Cycling and the Elgin Street Redesign

Jordan Moffatt
May 9, 2018 · 21 min read

Hello everybody and welcome to my take on the Elgin Street renewal as it applies to cycling. This is, I think, pretty comprehensive and may take longer than you expect/want. I made a condensed version for twitter if you’d rather spend less time and get the same conclusions: https://twitter.com/jordobicycles/status/994361113864261633

Ok if you’re still here, let’s get into it.

Elgin Street between Laurier Avenue and Queen Elizabeth Drive will be renewed in 2019. The Functional Design Study was approved in May 2017, and a public information session was held on April 30, 2018 “to review the preliminary design plans.” Attendees were asked to provide feedback that “will assist the City in finalizing the design.” I went to that information session, and I provided some feedback while I was there. This post will be a more thorough version of that feedback.

I encourage you to take a look at the plan and design and provide your own feedback too! There’s lots to like about the renewed Elgin plan — lots of very cool and interesting new things that will certainly make the street more vibrant than it is right now — but in this post I’m going to focus exclusively on the experience of the new street as it will relate to cyclists. I’ll be doing that by talking first about current guidelines, recommendations, and precedents that exist in Ottawa. Then I’ll apply those specific guidelines, recommendations, and precedents to the Elgin Street plan in order to determine the appropriateness of cycling infrastructure provided in the plan.

To begin, it’s important to note that the City of Ottawa has established that cycling is an inherent good and that they actively want to increase the amount of cyclists in the city. The 2013 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) acknowledges that “cycling conserves natural resources and reduces pressure on the road network while improving health, supporting more compact development, preserving the environment and supporting economic activity” (TMP, 42). These are obviously all good, desirable things. The TMP also establishes that it wants to have more of these good things: it establishes an 8% target modal share for cycling within the Greenbelt, which would more than double the current modal share (TMP, 23). I’m now going to quote a big block of text that states explicitly what they think the best way to do that is:

The goal of a dramatically higher mode share for cycling means that new types of cycling facilities will be needed to attract novice cyclists and others who are concerned about cycling in mixed traffic. On-street cycling facilities that are separated from vehicular traffic are required to increase cycling safety (both actual and perceived), especially on streets with high traffic volumes and/or speeds.

That above paragraph is important. Read it a few times. I’ll come back to it later.

The City of Ottawa also identified its commitment to improving cycling through the release of the 2013 Ottawa Cycling Plan (OCP). This detailed document exists to “develop a city-wide, connected network of cycling facilities actively used by all types and ages of cyclists to meet their transportation needs” (OCP, ESi). That quote is also important and deserves multiple readings. I will be using the TMP and the OCP to evaluate the design of the Elgin Street Renewal. I’ll also be using the Downtown Moves (DM), a 2013 document that aims “to make walking, cycling and transit use more comfortable and convenient by redistributing and improving the streetscape environment” (DM, i), and the Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool & User Guide (CFSDST), a document prepared for the City of Ottawa in 2011 “to research the issue of relative safety performance of various types of cycling facilities and develop application criteria to identify opportunities and requirements for the use of cycle facilities that segregate cyclists from motor vehicle traffic” (CFSDST, 1).

Alright, so what’s the actual cycling plan for the new Elgin Street?

Well, this renewed section of Elgin will be a shared-lane facility for motor vehicle drivers and cyclists. A shared lane is “any roadway or part thereof that is to be shared by cyclists and motor vehicles” (DM, 81). The infrastructure for cyclists provided in shared-lane facilities are “road markings and signage at intersections,” they involve “Moderate to high” interaction levels with non-cyclists, are “inclusive only to cyclists comfortable with the elevated level of stress associated with sharing lanes with vehicle traffic,” and are best applied in “Low volume, low speed streets (preferably traffic calmed)” (DM, 73).

The “roadmarkings” provided for Elgin are “super-sharrows.” What are “super-sharrows”? Well, let’s start with the regular, non-super form of sharrows, which are called “sharrows”. Sharrows are painted marks on the ground of a bicycle and two chevrons that point in the direction of travel.

A sharrow

Their purpose, according to the City of Ottawa Cycling Safety Awareness Program, is to “remind residents to share the road when driving or cycling.” Sharrows are already in widespread use in Ottawa, and can be placed either in the centre of the lane or close to the curb — but regardless of their placement, they “do not obligate where cyclists should position themselves in the lane.”

