Colborne at St James Traffic Study Underway
Three videotaping sessions have been completed by Gorski Consulting on Colborne Street just north of Oxford Street in London. Sessions were completed on September 20th, September 30th and October 5, 2022.
The impetus for this study was the result of Dr. Colin Evans who contacted me with an inquiry whether I would consider conducting a traffic study on Colborne Street. Details are still unknown but Dr. Evans works with the London Health Sciences Centre and appears to be interested in the decision by the City of London to develop a “paint only” cycling lane along Colborne Street north of Oxford Street in London. A protected cycling lane already exists on Colborne proceeding northward to Oxford however the decision to create an non-protected lane north of Oxford has raised the concerns of some. While I already had thoughts of performing such a study it was Dr. Evans who caused that thought to develop into action.
In the first session which occurred on September 20th, Dr. Evans also invited another person who has been interested in cycling safety in London. Andrew Hunniford, the manager/partner of the London Bicycle Café also attended. This was our first meeting and we got through introductions quickly before the videotaping commenced.
Since this inaugural meeting Dr. Evans indicated that he had arranged to have a number of other doctors to join in the study. So we now have the beginnings of a group who are interested in gathering objective data. I hope to be conducting some training sessions so the participants can become familiar with the procedures. Once this occurs it may be that the time-consuming process of conducting the video analysis will be sped up. Preliminary results from these sessions are likely to be posted on this website within the week. Please stay tuned to these developments.
Traffic Study Commenced at Colborne Street North of Oxford in London Ontario
Discussions developed recently when the City of London announced its intentions to extent the Colborne Street cycling track north from Oxford Street to Cheapside Street. The criticisms of the plan appear to centre around the City’s intention to create a painted cycling lane rather than the protected one that exists south of Oxford.
The City indicated that the painted cycling path “…avoids costly construction of road widening and its related impacts to things like trees, hydro poles and properties”. The City also indicated that the plan was consistent with design guidance provided in Ontario’s Book 18 of the Ontario Traffic Manual. The City also indicated that protected cycling lanes will to installed for streets with higher traffic speeds an volumes. Yet, when a representative of the City was asked whether any specific traffic studies were conducted that would reveal traffic speeds, it was denied that any such study was conducted or available.
The proposed cycling lanes on Colborne will allow the continued existence of broad boulevards on each side of the road.
A figure taken from Ontario’s Book 18 is shown below. It describes how the level of cycling facilities might be planned by noting the speed and volume of vehicles on the road of interest.
Presumably the City of London considered this nomograph when selecting the painted cycle path option. But if the City did not conduct a specific study to obtain data on speed for example, how could they use this nomograph properly?
It is an interesting question. But it has been observed on a number of previous occasions that the City denies that it has any specific data on these issues. And one cannot know because the City is not obliged to be clear to the public on such issues.
As a result Gorski Consulting has decided to conduct a study on Colborne Street to obtain base data to evaluate whether the painted cycling lane is the best option. Stay tuned as these matters develop.
Following The Chaos of A Detour – Part 3
The creation of a detour that involves cyclist traffic needs to take into consideration the typical behaviour of cyclists as well as their capabilities. This observation has been demonstrated in the creation of a detour around the construction at the Thames Valley Parkway (TVP) in London, Ontario.
The TVP is a busy and popular multi-use pathway that meanders through London, generally following the banks of its Thames River. The area of construction was located just north-west of the City’s downtown. The map below shows the area of construction as well as the route of the detour. Several areas of concern were noted along this route. In particular, three areas are highlighted in the map: 1.) a left turn from Ann Street onto the busy Talbot Street, 2.) a passage through the narrow Canadian Pacific Railway underpass just south of Oxford Street, and 3.) a steep downgrade of Grosvenor Street into the busy parking lot at Gibbons Park. Two previous articles have discussed the first two areas of concern.
The present article will focus of the last of the dangers: the downslope of Grosvenor Street into the parking lot of Gibbons Park.
