Colborne at St James Traffic Study – Results from Session #1
The first Session of the Colborne Street Traffic Study has been completed and partial results will be reported in this article.
Background
in the late summer of 2022 the City of London Ontario announced that it would extent the cycling lane on Colborne Street north of Oxford Street to Cheapside Street. A protected cycling lane had previously been installed on Colborne south of Oxford. However the City proposed that the new cycling lane north of Oxford should not be protected. Instead the lane should be designated by a painted white line only. Cyclist and some members of the public objected to this decision as it would cause unsafe conditions for cyclists. Gorski Consulting was approached by interested members of the public whether a traffic study could be performed to evaluate the issue. As a result a series of video documentation sessions was commenced. The first Session was conducted on September 20, 2022. The results obtained from this session will be the focus of this article.
The City of London reported that its decision was in compliance with the guidelines offered in Book 18, Cycling Facilities, of the Ontario Traffic Manual. In part Book 18 provided a graph relating vehicle speed and volume that could be used to estimate what kind of cycling lanes should be provided. This graph from the June 2021 version of Book 18 is copied below.
This graph is slightly different from pervious versions. For example a similar graph from the 2014 Version of Book 18 is copied below. One of the differences between the two graphs is that in 2014 the “85th Percentile Motor Vehicle Operating Speed” formed the vertical axis whereas in the newer version the vertical axis is the “Posted Speed Limit”. In the text of the June 2021 manual the authors advise that the 85th Percentile Speed can be used when data suggests that the operating speed is higher than the posted speed.
In speaking briefly with a representative of the City of London at an information meeting it was stated that the City of London did not conduct any specific studies on Colborne Street and mainly relied upon the traffic volume in their decision to select the painted cycling lane. A handout provided at the meeting indicated that the traffic volume in the corridor was between 4000 and 6400 vehicles per day.
A copy of the traffic volumes taken from the City of London map is shown below. This shows that the traffic volume (AADT) between Oxford and St James is 6500, whereas the volume between St James and Cheapside is 4500. So there is a marked reduction is traffic north of St James. It suggests there is likely exit of Colborne Street by many northbound drivers onto St James. And there could also be a likely entrance from St James southbound onto Colborne Street. Either way it suggests there is a considerable interaction of traffic at the Colborne and St James intersection.
While the above graphs are not the only information needed to select a proper cycling facility they represent major inputs in the process. Knowing the specifics of the operating speed and traffic volume are key points in using the guidelines. As such video documentation at the Colborne site would provide valuable data the selection process.
Session #1 of Colborne – St James Traffic Study
Selecting the location of the study needed some consideration as the operating speed should be documented in a location where vehicles are moving at a constant, uninterrupted rate. Selection of a location where vehicles are stopped, turning, accelerating or braking does not provide a true indication of the speed of vehicles on the road. The best location appeared to be away from the busy area at Oxford Street and also away from the end of the proposed cycling lane at Cheapside Street. It also needed to be away from the motions occurring at the St James intersection.
The final decision placed the documentation just north of St James. The Google Maps view below shows an overall view of the Colborne and St James intersection. The “Zero” location of the documentation is shown as 15 metres north of the north curb of St James. It can be noted that a pedestrian crossing existed on the south side of the intersection and this caused an interruption in the normal traffic flow. Also a bus stop was located further south which also caused some interruption.
Speeds and traffic volumes were documented over two, 50-metre segments north of St James. At this initial stage it was decided that only northbound traffic would be documented and that southbound data would be obtained from analysis of the video at a later date.
The Google Maps view below is looking northbound on Colborne Street from just south of the intersection with St James. The northbound bus stop can be seen on the right side of the view (blue sign on pole) and the pedestrian crossing is also visible in the background.
The next Google Maps view below is looking southbound from just north of the St James intersection. There is a fire hall located on the south-west quadrant of the intersection. Also note the rather wide boulevards located on each side of Colborne. Our measurements indicate that the east boulevard is 5.2 metres whereas the west one is 4.9 metres.
