from pedestrians textured surface, which would result in vehicle vibrations. This could be implemented across campus or in specific areas. RUMBLE STRIPS: Alerts and slows Medium Potential safety and accessibility issue, Permanently change the cyclists does not separate cyclists from surface material on pedestrians, unknown physical impact campus roads in specific on street surface, little precedent areas by grading strips into the surface which would result in vehicle vibrations. SPEED BUMPS: Alerts and slows Low Potential safety and accessibility Temporarily or cyclists (University issues, does not separate cyclists from permanently alter the has pedestrians surface material on temporary campus roads in specific speed areas by installing bumps in bumps onto the surface inventory) which would result in vehicle vibrations. GREEN/NATURAL Creates a surface that is Medium - Expensive and long to implement, SPACES: Change the uncomfortable to cycle High ongoing operation/maintenance costs, surface material on parts on and clearly requires support of Fire Department if of campus roadways to a designated for altering roads used for emergency

16

natural or green surface. pedestrians. access.

SEPARATED CYCLE Separates cyclists and High Complexity at intersections, could PATH: Construct a pedestrians encourage through-traffic, does not physically separated slow cyclists, restricts road width, cycle path through creates potentially false sense of safety campus VISUAL CYCLE PATH: Encourages the Low - High Easily avoidable, complexity at Visually designate a separation of cyclists (depending intersections, could encourage cycle path through and pedestrians on the through-traffic, does not slow cyclists, campus visual does not physically separate cyclists markers) from pedestrians, creates potentially false sense of safety ZONE INCENTIVES:* Can influence Low - High Potentially expensive and avoidable, Specific infrastructure to likelihood of riding does not slow cyclists, does not accommodate cyclists, in/to certain areas physically separate cyclists from encourages traffic flow pedestrians in certain areas ENHANCED SIGNAGE:* Informs cyclists and Low Can be easily ignored, creates visual Install signage to inform increases their pollution, loses effectiveness over and educate awareness time, does not slow cyclists, does not physically separate cyclists from pedestrians EDUCATION & NORMS:* Can change cyclist & Medium Can be easily ignored, requires regular Strengthen norms pedestrian behaviour, outreach due to large turnover of relating to safe and can provide rationale students, does not slow cyclists, does respectful cycling and for decisions made by not physically separate cyclists from walking through regular McGill, building buy-in pedestrians campaigns and other promotional endeavours

* These three measures were considered complementary to other measures and were incorporated, to varying degrees, in all scenarios.

17

6. SCENARIOS

The Working Group built scenarios based on the risk-mitigation measures described above, taking into account their various pros and cons. The scenarios fell into three distinct categories: variations on the status quo, variations on a cycle path, and variations on shared space.

Prior to describing the scenarios themselves, it is necessary to describe the features of and evidence related to these three categories of scenarios.

6.1. STATUS QUO

The status quo, in which cycling is not permitted on McGill’s downtown campus, with a ‘dismount policy’ in effect, is motivated by a desire to ensure the safety of pedestrians and establish a peaceful “pedestrian realm” in which they do not feel threatened by the presence of either motorized vehicles or bicycles.

Maintaining and enforcing the ‘dismount policy’ is an option sometimes suggested by members of the McGill community. Scenarios that included variations on the status quo were considered by the Working Group, and are described in Section 6.4.

Data on the history, effectiveness, and costs related to the status quo are presented in Sections 1.1 and 4.1-4.4 of this report.

6.2. SHARED SPACE

Establishing Shared Space23 on the downtown campus is an option sometimes suggested by members of the McGill community. Scenarios that included variations on Shared Space were considered by the Working Group, and are described in Section 6.5.

Shared Space is an approach to street design that minimizes the separations between motorized vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians, forcing all mode users to share the space24. Often, Shared Space approaches are motivated by a desire to reduce the dominance of motorized vehicles. Under the Shared Space model, the pedestrian is considered the primary user of the shared space, and has the right of way at all times.