Over the years Gorski Consulting has been monitoring the motions of cyclists riding on downslopes of roads and paths in the City of London. The results of these observations have bee posted in a number of earlier articles. The general conclusion drawn from these observations is that downslopes are related to high cyclist speeds and these high cyclists speeds can be a danger, both to riders, and to those who might interact with them. It would not be surprising therefore that we would express concern when the detour of the Thames Valley Parkway created by the City of London would cause cyclists to travel through such a steep downgrade.
Shortly before the detour was in effect on August 22, 2022 measurements were taken of the downslope on Grosvenor Street as it entered into the Gibbons Park parking lot. Using the nearest intersection (St George Street) as a “zero” reference, painted markers were produced at 25-metre intervals and then a digital level was placed on the road at each marker as shown in the two photos below.
While cyclists may have used this route on previous occasions, the problem with the detour is that it would increase the volume of cyclists and thereby increase the likelihood that a collision might occur. At the end of the downslope there was a large parking lot. This lot was used by persons attending the popular Gibbons Park. There is a danger when cyclist speeds are increased as they enter such a parking lot because driver’s of motor vehicles would not necessarily be attentive to their approach. Many drivers would be focused on the local vehicles around them as they moved in and out of their parking spaces. The extent of the potential danger needed some objective evaluation and so this was the reason to conduct observations of cyclists.
The results of the slope-measuring procedure is shown in the table below. As can be seen the severity of the slope increases as the road reaches the bottom of the slope.
On August 31, 2022 video documentation was conducted of cyclists travelling on the downslope of Grosvenor Street. The documentation occurred between the hours of time of 0946 and 1230 hours, or for approximately 2 and 3/4 hours. Forty cyclists were observed during the time. The table below shows the details of the 20 cyclists who travelled westbound on the downslope. These twenty represent an average of just 7.3 cyclists per hour. At a distance of 225 metres the downslope leveled out and this location was several metres within the parking lot.
As can be seen in the above table there were not many full observations made available. Westbound cyclists reaching the parking lot had a choice of two entrances and we chose to follow those cyclists who took the most popular and direct route along the north portion of the lot. However some cyclists opted to turn left and into the south portion of the lot where there were not cameras. So the speed of some cyclists as they entered the parking lot was not documented. Seven observations are denoted at the 225-metre marker with the words “Into other lane”, meaning their speed could not be documented at this location. This resulted in only 13 remaining observations. Observation #2 occurred before we had a chance to complete our camera set-up so this observation was also incomplete at the 225-metre marker, so this caused a further deduction of full observations, down to just 12.
The table shows that four cyclists were observed to be travelling above 30 km/h. While not many these four would pose a safety problem if moving motor vehicles were in their presence. Particularly Observation #23 where the male rider of a road bike was not wearing a helmet yet he was travelling at the highest speed of almost 39 km/h.
Discussion
I can summarize the results of reviewing the details of all three areas of concern along the noted detour.
Mercifully, the numbers of cyclists using the detour was diminished compared to the number of northbound cyclists that where observed approaching the area of construction of the TVP near Blackfriars bridge. Before the construction the number of cyclists at the Blackfriars Bridge numbered 39 per hour. Just after the closure of the TVP at Ann Street the number of northbound cyclists at the Blackfriars Bridge was reduced to 24 per hour. This was reduced again at the intersection of Ann and Talbots Streets to just 10.5 per hour. And then the number of cyclists was reduced again to just 7.3 per hour at the Grosvenor Street downslope. One can only imagine what developments could have taken place if the number of cyclists using the detour was not diminished.
As of writing the detour is still in effect and it may be lifted, perhaps near the end of September, or later. This is not a long time since the detour began on August 22nd, 2022. Hopefully the deficiencies that have been highlighted will not result any tragic consequences. However the discussion needs some clear-headed thought. Before a detour in finalized there must be certainty that the behaviour and capabilities of cyclists have been taken into account. One cannot just apply one’s theoretical knowledge or rely on published guidelines that may not necessarily apply to the unique specifics of an individual site. A solid understanding of cyclists and their expected actions in needed but also observational data at the site should be gathered as a way of monitoring for problems that may not be apparent at the commencement of the detour.
