Report to/Rapport au :

Transportation Committee

Comité des transports

13 April 2006 / le 13 avril 2006

Submitted by/Soumis par: R.G. Hewitt,

Acting Deputy City Manager/ Directeur municipal adjoint par intérim

Public Works and Services/Services et Travaux Publics

Contact Person/Personne ressource : W.R. Newell, P.Eng.,

Acting Director, Infrastructure Services/Directeur intérimaire, Services d'infrastructure

(613) 580-2424 x16002, Wayne.Newell@ottawa.ca

City Wide

Ref N°: ACS2006-PWS-INF-0002

SUBJECT:	Results of Sidewalk Pilots along HoLland avenue and Delaware Avenue

OBJET :	RÉSULTATS DES PROJETS PILOTES SUR LES TROTTOIRS DES AVENUES HOLLAND ET DELAWARE

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That Transportation Committee receive this report for information purposes.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité des transports reçoive le présent rapport à titre d’information.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Analysis:

In August 2003, during discussion of the report presented to Transportation Committee regarding roadway modifications proposed to be undertaken in conjunction with the Holland Avenue reconstruction project (ACS2003-TUP-TRF-0021), issues were raised with respect to pedestrian safety and sidewalk design that led to the following committee recommendations:

That the sidewalk portion of the Holland Avenue reconstruction project be designed to further minimize the “roller coaster” effect by implementing a ramp component for driveway access based on the Toronto model as a pilot project;
That staff report to Committee on the design implications of this model on this project.

A report outlining the design implications was presented to Transportation Committee at the 02 June 2004 meeting (ACS2004-TUP-INF-0006) with a commitment to monitor and assess the pilot installation with a view of determining the acceptability of a “Ramp” standard and potential for an update of the sidewalk design guidelines. Over the summer of 2004, the Department implemented two separate pilot installations representing different site conditions, constraints and standards. The pilot installations are located on Holland Avenue between Carling Avenue and Tyndall Drive (standard sidewalk width of 1.8m and larger), and on Delaware Avenue between Cartier Street and Robert Street (non standard 1.5m exception width).

Staff identified a monitoring plan for the two pilot sites to allow for feedback from various users and stakeholders. The monitoring plan was designed to reflect considerations such as accessibility considerations, pedestrian movement and safety, parking and cycling impacts, traffic operation, maintenance and vehicular access/egress.

Based on the review and monitoring completed, the Department is moving forward as follows:

For sidewalks 1.8m or wider (the City’s preferred minimum width) that directly abuts the roadways, use the “Ramp” standard where possible, as shown on Attachment 4. In general, this standard will be used on roadways with lower speeds and where the longitudinal slopes do not exceed 5%. For high volume commercial and institutional entrances, the “Traditional” standard will be used. Where successive entrances are in close proximity, reviews will be undertaken to assess if the “Traditional” or “Ramp” standard would be more appropriate.

For sidewalk widths less than 1.8m, the “Traditional” standard will be used, as shown on Attachment 5. The “Ramp” standard can be considered on a site specific exception basis subject to detailed consideration of constraints, the effects of the combination of mitigating factors such as mountable curb, steeper ramp, vehicle encroachments on travel path, drainage, implications of lowering roadway profiles, etc.

In 2005, the application of the “Ramp” standard was extended to other locations, such as Sunnyside, Fifth/Craig/Lyon, Allan/Cobalt/Strathcona and was considered as part of the design process on projects such as Parkdale and Somerset. In 2006, the intent is to extend the application of the “Ramp” standard to other sites and to new development construction.

Public Consultation/Input:

The objective of the pilot was to undertake a review of the installations with input from various stakeholders, such as sidewalk users and residents along the pilot installations, Advisory Committees, Ward Councillors, and various staff and engineering consultants for technical assessments.

The consultation component from the residents along the pilot installations was in the form of feedback through inquiries and a questionnaire developed to solicit feedback issues such as pedestrian travelling along sidewalk, width, passing, vehicle access entering and exiting at driveway and snow removal.

The Committees were generally in support of using the “Ramp” standard. Although they expressed some minor concerns regarding the steepness of the ramp, the narrower platform width potentially forcing less mobile users onto a steeper surface and the narrower surface presenting some constraints regarding the ability to pass one another without encroaching onto the ramp portion, they indicated the “Ramp” standard, which provides a consistent flat travel surface, results in an overall improved standard.

In May of 2005 the Department provided the Advisory Committees with a general sense of the direction proposed for the application of “Ramp” standard for 1.8m sidewalks and wider, which is consistent with the approach documented in this report.

The Department will continue to monitor and review the application of the two (2) standards. The review and application of the appropriate standard will include consultation with the appropriate stakeholders on a project-by-project basis. Further consultation will occur as part of the Pedestrian Plan review to be undertaken by the Department in 2006.