Shared Space is premised on several mechanisms:

• By increasing the level of perceived risk in the absence of sidewalks and other physical barriers, Shared Space forces pedestrians and vehicles to remain alert, make themselves aware of the

23 Shared space models are sometimes referred to by the name ‘woonerf’ which refers to a Dutch model of shared space in which cyclists and pedestrians have legal priority over motorized vehicles. 24 Moody, S. and Melia, S. (2013) Shared space: Research, policy and problems. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Transport. 18

presence of all other road users, and use eye contact to signal their intentions. This increased level of awareness can lower the level of actual risk for all users, but especially for pedestrians.25 • By encouraging negotiations and accommodations between different users, a Shared Space approach can slow traffic. In addition, a variety of speed mitigation measures, such as textured surfaces and speed bumps, can be used to slow vehicle traffic. • The creation of ‘pedestrian harbours’, areas that are only accessible to pedestrians within the shared space (e.g. grouped street furniture or areas of grass), can act both as ‘islands of shelter’ for pedestrians and as obstacles to help slow vehicle traffic. • Over time, Shared Space can strengthen the norms of pedestrian right-of-way and respectful behavior by all users.

A final feature of the Shared Space approach that is relevant for the McGill context is its adaptability to fluctuations in demand. Unlike fixed infrastructure such as cycle paths, Shared Space can shift organically to accommodate the varying needs of the road at different seasons and different times of day.

A literature review of the evidence related to Shared Space is presented in Appendix B, although there is limited objective evidence of the effectiveness of this approach in situations that include primarily cyclists and pedestrians. Some visual representations of Shared Space can be seen in Appendix C.

6.3. CYCLE PATHS

Establishing a cycle path on the downtown campus is an option sometimes suggested by members of the McGill community. Scenarios that included variations on cycle paths were considered by the Working Group, and are described in Section 6.6.

Cycle paths improve safety in some situations by creating a degree of separation between users. This separation can be in the form of a physical barrier, or simply a visual demarcation.

Literature on cycle paths is generally concerned about protecting cyclists from motorized vehicles and there is little precedent for using cycle paths to protect pedestrians from cyclists. Therefore, much of the literature on the effectiveness of cycle paths in improving safety is not relevant for McGill’s downtown campus, where there are few motorized vehicles and the hazards of concern relate to the interactions between cyclists and pedestrians.

6.4. SCENARIOS: VARIATIONS ON THE STATUS QUO

25 Valenoza, R. Design with Sharing in Mind: An Exploration of Shared Space and its Application to Downtown Yonge Street in Toronto. Thesis; Landscape Architecture; University of Guelph. 2013. https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/handle/10214/6613 19

Visual representations of Scenarios 3-7 can be seen in Appendix A. Scenarios 1 and 2 are not visualized because they represent variations of the current status quo on campus.

Scenario 1: Status Quo: This scenario involves maintaining the current ‘dismount policy,’ which requires cyclists to dismount and walk. Maintaining this policy would require no additional costs.

Mandating additional Security Agents to enforce this policy would add significant cost.

Scenario 2: Status Quo and Gates: This scenario involves maintaining the current ‘dismount policy,’ which requires cyclists to dismount and walk, as well as installing gates at the entrance(s).

Scenario 3: Status Quo, Gates and Speed Mitigation Measures: This scenario involves maintaining the current ‘dismount policy,’ which requires cyclists to dismount and walk, installing gates at the entrance(s), and placing speed mitigation measures such as rumple strips or speed bumps in key locations on campus to alert and slow cyclists that remain mounted. The speed mitigation measures would be located at several strategic points on campus.

6.5. SCENARIOS: VARIATIONS ON SHARED SPACE

Scenario 4: Shared Space Throughout: This scenario involves removing the current ‘dismount policy.’ It requires no large physical interventions and relies on emphasized signage, speed mitigation measures and norm-strengthening.

Scenario 5: Shared Space on E-W Axis Only and Dismount Policy on Main Road: This scenario involves keeping the current ‘dismount policy’ on the main road between the Roddick Gates and the Y-intersection while removing the ‘dismount policy’ for the rest of campus. Measures to discourage cycling would be placed along the main road to support the dismount policy.

6.6. SCENARIOS: VARIATIONS ON CYCLE PATHS

Scenario 6: Cycle Path on E-W-N-S Axis: This scenario involves removing the current ‘dismount policy,’ placing a separated cycle path across campus (E-W) and (N-S), and placing speed mitigation measures in key locations on campus to alert and slow cyclists. The cycle path would stop at key intersections and crosswalks/entrances would be shared space.

Scenario 7: Cycle Path on E-W Axis Only and Dismount Policy on Main Road: This scenario involves keeping the current ‘dismount policy’ on the main road between the Roddick Gates and the Y-intersection and placing a separate cycling path across campus (E-W). The cycle path would stop at key intersections and crosswalks/entrances would be shared space. Measures to discourage cycling would be placed along the main road to support the ‘dismount policy.’