Following The Chaos of A Detour – Part 2
Gorski Consulting has been following the repercussions of a decision by the City of London Ontario to create a detour route around some construction that was being done on the Thames Valley Parkway (TVP) in an area just north-west of the downtown of the City. The TVP is a popular, multi-use, pathway that generally follows the three-pronged Thames River in London.
In an earlier article we described how the detour contained three area of concern (See map below): 1.) a left turn at Talbot and Ann streets, 2.) a passage through the narrow underpass of the CPR railway crossing on Talbot south of Oxford Street, and 3.) the passage of cyclists down a steep downslope of Grosvenor Street at Gibbons Park. Cyclists who attempted to follow the designated detour met up with obstacles that could have caused collisions, injuries and/or worse. Each of these dangers is highlighted in individual articles.
In an article entitled “Following The Chaos of A Detour – Part 1” we focused on the first danger: The left turn of cyclists from Ann Street onto Talbot. The actions of 21 cyclists who were eastbound on Ann Street and made a left turn onto northbound Talbot Street were described.
The current article will focus on the second danger encountered when cyclists attempted to pass through the narrow opening of the CPR underpass on Talbot Street just south of Oxford Street.
Passage of Cyclists Through The Narrow CPR Rail Underpass
In analysis of video from August 24, 2022, 21 cyclists were observed eastbound on Ann Street and making a left turn onto northbound Talbot Street. Of those 21, 10 cyclists never crossed Talbot Street in the expected manner. Instead these ten cyclists opted to turn northbound onto the west sidewalk of Talbot, presumably because they determined it was either unsafe or too difficult to cross Talbot Street. This decision might have been reasonable if the west sidewalk of Talbot continued underneath and past the CPR underpass. But that was not the case. The west sidewalk ended at the underpass. And this caused a dilemma that these cyclists had not expected. The video provided a clear indication of the difficulty they experienced during this revelation.
Rather than describing the actions of all 10 cyclists, we have chosen only two examples. If the actions of all 10 cyclists were displayed in this article it would make for a long description with a large number of figures. Yet the two examples provide a reasonable summary of the actions of all ten.
Example #1
In the first example we focus on an adult male accompanied by a young female, likely of pre-teen age. The male led the child eastbound along Ann Street and then northbound on Talbot Street. Reconsiderations had to be made and the riders backtracked as shown in the map below. The details of their actions are also summarized in the following text:
Come to stop at timecode 00;08;15;00 at Talbot Street on south sidewalk of Ann Street next to pedestrian crossing button. Does not press button. Waits for couple of minutes. Begin crossing Ann St NB at 00;09;55;00 toward CPR underpass. Begins riding NB along W sidewalk of Talbot. Stops at Piccadilly St. Then continues NB past Piccadilly toward CPR underpass. Stop before reaching underpass. Discussion between male and female. Both riders dismount get back on bikes and return southbound crossing Piccadilly at 00;11;33;40. Return to Ann St at 00;11;57;00. Wait again on Ann St then cross Talbot at @00;12;15;00 via pedestrian crossing. Begin riding northbound along east sidewalk of Talbot and continue through CPR underpass.
In total it has taken the two cyclists over 4 and 1/2 minutes delay to pass through the CPR underpass from their first approach to the intersection of Ann and Talbot Streets. There could have been instances where they might have attempted to cross Talbot Street where crossing could have been precarious and this is a result of the City of London guiding them to take this detour.
Next we have a second example of another cyclist who chose not to cross Talbot Street when he first arrived from eastbound Ann Street. Again, the cyclist chose to travel northbound along the west sidewalk of Talbot and he also encountered the problem that the sidewalk ended at the CPR underpass. His decision to deal with this problem was unexpected, as will be shown in the video frames shown below.
Example #2
First we can see the male cyclist travelling eastbound on Ann Street and approaching the stop sign at Talbot Street, as shown in the first frame below.