It can also be noted that the southbound lane is much wider than the northbound lane. Our measurements indicate that the southbound lane is 6.1 metres wide whereas the northbound lane is 3.85 metres. This difference is because parking is allowed along the west side of Colborne. In the handout provided by the City (copied below) the proposal is that the west side parking lane will be removed. Two 3.3-metre wide lanes will be created for motor vehicle traffic and then 1.7-metre wide cycling lanes will be created on each side of Colborne. It would appear that the boulevards (i.e. painting strips) will remain as they are without any widening of the road.
With the existence of a city-transit bus route there is concern about the proposed 3.3-metre-wide lanes which are narrower than the 3.5-metres, or wider, that would typically be seen. A city transit bus would be in the neighbourhood of 2.6 metres in width and this would cause a gap of only about 35 centimetres between the side of the bus and the left and right edges of the lane. Given the propensity for motor vehicles to stray from a perfectly aligned position in a lane and given the similar propensity for cyclists to wander left and right as they balance the cyclists, there is an increased likelihood of possible contact between these units. Even slight contact of a cyclist or cycle can create considerable problems to the safety of the rider.
Session #1 – The Results
The image below is a frame taken from the Premiere video project showing the synchronized output of six video cameras. It can be recalled that average speeds are obtained by noting the time taken for a vehicle to travel over a 50-metre distance segment. It is a simple process to take the 50-metre segment and divide it by that time to arrive at an average speed in metres-per-second (m/s). Metres-per-second are then multiplied by 3.6 to transfer to kilometres-per-hour (km/h).
Documentations commenced at 1020 hours on September 20, 2022 over a period of one hour.
The table below shows the results of the documentations of northbound cyclists. Only 15 northbound cyclists were observed during this time. Only three of them were females. The fastest speed was at Observation #8 where a male rode a road bike at an average of just over 28 km/h. The slowest speed was at Observation #7 where a female rode at an average speed between 14.8 and 15.7 km/h.
The overall average speeds of the cyclists was just over 22 km/h in both segments of roadway. This is somewhat high compared to speeds on other cycling facilities such as the Thames Valley Parkway and none of the 15 cyclists appeared to be riding an e-bike. Yet it is not unusual for situations of uninterrupted travel where cyclists do not need to slow for pedestrians and other obstructions.
The next table shows the results of the motor vehicle volumes and speeds. Each cell shows the observation number followed by the speed in km/h up to two decimals. As an example, the first observation fell into the 41-45 km/h column and can be seen at the very bottom of the table. The “1-44.75” means that the precise speed of the vehicle in Observation #1 was 44.75 km/h.
A total of 136 observations of motor vehicles was made. Eighty-five percent of 136 is 115. So in determining the 85th Percentile Speed we need to find the value of the 115th observation. it is a simple process of adding up the frequencies in the columns up to the speed range of 46-50 km/h, arriving at a cumulative frequency (4+4+30+34+38 = 110) of 110 observations. We now need to find the 5th slowest observation in the column of speeds 51-55 km/h. That 5th observation shows a speed of 51.10 km/h and therefore this is the 85th Percentile Speed.
A similar process was conducted for the second road segment, between the 50-metre and 100-metre markers. This analysis showed that the 115th observation contained a speed of 51.87 km/h and so this was the 85th Percentile Speed for that distance segment.
Not enough analysis has been completed at this time to obtain an estimate of the motor vehicle traffic volume since only northbound vehicles were documented. A temporary (though possibly errored) estimate could be obtained by multiplying the 136 observations by 2. Thus we might estimate that a total of 272 motor vehicles passed by the area in one hour. If this was the peak hour then we might estimate the AADT by multiplying by 10, resulting in an estimated AADT of 2720. However the counts were taken between 1020 and 1120 hours and this would clearly not be the peak hour. So based on the present data we can only say that the AADT at the site is higher than 2720.
Another approach is to accept the City of London traffic volume data which was estimated to be about 4500 AADT. Combining this with the 85ht Percentile speeds (about 51 to 52 km/h) we can look at the graph of speed and volume prepared in Book 18, shown previously.
Two additional Sessions have already been conducted on September 30th and October 5th and the data from these Sessions are in the process of being developed.
Session #2 on September 30th was undertaken for two hours, between 1612 and 1812 hours. This session would include the peak hour. At time of writing a total of 443 northbound vehicles have been documented, or about 222 per hour. This is almost twice as many vehicles per hour than an in Session #1. Further details from this Session #2 will be revealed in a separate article shortly.
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.