Super-sharrows are different than sharrows. They also involve the bike icon stencil with chevrons, except placed on a green rectangle — and always in the middle of the lane. And unlike regular sharrows, “super-sharrows” do prescribe cyclist behaviour. With super-sharrows, cyclists are meant to ride in the centre of the lane, on top of the super-sharrow marking, and car drivers are meant to follow in single-file. Drivers can only pass a cyclist in an adjacent lane, when safe to do so. (Kassim, 1)

This treatment already exists in Ottawa: you can find them on the Bank Street Bridge, a section of Bank Street with a 40km/hr speed limit (but was originally supposed to be 20km/hr limit). So how are the super-sharrows working out there? Well, a study was completed in 2016 by Carleton University and the City of Ottawa Transportation Services that concluded that more drivers were changing lanes to pass cyclists, that a safe passing distance was maintained, and that cyclists rode closer to the middle of the lane than to the curb (Kassim, 18). Traffic volumes in the study area were approx 8,000 vehicles between 8:00 to 5:00 in one direction over two days, likely making the one day total for both directions at least 8,000 (Kassim, 13) and possibly more — suggesting a “moderate” to “high” traffic volume, which, according to the Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool & User Guide, makes separated facilities “recommended” to “most appropriate,” respectively (CFSDST, 57). The study did not evaluate motor vehicle speed, and the study also did not evaluate the experience of road users on a personal level (Kassim, 19).

Motor vehicle speed and the experience of road users on a personal level, however, are two important criteria to evaluate when deciding on the proper bicycle infrastructure for a given location. Let’s start with personal experience.

The personal experience of a given cyclist on a road is a factor that determines their behaviour. It affects not only their route choice, but also the decision of whether to ride a bicycle at all. Again, the City of Ottawa wants more cyclists, and so they do not want people to decide not to ride. Remember that thing earlier that I said was important: “On-street cycling facilities that are separated from vehicular traffic are required to increase cycling safety (both actual and perceived), especially on streets with high traffic volumes and/or speeds.” Here, the City of Ottawa stresses the importance of perceived safety — the personal experience of cyclists — in determining the type of infrastructure required for high traffic volume and high speed roads.

The Ottawa Cycling Plan goes further in this direction: “A lack of safe cycling routes can be a significant barrier to active transportation. Street designs that support cycling, and thus help improve population health, most notably through purpose-built cycle facilities, lead to a reduction in injuries and collisions. Peoples’ perceptions of safety can also influence the uptake of cycling, and modification to infrastructure can play an important role in encouraging new users.” And, to meet the modal share target, “cycling facilities must be made attractive to the 59% of residents who are interested in cycling but prefer bicycle lanes and separated cycling facilities for safety purposes.” To sum up here, more cyclists would choose to ride if the City made cycling feel more safe, and people feel more safe if separate infrastructure is provided — especially on roads with high traffic volumes and high speeds.

High speeds are an important factor to consider because of both perceived safety and actual safety. The operating speed of the road affects not just how a cyclist feels, but also what their actual threat of danger is — and because of that, the operating speed of a road is a determining factor in what type of facility should be provided. Speed matters. Not surprisingly, higher vehicle speeds lead to a higher severity of cyclist injury in a collision (Cripton, 8), and collisions are far more likely in a shared-lane environment (Cripton, 7). The Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool & User Guide comes in handy again here. It recommends that for any roads with “moderate” operating speeds of 50 to 65, “Exclusive operating space for both bicycles and motor vehicles, in the form of wide curb lanes, cycle lanes, or separated facilities is recommended.” In “low” speeds between 30 and 50, “integration of the two modes as mixed traffic (in standard or wide curb lanes) may be appropriate.” (CFSDST, 57). This makes good sense. If the speeds are high, cycling and driving needs to be separated; if speeds are low, cycling and driving can be mixed.

Ok — now that we have all of that information, let’s proceed to use it to evaluate the cycling infrastructure provided in Elgin Street redesign. The goal here is to determine whether the cycling facilities as-designed are appropriate to the situation, or if they should be changed to be more appropriate.