20

7. EVALUATION OF SCENARIOS

After initial presentation of the scenarios, Working Group members were tasked with individually evaluating them on the basis of the “must-have” and “nice-to-have” criteria developed earlier in the process. The results of those individual evaluations were compiled and used as the basis for a full-group discussion.

Any scenario that “failed” (received an average score of less than 50%) on any of the “must-have” criteria was considered by the Working Group as a candidate for elimination. If upon discussion there was consensus within the Working Group that a scenario slated for elimination deserved to be considered further, then it was kept on the table. The scenarios not eliminated in this “first pass” were debated based on their relative merits, including how they scored relative to each other for the various “must-have” criteria as well as how well they met the “nice-to-have” criteria. In the end, the Working Group eliminated all five scenarios that failed to meet the “must-have” criteria, which proved problematic on the basis of other factors as well. This left two scenarios in consideration.

7.1. ELIMINATED SCENARIOS

The following scenarios were eliminated due to failing in at least one of the “must-have” criteria, in addition to a number of other factors:

Scenario 1: Status Quo

• Failed the Happy Community (Internal) criterion as determined by the Working Group. • Based on evidence cited in this report, the ‘dismount policy’ is ineffective at preventing mounted cycling on campus.26 This results in an unregulated and potentially unsafe situation in which cyclists and pedestrians are sharing space, but without any speed mitigation measures or norms around safe and respectful behaviour. • As cited by McGill’s Security Services and many others, the ‘dismount policy’ creates tension within the community. • As cited by McGill’s Security Services, the ‘dismount policy’ is difficult to effectively enforce and therefore leads to a situation that undermines the credibility of the McGill Security Services. • Based on evidence provided by McGill’s Security Services, comprehensively enforcing the ‘dismount policy’ would be costly. • Based on the evidence provided by McGill’s TRAM and the Geography Department, the ‘dismount policy’ does not address the need of many McGill community members to cross campus.27 • Discouraging cyclist traffic on campus may result in cyclists choosing alternate routes that pose potential safety risks for them.

Scenario 2: Status Quo and Gates

• Failed the Happy Community (Internal) and Accessibility criteria as determined by the Working Group. • All of the points relevant to Scenario 1 (above) are also relevant for Scenario 2.

26 Based on traffic counts performed by McGill’s Office of Campus & Space Planning. 27 St-Louis, E. & Manaugh, K. East-West Cycling Flows. 2013. 21

• Based on traffic counts performed by Campus & Space Planning, gates had only limited effectiveness in encouraging cyclists to dismount. • Gates were perceived by many in the Working Group as being unwelcoming—not only to cyclists but to pedestrians and members of the external community. • Gates were cited by the Office for Students with Disabilities as posing challenges for accessibility and being contrary to the principles of Universal Design.

Scenario 3: Status Quo, Gates and Speed Mitigation Measures

• Failed the Happy Community (Internal) and Accessibility criterion as determined by the Working Group • All of the points relevant to Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 (above) are also relevant for Scenario 3. • Installing speed mitigation measures would imply an acceptance of cyclists on campus, which is inconsistent with a ‘dismount policy’, causing credibility problems for McGill Security Services and the McGill administration.

Scenario 6: Cycle Path on E-W-N-S Axis

• Failed the Fiscal Responsibility criterion as determined by the Working Group. • In the most likely layout, the cycle path would result in either the loss of student activity space at the Y-intersection, or the necessity to redesign and develop the intersection at significant financial cost. The Y-intersection hosted 184 events in 2013, and members of the Working Group believe that a cycling path would conflict with many of these. • In the most likely layout, the cycle path would result in the loss of accessible parking spaces across from the Redpath Museum. Although the possibility of relocating these spaces was discussed, the information available indicates that there are no obvious places to relocate these parking spots which keep them in close proximity to the Libraries (as required by the University’s Physical Master Plan). • The Working Group believes this scenario could encourage increased through-traffic, acting as a continuation of the City’s cycle path network. • In spite of efforts to separate cyclists from pedestrians, a proportion of cyclists will deviate from the path and a proportion of pedestrians will enter into the cycle path. • As cited in research, cycle paths often result in a reduced perception of risk from both cyclists and pedestrians since different modes of transportation are separated.28 As the proposed cycle paths would likely be non-continuous, and as a proportion of cyclists will likely deviate from the path, this scenario could result in a false sense of security and increased risk for both parties. • In the literature, cycle paths are most often employed to separate cyclists from motorized vehicles, with the goal of increased cyclist safety. With few motorized vehicles on campus this is not the situation here. • A cycle path would separate space in inflexible ways, whereas the volume of both pedestrians and cyclists, and therefore the need for a cycle path, varies greatly by both time of day and time of year, as well as during major events.

28 Valenoza, R. Design with Sharing in Mind: An Exploration of Shared Space and its Application to Downtown Yonge Street in Toronto. Thesis; Landscape Architecture; University of Guelph. 2013. 22

• Due to the layout of campus, the placement of a cycle path would be complicated; entrances, road widths, building entryways and intersections would pose challenges and likely result in a non- continuous path.

Scenario 7: Cycle Path on E-W Axis Only and Dismount Policy on Main Road

• Failed the Fiscal Responsibility criterion as determined by the Working Group • All of the points relevant to Scenario 6 (above) are also relevant for Scenario 7. • Having a E-W cycle path in combination with a ‘dismount policy’ in other areas of campus creates potential confusion and frustration, as well as enforcement difficulties. • A cycle path that runs only E-W may not serve the needs of all cyclists and may encourage cyclists to deviate from the path in an unregulated way.

7.2. REMAINING SCENARIOS

After eliminating those scenarios that failed to meet “must-have” criteria, only Scenarios 4 and 5 remained for further consideration. These scenarios performed well on both the “must-have” and “nice-to-have” criteria. Scenarios 4 & 5 both reflect permutations of the Shared Space concept.

Scenario 4: Shared Space Throughout29

• Working Group felt that mechanisms by which Shared Space works could plausibly increase safety on the McGill campus by creating increased awareness of both cyclists and pedestrians and strengthening norms around safe and respectful cycling and walking behaviour.30 • Many peer universities are using variations on the Shared Space approach without reporting negative consequences. • Status quo (which includes widespread violation of the ‘dismount policy’ without any additional separation, regulation or education of cyclists and pedestrians) forces pedestrians and cyclists to exist in the same space, but without the safeguards (speed mitigation measures, pedestrian harbours, and education campaigns) that would accompany a true Shared Space scenario, creating a potentially risky situation. • Unlikely to result in increased amount of cyclist through-traffic on campus if designed to ensuring that speed mitigation measures make the trip through campus slower and less convenient than a trip on the adjacent cycle paths (University & Maisonneuve). • Shared Space accommodates the need for the need from the McGill community to cross campus and is adaptable to the many different destinations that cyclists have. • Shared Space can organically accommodate the large fluctuations in cyclist and pedestrian traffic that occur based on season and time of day.

29 Refer to Appendix B. 30 Clarke, E. (2006). Shared space – the alternative approach to calming traffic.

23

• There is relatively little cost associated with this option because it does not require significant changes to infrastructure. Speed mitigation measures and signage would be required. • Would require ongoing outreach and education to strengthen norms around safe and respectful cycling and walking behaviour. • Could likely be implemented relatively quickly.

Scenario 5: Shared Space on E-W Axis Only and Dismount Policy on Main Road (with a possibility of entirely closing the Main Road to vehicle traffic)

• Same pros and cons as Scenario 4, with the following exceptions: • A ‘dismount policy’ on the Main Road in the absence of physical alterations to the road surface would be difficult to enforce, could create confusion for both cyclists and pedestrians, and could result in unsafe situations because of non-compliance. • A ‘dismount policy’ on the Main Road in the absence of physical alterations to the road surface would undercut the effort to establish Shared Space norms throughout the campus. • The Working Group considered the possibility of combining a ‘dismount policy’ on the Main Road with radical physical alteration to the road surface. The Main Road could effectively be closed to any vehicle traffic, including cycles, by transforming the road to a park lane. This possibility has some attractive features: o It would create more pedestrian/green space, o It would discourage through-traffic by non-McGill bound cyclists, and o It would follow the popular trend in Montreal of greening underused roadways. • The closure of the Main Road would require approval from the Fire Department and access for emergency vehicles would need to be ensured, because the road is currently used for emergency vehicle access. • The potential closure of the Main Road to vehicles could have major capital and operational costs associated with it, which could make the scenario unfeasible. The costs, and the overall desirability of this scenario, would need to be explored further in light of the principles in the Campus Master Plan.

7.3. CONCLUSIONS

In arriving at its recommendations, the Working Group considered all of the evidence presented so far in this report, taking care to keep in mind the perspective of many stakeholder groups, particularly vulnerable groups and those who would be disproportionately impacted by any change to the current policy.

The Working Group’s discussion of the scenarios was anchored in the evaluation criteria outlined in Section 3 of this report, but their deliberations were informed by the expertise of Working Group members, their shared understanding of the McGill context, and the perspectives of the constituents they represented.

On the basis of the evidence considered and the deliberations held, the Working Group arrived at the following conclusions:

• The dismount policy currently in place is an ineffective means of ensuring the safety of pedestrians and cyclists at McGill;

24

• The level of risk associated with pedestrian-cyclist interactions on lower campus is likely to be higher than that which would be suggested by the incident reports being archived by McGill Security Services; • A change of policy is required in order to improve the safety and reduce strife; • Of the alternative scenarios considered, the Shared Space approach is the option that appears best suited to the McGill context for a number of reasons; • It is plausible that the speed mitigation and norm strengthening measures associated with a Shared Space intervention would improve safety on McGill’s lower campus; • The extent to which a Shared Space approach would result in increased levels of through traffic by non-McGill bound cyclists is unknown, but it is plausible that the measures associated with Shared Space would act as a disincentive for though traffic; • The Shared Space approach is compatible with the principles of McGill’s Master Plan, and the vision of the lower campus as an oasis of calm in the busy downtown core of Montreal; • Because of the uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of Shared Space and the extent to which a shift in policy would result in increased levels of through traffic by non-McGill bound cyclists, a carefully monitored and evaluated pilot project should precede full implementation.

25

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1. SHORT-TERM

Based on its discussions, the Cycling Working Group chose to frame recommendations for the short- and long- term. For the short-term, the Working Group reached consensus on the following recommendations:

RECOMMENDATION 1: Implement a Shared Space policy on the lower campus, east of McTavish;31 for a carefully monitored and evaluated pilot project.

RECOMMENDATION 2: Implement the new Shared Space policy in a comprehensive way, including:

• Develop an education and awareness campaign around Shared Space norms, including safe and respectful cyclist and pedestrian behaviour; • Install appropriate signage to support Shared Space norms; • Establish speed mitigation measures and pedestrian harbours at key points on campus to facilitate safe and respectful sharing of space;

RECOMMENDATION 3: Time the implementation of the new Shared Space policy so that the launch of the new policy is cohesive, coordinated, and clearly observable by the community;

RECOMMENDATION 4: Maintain the current ‘dismount policy’ until a Shared Space policy can be comprehensively implemented.32

RECOMMENDATION 5: Initiate an ongoing monitoring campaign prior to the implementation of the Shared Space policy, in order to be able to observe the impact of the Shared Space policy on measures such as safety, comfort, and cycling rates.

RECOMMENDATION 6: Complete an evaluation of the Shared Space policy 12 months after it is launched, and adapt or refine the policy as needed based on monitoring data. 33

8.2. LONG-TERM

The Working Group discussed a number of options that could be considered in the future to adapt or refine McGill’s approach to cyclist-pedestrian interaction on the downtown campus. The Working Group agreed that any decisions about these options should be based on the results of the monitoring and evaluation of the initial pilot of the Shared Space policy.

31 A ‘dismount policy’ will remain in effect on McTavish Street, enforced by the City of Montreal. It is not within the jurisdiction of McGill to set policy for this street. 32 This amounts to a continuation of the status quo, reflecting current levels of enforcement of the ‘dismount policy’ and without reinstallation of the gates at the Milton entrance. 33 This interval will allow for the evaluation of data from a full cycling season. 26

Some options discussed by the Working Group that could be considered in the future include:

• Eliminating sidewalks on campus, particularly through a phased approach as road resurfacing projects are undertaken due to maintenance needs; o This would be appropriate if the Shared Space scenario is working well and there is desire to further develop a Shared Space aesthetic and culture. • Greening of the Main Road to close it to vehicle traffic including cycles34; o This would be appropriate as an antidote to higher-than-desired cyclist through-traffic, and might also be desirable in its own right as an additional step toward greening of the campus. • Studying alternate routings for a cycle path that would overcome the concerns described in Scenario 6 (above); o This would be appropriate if the Shared Space scenario results in unsafe or undesirable interactions between cyclists and pedestrians and a new model is needed.

34 As described in Scenario 5 above. 27

9. IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS PLANS

9.1. PHYSICAL DESIGN

The success of a Shared Space model will depend on an effective physical design that incorporates speed mitigation measures, pedestrian harbours, and other features that will allow all campus users to feel safe and comfortable.

A specialized consultancy firm such as Vélo Québec should be contracted to review best practice and make recommendations about designs that would maximize safety of cyclists and pedestrians in the McGill context. They should further provide illustrations and sketches that could be used to communicate the Shared Space model to the community prior to implementation. Detailed designs for implementation of a Shared Space policy should be developed in consultation with relevant McGill units such as Design Services and Risk Management.

9.2. MONITORING

It is important to monitor several aspects of cycling behaviour before and after a shift to a new cycling policy. Monitoring should be initiated as soon as possible and certainly well in advance of implementation of a new policy, in order to establish a baseline for comparison.

Topics to monitor include:

• Safety • Comfort • Cycling rates

These elements can be examined using a variety of methods, both quantitative and qualitative. As collisions are such a low-frequency event, it is important to collect data on “near misses” (for example, when a pedestrian must jump out of the way of a cyclist, or a cyclist is forced to brake abruptly). These findings will provide a sense of the safety of the campus. Other factors such as perceived safety and how welcome and comfortable different users of the campus feel before and after implementation of any new policy will also need to be monitored. This monitoring and evaluation can be done by students under the supervision of McGill Prof. Kevin Manaugh (member of the Working Group) who has extensive experience designing surveys and analyzing data related to travel and behaviour. The factors identified above could be measured both with random surveys of randomly selected members of the McGill community as well as through electronic and video technologies.

Types of data to be collected include:

• Pedestrian and cyclist counts; • Movement through and on campus; • Cyclist speeds; • Collisions and ‘near-misses’; • Perceptions, attitudes and opinions regarding cycling, walking, safety, etc;

28

One issue to be considered in determining when to implement a shift in policy is the desirability of collecting “before” data during times of typical campus use by both cyclists and pedestrians. This might make it preferable to defer the launch of a new policy. However if the need for expediency precludes direct observations under the current conditions, other means of establishing a baseline can be explored.

The cost of monitoring would depend on which technologies and methods are chosen. Estimates produced in the course of this process indicate that the cost would range between $5,500 and $8,000. Most of this budget would be going toward salaries for students involved in collecting the data.

9.3. COMMUNICATIONS

At the time that the Shared Space policy is launched, a comprehensive communications campaign will need to be enacted to ensure that members of the McGill community are educated and aware of the new policy and its implications for their behaviour.

The audiences for this communication will include:

• McGill students (including incoming students) • McGill staff & faculty • Non-McGill cyclists who use the campus • External groups who use the campus (e.g. daycare and school groups)

Key topics and messages to be covered in the campaign include:

• Explanation of the new policy • Explanation of Shared Space • Expectations of cyclists and pedestrians for safety and respect

Communications messages will be distributed through standard channels, including:

• McGill Reporter • What’s New at McGill e-newsletter (staff & students) • McGill homepage • McGill social media • McGill Media Relations Office (to distribute to Montreal media) • Relevant unit-level webpages, social media, and outreach activities (McGill Office of Sustainability, University Safety, Security Services, Campus & Space Planning, Student Services, Transportation, etc) • Student media (McGill Daily, Le Delit, McGill Tribune) • Signage (temporary and permanent) at campus entrances and key intersections

Messages could also be targeted to particular audiences using more creative tactics—e.g. incoming students via Residence staff and orientation materials, cyclists via The Flat, students via viral social media campaigns, etc.

The McGill Office of Sustainability could coordinate the communications campaign in close collaboration with University Services and the Director of Internal Communications.

29

The primary cost of the communications campaign would be staff time and the design and production of signage and other dissemination material. The Design Services unit (University Services) could work closely with the Graphics unit (Communications & External Relations) to develop signs that meet the need while minimizing cost.

9.4. NORM-STRENGTHENING & BEHAVIOUR CHANGE

A campaign to strengthen norms around safe and respectful cycling and walking behaviour will be closely tied to the communications campaign, but it will additionally rely on best practices from the field of social marketing and behaviour change.

Whereas the communications campaign is designed primarily to inform the McGill community about the new policy, the norm-strengthening campaign will be designed to ensure that users of McGill’s campus behave in ways that are consistent with a Shared Space model.

The campaign may include a number of tactics including promts, incentives, pledges and commitments, and analysis of barriers and benefits. Peer-policing—emphasizing personal responsibility and collective enforcement of respectful behaviour— is a particularly interesting option to consider for strengthening norms in the cycling community.

Primary cost for the norm-strengthening campaign would be salary for a students to design and implement in conjunction with relevant units.

9.5. PRELIMINARY TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION

In the event that the Shared-Space proposal moves forward, it is believed that a pilot version of the speed mitigation, communication, and norm-strengthening measures could be implemented in approximately 24 weeks. This timeline is highly dependent on weather conditions (as much of the implementation could not occur during the winter months), in addition to major events and projects on campus that might impede progress.

Monitoring will be divided into two phases, Phase I will capture the current state of cyclist/pedestrian interactions on campus and will occur in Summer/Fall 2014 for a total of 4 weeks. Phase II is dependent on when the Shared-Space model is implemented, but would likely occur in Summer/Fall 2015 for a total of 4 weeks.

30

10. APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: SCENARIO MAPS

Scenarios 1 & 2 are not pictured because they are variations on the current status quo on campus.

31

32

33

APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SHARED SPACE

Surprisingly little objective evidence supports or refutes that shared space between cyclists and pedestrians is safer than separated cycle paths or other physical separations or mixing of modes. What follows is a summary of the causal mechanisms by which it is hypothesized that shared space leads to increased safety for all users of the space, as well as a review of the limited amount of empirical evidence testing the hypothesis. The Working Group also considered the anecdotal evidence gathered from other campuses and cities where shared space was implemented. On the basis of these two bodies of evidence, the Working Group considers it plausible that a shared space approach would improve safety on McGill’s lower campus.

Causal Mechanisms

The first mechanism is the perception that the users of the shared space have of the level of risk they are exposed to while in the space. Knowing that the space is shared between cyclists and pedestrians, the users of the space tend to perceive a certain level of risk inherent to being in the space. Because of this perception, they tend to remain alert while circulating in the space, in order to avoid coming into harm’s way. Because they remain alert, they are more likely to avoid being involved in collisions. In this way, objective risk is reduced.

A second mechanism is that of heightened level of communication taking place in the shared space, through eye contact and other non-verbal communication. The users of the shared space are more prone to communicating their intentions to one another. This heightened level of communication gives the users of a space a better understanding of the intentions of the other users in the space. They can then use this understanding to better predict the movements of other users in the space. In this way they are more likely to avoid collisions, which results in the objective risk being reduced.

A third mechanism is related to the social norms prevalent among the users of the space. Through organized communication campaigns, efforts are made to strengthen the three norms of:

• "pedestrians have the right of way”, • “being respectful of the other users of the space”, and • “remaining alert”.

The fact that pedestrians are the most vulnerable users of the shared space must be clearly understood by everyone travelling in the space. Alert users are more likely to avoid the hazards present in their environment. Respectful users are less likely to engage in behaviours that would pose a risk to others in their surroundings. In this way, objective risk is reduced.

The fourth and final mechanism is related to the presence of “pedestrian harbours” in the space. Pedestrian harbours are areas within the shared space where only pedestrians are able to circulate. These areas are often created using bulky items such as granite blocks or items of street furniture, such as picnic tables and park benches. Pedestrian harbours are assemblies of such items. They create certain areas within the shared space where cyclists are not able to circulate. If used in sufficient numbers, they further act as funnels that channel through-going traffic, pedestrians and cyclists alike, into a confined space. In situations where this leads to relatively high densities of pedestrians circulating in the space, cyclists in the space have little choice but to slow down and circulate at similar speeds as pedestrians. In this way, objective risk is reduced.

Evidence

34

The existing research on shared space tends to focus on safety issues related to vehicle travel. It must be further noted that the evidence is limited (and comes mostly from Australia and Europe). The evidence does suggest, however, that the causal mechanisms described above are plausible and that shared space can lead to reduced objective risk of collisions between cyclists and pedestrians. Key to the success of a shared space policy will be the changing of campus norms and the continued awareness that pedestrians are the most vulnerable users of campus space.

The literature examined suggests that to be effective and to ensure the safety and comfort of all campus users:

• Education, awareness, and behavioral modification are vital. • Cycling speeds must remain low. • Shared Space must be clearly defined. • Design aspects are key, shared space is not simply a free-for-all with no rules. • Monitoring of collisions, near-misses, cycling speeds, and campus-wide perceptions will also be essential (and should start as soon as possible) in understanding the effects of any policy change.

The working group spoke with representatives from several comparable Universities including University of British Columbia, University of Guelph, and McMaster University. All of these institutions have a shared space policy concerning pedestrian and cyclist interaction. No issues with safety were reported.

Peer-reviewed literature reviewed in preparing this summary

Buehler, R., & Pucher, J. (2011). Sustainable transport in Freiburg: lessons from Germany's environmental capital. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 5(1), 43-70. Chong, S., Poulos, R., Olivier, J., Watson, W., & Grzebieta, R. (2010). Relative injury severity among vulnerable non-motorised road users: comparative analysis of injury arising from bicycle–motor vehicle and bicycle–pedestrian collisions. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 41(1), 290-296. Clarke, E. (2006). Shared space: the alternative approach to calming traffic. Traffic Engineering and Control, 47(8), 290-292. Grzebieta, R., McIntosh, A., & Chong, S. (2011). Pedestrian-cyclist collisions: issues and risk. Paper presented at the Australasian College of Road Safety Conference “A Safe System: Making it Happen!”, Melbourne. Hamilton-Baillie, B. (2008). Towards shared space. Urban Design International, 13(2), 130-138. Landry, C., Rowe, D., Borden, I., & Adams, J. (2005). What are we scared of?: the value of risk in designing public space. London: CABE Space. Maplesden, C. (2013). Pedestrian safety: an inclusive approach. Paper presented at the 2013 Australian College of Road Safety – “A Safe System: The Road Safety Discussion”, Adelaide. Mellifont, D., Ker, I., Huband, A., Veith, G., & Taylor, J. (2006). Pedestrian-cyclist conflict minimisation on shared paths and footpaths. Sydney: Austroads Incorporated. Moody, S., & Melia, S. (2013). Shared space: research, policy, and problems Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Transport. Bristol: Institution of Civil Engineers. Pucher, J. (1998). Urban transport in Germany: providing feasible alternatives to the car. Transport Reviews: A Transnational Transdisciplinary Journal, 18(4), 285-310. Pucher, J., & Dijkstra, L. (2000). Making walking and cycling safer: lessons from Europe. Transportation Quarterly, 54(3), 25-50.

35

APPENDIX C: EXAMPLES OF SHARED SPACE

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/12155320@N00/10577633076

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/12155320@N00/6939131873

36

Source: ; https://www.flickr.com/photos/la-citta-vita/4749135595/

Source: http://bypasswinterbournestoke.blogspot.ca/2014/01/the-piper-at-gates-of-dawn.html

37

Source: http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/opinion/comment-pavement-cycling- step-in-wrong-direction-1-3225970

Source: www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23587916

38

Appendix D: Examples of Greening Roadways

As discussed in Section 4.10: The borough of Plateau-Mont Royal has been permanently converting underused and/or poorly located roadways into green pedestrian spaces. These transformations resulted in the loss of parking, a loss or restriction in general motorized vehicle access (while preserving access for service and emergency vehicles), and the replacement of hard surfaces with grass and gravel pathways.

Some examples of these transformations can be seen at:

• Parc Baldwin35 Closure and conversion of Rue Marie-Anne between Rues Fullum and Chapleau

Closure and conversion of Rue Franchère between Terrace Mercure and Rue Rachel

35 Le portail officiel de la Ville de Montreal. (2014). Verdissement. Retrieved from http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/portal/page?_pageid=7297,79463572&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL 39

• Parc Lahaie36 37 Closure and conversion of Rue Saint Dominique between Boulevard Saint Joseph and Avenue Laurier

36 Alfaro, D. (2010, May 25). Parc Lahaie transformation underway. Retrieved from http://spacing.ca/montreal/2010/05/25/parc-lahaie-transformation-underway/ 37 Le portail officiel de la Ville de Montreal. (2014). Les parcs de l’arrondissement. Retrieved from http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/portal/page?_pageid=7297,74553730&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL 40

• Parc Laurier 38 39 Closure and conversion of the asphalted space between Avenue de Mentana and Avenue de Brebeuf, in addition to the removal of parking around Laurier CentreLaurier

38 Projet Montreal. (2010, May 3). Réappropriation des espaces verts sur Le Plateau – désasphaltage, piétonnisation et revitalisation de parcs. Retrieved from http://projetmontreal.org/communiques/rappropriation-des- espaces-verts-sur-le-plateau-dsasphaltage-pitonnisation-et-revitalisation-de-parcs_fr/ 39 Tranchemontagne, D. (2012, September 27). Parc Laurier, version améliorée. Le Plateau. Retrieved from http://www.leplateau.com/Actualites/Vos-nouvelles/2012-09-27/article-3084990/Parc-Laurier,-version-amelioree/1 41

42

43