Discussion
The male cyclist in the second example shows how cyclists will invent ways of achieving their goals through unorthodox ways. But this dangerous action was influenced by the advice given by the City of London to use the detour that created the cyclist’s difficulties. In the vast majority of instances there are no serious consequences in these actions. Just like in many instances of alcohol impairment, speeding, many drivers avoid detection, collisions, injuries, etc. Poorly maintained roadways or defective vehicles also escape detection for many occasions before a tragic event occurs and the problem is uncovered.
Through video observations of cyclists passing through this detour we can uncover deficiencies that could be corrected before a tragedy occurs. But this requires serious attention to these dangers by those officials whose responsibility it is to keep our roadways safe.
Following The Chaos Of A Detour – Part 1
When the City of London developed a detour around construction at the Thames Valley Parkway (TVP) unknown planners failed to understand how cyclists behave in their normal progression through their urban environment. The result is that several dangers were created along the route. This article will discuss the first of three locations where those dangers exist: A left turn from Ann Street onto Talbot Street.
A Map of the Detour
Below is a map showing the area of the Thames Valley Parkway construction and the original detour route around it. There are three areas of concern along the route: 1. A required left turn onto Talbot, 2. A passage through the narrow Canadian National Railway (CNR) underpass, and 3. A steep downslope on Grosvenor St into a busy parking lot at Gibbons Park.
This present article will focus on the first of the three dangers: The left turn from westbound Ann Street onto northbound Talbot.
The Left-Turn Problem
The figure below shows an overall view of the area of the original detour where cyclists are asked to turn from the TVP onto Ann Street and progress eastward to the intersection with Talbot Street. They are then asked to make a left turn onto Talbot to take them toward the narrow underpass of the CNR underpass.
The next figure below shows a closer, overhead, view of the intersection of Ann and Talbot. The red lines indicate the required motion that cyclists need to take to continue along the detour route. But the figure also shows the presence of a pedestrian crosswalk.
The figure below shows another view of the intersection looking north along Talbot Street. The red lines indicate the left turn required of cyclists to continue northward toward the CNR underpass. Again it can be noted that there is a pedestrian crossing at the intersection.
And again, the figure below shows a view looking eastward along Ann Street toward Talbot. This view also shows that there is a pedestrian crossing installed at the intersection. Those travelling eastbound on Ann and wanting to cross Talbot simply needed to press a button mounted on the pole and flashing pedestrian-crossing lights would be activated requiring all traffic on Talbot to come to a stop. So there should be no problem for cyclists who need to make the left turn: All they need to do is press the button on the pole. It appears that this may have been the logic of the unknown planners who developed the detour route.
But what happens in practice? Never mind the theory, what did the planners know about what would happen in practice? Before answering that question we need to review some observations of cyclists in the area.
Video Observations of Cyclists
Throughout the summer of 2022 Gorski Consulting was involved in a traffic study at Blackfriars Bridge where it connected with the TVP. This location is just south of the area of construction at TVP. Five, 2-hour, videotaping sessions were conducted between May 29th and August 9, 2022. The actions of cyclists were monitored to determine the direction from which they entered the study area and the direction they took when exiting the study area. The table below shows the results of these observations.
The above table shows that 390 cyclists were observed to travel northbound toward the area of construction in the 10 hours of video observations, or 39 cyclists per hour. Also 68 cyclists were observed to travel westbound across Blackfriars Bridge, or about 6.8 cyclists per hour.
We wanted to explore how the detours affected the motions of cyclists so we conducted another 1-hour of video observations on August 23, 2022, or one day after the detour became active. This session revealed that only 24 cyclists travelled northbound on the TVP toward the area of construction, but 16 cyclists travelled westbound across Blackfriars Bridge. In other words a reduced number of cyclists used the original detour and this is noted in the drop in observations from 39 per hour to 24 per hour. And the observations seemed to support that some cyclists used the alternate detour route of crossing Blackfriars Bridge and travelling onto Gunn Street – and this is supported by the increase in observations from 6.8 per hour to 16.0 per hour. So these data provide some context to what is happening along the original detour route.
Next we conducted video observations at the intersection of Talbot and Ann Streets on August 24, 2022, over a period of 2 hours. At 15-minute intervals we noted the actions of cyclists passing through the intersection. The results from that study are shown in the table below.
As can be seen in the table, a total of 55 cyclists were observed in the 2-hours of observation. Those cyclists who were following the detour route toward the CNR underpass are located in the column “EB Ann Turn NB on Talbot” and there were 21 such observations, or 10.5 per hour.
So we can summarize by saying that during the summer of 2022, about 39 cyclists were travelling northbound on the TVP per hour before the construction began on the TVP. Just after the TVP was closed the number of northbound cyclists was reduced to 24 cyclists per hour. And then we see a further reduction in cyclists at the intersection of Talbot and Ann Streets to just 10.5 per hour. So the number of northbound cyclists using the original detour route dropped dramatically compared to the number of northbound cyclists before the construction began. In a way this reduction is helpful from a safety viewpoint because fewer cyclists became exposed to the unsafe conditions of the original detour.
We can now return to the issue of the the left-turning cyclists as they travelled eastbound on Ann Street and approached the left turn onto northbound Talbot. Recall, all they had to do to cross Talbot was to press the button located on the pole on the south-west corner of the intersection. Our testing confirmed that, as soon as that button was pressed the flashing lights became illuminated immediately and there would have been very little delay for cyclists. So what actually happened when these 21 cyclists were observed on video?
Of the 21 cyclists not a single one actually pressed the pedestrian-crossing button to cross Talbot Street. Eleven of the 21 cyclists waited patiently at the west edge of Talbot Street, some for a considerable time, before a gap was made available in traffic and they completed their left turn.
The remaining 10 cyclists never attempted the crossing. Instead they turned left onto the west sidewalk of Talbot Street and began riding northbound toward the CNR underpass. But the sidewalk on the west side of Talbot came to an end at the underpass. And this caused a dilemma. Since Talbot Street was filled with heavy traffic how were these cyclists going to get through the CNR underpass? In the next article we will present several examples of what took place.
Discussion
What were planners at the City of London thinking when they created the original detour? Did they believe that cyclists approaching eastbound on Ann Street, and wanting to make the left turn to northbound Talbot, would deviate from their position on the road and come onto the south sidewalk to press the pedestrian crossing button? No one can read their minds.
However, if cyclists were expected to cross Talbot Street using the pedestrian crossing then that presented another problem. Cyclists are prohibited from riding within pedestrian crossings. So what next? After moving onto the south sidewalk and pressing the pedestrian crossing button was a cyclist expected to shimmy their bike over away from the pedestrian crossing and then cross from the eastbound lane of Ann Street? Clearly that would be impossible to believe because, from a practical sense, it just would not happen. That is not the way cyclists behave in the real world.
It was fortunate on the afternoon of the videotaping that traffic on Talbot Street was extremely dense such that on many occasions northbound vehicles were crawling forward at very slow speed. This improved the cyclists’ chances to enter the stream of traffic. But that favourable outcome would not always be there. It is likely that there would be occasions where traffic was less-dense and northbound vehicles could be travelling at the posted speed or higher. Then the ability of left-turning cyclists to enter the northbound stream could be worsened.
In such chaotic situations both drivers and cyclists learn to adapt and accommodate. Many drivers are alert enough that they detect the presence of a cyclist whose intention is to enter the lane in front of them. And cyclists are particularly careful not to enter traffic until they are sure they can do so in safety, or it could mean their life. So these accommodations help to mask the dangerous conditions that exist. However, over the long run, there is a higher probability that less-attentive drivers and cyclists will meet and the result becomes tragic.
This is why video observations such as those presented in this article are important. Even before a tragedy occurs we can make observations of the detour and draw conclusions about what might happen. And we can use this analysis to consider how we might improve the safety of cyclists in any further planning of detours.
There are two more articles forthcoming that will focus on the remaining two dangers along the original detour: 1. The narrow CNR underpass, and 2. The steep downslope of Grosvenor Street into Gibbons Park.
You must be logged in to post a comment.