The Elgin Street redesign has three distinct sections, so I’m going to evaluate them independently, in the following order: middle section (between Lisgar and McLeod), the north section (between Laurier and Lisgar), and the south section (between McLeod and Queen Elizabeth Driveway). I’m beginning in the middle because it is distinct and more pleasant. The north and south sections have similar attributes and similar, severe issues. Once again, the tools I will be using the most in this analysis are Ottawa’s 2013 Transportation Master Plan, Ottawa’s 2013 Cycling Plan, Ottawa’s 2013 Downtown Moves Plan, and the 2011 Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool & User Guide.

Alright, here goes!

The Middle Section (between Lisgar and McLeod)

The middle section of Elgin Street between Lisgar is 650 metres long. There are nine streets that intersect Elgin, and six of these intersections are controlled by traffic lights. In the redesign, the road will be a two lane road, with one lane in each direction, and a third lane for left turns at three intersections. The sidewalk will be designed with features that encourage a pedestrian environment, such as three raised intersections, paver stones, sidewalk lighting, benches, seating, trees, and waste receptacles. There will be “flex” parking spaces, some of which will be used as seasonal patios. These are all elements of “side friction” that can slow the operating speed of the road. The road will have a 30km/hr speed limit. It will be a shared cycling facility. The cycling infrastructure for the shared space will be “super-sharrows” placed in the centre of the lane to indicate cyclists are meant to ride in the middle of the lane, and motor vehicles meant to follow in single file.

Unlike the Bank Street super sharrows, there is no lane for motor vehicles to pass cyclists. At the Q&A, I asked Ron Clarke, a consultant from Parsons who lead the presentation on April 30, if the lack of passing ability would lead to conflicts between slow cyclists and the drivers who wished to pass them but were unable to. I also asked if cyclists may feel nervous by holding up traffic behind them, and if drivers would use action to purposefully intimidate cyclists to speed up or move to the side. He answered by acknowledging that this section of Elgin will be best suited for cyclists with high confidence, but said that — due to the frequent controlled intersections, raised pedestrian crossings, and speed limit posting — the operating speed of the street will be 30km/hr or under, which would not give drivers the opportunity to be impatient because there would be no chance they could travel much faster than a bicycle anyway.

I think that is a reasonable answer. If the raised intersections, frequent traffic lights, increased pedestrian amenities, and animated sidewalks with patios do function as assumed, then it is reasonable to conclude that the operating speed of this section of Elgin will be close enough to the speed of a cyclist, and therefore a shared facility with super-sharrows is an appropriate design solution. This conclusion matches recommendations made in the OCP, TMP, and CFSDST.

Now, I don’t think that this solution is ideal. Riding in the centre of the lane in a high volume street like Elgin is still likely to appeal only to experienced and confident cyclists. And considering that the City wants to “attract novice cyclists and others who are concerned about cycling in mixed traffic” (TMP, 45) and to “design facilities to be comfortable for ‘interested but concerned’ cyclists, who represents 33% of City residents who are potential cyclists” (OCP, 3), and considering that novice and potential cyclists prefer separated infrastructure, the obvious conclusion is that the ideal scenario would be to have separated facilities on Elgin.

However, given the multitude of design considerations to be made for motor vehicle drivers, pedestrians, deliveries, and accessibility, this form of shared facility for cyclists is a fair and acceptable compromise — but this compromise relies on whether the actual operating speed of Elgin is in fact under 30km/hr. After implementation, the City should conduct a study to ensure the traffic calming measures are sufficient, or will need to be improved with additional traffic calming or with enforcement (e.g. photo radar).

To sum up this section: An animated pedestrian space and a 30km/hr operating speed makes this section of Elgin an appropriate area for a shared-lane cycling facility with super-sharrows. The City should study this area after implementation to ensure that the operating speed stays under 30km/hr, and then take corrective action if not. While separated facilities would be a better fit due to their appeal to the type of cyclists identified by the City as a priority, the super-sharrow treatment is appropriate.

Now let’s go north, where the situation is much worse.

North Section (Laurier to Lisgar)

The north section of this project stretches from Laurier to Lisgar street. It is 240 metres long. There is one signalized intersection in between Laurier and Lisgar, at Nepean. There is a raised intersection at Lisgar. It is a five-lane road between Laurier and Gloucester (two lanes each direction with right turning lane north onto Laurier), a six-lane road between Gloucester and Nepean (two lanes each direction with two with a left-turn lanes each direction and a “flex” parking lane that turns into a travelling lane on the north side), and a four lane road between Nepean and Lisgar (two lanes each direction). The speed limit will be 50 km/hr. It will be a shared bicycle facility, with super-sharrows painted on the roadway to suggest cyclists ride in the middle of the lane and drivers follow in single-file. Given the multiple traffic lanes, high motor vehicle volumes, and high speed limit, a shared space with super-sharrows should be immediately disqualified as an appropriate option of cycling infrastructure on this section.