Financial Implications:

Construction and operational costs associated with “Traditional” standard and the "Ramp" standard are consistent and as such there are no financial implications.

RÉSUMÉ

Hypothèses et analyse:

En août 2003, dans le cadre de la discussion entourant un rapport présenté au Comité des transports au sujet du projet de modifications apportées à la chaussée en même temps que les travaux de réfection de l’avenue Holland (ACS2003-TUP-TRF-0021), des préoccupations soulevées relativement à la sécurité des piétons et à la conception des trottoirs ont donné lieu aux recommandations suivantes :

Que la partie du projet de réfection de l’avenue Holland portant sur les trottoirs prévoie la réduction de l’effet « montagnes russes » en intégrant, au moyen d’un projet pilote, l’aménagement de rampes d’accès aux entrées de cour inspirées du modèle de Toronto;
Que le personnel soumette au Comité un rapport sur les incidences en matière de conception qu’aura ce modèle sur le projet.

Un rapport qui décrit les incidences en matière de conception a été déposé à la réunion du Comité des transports du 2 juin 2004 (ACS2004-TUP-INF-0006). Un engagement visant à surveiller et à évaluer les sites où seront mis en œuvre les projets pilotes a alors été pris afin de déterminer si une norme relative aux rampes d’accès serait acceptable et si une mise à jour des lignes directrices sur la conception des trottoirs s’impose. Au cours de l’été 2004, Services et Travaux publics a établi deux sites pilotes qui présentent des conditions et des contraintes différentes et doivent satisfaire à des normes variées. Ces sites se trouvent sur l’avenue Holland, entre l’avenue Carling et la promenade Tyndall (trottoirs d’une largeur réglementaire [1,8 m et plus]), et sur l’avenue Delaware, entre la rue Cartier et la rue Robert (trottoirs d’une largeur non réglementaire [1,5 m]).

Le personnel a élaboré un plan de suivi pour les deux sites pilotes afin de permettre aux usagers et aux autres parties intéressées de formuler des commentaires sur le projet. Ce plan a été conçu pour tenir compte de considérations telles que l’accessibilité, les déplacements et la sécurité des piétons, les effets sur le stationnement et la circulation à bicyclette, la circulation routière ainsi que l’entretien et les entrées et sorties de véhicules.

Conformément à l’examen et au suivi effectués, Services et Travaux publics prend les mesures suivantes pour faire avancer le dossier:

Dans le cas des trottoirs d’une largeur de 1,8 m (largeur minimale privilégiée par la Ville) ou plus qui jouxtent la chaussée, la nouvelle norme relative aux rampes d’accès, laquelle figure à l’annexe 4, doit être respectée aux endroits possibles. De façon générale, cette norme s’appliquera aux chaussées sur lesquelles on circule à vitesse réduite ou qui ont une pente longitudinale ne dépassant pas 5 p. 100. Pour ce qui est des entrées d’établissements commerciaux et institutionnels abondamment empruntées, on appliquera la norme « habituelle ». Dans le cas d’entrées successives rapprochées, on procédera à des examens pour déterminer s’il est plus indiqué d’appliquer la norme « habituelle » ou la norme des « rampes d’accès ».

Pour les trottoirs dont la largeur est inférieure à 1,8 m, on appliquera la norme « habituelle », comme l’illustre l’annexe 5. La nouvelle norme sur les rampes d’accès peut toutefois exceptionnellement être envisagée après un examen attentif des contraintes et des effets de la combinaison des facteurs d’atténuation tels que la présence d’une bordure arrondie ou d’une rampe dont la pente est raide, l’empiètement des véhicules sur la voie de circulation, le drainage, les répercussions de l’abaissement du profil de la chaussée, etc.

En 2005, l’aménagement de rampes selon la nouvelle norme a été étendu à d’autres endroits, notamment sur l’avenue Sunnyside, l’avenue Fifth/la rue Craig/la rue Lyon, la rue Allan/l’avenue Cobalt/l’avenue Strathcona, et a été envisagé dans le cadre du processus de conception de projets, comme ceux de l’avenue Parkdale et de la rue Somerset. En 2006, la Ville compte appliquer la norme à d’autres endroits et aux nouveaux projets de lotissements.

Consultation publique/commentaires:

Le projet pilote visait à mener un examen des sites et à recueillir les observations des diverses parties intéressées, notamment les usagers des trottoirs et les résidents qui habitent en bordure des sites pilotes, les comités consultatifs, les conseillers municipaux ainsi que divers employés et experts-conseils en ingénierie chargés de l’évaluation technique.

Le processus de consultation consistait à solliciter les commentaires des résidents habitant en bordure des sites pilotes au moyen d’enquêtes et d’un questionnaire portant sur certains points particuliers, comme la circulation des piétons, la largeur des trottoirs, les dépassements, l’accès des véhicules aux entrées de cour (entrée et sortie) et le déneigement.

Le processus de consultation du Comité consultatif sur les piétons et le transport en commun, du Comité consultatif sur l’accessibilité et du Comité consultatif sur les routes et le cyclisme comportait des discussions, des réunions sur le terrain, des exposés et la sollicitation de commentaires. Ces comités ont été informés de l’existence des sites pilotes en janvier 2005, une fois ceux-ci aménagés. Une première demande de commentaires a été effectuée, suivie de la présentation d’un exposé à chacun des comités à la fin du mois de mars 2005. Par la suite, des visites sur le terrain ont été organisées en avril, au cours desquelles le personnel a répondu aux questions des participants et pris leurs observations en note.

De façon générale, les comités se sont dits favorables à l’application de la nouvelle norme relative aux rampes d’accès. Ils ont cependant exprimé quelques petites réserves concernant la pente des rampes, la plate-forme plus étroite pouvant obliger les usagers à mobilité réduite à se déplacer sur la surface la plus inclinée ainsi que la surface plus étroite pouvant contraindre les piétons qui se croisent à empiéter sur la rampe. Les comités ont fait observer que la norme des « rampes d’accès », qui prévoit l’aménagement d’une surface plane et régulière, constitue une amélioration.

En mai 2005, le Ministère a donné aux comités un aperçu de la direction qu’il se proposait de suivre en ce qui touche l’application de la norme des « rampes d’accès » aux trottoirs d’une largeur d’au moins 1,8 m; cette orientation cadre avec l’approche documentée dans le présent rapport.

Services et Travaux publics continuera de surveiller et d’examiner l’application des deux normes. L’examen et l’application de la norme appropriée comprendront une consultation des parties intéréssées pour chaque projet individuel. D’autres consultations auront lieu dans le cadre de l’étude du Plan sur les piétons qui sera entreprise par le service en 2006.

Répercussions financières:

Les coûts opérationnels et de construction associés à la norme « habituelle » et à celle des « rampes d’accès » sont dans la norme, de sorte qu’il n’y a pas de répercussion financière.

BACKGROUND

At its meeting of 27 August 2003, Transportation Committee considered report ACS2003-TUP-TRF-0021 regarding roadway modifications proposed to be undertaken in conjunction with the Holland Avenue reconstruction project. During discussion of the report, issues were raised regarding pedestrian safety and sidewalk design that led to a suggestion to consider using a “Ramp” style sidewalk, as used in portions of Toronto, to reduce the “roller coaster” effect resulting from successive close proximity vehicle accesses. The “Ramp” standard introduces a consistent flatter travel portion of sidewalk by introducing a steeper ramp to account for the change in height between the roadway and sidewalk at vehicle accesses, as shown on Attachment 1.

The committee recommended the following:

That the sidewalk portion of the Holland Avenue reconstruction project be designed to further minimize the “roller coaster” effect by implementing a ramp component for driveway access based on the Toronto model as a pilot project;

That staff report to Committee on the design implications of this model on this project.

Initial research of the “Toronto” standard and its existing installations was completed in the fall of 2003. Issue identification and consultation with various stakeholders was completed over the course of the winter in 2004 and led to an evaluation of a full-scale mock-up of the “Toronto” standard. These investigations identified key issues to be addressed to suit Ottawa conditions and the Toronto specifications were adjusted to mitigate predominant issues around vehicle scrapping, ramp steepness and curb height at the roadway edge.

A report outlining the design implications was presented to Transportation Committee on 02 June 2004 (ACS2004-TUP-INF-0006) with a commitment to monitor and assess pilot installations with a view of determining the acceptability of a “Ramp” standard and potential for an update of the sidewalk design guidelines by mid 2005.

DISCUSSION

Following the report to Transportation Committee on 02 June 2004, the Department implemented two separate pilot installations representing different site conditions, constraints and standards. The pilot installations are located on Holland Avenue between Carling Avenue and Tyndall Drive (standard sidewalk width of 1.8m and larger), and on Delaware Avenue between Cartier Street and Robert Street (non standard 1.5m exception width), as shown on Attachment 2.

Staff identified a monitoring plan for the two pilot sites to allow for the collection of objective feedback from various users and stakeholders. The monitoring plan was designed to reflect considerations such as accessibility considerations, pedestrian movement and safety, parking and cycling impacts, traffic operation, maintenance, and vehicular access and egress.

The process involved collection and documentation of information in a consistent and uniform way to allow for consideration of the issues. Input included consultation components with residents and Advisory Committees, review of various comments and inquiries reviewed by the Department, a technical review of the functional requirements and industry scans on relevant guideline documents.

The results of the monitoring and industry scans were documented and have been summarized under the general headings of User/Resident Inputs, Technical Operation and Function, Traffic Operation/Curb Height/Stormwater.

User/Resident Inputs

Discussion on the consultation methodology is included in the Consultation portion of this report. Responses to the resident surveys are summarized as follows (detailed response results are included in Attachment 3):

Recognizing the sample size for the survey is relatively small and the two pilot installations are not fully representative of the various combinations of traffic, parking, access and site constraints across the City, the relevance of the results is not the absolute numbers but rather the margin of variance between the two standards piloted. The consistently higher acceptance of the 1.8m width over the 1.5m width is an indication the wider sidewalk application has general acceptance and less concerns from the broader stakeholder group than the narrower 1.5m width.

Technical Operation and Function

The initial review of the “Toronto” standard and pre-pilot investigations identified vehicle scrapping on access and egress, steepness of the ramp portion and curb height at the access as some of the issues to resolve in advance of constructing a pilot. The parameters used for construction of the pilot installations were designed to mitigate these issues. From the monitoring completed, the 1.8m “Ramp” standard reported several issues with vehicular access, maintenance or curb height but no more likely than what would have been expected from an installation using the “Traditional” standard. The issues reported were more construction related than design issues and the Department’s technical guidelines associated with an adopted “Ramp” standard will provide the guidance necessary to ensure consistent construction practices.

The relationship between the platform width, the ramp slope and the potential for users of the sidewalk to unexpectedly be required to manoeuvre on the ramp (the narrower the platform width the higher the risk of mobility issues) was identified in the early stages of the review as an issue to be considered.

Staff attempted to define what might be considered threshold limits for a user’s ability to recover should there be an unexpected requirement to manoeuvre on the ramp portion, either partially or totally while travelling along the sidewalk. Although the potential for the situation arising is dependent on the users mobility, the risk also increases as the platform width decreases. The Department wanted to ensure an adopted City standard had due consideration of the universality of its application for all users and the risks be minimized to a reasonable extent before adopting a standard.

The issue or risk is a function of platform width, ramp slopes and ramp length. Staff researched existing documentation that could assist in defining appropriate design guidelines.

The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) - Accessible Design for the Built Environment document (B654-04 1.1) provided guidance for platform width (minimum 0.92m). Staff also completed an industry scan on the topic of slopes and manoeuvrability and found some research through the University of Texas at Austin (Kara Kockelman, Professor of Civil Engineering) in the form of a review highlighting persons with disabilities’ reaction to various cross slopes. This document identified a generic range of acceptable slopes for consideration that suggests, “In order to accommodate the largest number of possible users, a 4-percent maximum cross-slope is recommended. Where a 4 percent maximum is not feasible and the primary slope is less than 5 percent, a 10-percent maximum cross-slope appears to be very reasonable. However, if variations due to imperfect construction are likely to lead to much higher in-place slopes, engineers and planners may need to specify something less than these maxima in order to ensure that actual construction practices deliver accessible sidewalks”.

By combining the parameters from each of these documents, the following principles for defining a ramp-style sidewalk design and its application were identified:

· The clear width of 1.0m, consistent with the values stated in the CSA guideline (0.92m) will be considered the minimum platform width accepted.

· The CSA document states that curb ramps must not exceed 10% for a slope that is along the path of travel and the University of Texas study on cross slope use identifies that 10% cross-slopes seems reasonable when the primary or longitudinal slope is less than 5%. To define guiding principles, staff considers it reasonable to set the recoverable slope, (the ramp slope reasonably manoeuvrable) at 10% up to a limit of 14%, as constructed on Holland Avenue.

· In general, the “Ramp” standard should not be used where longitudinal roadway slopes exceed 5%. Further reviews shall be undertaken to assess implications.

Traffic Operation/Curb Height and Stormwater

To assist in reducing vehicles scraping on the ramp when entering or exiting the accesses, the barrier curb height was reduced from the standard 150mm (6”) to 125mm (5”) on Holland Avenue and to 100mm (4”) on Delaware. These reductions of the curb height identified issues associated with:

· Safety resulting from a lessened barrier to vehicle encroachment

· Potential for vehicles parking in the boulevard as a result of the lessened barrier height

· Implication to storm water design given reduced curb height and stormwater storage potential

The steeper access ramps also identified a potential that slower vehicle access speeds would be required. There was a need to determine whether there were implications from a traffic flow perspective.

The City retained an engineering consultant to undertake a technical review of these aspects. Upon review of their comments and consideration of construction practices, the technical guidelines associated with a “Ramp” standard identified that:

· The “Ramp” standard should only be used on roadways with lower speeds to ensure the reduced vehicle speeds, required to access the “Ramp” standard, do not negatively impact traffic flows.

· A reduction of curb height will impact designer calculations for on street storage of runoff during certain storm events. The designer will need to consider the design curb height and make adjustments to catchbasin type and/or spacing where required.

· Designers will need to evaluate the number and nature of commercial entrances. High volume accesses that serve commercial and institutional establishments should be constructed using the “Traditional” standard.

Summary and Recommendation

Based on the Department’s review and the monitoring completed we are moving forward as follows.

Sidewalk width of 1.8m and larger

Use of the ramp style standard for 1.8m sidewalks and wider (the City's preferred minimum sidewalk width) will ensure a balanced approach respecting the issues, preferences and requirements for vehicular, pedestrian and mobility perspectives. Where physically possible, the Department is proceeding with the use of the “Ramp” standard (reference Attachment 4) for sidewalks 1.8m in width or wider, that directly abut roadways, using the design parameters as follows:

750mm ramp with a max slope between 10% and 14%
minimum 1.0 m platform width
125mm curb height; 25mm curb height (±10mm) at accesses
use on roadways with lower speeds and where longitudinal slopes do not exceed 5%
high volume commercial and institutional entrances to be constructed with the “Traditional” standard (reference Attachment 5)
where successive entrances are in close proximity, reviews should be undertaken to assess if the “traditional” or “Ramp“ standard would be more appropriate

Use of this standard was considered and extended to additional projects in 2005 such as Sunnyside, Fifth/Craig/Lyon, Allan/Cobalt/Strathcona and was considered as part of the design process on projects such as Parkdale and Somerset. As more of the installations are completed, the Department will be in a position to evaluate the broader application of the standard. In 2006, the application of the standard will be extended to other sites and to new development construction.

Sidewalk width less than 1.8m

The City's Interim Sidewalk Design Guidelines identify 1.8m and larger as the standard width for new construction. It allows for safe passing room between an adult and others (such as a person pushing a baby carriage, a person in a wheelchair, child on tricycle, etc.). It does recognize however, that these preferred widths may not always be achievable and that a 1.5m sidewalk would be acceptable in consideration of physical constraints such as poles, retaining walls, rock gardens, fences, hedges, trees, etc. The Delaware pilot installation was an amended version of the “Ramp” standard on Holland Avenue to represent a design that could fit the 1.5m exception requirement of the guideline. The amendments included a reduction of curb height to 100mm, a steeper ramp component and a smaller travel platform width. While the review indicates the design has potential to work, less consistent acceptance than the City's preferred wider sidewalks width was documented through the results of the survey completed during the monitoring. The design also introduces a travel platform width at the threshold of the CSA minimum requirements and ramp slopes that can be considered to fall outside reasonable acceptable recovery ranges for persons with disabilities.

Given the 1.5m width is an exception in terms of the City’s preferred sidewalk widths, and the need to better understand the potential mitigation opportunities for the areas of concern, the “Ramp” standard for sidewalk widths less than 1.8m generally will not be used. It can however be considered on a site specific exception basis subject to detailed consideration of constraints, the effects of the combination of mitigating factors such as mountable curb, steeper ramp, vehicle encroachments on travel path, drainage, implications of lowering roadway profiles, etc.

CONSULTATION

The objective of the pilot was to undertake a review of the installations with input from appropriate stakeholders. Stakeholder input included sidewalk users and residents along the pilot installations, Advisory Committees, Ward Councillors, construction and maintenance staff, standards and design staff, and consultants for technical assessment and opinions.

Feedback from the latter three groups was completed on an ongoing basis throughout design, construction and post construction.

The consultation component with the residents along the pilot installations was in the form of feedback through inquiries and through a questionnaire developed to solicit feedback on issues such as Pedestrian access from road to sidewalk, pedestrian travelling along sidewalk, width, passing, and vehicle access entering at driveway and exiting the driveway, and snow removal.

The questionnaire was delivered to each residence along the two pilot installations. A summary of the responses is included as Attachment 3. Overall results are indicative of general acceptance and less concerns with the wider installation on Holland Avenue over the narrower platform width on Delaware Avenue. General comments indicated the positive aspect of a consistent flat travel surface with some negatives in terms of the steepness of the ramp if it had to be used unintentionally or inadvertently. Concerns were expressed with respect to winter use and operation that focussed around the nature of the winter as opposed to standard or specification anomalies that required adjustment to design.

Advisory Committee consultation included discussions, site meetings, presentations and requests for input from the Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee (PTAC), Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) and the Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee (RCAC) over the course of the pilots and monitoring period. The committees were advised of the pilot installations in January of 2005 following construction. The Department encouraged committee members to use them as frequently as possible through the monitoring period and to report back to the Department. The request for input was followed up with presentations to each of the committees in late March 2005, providing the provision of information related to the background leading to the pilot installations, pre-pilot investigations and issues identified, the standards used, proposed monitoring and assessment, the need for committee input (in particular those associated with accessibility issues), and a draft Departmental recommendation.

The meetings were well attended. Feedback included comments regarding the slopes of 2%-4% being uncomfortable, that steeper slopes over short distances might be manageable and some discussion on whether there was a minimum width that could be considered for wheeled devices (suggestion that a wheel spacing of 600-675mm might be typical for motorized devices). The committee member comments at that time were supportive of the “Ramp” standard and the outcome of the presentations was an offer by the Department to facilitate field visits following the snowmelt to help in the delivery of comments.

Field visits were arranged in April 2005 during which staff answered questions and received comments that were generally supportive. Minor concerns of comments were expressed regarding the steepness of the ramp, the narrower platform width potentially forcing less mobile users onto a steeper surface and the narrower surface presenting some concerns with two user’s ability to pass one another without encroaching onto the ramp portion. In May 2005, the Department provided the committees with a general sense of the direction proposed for the application of “Ramp” standard consistent with the approach documented in this report.

Comments from the committees have generally been supportive of the “Ramp” standard. The information provided generally highlighted the known issues of platform width, ramp steepness, pedestrian passage etc. and the expected different preferences dependent upon the perspective (in particular the higher risk associated with being exposed to the ramp with a smaller platform width). Comments have also been provided with respect to construction issues on both pilot installations related to inconsistent curb height, quality of the finished concrete and water ponding. These were valid construction issues and the Department’s technical guidelines associated with the ramp style standard will incorporate measures to address these construction inconsistencies.

A suggestion was brought forward to consider texturing the ramp installation as a means of warning upon approach. The comment was predominantly related to the narrower 1.5m width on Delaware. Discussions with some of the associations such as Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB) have identified that it requires much further review of the implications of such a potential measure in terms of the universal message and expectation a user would normally associate with texturing relative to the condition presented by the sidewalk ramp. The Department will follow up on the markings suggestion once a number of installations have been completed and there is a complete understanding of the issues.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Construction and operational costs associated with existing "Traditional" Standard and the "Ramp" Standard are consistent with one another and as such there are no financial implications to report.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Attachment 1 – “Traditional” vs Ramp Standard

Attachment 2 – 2004 “Ramp” Standard Pilot Installations

Attachment 3 – 2004 Pilot Installation Resident Survey and Results

Attachment 4 – “Ramp” Standard

Attachment 5 – “Traditional” Standard

DISPOSITION

Public Works and Services will continue to implement the “Ramp” standard for sidewalks 1.8m or wider on roadways with lower speeds, where the sidewalk directly abuts the roadway and where this standard can be physically accommodated. The “Traditional” standard will be implemented for sidewalk widths less than 1.8m. Installations will be monitored and design modifications will be implemented, as deemed appropriate by the Department. The standards are also identified as part of the Pedestrian Plan review to be undertaken in 2006.

Attachment 1 – Ottawa Standard vs Ramp Standard

Attachment 2 – 2004 Ramp Style Pilot Installations

	Holland	Delaware
Ramp Slope	~13-15%	~ 15-20%
Ramp Length	750mm	500mm
Platform Width	1.25m @ 2%	1.0m @2%

Holland Avenue – 2.0m

Delaware Avenue – 1.5m

Attachment 3 – 2004 Pilot Installation Resident Survey and Results

Item 1: Pedestrian access from road to sidewalk

Refers to pedestrians going from the road to the sidewalk. (eg. Driveway ramps, sidewalk height, locations to access with strollers or wheelchairs, etc.)

Not Acceptable

Acceptable

Poor

Fair

Average

Good

Excellent

TOTAL

Delaware Avenue

15%

20%

35%

25%

100%

4 (20%)

16 (80%)

Holland Avenue

38%

55%

100%

1 (2%)

54(98%)

OVERALL

37%

47%

100%

5 (7%)

70 (93%)

General Notes:

Many comments were made by residents of both Holland Avenue and Delaware Avenue with regards to the difficulty of accessing the sidewalks because of the high snow banks and lack of snow removal. However, as it is the snow and not the design of the sidewalk specifically which is causing problems, comments related to snow removal/high snow banks have been reserved for the end of the questionnaire results.

Another common comment from both areas was with respect to the distance from the road surface to the driveway ramp. Many feel that this drop makes accessing the sidewalk difficult for strollers and wheelchairs but believe with the finishing of the road the problem will be remedied.

Comments from Delaware Avenue:

NEGATIVE	POSITIVE
· Driveway ramp is steep for wheelchairs, walkers, strollers, etc. (2 comments)

Comments from Holland Avenue:

NEGATIVE

POSITIVE

· Not enough places to get up to sidewalk with a stroller. (2 comments)

· Seems fine.

· Ramps are icy and dangerous in winter, especially for those with walking aids. Great potential to fall.

Before the final lift of asphalt was placed , the driveway lips on Delaware were found to be too big, making accessing the sidewalk from the road with a stroller or wheelchair difficult. It also causes an uncomfortable bump for cars entering and exiting driveways.

Item 2: Pedestrian travelling along sidewalk

Refers to ease of mobility on sidewalks by pedestrians and those using walking aids and wheelchairs. (i.e. Uniformly level sidewalk versus driveway “dips”)

Not Acceptable

Acceptable

Poor

Fair

Average

Good

Excellent

TOTAL

Delaware Avenue

13%

30%

13%

22%

100%

10 (43%)

13 (57%)

Holland Avenue

39%

53%

100%

3 (5%)

54 (95%)

OVERALL

10%

34%

44%

100%

13 (16%)

67 (84%)

General Notes:

Particularly on Holland Avenue, residents expressed concerns with winter maintenance levels for the sidewalks.

Comments from Delaware Avenue:

NEGATIVE	POSITIVE
· The steep angle of the driveway ramp makes for uncomfortable walking, especially with more than one person. (2 comments)	· Improved from previous design.
· Awkward having to continuously look to avoid driveway ramps.
· Driveway ramps could be dangerous (cause tripping), especially for mobility impaired.

Comments from Holland Avenue:

NEGATIVE

POSITIVE

· The angled ramp is dangerous when icy.

· Walking is more pleasurable with the elimination of the sidewalk “dips”.

· People with walking aids must pay particular attention to avoid the ramps.

· Walking on a level surface is nice.

Single person walking along Delaware with little room for second person to join and still walk level at driveway entries.

Item 3: Width

Assesses the width of the sidewalk as it applies to walking with or without aids, using wheelchairs, effects on parking, etc.

Not Acceptable

Acceptable

Poor

Fair

Average

Good

Excellent

TOTAL

Delaware Avenue

22%

13%

43%

17%

100%

8 (35%)

15 (65%)

Holland Avenue

34%

55%

100%

2 (4%)

54 (96%)

OVERALL

36%

45%

100%

10 (13%)

69 (87%)

General Notes:

Width and passing were common issues, as the narrowing of the sidewalk at the driveway entrances made it difficult and uncomfortable to pass another pedestrian or even to walk side by side with someone else. Those in wheelchairs especially felt they were at a disadvantage in terms of passing as the ramps prevented them from using that portion of the sidewalk.

Comments from Delaware Avenue:

NEGATIVE

POSITIVE

· Difficult for two people to walk comfortably past driveways- one person constantly on the ramp. (7 comments)

· Between driveways width is good.

· Too narrow at driveways. Majority of sidewalk is sloped because of the number of driveways on Delaware Ave. Difficult for disabled.

Comments from Holland Avenue:

NEGATIVE

POSITIVE

· The wider sidewalk put drivers and/or passengers at greater risk when exiting vehicles, as they must park closer to traffic.

· Love the sidewalks!

Item 4: Passing

Assesses the ease of passing other pedestrians or those in wheelchairs.

Not Acceptable

Acceptable

Poor

Fair

Average

Good

Excellent

TOTAL

Delaware Avenue

18%

27%

18%

100%

6 (27%)

16 (73%)

Holland Avenue

49%

43%

100%

4 (8%)

49 (92%)

OVERALL

43%

36%

100%

10 (13%)

65 (87%)

General Notes:

As noted previously, passing is made difficult because of the narrowing of level sidewalk at driveway ramps.

Comments from Delaware Avenue:

NEGATIVE

POSITIVE

· Disabled person is at a disadvantage when passing at driveway ramps.

· It is too narrow.

Comments from Holland Avenue:

NEGATIVE

POSITIVE

· Disabled person is at a disadvantage when passing at driveway ramps.

· O.K.

· It is too narrow.

· Wonderful, no problems

Item 5: Vehicle access entering at driveway:

How the driveway ramps affect cars entering the driveway.

Not Acceptable

Acceptable

Poor

Fair

Average

Good

Excellent

TOTAL

Delaware Avenue

22%

26%

13%

100%

11 (48%)

12 (52%)

Holland Avenue

12%

37%

22%

24%

100%

4 (11%)

33 (89%)

OVERALL

11%

17%

33%

19%

20%

100%

18 (28%)

46 (72%)

General Notes:

The majority of residents from Delaware Avenue feel that with an additional layer of asphalt the discomfort of entering and exiting will be eliminated. There is also concern that the incline is too steep, causing low sitting vehicles to scrape along edge of ramp.

Comments from Delaware Avenue:

NEGATIVE	POSITIVE
· Distance from road surface to driveway sidewalk is high. Another layer of asphalt is required to make entering easier. (6 comments).	· Appears to be ok. No problems with van.
· Incline at driveway is too steep. Caused scraping on small cars (3 comments).
· Bumpy.

Comments from Holland Avenue:

NEGATIVE

POSITIVE

· Too much of a bump caused by sidewalk being higher than roadway. (6 comments)

· Driveway ramp is too steep; the car scrapes the sidewalk upon entering.

Item 6: Vehicle access exiting at driveway

How the driveway ramps affect cars exiting the driveway.

Not Acceptable

Acceptable

Poor

Fair

Average

Good

Excellent

TOTAL

Delaware Avenue

23%

14%

32%

18%

14%

100%

8 (36%)

14 (64%)

Holland Avenue

18%

28%

30%

18%

100 %

10 (25%)

30 (75%)

OVERALL

13%

16%

29%

26%

16%

100%

18 (29%)

44 (71%)

General Notes:

Numerous residents of Holland and Delaware Avenues misinterpreted this question as meaning how difficult it was to exit their driveways overall, not just due to the sidewalks. A major concern was with the combination of roadside parking and snow, exiting driveways was made difficult because of reduced visibility of oncoming traffic.

Comments from Delaware Avenue:

NEGATIVE

POSITIVE

· Another layer of asphalt would make transition from driveway to road smoother (5 comments)

· No real difference.

· Better with snow as it created a ramp from the road to driveway. (3 comments)

Comments from Holland Avenue:

NEGATIVE	POSITIVE
· Too much of a rise from road to sidewalk. (4 comments)	· Fine without snow.
· Driveway ramp is too steep; the car scrapes the sidewalk upon exiting.	·
· Build-up of snow and ice made entering and exiting more difficult than in previous years.

Some residents feel the slope of the driveway ramp is too steep, causing cars to scrape along the peak of the ramp. The problem was found on both streets.

Item 7: Snow removal along sidewalk between driveways

Assesses the snow removal along the sidewalk where there is no driveway ramp.

Not Acceptable

Acceptable

Poor

Fair

Average

Good

Excellent

TOTAL

Delaware Avenue

26%

16%

26%

100%

10 (53%)

9 (47%)

Holland Avenue

18%

29%

20%

100%

10 (22%)

35 (78%)

OVERALL

11%

20%

25%

28%

16%

100%

20 (31%)

44 (69%)

General Notes:

The majority of comments received per this item reflected overall concerns with snow removal, not necessarily due to the sidewalk design. One resident of Holland Avenue felt the plough blade was not wide enough to clear snow in one trip.

Item 8: Snow removal at driveway- on platform

Assesses the snow removal at a driveway, specifically the non-inclined portion of the sidewalk.

Not Acceptable

Acceptable

Poor

Fair

Average

Good

Excellent

TOTAL

Delaware Avenue

33%

22%

11%

33%

100%

10 (56%)

8 (44%)

Holland Avenue

12%

20%

29%

24%

15%

100%

13 (32%)

28 (68%)

OVERALL

19%

20%

24%

27%

10%

100%

23 (39%)

36 (61%)

General Notes:

Similar to Item 7 responses, residents of both neighbourhoods expressed concerns with snow removal. It appeared there was some confusion with the item, as comments did not reflect the level of acceptance selected in the majority of responses received.

Item 9: Snow removal at driveway - on ramp

Assesses the snow removal at a driveway, specifically the ramped portion of the sidewalk.

Not Acceptable

Acceptable

Poor

Fair

Average

Good

Excellent

TOTAL

Delaware Avenue

33%

27%

33%

100%

9 (60%)

6 (40%)

Holland Avenue

24%

21%

29%

21%

100%

15 (44%)

19 (56%)

OVERALL

27%

22%

24%

100%

24 (49%)

25 (51%)

General Notes:

A build-up of snow and ice on the ramp made entering and exiting difficult for smaller cars. This was noticed in both neighbourhoods.

Comments from Delaware Avenue:

NEGATIVE	POSITIVE
· Too much build-up of ice and snow at bottom of ramp.
· Very bad.

Comments from Holland Avenue:

NEGATIVE	POSITIVE
· Snow and ice gather at peak of driveway ramp, which scrapes bottom of cars.
· Difficult to clear ice build-up on ramp.

Attachment 4 – Ramp Standard

Attachment 5 – Ottawa Standard

BACKGROUND

User/Resident Inputs

Technical Operation and Function

Traffic Operation/Curb Height and Stormwater

Sidewalk width less than 1.8m

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Ramp Slope

TOTAL

Delaware Avenue

Comments from Holland Avenue:

TOTAL

Delaware Avenue

Comments from Holland Avenue:

TOTAL

Delaware Avenue

Comments from Holland Avenue:

TOTAL

Delaware Avenue

Comments from Holland Avenue:

TOTAL

Delaware Avenue

Comments from Holland Avenue:

TOTAL

Delaware Avenue

Comments from Holland Avenue:

TOTAL

Delaware Avenue

TOTAL

Delaware Avenue

TOTAL

Delaware Avenue

Comments from Holland Avenue: