September 23, 1999

Ms. Novina Wong

City Clerk

City of Toronto

Toronto City Hall

100 Queen Street West

Toronto, Ontario

M5H 2N2

Dear Ms. Wong:

At its meeting on Wednesday, September 22, 1999, the Commission considered the attached report entitled, ALane Width Requirements For Buses On Prince Edward Drive.@

The Commission adopted the Recommendation contained in the above report, as listed below:

AIt is recommended that the Commission:

1.Receive this report for information, noting that TTC staff do not support traffic lane widths of less than 3.65 metres on Prince Edward Drive, south of Bloor Street, for the reasons outlined herein; and

2.Forward this report to the City Clerk, City of Toronto, General Manager - Transportation Services Division, and the Toronto Cycling Committee.@

The foregoing is forwarded to the Toronto Cycling Committee and the General Manager - Transportation Services Division for information.

Sincerely,

Vincent Rodo

General Secretary

1-16

Attachment

Copy:Mr. D. Kaufman, General Manager - Transportation Services, City of Toronto

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

REPORT NO.

MEETING DATE:September 22, 1999

SUBJECT:LANE WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR BUSES ON

PRINCE EDWARD DRIVE

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the Commission:

1.Receive this report for information, noting that TTC staff do not support traffic lane widths of less than 3.65 metres on Prince Edward Drive, south of Bloor Street, for the reasons outlined herein; and

2.Forward this report to the City Clerk, City of Toronto, General Manager - Transportation Services Division, and the Toronto Cycling Committee.

FUNDING

The report has no effects on the TTC's capital or operating budget.

BACKGROUND

At its meeting on June 16, 1999, the Commission requested that staff prepare a report in response to a May 19, 1999 letter (copy attached) from Mary Casini on behalf of the City Clerk. That letter advised that, at its meeting on May 17, 1999, the Toronto Cycling Committee, following discussion of bicycle route options for Prince Edward Drive, approved requesting the Toronto Transit Commission to reconsider its lane width requirements in order to facilitate the installation of bicycle lanes. This report responds to that request.

DISCUSSION

The Toronto Cycling Committee request was in response to a report from Transportation Services staff entitled, "Assessment of Bicycle Route Options, Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction". The conclusion of the report contains the following paragraph:

The City of Toronto currently has streets with bicycle lanes and adjacent travel lanes 3.2 m in width with TTC bus routes. Providing bicycle lanes with this minimal width travel lane would require a pavement width of 8.8m without curbs and 9.4m with curbs. However, TTC representatives have indicated that their desired minimum lane width for streets with bus routes is 3.65m, with or without the provision of a paved shoulder or bicycle lane. Providing 1.5 metre width bicycle lanes in combination with the TTC's desirable minimum traffic lane width (3.65m) would require a 10.3 metre wide roadway.

Prince Edward Drive is a two-lane road that is being reconstructed south of Bloor Street. TTC staff have indicated that, if a bicycle lane is to be provided, the minimum lane width for each traffic lane should be 3.65 metres (12 feet). Given that the width of the bus, including side mirrors, is 3.2 metres, even this width leaves only about one quarter of a metre on either side of the bus for lateral clearance between the bus and each edge of the traffic lane.

As indicated by City staff in their report, there are streets within the City of Toronto with bicycle lanes where the adjacent traffic lanes are only 3.2m wide but still accommodate bus operation. Shebourne Street is an example of this situation; narrowed traffic lanes represented the only feasible means of incorporating bicycle lanes within this roadway. However, recent observations by TTC staff on Sherbourne Street confirmed that such compromise situations should not be treated as a design standard because:

-when there were no cyclists in the adjacent bike lane, operators were observed encroaching slightly into the bike lane to provide sufficient lateral clearance from opposing traffic; and

-when there were cyclists in the adjacent bike lane and no vehicles in the opposing traffic lane, operators were observed encroaching slightly into the opposing lane to provide sufficient lateral clearance when overtaking the cyclists.

In the discussion on the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive, TTC staff's position has been that traffic lane widths should be at least 3.65 metres if a bicycle lane is to be included, to ensure that a bus operator does not have to encroach into the opposing traffic lane when overtaking a cyclist in the adjacent lane. Similarly, if the design incorporated a single traffic lane with a paved shoulder, given that this roadway is a popular route for cyclists, the shoulder area would be expected to function as a quasi-bicycle lane. For that reason, TTC staff believe that the same 3.65m lane width requirement should apply.

CONCLUSION

During discussions on the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive, TTC staff have indicated that, if bicycle lanes are to be incorporated, the adjacent traffic lane should be no less than 3.65m wide because of concerns with the very limited clearance available for buses if the traffic lane were to be any narrower.

-------

September 8, 1999

11-84-48/42

Attachment: May 19, 1999 Letter from Mary Casini