Consider again the reasoning involved for super-sharrows being appropriate for the middle section of Elgin: 30km/hr speed limit, “side friction” traffic calming created by patios and pedestrians, and raised intersections. None of these design treatments exist on the section between Laurier and Lisgar. There is no reason that super-sharrows should even be considered.

There are more issues than just speed and volume that disqualify super-sharrows. Let’s look first at where the super-sharrows are placed.

Middle and left-lane super-sharrows between Laurier and Gloucester

Heading south on Elgin just past Laurier, the super-sharrow is placed in the left lane. This means that cyclists are meant to be riding in the centre of the left lane, and drivers wishing to go faster than a cyclist will pass on the right — a behaviour that, according to the Ministry of Transportation, “can be more dangerous than passing on the left.” The treatment on the Bank Street Bridge — the one that was analyzed in a study on passing behaviour — had super-sharrows in the right lane, with drivers passing on the left. With the super-sharrow in the left lane, it means that if a cyclist wishes to pull over to the curb (i.e. when they reach their destination), they will have to first merge into a faster-moving traffic lane.

Four Levels of Traffic Stress (Ottawa Cycling Plan)

This is not recommended behaviour — especially for the type of cyclists that the city wishes to reach when increasing modal share. By needing to cross a fast-moving motor vehicle lane in a shared space to make a turn, this section of the road has a Level 4 Stress Level— the highest of Level of Stress identified by the City. The OCP says that Level 4 facilities are “avoided by current cyclists” and “not considered by new cyclists.” I should add that it’s not the City’s stated intention to build roads that are avoided and not considered by cyclists (OCP, 46).

The situation between Nepean and Lisgar

The situation between Nepean and Lisgar is slightly better, though still unacceptable. Travelling south, a cyclist wishing to turn right or dismount would still need to merge into traffic. Travelling north, a cyclist taking the lane would have to deal with the acceleration of motor vehicles as their drivers leave a 30km/hr zone and enter a 50km/hr zone.

The final issue with the north section is its lack of connectivity to existing cycling infrastructure. An obvious point: for a cyclist to get to Elgin Street, a cyclist first has to be able to get to Elgin Street. From the north, the way to get to Elgin by bicycle is the Laurier bike lanes. This is a popular bike lane: it averages 30,000 trips a month (and peaked at 80,000), 500,000 trips were made on it in 2017 alone, and there have been almost 3,000,000 trips since it opened.

A cyclist turning right from Laurier and crossing a lane to travel south on Elgin

So how would a cyclist travelling east on Laurier reach Elgin street? Well, they would have to turn into the left lane. This is an unrecommended and usually illegal move.

A cyclist crossing a lane turning right from Elgin to travel east on Laurier

A similar situation exists for cyclists leaving Elgin, travelling north to make a turn onto Laurier to go south. First they would need to merge from the centre lane into the right turning lane, then make their turn.

There is no infrastructure provided for cyclists leaving Elgin to travel west onto Laurier. There is no connection to the westbound Laurier Bike lane from Elgin street. There needs to be one.

A future connection to consider is Elgin Street and the Albert and Slater cycle tracks, which have been approved and will be constructed before 2022. While this connection is outside of the scope of the Elgin Street project, it’s important to know that more cyclists will be travelling to and from that area when entering and leaving Elgin Street.

So to recap the north section between Laurier and Lisgar: The 50km/hr speed limit, high motor vehicle volumes, multiple lanes of travel and requirement to merge with those lanes for turning movements create an environment unsuitable for a shared cycling facility. The poor placement of super-sharrows and the lack of connection to existing bicycle infrastructure make the current design of the streets even more inappropriate for cyclists. A redesign of this area is needed.

The South Section (McLeod to Queen Elizabeth Driveway)

The south section of this project stretches from McLeod to Queen Elizabeth Driveway (QED). It is 400 metres long. There are two signalized intersections in between McLeod and QED: one at Argyle and one at Catherine. It is a three-lane road between McLeod and Argyle (one lanes each direction with a left turn lane to go west onto Gladstone), and a four lane road between Argyle and QED (two lanes each direction). Between Catherine and Isabella, the roadway is in a tunnel underneath the Queensway. The speed limit will be 50 km/hr. It will be a shared bicycle facility, with super-sharrows painted on the roadway to suggest cyclists ride in the middle of the lane and drivers follow in single-file. There is a short bicycle lane provided (to the left of a right-turn slip lane and two the right of two traffic lanes) between Isabella and QED, as this section is a designated spine route. Given the amount of lanes, high motor vehicle volumes, and high speed limit, a shared space with super-sharrows should be immediately disqualified as an appropriate option of cycling infrastructure on this section.

There are more issues than just speed and volume that disqualify super-sharrows. Let’s look first at the low level of visibility in the tunnel.

Say a cyclist is travelling at 15km/hr in the middle of the lane. Now imagine a person in a car travelling at 50km/hr in the same lane. Going around this bend in the tunnel, at what point does the driver see the cyclist? Will there be enough time to slow down to the cyclist’s speed and follow in single file? This scenario ensures compliant behaviour — what about non-compliance? What if the driver is going 60 — above the speed limit, but still a plausible operating speed for this section. What if it’s at night? What if the cyclist doesn’t have lights?

Shared-lane facilities do not function with these contingencies. Separated facilities do — “bicycling facilities separated from motor vehicles minimise the likelihood of a collision and the potential for severe injury when either a driver or a cyclist makes an error” (Cripton, 7). This section of the road — a curving, high-speed, low visibility section — is a place where the possibility or error and interaction is high. Cyclists and motor vehicles need separation here more than any other spot in the plan.

Again, another issue to consider is connectivity. Elgin between Isabella and QED is a spine route, and has a separate bike lane in that short section. This means it’s an important area for cycling connections — it’s where Elgin links with the Glebe via a short cycle track beside the TD Bank, it’s where Elgin links with Old Ottawa East via a bike lane on Pretoria bridge, and it’s where Elgin links with the Rideau Canal Multi-Use Pathways. By continuing down Hawthorne, this spine route connects Elgin Street with the newly constructed Main Street cycle track. The short spine route on Elgin between Isabella and QED is vital for all these connections — but an obvious connection was missed: the connection between the spine route and Elgin Street itself. If a spine route needs separated infrastructure to make cycling connections safer and easier, it should also be safe and easy to access the spine route. This connection is important to make, and the current plan with super-sharrows in a tunnel fails in making it.

One method of a diversion from Elgin to the Canal via a contra-flow Catherine

I discussed this issue with Ron Clarke (mentioned earlier) and Vanessa Black, a transportation engineer with the City of Ottawa, following the April 30 Public Information Session. They both recognized that the tunnel was an unsafe option for current cyclists and an unattractive option for future cyclists. They both also recognized the importance of a connection to Pretoria Bridge. The solution they presented to me was to remove cyclists from Elgin at this area, and instead divert them to east to Catherine Street via a bike box and contra-flow lane (a bike lane travelling in the opposite direction of motor vehicle traffic on a one-way street). From there, cyclists could connect to the Rideau Canal. There’s a lot to like with this! A contra-flow lane on Catherine is a great idea, and a left-turn bike box on Catherine is also a great idea, provided there are clear traffic signals. Making Catherine a connection to the canal is a great idea. But this plan still does not acknowledge the fact that cyclists will still ride on Elgin to get to Pretoria Bridge. Diverting cyclist traffic away from a dangerous section of Elgin is not a solution to make that section less dangerous. If a cyclist used the canal to get to the bridge, they would still not have a safe way to access cross it. More infrastructure would be needed at the QED/Elgin intersection to make this solution viable as a complement — not an alternative — to separated infrastructure on Elgin.

To recap the south section: A 50km/hr speed limit and high vehicle volumes in this section should immediately disqualify super-sharrows and shared-lane cycling facilities as being an appropriate design solution. A low-visibility, high-speed area in a tunnel and a lack of connections to existing bicycle infrastructure also demonstrate the need for separated facilities rather than the shared facilities with super-sharrows currently planned. A redesign is needed.

Now what?

I hope I’ve demonstrated that while the middle section of the Elgin redesign is suitable for cyclists, the north and south sections require a redesign. So what can be done?

Well, they are asking for feedback to “finalize the design.” This means that we can provide feedback that will help them finalize the design. This post is my feedback. I’ve sent it to Danny Palermo (the Project Manager) and cc’d Ron Clarke and Vanessa Black, Catherine McKenney (the councillor for Somerset Ward), David Chernushenko (the councillor for Capital Ward), and Jim Watson (Mayor). If you’re still reading this, I encourage you to send feedback too! Let them know that the section between Laurier and Lisgar is unacceptable for cyclists. Let them know that the section between McLeod and Queen Elizabeth Driveway is unacceptable for cyclists. Let them know why. And hey, tell them I sent you! Let’s get this thing fixed. And now’s the right time to fix it! They’re not going to reconstruct Elgin again for a very long time.

Now, does feedback actually work? Will they listen? So far, for this project, the answer is no. Parsons, the consulting firm involved in the project, held public consultations in 2016 and released their results. The second most discussed theme in their Public Design Workshop was “adding a cycling facility on Elgin.” (First was “widen the sidewalks”). In a breakout group discussion focusing on cycling, the first theme was “adding a cycling facility on Elgin” and the second was “significant conflict exists between cyclists, pedestrians and motorists at Elgin Street and QED intersection.” Parsons summarized these comments like this: “Participants expressed the desire for some form of cycling improvements along Elgin Street, cycling and pedestrian improvements to the intersection at Elgin Street and Queen Elizabeth Driveway and higher-order cycling improvements along Hawthorne Avenue.” In an online questionnaire with 628 participants, the number one answer to the question “What are your current concerns about Elgin Street?” was that there were no bicycle lanes on Elgin. The most frequently discussed issue was to “widen the sidewalks” and the second most frequently discussed issue was to “Add cycling facility (bike lanes/cycle tracks).”

It’s clear that Parsons and the City have already ignored feedback. But hopefully they won’t continue to ignore feedback. We won’t know either way unless we provide feedback.

Some further next steps: the Transportation Master Plan and Ottawa Cycling Plan are due to be renewed in the next session of council. Let’s do what we can to make sure that recommendations in these updated plans are more rigorous and enforceable. And there’s an election in October — elect councillors that support cycling!

TO CONCLUDE

One more time, let’s look at that big block of text from the Transportation Master Plan:

The goal of a dramatically higher mode share for cycling means that new types of cycling facilities will be needed to attract novice cyclists and others who are concerned about cycling in mixed traffic. On-street cycling facilities that are separated from vehicular traffic are required to increase cycling safety (both actual and perceived), especially on streets with high traffic volumes and/or speeds.

So…

Given that the City of Ottawa wants to have more people cycling,

And given that the City identified that the best method of getting more people cycling is to provide preferred cycling infrastruture,

And given that separated facilities are identified by the City as most preferred cycling infrastructure,

And given that separated facilities are recommended by the City in areas of high traffic volume and high speeds,

And given that in two sections of Elgin (Laurier to Lisgar, McLeod to QED), there are high traffic volumes and high speeds:

The current design solution of shared-lane facilities with super-sharrows on these two sections is inappropriate. It requires a redesign with separated facilities.

Thank you for reading! Let me know if I missed anything (or made mistakes or typos) by emailing jordobicycles@gmail.com or checking me out on twitter @jordobicycles.

Contacts for Feedback

Danny Palermo, Project Manager: elgin@ottawa.ca

Catherine McKenney, Somerset Ward Councillor: catherine.mckenney@ottawa.ca

David Chernushenko, Capital Ward Councillor: David.Chernushenko@ottawa.ca

Jim Watson, Mayor of Ottawa: Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca

Works Cited and Helpful Links

Downtown Moves

Cripton PA, Shen H, Brubacher JR, et al, Severity of urban cycling injuries and the relationship with personal, trip, route and crash characteristics: analyses using four severity metrics, BMJ Open 2015;5:e006654. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014–006654

Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool & User Guide

Cycling in Cities: Preferred Route Types

Elgin Street and Hawthorne Avenue Functional Design Study Public Consultation Summary Report #1 (June 28, 2016)

Kassim A., Ismail K. and Woo S, INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECT OF SUPER-SHARROWS ON CYCLIST AND VEHICLE BEHAVIOR

Ottawa Cycling Plan, 2013

Ottawa Transportation Master Plan, 2013

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade