Cycling Master Plan

Review and Update

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this review is to provide an overview and identify revisions to Hamilton’s
Cycling Master Plan (CMP): Shifting Gears approved by Council in 2009. This current
update is a component of the city-wide Transportation Master Plan (TMP) review and
update. The 2009 CMP was well received by the community, therefore the direction and
extent of the network established in 2009 has been determined to still be relevant, with
appropriate enhancements and refinements. Some milestones from the CMP include:
 2010-2016: Added approximately 85 km (lane km) of bicycle lanes to the existing
network
 Expansion of the multi-use trail network to support cycling includes trails over
Highway 403, the Queen Elizabeth Way (QEW), the Lincoln Alexander Parkway
(LINC) and along the Upper Red Hill Valley Parkway
 2012 and 2016: Received recognition as being a Silver-rated Bicycle-Friendly
Community
 2014: Leader in developing cycle tracks in Ontario (e.g. Cannon Street)
 A decreasing trend in cycling collision rates
 Since 2010, 325 bicycle racks (approximately 700 spaces) installed within the
street right-of-way (ROW)
 All libraries, community, and recreation centres have bicycle racks
Figure 1 Cover of Hamilton’s Cycling Master Plan: Shifting Gears (2009)

The CMP continues to have a broad spectrum of considerations including:

  Cycling audience (e.g. age, skill level and gender)
 Cycling purpose (e.g. commuter/utilitarian or recreational)
 Cycling network density (i.e. ideal maximum separation of parallel facilities is two
km in urban areas)
 All-season considerations
 Health and safety
In June 2016, Council received an update of the City of Hamilton Recreational Trails
Master Plan (RTMP), including the development of approximately 87 km of new trails.
This update provides critical input to the cycling network in the city as connectivity of the
cycling network is a product of both on-street and multi-use trail (off-street) facilities.
This CMP review and update includes the following elements:
 Network
 Cycling facility types
 Assessment/measuring
 Maintenance
 Supporting programs (e.g. bicycle parking, bicycle share, education, promotion,
etc.)
 Implementation
Community consultation for cycling was embedded in the general consultation for the
broader TMP review and update, as well as through the Hamilton Cycling Advisory
Committee. The information herein this document provides justification for the
enhancement and expansion of cycling infrastructure in the city.
The Vision of the TMP review and update is to provide a comprehensive and attainable
transportation blueprint for Hamilton as a whole that balances all modes of
transportation to become a healthier city. The success of the plan will be based on
specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and programmed results. The ultimate goals
are to:
 Reduce dependence on single occupant vehicles;
 Promote accessibility;
 Improve options for walking, cycling and transit; and
 Maintain and improve the efficiency of goods movement.
2.0 Background/Context
Hamilton is part of the Greater Golden Horseshoe, which is one of the fastest growing
regions in North America. By 2041, this area is forecast to grow to 13.5 million people
and 6.3 million jobs. Although the allocation of growth has not been approved by
Council, the Province estimates that Hamilton will have a population of 780,000 and
350,000 jobs by 2041 (Growth Plan, 2017). The magnitude and pace of this growth

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 2

necessitates a plan for building healthy and safe communities, a sustainable and
balanced transportation system, and maintaining and improving overall quality of life.
Several Provincial planning documents have been developed that provide guidance and
direction on growth in the Province in conjunction with a supportive transportation
system to sustainably accommodate this new growth and improve health and the
environment. Themes such as intensification, complete communities, and complete
streets are prevalent. These documents include but are not limited to:
 Places to Grow (2017)
 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), The Big Move (2008; review and update
currently underway)
 Improving Health by Design in the Greater Toronto-Hamilton Area (2014)
 #CycleON Provincial Cycling Strategy (2015)
 #CycleON Action Plan 2.0 (2018)
 Ontario’s Climate Change Strategy (2016)
The desire to provide a connected and balanced multi-modal and sustainable approach
to transportation systems planning is fundamental among the supporting Provincial
directions and policies. The provision of a safe active transportation network in Hamilton
is consistent with the direction provided by the Province.
The Province places high value on concentrating the focus on moving people through
active transportation and transit, while less priority is given to moving single-occupancy
vehicles. This is specifically identified by a hierarchy of modes within the Places to Grow
updated policies. Cycling plays a vital role in supporting intensification policies and
transit mode share by supporting first and last mile trips. Cycling is also recognized by
the Province to benefit the environment by contributing to the action plan to combat
climate change as well as being an important part of building healthier communities by
providing a built environment that supports healthier modes of transportation.
In addition to Provincial guidance, the City has also identified through several strategic
policy documents the important role of cycling in how the City manages growth and
evolves in the future including but not limited to: the City’s Strategic Plan, Official Plan,
TMP, CMP, Recreational Trails Master Plan, various Neighbourhood Transportation
Management Plans and more recently through its’ recommitment to the Hamilton
Strategic Road Safety Program and investigation into the Vision Zero initiative.
3.0 Cycling Network
In order to support the City’s Transportation vision and goals, a suitable cycling network
should be pursued to provide reasonable connectivity for people of various skill levels
rather than cycling infrastructure on all streets (that may always be achievable).
The three general roadway classifications are:

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 3

 Local neighbourhood streets are typically suitable for all types of cyclists with
no special accommodation for cyclists because auto traffic is typically low volume
and low speed. A special facility design called a “Bicycle Boulevard” typically
relies on local streets to create well-defined cycling routes through the city.
Collector streets can have varying auto traffic volumes so some segments of
these streets are suitable for bicycle lanes to provide good network connectivity
and access.
Arterial streets are typically not comfortable for many cyclists without bicycle
lanes; thus without bicycle lanes, cyclists of most skill levels will choose to avoid
arterials as much as possible (i.e. only ride them for short segments to access a
property or to connect to preferred alternatives). Approximately 50% of arterials
in the urban area are planned to have bicycle lanes, cycle tracks, or separated
multi-use recreational trails to achieve a reasonable connectivity.
The TMP review and update is integrating a Complete-Livable-Better Streets (CLB
Streets) policy consistent with the City’s Strategic Plan, Urban and Rural Official Plans,
and various Provincial Policies. This is an approach to ROW design (inclusive of
streets) that balances the needs of all uses and users regardless of age, ability, income
or mode of transportation, in an equitable manner. It is an approach that recognizes that
no one-size fits all solution is appropriate for ROW design as different streets can have
different priorities through the process of routine accommodation.
Seven street typologies have been identified with additional design guidance, consistent
with the existing roadway classifications identified in the Official Plan. The typology
system is intended to better meet the context sensitive nature of Hamilton’s road
network, while also promoting the development of complete communities by responding
to and supporting adjacent land uses, natural heritage, built form and public health.
Hamilton is composed of a wide range of urban, suburban, rural settlement area and
rural contexts.
Table 1 below provides an overview of potential cycling treatments within each street
typology, which is consistent with existing policies and best practices to characterize the
variety of conditions found in Hamilton. These typologies are not intended to replace the
functional classification of streets (e.g. Major Arterial, Minor Arterial, Local). Rather, they
are intended to be layered on top of a street’s functional classification. More details
relating to CLB streets are provided in the Complete-Livable-Better Streets Policy and
Framework.

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 4

Table 1 Overview of Potential Cycling Treatments within each Complete-Livable-
Better (CLB) Streets Typology
CLB Street Typology Potential Cycling Accommodation
Urban Avenues Dedicated cycling facility (e.g. bicycle lane, cycle track, multi-
use recreational trail)
Transitioning Avenues Dedicated cycling facility (e.g. bicycle lane, cycle track, multi-
use recreational trail)
Main Streets Dedicated cycling facility (e.g. bicycle lane)
Connectors Dedicated cycling facility (e.g. multi-use recreational trail, cycle
track, bicycle lane)
Neighbourhood Shared on-road facility (e.g. range of bicycle boulevard
Streets treatments)
Rural Roads (including Paved shoulder for cycling or multi-use recreational trails
industrial roads)
Rural Settlement Dedicated cycling facility (e.g. bicycle lane, shared on-road
Areas facility or multi-use recreational trail)

The 2009 CMP identified a cycling network of approximately 1,000 centreline km of

routes, including bicycle lanes and paths, a network of expanded multi-use trails, paved
shoulders (primarily in rural areas), and shared on-street routes (e.g. bicycle
boulevards/signed routes). This cycling network is consistent with the City’s rapid transit
network and also feeds into the broader Provincial cycling network led by the Ministry of
Transportation (currently in draft form) and a commuter cycling network that is part of
the Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan update. The City has also been working with
the Hamilton-Burlington Trails Council to connect a Regional Greenway Network
Concept linking urban and rural areas through a system of on- and off-road routes.
Table 2 summarizes the 2009 cycling network and implementation between 2009 and
2017 by linear facility type.

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 5

Table 2 Summary of 2009 Existing Cycling Network and Implementation between
2009-2017 (by Linear Facility Type)*
2009 2009-2017 % Increase % of 2009
Existing Implemented 2009-2017 Full
(km) (km) Network
Complete
On-Road
Bicycle Lanes 52 44 84.6% 34%
Paved Shoulders 9 2.5 27.8% 5%
Signed Routes 90.5 72 79.6% 153%
Off-Road
Multi-Use Recreational Trails 132 16 12.1% 69%
Total 283.5 134.5
*Notes:
 Values for multi-use trails and paved shoulders include roadways under MTO
jurisdiction
 All distances represent centreline kilometers. For bicycle lanes, paved shoulders
and signed routes, centreline kilometers were approximated by dividing total lane
kilometers by two
 Values are rounded
 Bicycle Lanes include Bicycle Paths
 Full Network means 2009 Planned plus existing network
 Percent completion of 2009 Signed Routes network is greater than 100% due to
the Greenbelt Route which was not envisioned as part of the 2009 network

Continuity of the cycling network was identified as a critical goal in 2009 based on
community input. Although the City has made progress in increasing network continuity
since 2009, feedback continues to be received from residents asking for improved
connectivity where the cycling network is fragmented. In 2009, there was a minimal
network of uninterrupted cycling infrastructure; by the end of 2016, two networks of
uninterrupted cycling infrastructure are apparent: 1) in the Downtown and West
Hamilton areas, and 2) across the southern portion of the Mountain and Upper Stoney
Creek (through the Saltfleet Highlands).
In addition to continuity, the other primary considerations in the planning of the City’s
primary cycling network are:
 Safety
 Demand/major generators
 Cost

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 6

  Property constraints
 Project coordination
Community input relating to this update includes additional links to add to the planned
network. The feedback received reaffirms the decision to continue to focus on the 2009
planned network, including Niagara Escarpment (Escarpment) crossings. Any newly
developed areas also need to identify a cycling network that links to the existing
network, requiring an update to the plan. The TMP review and update is designed to be
the blueprint and the context used when those updates are made to ensure they reflect
the latest policy guidelines, technologies and incorporates the latest understanding of
the full integrated transportation system and local community priorities.
In addition to newly developed areas, the City continues to recognize that bicycle lanes
beyond those identified in the CMP could be created, whether through street
reconstruction or traffic calming. These projects would be deemed secondary to the task
of completing the primary network. Appendix A shows a map of the ultimate cycling
network as planned in this update.
The 2009 CMP determined a priority ranking of projects (272 links of various lengths),
which is a sound approach and continued as part of this update. These projects were
separated into urban (223) and rural (49) projects. The methodology to create this
priority ranking was set based on combining justification (positive values) and
constraints (negative values).
The justification component included:
 Continuity/connectivity of the route to other bicycle network facilities in the
immediate area
 Safety/collision history of the route (involving cyclists), and
 Demand for the route – based on proximity to major facilities, community
feedback, and City planning documents.
Constraints included capital costs to create the recommended infrastructure and
property acquisition costs.
Table 3 below provides a schematic of the prioritization methodology, consistent with
the methodology of the 2009 CMP. This methodology is aligned with the three desired
outcomes of the TMP review and update. For example, connectivity and costs relate to
a Sustainable and Balanced Transportation System. Safety corresponds with Healthy
and Safe Communities. Proximity to origins and destinations relates to Economic
Prosperity and Growth.

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 7

Table 3 Prioritization Methodology for Individual Cycling Link Alternatives

Desire Criteria Constraint Criteria

Additional
Continuity Safety Demand (two factors) Cost Property
Required?

Connect Collisions Close to PIC feedback & Construction Property total

missing link? (10 years) per km major O/D? existing City plans cost estimate

Yes = 5 Rate normalized to Yes = 5 in City documents = 4 Est. Est. Yes = 5

No = 0 a value range of 0 to No = 0 HCyC/Orange = 3 TOTAL per km No = 0
30 Green = 2
Yellow = 1

Maximum value Maximum value is Maximum value is 40 (factored) Factored with Factored with
is 30 (factored) 30 cost cost

Higher value, a Higher value, a Higher value, a priority Higher value, Higher value,
priority priority lower priority lower priority

Maximum value 100 Less sum of constraint value

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 8

This update also includes prioritization based on the ranking developed in 2009
combined with suitable connectivity opportunities. The full updated list of ranked
projects is included in Appendix B. Appendix C summarizes considerations for route
modifications. This information is intended for consideration when cycling infrastructure
is planned to be rehabilitated or modified. Appendix C is not an exhaustive list of
projects, and does not include all design considerations and alternatives.
The 2017 updated preferred cycling network identifies a total of approximately 554 km
of planned routes (centreline distance). In terms of the planned network distribution of
facility types, on-road routes represent 85% of the planned network, while off-road
routes represent 15%. Both are important elements to provide integrated seamless
connections. Table 4 provides a summary of the existing (2017), planned (2017 CMP
review and update) and total cycling network by facility type.

Table 4 Distribution of Existing (2017), Planned and Total Cycling Network (by
Facility Type)*
2017 2017 Total Network % of Total
Existing Planned (Existing + Network
Network Network Planned) (Existing +
(km) (km) (km) Planned)
On-Road
Bicycle Lanes 96 227.2 323.2 33%
Paved 11.5 195.1 204.2 21%
Shoulders*
Signed Routes 162.5 48.6 211.1 22%
Off Road
Multi-Use 148 82.7 230.7 24%
Recreational
Trail*
Total 418 553.7 969.3 100%
*Notes:
 Values for multi-use trails and paved shoulders include roadways under MTO
jurisdiction
 All distances represent centreline kilometers. For bicycle lanes, paved shoulders
and signed routes, centreline kilometers were approximated by dividing total lane
kilometers by two
 Values are rounded
 Bicycle Lanes include Bicycle Paths
 The planned network does not include facilities on unbuilt roads or future
developments

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 9

One notable safety consideration relates to motor traffic operations on the Sherman
Access in relation to cycling accommodations. This mountain access operates along a
narrow platform in many segments along the face of the Escarpment, with a single lane
in each direction during most times of the day. Up-bound cyclists ride the Escarpment at
a very slow speed, since there are very limited opportunities for motorists to pass slower
moving cyclists. This can result in motorist frustration, aggressive and unsafe
behaviours. Therefore, it is not suitable for cycling traffic up-bound until a wider paved
shoulder can be constructed in specific segments.

Until such time that a wider platform is implemented, the up-bound lane of the Sherman
Access will be signed to restrict cycling up-bound. The Sherman Access & Cut are not
identified in the Cycling Master Plan because it would be ranked as a very low
priority. Many other Escarpment crossings are identified to be higher priorities. The
nearby Wentworth stairs are included in the Cycling Master Plan for improved cycling
accommodations, ranked #201.

4.0 Facility Types

There are various types of facilities to provide mobility for cyclists. This section provides
an overview of many of these facilities through a Hamilton lens. Since 2009 there have
been a few documents that have helped to refine the design of cycling facilities in
Ontario and are applied to the Hamilton context. These documents include Ontario
Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 18 (2013) in Ontario, TAC’s Bikeway Traffic Control
Guidelines for Canada (2012), and TAC’s Traffic Signal Guidelines for Bicycles (2014).
Figure 2 below, from OTM Book 18, serves as a tool to help determine which facility
type is most suitable for various roadways by relating traffic speeds and auto volumes.

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 10

Figure 2 Desirable Bicycle Facility Pre-Selection Nomograph (Ontario Traffic Manual Book 18)

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 11

4.1 Linear Facilities
The following are descriptions of the various linear cycling facility types.
Bicycle Boulevards (or
Multi-use Recreational
Reserved Bicycle lanes Bike Paths Paved Shoulders Neighbourhood Alleyways
Trails
Greenways)
Reserved bicycle lanes designate a portion of the A multi-use trail is a paved Bike paths are visually very Paved shoulders are part of Bicycle Boulevards or Alleyways were
roadway for the exclusive use of cyclists through or packed loose-material similar to multi-use the continuous paved Neighbourhood Greenways considered as a possible
signing and pavement markings. OTM Book 18 trail that is physically recreational trails, but are for platform of a roadway, but are slow-speed, low-volume option for resolving “pinch
(2013) and TAC’s Bikeway Traffic Control separated from vehicular the exclusive use of cyclists, are separated from the motor streets where walking or points” in the cycling
Guidelines for Canada (2012) are primary design traffic by an open space or typically because a dedicated vehicle lane by a solid bicycling are sometimes/ network, but no such
resources. Enhanced forms of bicycle lanes exist barrier. Multi-use trails are pedestrian facility (typically a painted edgeline. The paved often given priority. Five routes are included in the
including buffered bicycle lanes (paint and typically shared by sidewalk) is adjacent. shoulder is similar in levels of this type of primary cycling network.
sometimes visual barriers), cycle tracks (various pedestrians and other non- Separation between a bike operation to a reserved treatment are identified in Alleyways are not
types of barriers), and protected bicycle lanes motorized uses. An asphalt path and a sidewalk is bicycle lane, but no bicycle Figure 3. Designing streets regarded as ideal links in
(physical barriers). Installation of enhanced forms surface is desirable for recommended in the form of stencils exist. The primary in this manner reduces the network since they
will be accompanied by a staff report. The images cyclists. a landscaped strip to clearly determinant for a paved automobile speeds and cut- typically have poor
below are examples of enhanced bicycle lanes. define the uses. shoulder, instead of a bicycle through traffic; provides sightlines at street
lane, is the absence of a safer bicycling and walking intersections, thus a
The City aims to avoid the application of a two-way
separate pedestrian facility; links; and makes residential safety concerns and
cycle track along one side of a two-way street for
thus the paved shoulder is streets calmer and quieter. maintenance issues.
motor traffic. Such a design increases potential
shared by cyclists and Design elements can
conflict points at intersections as well as creates
pedestrians. Occasional include signs, pavement
concerns if there are frequent driveways.
cycling wayfinding signage markings, and bicycle-
Buffered Bicycle lane Two-way Cycle Track may be considered. A paved friendly speed humps. Motor
shoulder is typically vehicle access may be
designated as a cycling restricted.
facility only if it is wider than
1.2m.

e.g. York Blvd. e.g. Cannon St.

Protected Bicycle lane

e.g. Cootes Drive e.g. Main Street West e.g. Olympic Drive e.g. Rutherford Avenue e.g. Alleyway near
Cannon Street
e.g. Herkimer St.

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 12

Figure 3 Levels of Bicycle Boulevards (Neighbourhood Greenways)

Source: North End Traffic Management Plan Implementation, Bicycle Boulevard Design Brief, IBI Group

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 13

4.2 Non-linear Facilities
Below are descriptions of various non-linear facility types.
Sharrows: Sharrows are a relatively new pavement marking device. Hamilton first
installed sharrows in 2010. They are installed with caution because overuse could
result in a broad community expectation to install sharrows to mark shared usage on
many streets. Hamilton favours the limited use of sharrows only at transition points
where facility type changes or lane width changes, or with unique geometrics (e.g., hills
in rural areas), or as a short connector between defined cycling facilities to provide
continuity or in conjunction with the range of bicycle boulevard treatments.
Signals: Traffic signals heads with bicycle icons were first installed in Hamilton in 2016
following the MTO approval of the device. Previous to 2016, Hamilton had a number of
signal heads exclusively for cyclists due to unique geometrics (approximately 10
intersections). Hamilton is transitioning to video detection of approaches at signalized
intersections that require activation. Video detection of cyclists is part of this
technological development. Some video detection has been installed and it is expected
to evolve to be the most common form of detection. As video detection becomes more
common, the need for other forms of detection will rarely be required for bicycles as the
video will be configured to detect all traffic. Where loops or other means of detection
are employed, stencils are marked on the approach to indicate to cyclists where to
position a bicycle for maximum detection.
Crossrides: Crossrides are recognized cycling crossings by the MTO, with their
distinctive “elephant’s feet” markings. Hamilton will continue to implement this new form
of crossing where appropriate.
Bike Boxes: Hamilton has implemented various forms of bike boxes since the City’s
first installation to better accommodate left turning cyclists in 2011. A modified version
has been designed to accommodate right turns in unique situations (e.g. Hunter St).
Two-stage turning boxes have also been implemented at select intersections along the
Cannon Cycle Track and at unique trail connections (e.g. Pipeline Trail). In Hamilton,
bike boxes are typically designed with green pavement to create greater visibility to all
road users.
Roundabouts: At single-lane roundabouts (lower volume), cyclists are expected to
merge with vehicular traffic and ride through the roundabout single file. At multi-lane
roundabouts (higher volume), the configuration typically provides two options for
cyclists:
1) A separate route outside the roundabout (behind the curb) for less-skilled
cyclists
2) Ride through the roundabout merged with vehicular traffic.

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 14

Speed Humps: The City receives complaints from some cyclists regarding speed hump
implementation; but it is recognized that a speed hump is a minimal inconvenience for
cyclists. If a speed hump does not extend into the adjacent bicycle lane, some drivers
would swerve into the bicycle lane to minimize the impact of the speed hump; and this
practice is not acceptable. Installing bollards to prevent autos from swerving would
create a significant road maintenance issue for both sweeping and snow clearing. The
design of speed humps aims to minimize the side-slope of the speed hump near the
curb face (maintaining suitable drainage), to maximize a suitable approach width in the
bicycle lane for bicycle traffic.
Catch Basin Grates: A cycling-friendly grate design has been the standard in Hamilton
since approximately 2008. Holes in the grate are rectangular, approximately 5 cm x 10
cm. Where feasible, catch basin inlets are provided to provide a clear path for cyclists
on the roadway.
Stairs with Bicycle Trough: The City has a practice to construct stairs which are part
of multi-use trails or bicycle routes with a trough for bicycles. Such stairs work best for
cyclists when the stairs have less steep slopes and troughs are on both sides of the
stairs. A textured surface in the trough is suggested to maintain braking control of a
bicycle traveling down stairways.
Trailhead Entryways (e.g. Gates, bollards): Bollards provide a visible impediment to
auto traffic where multi-use trails intersect streets. Hamilton recognizes various designs
and the design continues to evolve. Suitable barriers include stationary bollards, drop-
down bollards, boulders (armour stone), and P-gates. Performance criteria include high
visibility at all times and suitable all-season operations for Parks & Cemeteries
maintenance staff. Chains are avoided. Drop-down bollards can be problematic with ice
build-up and a risk to trail users if left open. Chains spanning gateways are difficult to
see, thus a risk for trail users.
Wayfinding (e.g. Signs): Wayfinding is a signing approach to provide road users with
positive guidance to destinations “at a glance” without having to stop. It is another
element of the cycling network that will be enhanced through continued integration of
various City initiatives. The Urban Renewal division of Planning and Economic
Development Department led a City-wide way-finding strategy to standardize and create
unified look and character of way-finding signs for local residents and tourists that
reflects a positive image for the City. To enhance and expand this established system,
the application of route branding for bicycle boulevards (neighbourhood greenways)
using street name blades will be explored.

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 15

5.0 Monitoring/Assessing
Until 2018, the focus of creating cycling infrastructure has been to provide safer, defined
facilities to encourage cycling as a mode of transport. No expectation or requirement of
ridership/volume has been stated. It has been suggested that future updates may
analyze ridership data to review the location of existing bicycle lanes. The TMP (2007)
identifies that active transportation trips (walking and cycling combined) are envisioned
to increase from 6% in 2001 to 15% in the long term (by 2031 and beyond). The cycling
component has the potential to represent one-quarter of this value, thus a value of
about 3.5% by 2031 (city-wide). Refer to the TMP review and update for further
information about aspirational targets and monitoring.

5.1 Ridership
Figure 4 below shows how existing cycling activity varies across the city by ward.
Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) data generally suggests an increase in cycling
mode share over the past 10 years (2001-2011); but the overall mode share remains
below 3% in all wards. This data is only collected once every five years, and the most
recent survey data (2016) is currently being analyzed, so data over the past five years is
not reflected in the graph. The TTS data is not collected during the winter season.
Figure 4 Historical Cycling Mode Share Trend (by Ward)

Cycling Mode Share Percentage (All Trips) Trend (2001-2011)

3.5%

3.0%
Mode Share Percentage

2.5%

2.0%
2001 TTS Data
1.5% 2006 TTS Data
2011 TTS Data
1.0%

0.5%

0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Municipal Ward

Source: Transportation Tomorrow Survey (2011)

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 16

Proximity to the Downtown area and McMaster University appears to influence cycling
mode share. It is suggested that certain factors contribute to higher cycling mode share
including but not limited to: population density, higher concentration of short-distance
trips, auto ownership, and limited access to convenient and low-cost parking. Additional
factors that may increase cycling rates include access to a bike share, targeted cycling
promotion to elementary students, as well as the provision of end-of-trip facilities such
as showers, changing facilities and long-term bicycle parking.
The City recognizes that cycling is a more attractive mode option for shorter trips (i.e.
five (5) km or less). Over one-third (~35%) of all commuter trips are 5 km or less.
Cycling represents 2.3% of the mode share for this distance range and 0.9% of all trips
(regardless of trip length). Based on 2011 TTS data (as presented in Table 5) for home-
based work trips (i.e. commuter trips), two Wards have a commuter cycling mode share
of 3% or more for shorter trips (< 5 km). These are Ward 1 and Ward 2. In addition, the
use of Hamilton’s public bike share system (SoBi Hamilton) data confirms that cycling
trips are used mostly for trips < 5 km and is documented in a later part of this section.
Table 5 Commuter Cycling Mode Share for trips < 5km (Home-Based Work Trips)
by Ward

Ward Cycling Mode

Share
Ward 1 7.3%
Ward 2 3.5%
Ward 3 2.1%
Ward 4 1.7%
Ward 5 1.4%
Ward 6 0.4%
Ward 7 1.5%
Ward 8 1.7%
Ward 9 2.6%
Ward 10 0.8%
Ward 11 0.0%
Ward 12 0.0%
Ward 13 2.1%
Ward 14 0.0%
Ward 15 0.0%
City-wide 2.3%
Source: Transportation Tomorrow Survey (2011)

The City has been collecting significant active transportation (AT) data since 2011 and
plans to continue this practice. Historically, pedestrian count data was regularly

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 17

collected at signalized intersections, but rarely along linear facilities such as trails.
Bicycle ridership volumes also exist prior to 2011, but the data collected was minimal.
Since 2011, the AT Benchmarking Program has collected data at approximately 200 off-
road locations, plus over 55 on-road locations and has recently expanded the program
to include permanent count locations, to track activity trends. The data is collected with
a methodology that recognizes that the four (4) seasons may impact AT trip volumes.
The program also identified five (5) major screenlines to monitor AT trips, which include:
 The Niagara Escarpment
 Hwy 403
 Lincoln Alexander Parkway (LINC)
 Red Hill Valley Parkway (RHVP)
 Bay St/West 5th (west side)
The data collected shows that there is a correlation between AT activity and weather
conditions, and that the most significant influence on AT activity is precipitation.
Temperature is a secondary influence, not primary. The data also describes time-of-day
usage, and some multi-use trails and bicycle lanes are indicating that commuter peak
traffic periods are developing along some facilities. The following facilities demonstrate
the strongest commuter trip activity:
 Cootes Drive Multi-use Recreational Trail
 Hamilton-Brantford Rail Trail (crossing Hwy 403)
 LINC bridge (connecting to Cornelius Park)
 Many on-street bicycle lanes (e.g. Cannon St, Hunter St, and King St crossing
Hwy 403)
Figure 5 shows sample pedestrian and cycling activity on a multi-use trail and Figure 6
shows sample cycling activity on the Cannon Cycle Track.

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 18

Figure 5 Sample Data Showing Trips in Hourly Increments on a Multi-use
Recreational Trail (June 2-9, 2016)

Hamilton-Brantford Rail Trail (403)

60
50
Number of Trips

40
30
20 Avg.
Trips
10
0
12:00 AM

12:00 PM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM

10:00 PM
11:00 PM
4:00 AM

8:00 AM

4:00 PM

8:00 PM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM

5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM

9:00 AM

1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM

5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM

9:00 PM
Time of Day

Figure 6 Cannon Street Cycle Track Ridership (January – December 2016)

Cannon Street Average Daily Cycling Trips

(West of Victoria Avenue N.)
800
700
600
500
400
300
200 Trips
100
0
July
January

April

August
March
February

May

September

November

December
June

October

* Count data summary inclusive from January 19 to December 31, 2016.

A future innovation that is in development is a more comprehensive description of
cycling ridership data using a methodology that integrates count data at specific static
screenline locations (as described previously) with data generated by Hamilton’s public
bike share system. This opportunity for more diverse data collection is provided by the
GPS technology embedded in the public bike share system, which continually tracks the

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 19

location of each bicycle geographically. The combination of these two data sources will
provide a better understanding of where bicycles travel and help formulate and validate
hypotheses (e.g. Cyclists tend to prefer travel on local streets and avoid larger volumes
of auto traffic). More information about the program is available at
www.hamilton.ca/ATcounts.
Thus far, the data from Hamilton’s public bike share system data validates the TTS data
trend and the hypothesis that cycling trips are generally used for short distance trips.
According to this data, provided in Table 6, the average trip distance of each ride is
approximately two kilometres.
Table 6 Summary of Hamilton’s Public Bike Share System Ridership Data
km km
Days of Trips per
Year Trips Distance (km) per per
Operation day
day trip
20151 349 218,628 445,881.9 626.4 1277.6 2.04
2016 366 316,172 632,801.5 863.9 1729.0 2.00
Total 715 534,800 1,078,683.4 748.0 1,508.7 2.02

In addition to trip distances, the public bike share data also aligns with the seasonal
data being collected by the City. Figure 7 compares the percentage of overall cycling
activity in 2016 (by month) of the entire public bike share system ridership with the
cycling activity captured at a static location on the Cannon Street cycle track (west of
Victoria Street). The data indicates that similar seasonal trends are occurring.

1
Represents data from January 17, 2015 to December 31, 2015 (Winter Testing Period
extended from January 17, 2015 to March 20, 2015. System officially launched on
March 21, 2015).

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 20

Figure 7 Comparison of Seasonal Cycling Trends in 2016

Comparison of Seasonal Cycling Activity:

Cannon Street Total Ridership & Public Bike Share (SoBi) Data
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6% SoBi
4%
2% Cannon Street
0%
April

July
January

May

August
February

March

November

December
June

September

October

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 21

The public bike share metrics can also create heat maps that illustrate the routing
patterns associated with the seasons. A snapshot of activity for January and July, 2016
is illustrated in Figure 8.
Figure 8 Hamilton Public Bike Share (SoBi) System Heat Map (Seasonal Use
Comparison)

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Total trips: 453
Maximum Temp: 3.6 °C Precipitation Accumulation: 0 mm

Wednesday July 6, 2016

Total Trips: 1284
Maximum Temp: 32.3 °C Precipitation Accumulation: 0 mm

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 22

The data being collected also provides opportunities for follow-up observational surveys
regarding cyclist behaviours and experience/opinion surveys. This information can
assist with the programming for education, enforcement, and engineering activities
relating to cycling.

5.2 Cycling Safety

Collision data is another major component of monitoring cycling activity. Collision rates
can be quantified in various ways (e.g. as compared to the city population or as
compared to the estimated total annual number of cycling trips). Cycling collisions
compared to total cycling trips (or total cycling km travelled) is most descriptive, but also
the most challenging comparison for which to collect base data (total cycling activity
must be estimated). For purposes of this review it is quantified as follows:
Average Annual Reported
Collisions2
Annual Cycling Trips3

Accordingly, one reported collision occurs per 15,465 cycling trips or 6.47 collisions per
100,000 cycling trips.
Some highlights include:
 Intersections continue to be the most dangerous element of any cycling trip; 63%
of all reported collisions occur at intersections
 The total number of reported collisions involving cyclists has increased slightly
from an average of 155 per year (1998-2007) to 160 per year (2011-2015) at the
same time as cycling ridership is increasing; the collision rate is therefore
relatively stable. It is also recognized that the reporting of collisions may be an
inconsistent practice.
 The annual average cycling fatality frequency has decreased from an average of
1.2 per year (1998-2007) to 0.6 per year (2011-2015) even as cycling ridership
increases; therefore a trend in the direction of Vision Zero.
 The City also monitors reported “dooring”. Between 2011 and 2015, the annual
average “dooring” occurrence was 3.4 such collisions per year being reported
The City is committed to improving roadway safety in a comprehensive way through the
Hamilton Strategic Road Safety Program, the Hamilton Strategic Road Safety
Committee, and the Vision Zero initiative.

2
Based on 5-year period (2010-2015)
3
Annualized Trips based on 2011 TTS data

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 23

Vision Zero is a new program initiated by various levels of government in a number of
countries with a target of zero fatalities and zero serious injuries on roadways. The City
of Hamilton is currently in the process of undertaking a comprehensive review of Vision
Zero and preparing a Vision Zero Action plan for the City of Hamilton based on a motion
that was passed by Council in 2016 to investigate a “Comprehensive Plan to Improve
Road Safety”.
The Hamilton Strategic Road Safety Committee was re-established in 2014 with a vision
to make roadways throughout the City of Hamilton the safest throughout North America
and to address safety for ALL road users, including vulnerable road users such as
seniors, children, pedestrians, and cyclists and to reinvest Red Light Camera (RLC)
revenue into safety initiatives in the community.

5.2.1 Safety in Numbers

The safety of vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists is important to the
City of Hamilton. Academic research regarding the safety of pedestrians and cyclists
emerged as the Safety in Numbers Theory. This theory states that with increased
numbers of cyclists and pedestrians on the road these vulnerable road users will feel
safer and more secure on streets.
The theory states that the behaviour of motorists controls the likelihood of collisions with
persons walking or bicycling, because it is unlikely that pedestrians and cyclists are
become more cautious in large numbers. With an increased awareness due to the
presence of pedestrians and cyclists, motorists adjust their behaviour thus decreasing
the likelihood and number of collisions by:
 Decreasing speed;
 Checking blind spots; and
 Making eye contact.
Further, research has identified that policies supporting walking and cycling also
appears to improve cyclist and pedestrian safety4.
6.0 Maintenance
Cycling facility maintenance includes both summer and winter operations, for on-street
facilities and multi-use recreational trails. On-street facilities are maintained by Road
Operations, and trails are maintained by Parks & Cemeteries (City staff) and the
Hamilton Conservation Authority. Multi-use trails and bike paths in the street ROW
“behind” the curb are individually assigned for maintenance to either Road Operations
or Parks & Cemeteries, depending on each facility’s details.

4
P L Jacobsen. (2003). Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking
and bicycling. Injury Prevention. 9(3), 205-209.

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 24

Hamilton’s Parks and Cemeteries Maintenance Section maintains the multi-use trail
network across the city, including winter maintenance (e.g. snow ploughing, salting,
etc.), on a select portion of the network, specifically:
 The Breezeway (the length of Beach Boulevard)
 Cootes Drive Trail
 Desjardins Trail/Waterfront Trail (Princess Point to HMCS Haida)
 Escarpment Rail Trail (Corktown Park to Wentworth Street)
 Glenside Trail
 Hamilton Brantford Rail Trail (paved portions)
 Mountain Brow Trail (Wentworth Stairs to Mohawk Sports Park)
 Valley Inn Trail
 Short portions of neighbourhood connectors and multi-use trails within parks
throughout the city.
The City’s multi-use recreational trail winter maintenance standard is to remove snow
on this select network within 24 hours, and to salt as required.
The Hamilton Conservation Authority maintains one paved multi-use recreational trail in
all seasons, the Breezeway (through Confederation Beach Park).
Road Operations maintains on-street cycling infrastructure. This typically represents all
infrastructure within any road ROW. The standard for maintenance is to sweep as
required in summer, and in winter maintain to the standard of the street classification of
the street.
Conventional bicycle lanes adjacent to curb-face sidewalks (represents approximately
one-quarter of the cycling network) create an exception to this maintenance standard. In
such segments, sidewalks shall not be buried with any windrow of snow. Snow must
therefore be piled in the bicycle lane, compromising the rideable width of the bicycle
lane (this situation is avoided when there is a suitably wide boulevard between the curb
and sidewalk clear-way to store snow). Road crews take follow-up measures after all
streets have been cleared to groom such bicycle lanes using additional salting and
ploughing to minimize the width of bicycle lanes obstructed by snow and ice. Also,
street sweeping of bicycle lanes is conducted in winter months to reduce grit as too
much grit in bicycle lanes creates a slipping hazard. This practice is based on a three-
year pilot, which was conducted in 2012-2015 to experiment with innovative ways to
provide winter maintenance of conventional bicycle lanes to determine the level of
service required and cost impacts; while avoiding the significant cost of removing
(loading and hauling) snow away.
Higher-order bicycle lane projects (e.g. Cannon Cycle Track and Herkimer bicycle lane)
create unique maintenance requirements relating to street sweeping, winter
maintenance, and waste collection. As such projects are developed, maintenance cost

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 25

estimates and operational impacts will be determined and included in the budget
process to convey to Council associated cost implications.
Conventional bicycle lanes adjacent to curb-face sidewalks and higher-order bicycle
lanes constitute approximately 60 km of the total bicycle lane network (33%) thus the
estimated cost of special cycling maintenance is $80,000. Future Road Operations
budgets are planned to include $100,000 annually to fund this maintenance. If this
maintenance practice exceeds this value in future years, the City could plan to either
pursue an increased budget for these maintenance costs, or alternatively a select
network for such maintenance could be determined based on busiest cycling routes and
connectivity (to avoid a cost increase). This strategy will be reviewed in conjunction with
revised Provincial Maintenance Standards that are currently being developed.
The maintenance of other aspects of on-street bicycle lanes is combined with general
street maintenance costs (e.g. pothole/asphalt repairs, catch basin repairs, and graffiti
removal).
Cycling infrastructure also generates maintenance for Traffic Operations, such as
remarking stencils on asphalt and replacing signage and signals. These costs have
been tracked for the past few years and are approximately $15,000 annually. This cost
is recognized to increase as the cycling network expands and as existing cycling
infrastructure ages. This cost is planned to be itemized in the City’s Operating budget
annually.
7.0 Supporting Programs
The following subsections summarize some of the supporting programs that help to
make cycling a viable mode of travel. More information is outlined as part of the
Sustainable Mobility Implementation (Transportation Demand Management) Paper.

7.1 Cycling Education/Promotion

Various cycling education and promotion activities are coordinated through the
Sustainable Mobility Program within the Transportation Planning Section. These
activities include but are not limited to the educational and promotional programs
identified below:
 Hamilton Strategic Road Safety Committee
 Healthy and Safe Communities - Public Health Services (Health Promotion, Injury
Prevention, Chronic Disease Prevention, Healthy Kids Community Challenge)
and Culture and Recreation programming
 Public Works - Traffic Operations & Engineering
 Planning and Economic Development - Transportation Planning and Tourism
 Hamilton Police Service
 Hamilton Cycling Committee

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 26

  External organizations delivering cycling education and training in coordination
with City staff (e.g., New Hope Community Bikes, CanBike, Share the Road)

7.2 Bicycle Parking

Bicycle parking, an essential end-of-trip facility, is provided by the City of Hamilton in
many areas of the City including within the street ROW, parks, recreation and
community centres, libraries, bus stops and higher-order transit stops.
Bicycle parking installations are managed by several Sections:
 Transportation Planning - street ROW including local transit stops
 Parks & Cemeteries - green spaces
 Facilities & Recreation - community centres
 Hamilton Street Railway (HSR) - higher-order transit stops
 Hamilton Public Library - libraries
Recent highlights of the City’s bicycle parking program include:
 Bicycle parking requirements were incorporated into the Transit Oriented
Corridor Zoning By-law (Wards 1 to 4) (October 2016).
 Bicycle parking requirements were incorporated into the draft Commercial and
Mixed-Use Zoning By-law (Zones C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C5a). As part of this draft,
motor vehicle parking spaces may also be reduced with the provision of sufficient
bicycle parking.
 Development of a Bicycle Parking Strategy that describes the City’s
implementation strategy (described in more detail in Appendix D). This
document is continually reviewed and updated to serve as an overview of tasks
and responsibilities.
 In 2015, the City conducted a bicycle parking audit to evaluate the location,
quantity and quality of existing bicycle parking within road ROW, and to identify
potential opportunities for addition bicycle parking.
 The development of a new online bicycle parking request form.
In addition, Hamilton’s Smart Commute Program has a bicycle rack seed program for
schools. This program provides funding assistance to elementary schools that purchase
bicycle racks. To be eligible, schools must have completed a School Travel Plan. On
private property and at post-secondary institutions, bicycle racks are provided by
business and property owners.

7.3 Public Bike Share

Hamilton’s public bike share system, SoBi Hamilton, was launched on March 20, 2015
following a winter testing period from January of March of the same year. Since then,
the system has been widely embraced as an integral and exciting part of Hamilton’s
transportation system and cultural landscape. The system utilizes smart-bike technology
developed by Social Bicycles Inc. and the innovative design gives users greater

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 27

flexibility than traditional dock-based systems. Hamilton’s public bike share system
spans across approximately thirty-five (35) square km with 750 bikes and 115 hubs. The
system is largely used for commuting by Hamilton residents, and is an excellent solution
for first/last mile connectivity to transit. It is operated by a local non-profit organization,
Hamilton Bike Share Inc.
As of June 12, 2017 there are over 14,000 active users, and since the launch of the
system 16,393 people used the system at least once. In a recent survey, public bike
share riders reported that since the system launched they are driving less, replacing
vehicle trips with public bike share trips, and often utilizing public bike share to connect
with local and regional transit. Over 60% of users indicated that before using the system
they cycled once a month or less, which means that most public bike share users are
not regular cyclists. In addition to positive reception by residents and visitors to
Hamilton, the Hamilton’s public bike share system is unique in that it boasts gender
equity amongst its riders. Unlike the gender inequity of general cycling statistics, the
Hamilton’s public bike share system is split 50/50 between men and women riders.
Another accomplishment has been the creation and successful implementation of the
Everyone Rides Initiative (ERI) Pre-Pilot Project, SoBi Hamilton’s program that works to
remove barriers to the system for people with low incomes. SoBi Hamilton has
partnered with social service agencies to distribute up to 250 subsidized memberships
to people living below the poverty line. In addition to the subsidized passes, the program
offers education workshops on how to use the system, and cycling safety and
confidence.

7.4 Transit Connectivity

With an emphasis on moving people and connecting multiple modes together, the City
and Province have been successful in integrating cycling and transit. The entire HSR
fleet is equipped with a two-bike capacity bike rack on the front of each bus
(approximately 250 buses in 2016 and increasing). All GO Transit service in Hamilton
accommodates bicycles by providing both parking facilities and means to transport a
bicycle. GO buses have a two-bike capacity and GO trains permit the transport of bikes
except during peak periods on weekdays.
In the 2009 CMP, special accommodation of reduced fares for cyclists using the HSR to
climb the Escarpment was investigated and declined. Issues identified included capacity
concerns, schedule adherence, and the forced aligning of cyclists at the top of the
Escarpment. Following further interest in this initiative, the Mountain Climber Pilot
Program was launched on May 29, 2017. This pilot provides free rides for cyclists
looking to use the HSR to get up and/or down James Mountain Road. Staff will monitor
the existing pilot and evaluate future expansion options.

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 28

8.0 Implementation
Cycling infrastructure is designed and constructed by various means within Public
Works and/or Planning & Economic Development, within the City of Hamilton. Linear
cycling infrastructure includes multi-use trails, bicycle lanes, bicycle paths, paved
shoulders, sharrows, and signed on-street routes.
The Transportation Planning Section is responsible for managing the implementation
schedule of on-road cycling projects, and scheduling decisions are based on cycling
project rankings and opportunities of coordination with other projects. The priority
ranking of cycling projects is identified in Appendix B. The priority ranking helps to
identify projects annually, primarily as stand-alone projects.
The TMP review and update identifies an implementation approach that supports
opportunities for external funding sources or “state-of-readiness”. Opportunities exist to
identify cycling connections to the regional cycling network identified in the RTP (Big
Move), cycling infrastructure within MTO infrastructure, or connections to the regional
transit system that could be considered for funding. Developing annual or short-term
(e.g. three to five-year) priority plans will help implement the preferred cycling network.
Continued pursuit of funding opportunities should continue to be coordinated for both
stand-alone projects and within the scope of other requests for funding on City projects.
Cycling projects are funded and implemented in various ways as a coordinated effort of
various City staff. Table 7 identifies the cost and type of implementation associated with
that type. In general, there are five main “streams” through which projects are achieved,
which are described below.

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 29

Table 7 Proposed Future Cycling Network (by Implementation Type)
Length % of % Cost of
Implementation Type (km) Network Cost Network
Road Construction1 83.8 28.4% $10,954,292 35.0%
Multi-use Recreational
39.4 13.3% $7,526,304 24.0%
URBAN

Trails2
Development3 40.6 13.7% $2,248,135 7.2%
Stand-alone Projects3 123.3 41.7% $3,644,688 11.6%
Special Projects4 8.4 2.9% $6,934,100 22.1%
Subtotal 295.6 100.0% $31,307,519 100.0%
1 195.7 75.8% $30,801,288 96.0%
Road Construction
Multi-use Recreational Trails2 31.3 12.1% $1,137,274 3.5%
RURAL

3 - - - -
Development
Stand-alone Projects3 31.2 12.1% $147,657 0.5%
Special Projects4 - - - -
Subtotal 258.1 100.0% $32,086,219 100.0%
Total 553.7 $63,393,738
1
Scope of work/cost within future road construction projects
2
Represents 50% share of cost relating to cycling
3
Cost associated with signal heads, pavement markings and signs
4
Includes projects that require structures (e.g. bridges), MTO projects and some multi-
use recreational trails.
*Notes:
 All distances are based on centreline kilometers and are rounded to the nearest
kilometer
 Values for multi-use trails and paved shoulders include roadways under MTO
jurisdiction
 Values are rounded
 In a few instances, project cost and/or distances are not included and will be
determined at the design stage
 Does not include facilities on unbuilt roads or future developments

Road construction (reconstruction or resurfacing) projects are an opportunity to

create cycling infrastructure as part of significant road works. These projects may
include building a wider asphalt platform to add bicycle lanes, but there are other
scenarios as new asphalt is an opportunity to modify pavement markings to implement
road rechannelizations; or construction could include multi-use trails, etc. Road

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 30

construction projects are financed individually and the cycling component of any project
is itemized as part of the project scope.
Multi-use recreational trails within the ROW are an integral part of the cycling master
plan to create a well-connected cycling network across Hamilton for both recreational
and commuter cyclists. Multi-use trails outside of the street ROW can provide key
linkages and are typically programmed for design and construction by the Landscape
Architectural Services Section. Such projects are financed individually as trail projects in
the capital budget. Multi-use trails that are constructed within the street ROW are
typically included within the scope of road construction projects.
Development projects can include new streets with cycling infrastructure (e.g. bicycle
lanes and new trails). Such infrastructure is constructed as part of new subdivisions,
typically planned through new neighbourhood design; expanding the cycling network
beyond what is identified in the Master Plan. These projects are financed as individual
projects, with a portion of their funding typically from Development Charges.
Stand-alone projects are projects that can be accomplished primarily with pavement
markings and/or signage, thus minimal concrete or asphalt work is required. These
projects typically involve modified pavement markings to create bicycle lanes or they
may be projects with minimal impact on the traffic operations within the ROW (e.g. a
multi-use trail along the side of a street). Such infrastructure projects are opportunities
to complete critical missing gaps in the cycling network or they may have synergy with
larger adjacent construction projects of streets or trails. Stand-alone projects are
typically financed through the Cycling Capital Budget (annual block funding).
Special projects such as pedestrian-bicycle specific structures (e.g. bridges, tunnels)
are required to overcome barriers such as natural features (e.g. water courses,
topography) or safety concerns (e.g. rail lines, highways). These types of facilities are
expensive and often require partnerships to cost share implementation.

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Map of 2018 Planned Cycling Network

Appendix B: Cycling Project Priority List
Appendix C: Spot Modification in Coordinated Works
Appendix D: Bicycle Parking Strategy

Cycling Master Plan Review and Update 31

Appendix A: Map of 2017 Planned Cycling Network
A
 36r 15r
6r

42r

4r
138
15r
2r

33r 54r 7r
5r
40r

44r 31r
18r
124
17r 22r 56r

26r 14r
13r 23r

25r 191 12r

129
43r
19r
41r
63 11r
55r 158 10r

14 16r
34r 24r 39r

136 3r
45r 35r 37r

35 198
47r 28r
52r
197 48r
162 27r
119 197 197 21r
46r 121

30r 198 122

170
177 29r 197
117 173
197
49r 197 65 9r
51r
101 8r 66
32r
50r 164
1r
38r 20r
53r
See MAP 2 for
number identification
of projects in the urban area
 131
45
5r 133

97 146 32
40r
156
192
116
45
89 21
90

31r

23
22r 124 199

56r 22
13r 24
14r 23r

88 188
55 104 166 102 102
26r 152 8
76 109 94 105
12r 74 106 181
194 157 80
110 149 71 103
25r 191 69 165
44 26 9 11 49
14 12
129 154 31 148 28 62 39 167
27 3 77 86
137 145 7 75 147 111
1 2 151 196 123 95 93
183 54 135 25
172 20 150 56 73
155 52 186 98
59 175 46 4 193 41r
201 202 189
70 19 17
63 161 171 84 6
141 140 83 11r
29 92 13 53 50 81
118 85 60
153 159 10r
42 30 200 185
78
130 79 143 91 182
42 40 43 48 96
178
68 16 37
180 113 16r
160
179 128 142
41
18 38 190 24r
187 15 3r
82 139

51 39r
99 100 127 112
132 72
136 168 61 37r
10 64 108 163
57 61 36 174 15
176 195
67 33 58
198 184
144 107 115 169
198
47 134
198 114
87
35 119 125 126 28r
34 52r
120 197 21r
48r
162
27r
197 197
5
122
121
Appendix B: Cycling Project Priority List
B
 APPENDIX B

Proposed Cycling Network Projects

BL = Bike Lane
MurT = Multi-use Recreational Trail
PS = Paved Shoulder
osp = On-street Parking
TWLTL = Two-way Left-turn Lane
Urban Streets = Completed

Priority Length 2017 Cost

Ward Street from to Design Concept
Ranking (m) Estimate
2 1 Hunter MacNab Catharine 470 BL w road diet & osp review - 2way BL $ 57,678
2way BL w road diet & osp review (west of Well.) &
2 2 Hunter Liberty Claremont Access 230 $ 23,071
street widening (east of Well.)
2&3 3 Wilson James Sherman 2550 BL w road diet - depending on Cannon pilot $ 60,000
bike path north of tunnel & shared on-street -
2 4 Ferguson Hunter Charlton 200 $ 1,730
signed southerly
12 5 Wilson in Ancaster Meadowbrook Hwy 52 3777 BL w reconstruction $ 65,355
4&5 6 King over RHVP Lawrence Pottruff 500 BL on existing/road diet & some construction $ 20,187
1 7 Locke King Hunter 1275 BL w road diet, contraflow lane north of Main $ 5,912
5 8 Confederation Beach Park Rd Centennial Pkwy Grays Rd gate 1975 shared on-street - signed $ 5,768
5 9 Barton RHVP Lake 1610 BL w reconstruction or MurT S side $ 173,035
12 10 Wilson in Ancaster Rousseaux Halson 850 BL w reconstruction $ 14,708
5 & 10 11 Barton Brockley Fruitland 3950 BL on existing or MurT $ 91,132
3 12 Gage Industrial Lawrence 2960 BL w road diet - LTL - parking 1 side $ 85,364
2,7 & 8 13 Claremont Access Hunter West 5th @ Fennell 3500 MurT on Ns w road diet & 7 side MurTs $ 2,422,494
BL w road diet - osp Ns OR changeable direction
3 14 Cannon Sherman Lottridge 420 $ 12,199
ctr lane
First Rd W/ Whitedeer/ Terryberry & Picardy/
9 & 11 15 Glover Mtn Rd/ Ridgeview Dr Rymal/ Bellagio 4075 BL on existing or w development $ 35,256
Highbury
8 & 12 16 MurT Scenic-Mohawk Chedoke RT Old Mohawk Rd 1500 MurT 4.0m paved - incl Aterno connection $ 346,071
13 17 Dundas St Main Cootes 680 BL on existing $ 11,766
8 & 12 18 Mohawk Old Mohawk Upp Paradise 1830 BL w reconstruction $ 34,607
13 19 Hatt Peel Main 930 BL on existing $ 21,456
2 20 Bay Main Aberdeen 865 BL w road diet and reduce osp $ 19,957
5 21 MurT Beach Strip at Lift Bridge 250 devize MurT crossing on lake-side of bridge TBD
5 22 Beach Blvd under QEW 240 BL w road diet $ 5,537
5 23 Beach Blvd lift bridge Van Wagner's 4250 BL on existing $ 69,214
5 24 Van Wagner's Beach Blvd Centennial Pkwy 2500 BL w reconstruction $ 57,678
Montclair/ Central/
3&4 25 3800 shared on-street - signed $ 13,843
Graham/ Frederick
BL w road diet - parking 1 side Parkdale to
4 26 Melvin Strathhearne/ Shelby RHV MurT 1900 $ 43,836
Woodward, other section BL on existing
 2 27 Bay Cannon Main 625 BL w road diet & MurT to Napier $ 73,259
4 28 Britania Cannon Walter 840 BL on existing $ 16,473
13 29 Creighton/ Market Hatt/ King Governor's 950 BL on existing $ 18,457
13 30 Ogilvie/ Old Ancaster Hatt/ King Hamilton-Brantford RT 800 BL on existing $ 10,036
1 31 Longwood Franklin King 725 BL on existing - eliminate osp $ 12,545
15 32 Mountain Brow in Waterdown Mill Burke to King Rd 1200 MurT w development $ 10,382
12 33 Golf Links/ Halson Wilson Southcote 1190 BL on existing - narrow lanes $ 20,591
12 34 Meadowbrook 1000 BL on existing $ 12,000
12 & 14 35 Jerseyville Shaver Wilson 2850 BL w reconstruction $ 49,315
8 36 W 5th Stone Church Rymal 1000 BL w reconstruction $ 17,304
8 37 W 5th Mohawk Coll. Access Marlowe 1130 BL on existing - narrow curb lanes $ 52,141
8 38 Limeridge Garth/ Bonaventure W5th/ Hawkridge 1370 BL on existing $ 39,510
10 & 11 39 Fruitland North Service Hwy 8 2425 BL/MurT w development $ 41,961
8 40 Scenic Chedoke RT Upp Paradise 2270 BL on existing - construct sidewalk along brow $ 19,640
9 & 11 41 Green Mtn First Rd W First Rd E 1500 BL w development $ 216,294
13 42 MurTs Walnut Grove & Sanctuary Park at Walnut Grove/ Ogilvie at Highland Park Dr 400 MurT 4.0m pave (both) $ 70,000
8 43 Scenic/ Denlow Upp Paradise Garth 950 BL on existing - construct sidewalk along street $ 8,219
2 44 Bay Stuart Cannon 633 BL w road diet & eliminate osp N of Barton $ 14,604
15 45 Waterdown local streets BL w development $ 57,678
1 46 Frid/Chatham Longwood Dundurn 1000 BL w development $ 4,326
12 47 Fiddler's Green Jerseyville Wilson 250 BL on existing $ 4,326
7 48 Upp Wentworth Fennell E 24th 1030 BL on existing $ 29,704
11 49 Barton Fruitland Fifty 5110 MurT 4.0+ m pave $ 165,053
6 50 Queensdale Upp Sherman Upp Ottawa 1560 BL & 1 side parking $ 26,994
6&9 51 Old Mud Mt Albion MurT Winterberry 400 BL on existing - modify osp $ 6,921
2 52 Charlton/ John James Ferguson & St Joseph's Dr 800 BL and 1 auto each dir - review osp $ 62,193
7 53 Upp Wentworth Concession Fennell 1030 BL on existing $ 29,704
2 54 West Ave Hunter/ Claremont Young 360 shared on-street - signed & 2way full length $ 2,307
5 & 10 55 Frances Grays east of Green Rd 1150 BL w construction (incl. sidewalk) $ 115,357
BL w road diet - parking 1 side or TWLTL where
5 56 Nash Bancroft King 2580 $ 74,405
required
12 57 Kitty Murray 2260 BL on existing $ 39,106
12 58 Stonehenge 2460 BL on existing $ 42,567
PS upbound w reconsruction, PS both sides E of
13 & 14 59 Hwy 8 Bond Hillcrest 1100 $ 750,000
rail bridge
7 60 Queensdale Upp Wellington Upp Sherman 1680 BL & 1 side parking $ 29,070
12 61 Meadowlands/ Raymond Golf Links Garner 2100 BL on existing $ 36,000
5 62 Delawana Kenora Lake 1020 BL on existing $ 6,575
14 63 Hwy 8 Brock Hillcrest 600 PS widen asphalt $ 80,000
8 64 Upp Paradise Stone Church Rymal 1070 BL on existing - narrow TWLTL $ 30,858
11 65 Binbrook Rd Fletcher Royal Winter 940 BL w development $ 16,265
11 66 Binbrook Rd Reg Rd 56 Southbrook 280 BL w development $ 4,845
12 67 Lovers Lane Sulpher Springs Jerseyville 900 BL on existing, review ped need $ 15,573

Cycling Project Priority List 2

 13 68 Governor's Binkley Creighton 4920 BL w widening, possible cycle track in urban $ 482,422
5,9 & 10 69 Grays/ Gray Confederation Park gate King 3000 BL w road diet & TWLTL $ 86,518
13 70 King in Dundas Bond Peel 800 BL on existing, reduce osp to 1 side $ 23,071
5 71 Warrington/ South Service/ Lake Centennial Pkwy Delawana 2050 BL w construction, road diet, review osp $ 57,678
9 72 Marston Paramount Gordon Drummond 400 BL on existing $ 10,000
5 73 Kenora/ Greenford/ Owen Bancroft King 2600 BL w reconstruction/existing & shared/signed $ 126,893
5 74 Centennial Pkwy North Service GO station/ Kenora 1200 MurT w MTO bridge rehab and new GO station $ 115,357
BL w road diet - BL NB only, E side S of Cannon;
3 75 Victoria Barton Main 1035 $ 29,849
2way N of Cannon
3 76 Victoria Burlington Ferrie 464 BL w road diet & 2-way conversion $ 13,381
5 77 Kentley Eugene Kenora 400 shared on-street - signed $ 2,769
BL on existing, remove osp w attn to commercial
1 78 Whitney Main Emerson 1500 $ 34,607
area
8 79 W 5th Fennell Mohawk Coll. Access 325 MurT 4.0m - west side $ 20,908
10 80 Millen Shoreview Millen/ Seaman 500 BL on existing $ 23,071
9 81 King in Stoney Creek Battlefield/ Elm Gray 742 BL w road diet $ 11,536
6 82 Limeridge Birchview Mtn Brow 1975 BL on existing $ 51,911
10 83 Dewitt Dundee Ridge 500 BL on existing - narrow lane - 2-way for bikes $ 8,652
downbound BL on existing shoulder & road diet in
2&7 84 Claremont Access Inverness Main 1600 $ 36,914
segments
7 85 Inverness Upp James Belvidere 435 BL on existing $ 8,000
11 86 Fifty South Service Cokers 1600 BL w development $ 27,686
8 & 11 87 Garth Rymal Twenty 1400 BL on existing $ 24,225
BL w road diet Ferguson to Victoria, narrow lanes
2&3 88 Burlington St/ Ferguson Ferguson/ Dock Service Rd Sherman 1880 $ 77,289
easterly
15 89 Dundas St in Waterdown Hwy 6 Hamilton St 2750 BL on existing $ 95,169
15 90 Hollybush Parkside Dundas St 1100 BL on existing $ 11,536
5 91 Greenhill Summercrest King 1200 BL w road diet - parking 1 side, no TWLTL $ 34,607
13 92 Governor's Ogilvie Main 240 BL w widening $ 31,838
11 93 Queenston/ Hwy 8 Glover Winona/ Niagara border 3800 BL w widening $ 504,109
4 94 Burlington St/ Parkdale Ottawa Parkdale to Glow 2300 MurT 3.0m pave S side - instead of sidewalk $ 155,155
10 95 Queenston/ Hwy 8 King Dewitt 1370 BL as paved blvd $ 181,745
5 96 Greenhill Harrisford Summercrest 1940 BL w road diet - parking 1 side, no TWLTL $ 55,948
15 97 Mill in Waterdown Parkside Dundas St 950 BL on existing $ 16,438
10 98 King in Stoney Creek Gray Queenston/ Hwy 8 1510 BL w road diet - BL & TWLTL $ 57,678
12 99 Rousseaux/ Mohawk Wilson Filman 1600 BL w some widenings & sidewalks $ 166,114
7 100 Upp Wellington Limeridge Stone Church 1030 BL w reconstruction $ 136,640
12 101 Wilson in Ancaster Hwy 52 Brant border 5300 BL w road diet - BL & TWLTL $ 106,993
11 102 Baseline/ Lockport Winona Rd Niagara border 1150 BL on existing $ 17,304
11 103 Winona Lido/ shore Peachtree 1965 BL w development $ 34,001
10 104 MurT Cherry Beach Millen Dewitt 910 MurT 4.0m pave $ 173,035
10 105 North Service Rd Dewitt Lakeview 730 BL w development $ 11,536
11 106 North Service Rd Bellavista Baseline 980 BL w development $ 17,304
7 107 Upp Sherman Stone Church Rymal to Miles 1000 BL w reconstruction & w development southerly $ 132,660

Cycling Project Priority List 3

 7 108 Emperor Brigade Acadia 435 BL on existing - review osp $ 11,536
3 109 Burlington/ Industrial Sherman Gage 860 BL/ cycle track w road diet $ 73,238
BL w road diet & 2-way conversion, 1 block
3 110 Birch/ Holton Burlington St Cannon/ King/ Delaware 1400 $ 23,071
contraflow on Holton, modify osp
10 111 Dewitt Barton Dundee 900 BL on existing $ 15,573
6 112 MurT Karst Escarpment Loop Arbour Pritchard/ Mud 650 MurT 4.0m pave $ 100,000
8 113 Chedmac Southridge Rice 530 BL on existing $ 17,304
6 & 11 114 Nebo Rymal Twenty 1300 BL w widening $ 112,473
6 115 Kilbride Upp Ottawa Nebo 380 BL w development $ 6,575
15 116 Hamilton in Waterdown Centre/Main Hwy 5/Dundas 1000 BL narrow lanes and modest concrete works $ 46,143
11 117 Airport Rd airport access Upp James 1400 BL w reconstruction $ 185,725
1 & 13 118 Osler/ Main Hatt/ King Main + 125m of Main 2000 BL on existing - narrow curb lanes $ 65,000
12 119 Garner Wilson Glancaster 7800 BL w reconstruction $ 1,034,751
12 120 Fiddler's Green Amberly Garner 680 BL on existing $ 15,689
12 121 Shaver Wilson Garner 520 BL on existing $ 8,998
11 122 Upp James Twenty Airport/ Mt Hope 4050 MurT on Ws $ 852,631
BL w road diet N of Queenston, w reconstruction S
5&9 123 Lake Delawana King 1625 $ 215,573
of Queenston
15 124 MurT Borer's Creek Hwy 6 Hwy 5/ Rock Chapel 1700 MurT 4.0m pave $ 175,000
11 125 Twenty Glancaster Nebo 7535 BL w widening $ 1,216,899
11 126 Twenty Glover Trinity Church 600 BL & MurT w development $ 115,357
6 127 Upp Ottawa Mohawk Kilbride 3285 BL w widening $ 811,449
7 128 Upp Wellington South Bend Limeridge 1355 BL w widening $ 320,432
14 129 MurT Christie-Tews Christie C.A. Harvest 2750 MurT 4.0m $ 300,000
8 130 Fennell/ Garth Garth/ W 18th W 5th 1200 MurT on S side of Fennell $ 283,778
15 131 Parkside Hwy 6 Avonsyde 6010 BL w widening $ 1,143,936
12 132 Golf Links Kitty Murray Stone Church 1290 BL w widening $ 565,479
15 133 Dundas St/ Hwy 5 Hamilton St Burlington border 3290 BL w reconstruction $ 436,453
12 134 Southcote Golf Links Garner 2100 BL w widening $ 278,587
3&4 135 Ottawa Main Lawrence 700 BL w road diet, review osp $ 20,000
12 136 Sulphur Springs Mineral Springs Rd Lovers Lane 1450 PS widen asphalt $ 234,174
13 & 15 137 Sydenham bridge Crowley Romar 1000 BL on existing, narrow downbound $ 30,000
14 138 Freelton Rd Hwy 6 Brock to Hwy 6 1600 BL w widening $ 212,257
6 139 MurT Mountain Brow East Mtn Mohawk Arbour 1810 MurT 4.0m pave along brow $ 276,655
6 140 MurT Mountain Brow East Mtn Rendell Oakcrest 810 MurT 4.0m pave along brow & possible bridge $ 1,153,568
6 141 Mountain Brow/ Concession St Mountain Park Ave Rendell 770 BL on existing $ 11,536
6&7 142 Upp Sherman Macassa Limeridge 1650 BL w road diet or reconstruction $ 371,161
6 143 Upp Ottawa Mtn Brow Mohawk 1875 BL w reconstruction $ 421,773
7,8 & 11 144 Upp James/ Christie Rymal Twenty 800 MurT on Ws $ 145,350
1 145 Dundurn Head St/ King Main 270 BL/ Bike Path Ws w reconstruction $ 116,799
15 146 Burke McKnight Mtn Brow Rd 364 BL w development $ 6,298

4 147 MurT Pipeline 1860 Ottawa Barton 2400 MurT 4.0m pave $ 576,784

2 148 Hughson/ King William Cannon Hunter 1115 Active Transport priority - local access for autos $ 100,000

Cycling Project Priority List 4

 4 149 MurT Pipeline 1860 Strathearne Woodward 2200 MurT 4.0m pave - incl. 3-4 blocks along Barton $ 3,460,705
3 150 Delaware/ Maplewood Wentworth Gage 1715 BL on existing - modify osp $ 28,839
4 151 MurT Strathearne/ Cochrane Barton Lawrence 1900 MurT 4.0m pave $ 526,027
2 152 Guise/ John Bay Strachan 1500 BL on existing $ 30,000
5 153 MurT Strathearne/ Cochrane Lawrence Greenhill 1150 MurT 4.0m pave $ 318,385
13 154 York Rd Main Olympic 2150 BL on existing - modify osp $ 57,678
13 155 Queen/ Sydenham/ Memorial Sqr Livingstone King/ Hatt 800 BL on existing, eliminate osp & stair/ bike trough $ 14,000
Active Transport priority N of Mtn Brow Rd, BL w
15 156 Mill St/ Waterdown Rd Dundas St Burlington border 875 $ 95,890
widening S of Mtn Brow Rd
2 157 MurT CN James Ferguson 660 MurT 4.0m pave $ 249,171
14 158 Hwy 8 Middletown Brock 3800 PS or MurT $ 558,904
5 159 Mount Albion Lawrence Greenhill 1000 BL on existing - narrow curb lanes $ 23,071
5 160 Mount Albion Greenhill Glen Castle 1000 BL w road diet or MurT/ cycle track $ 23,071
1 161 MurT Sanders Osler/ Main West Park 200 MurT 4.0m pave $ 76,712
12 & 14 162 Shaver Jerseyville Wilson 1500 BL w widening $ 242,249
9 163 Highland Upp Red Hill Winterberry 940 BL w development $ 17,304
11 164 Windwood Bradley Reg Rd 56 700 BL w development $ 12,112
11 165 Glover Watercrest Hwy 8 1800 BL w development $ 31,146
11 166 Watercrest 475 BL on existing $ 8,219
11 167 SCUBE N-S collector Barton Hwy 8 650 BL w development $ 11,536
12 168 NcNiven Mohawk Golf Links 620 BL w widening $ 46,489
11 169 Bellagio/ Dalgleish Fletcher Reg Rd 56 2400 BL w development $ 41,528
12 170 Cormorant 2700 BL w development $ 77,866
1 171 Emerson Main Whitney 650 BL on existing - modify osp $ 11,536
1 172 Hunter/ Canada/ Jackson Dundurn Queen 900 shared on-street - signed $ 7,787
11 173 Maggie Johnson 235 BL on existing $ 4,066
6&9 174 MurT Karst Escarpment Loop Pritchard Upp Mt Albion/ Winterberry 700 MurT 4.0m pave $ 230,714
1 175 Longwood Main Aberdeen 700 BL /cycle track w construction/ new bridge $ 230,714
8 176 Rymal Glancaster W5th 2700 Bike Path w reconstruction $ 358,183
12 177 Tradewind 700 BL w development $ 12,112
Bendamere/ South Bend/ Macassa/ Ninth/
6,7 & 8 178 8000 shared on-street - signed - spot improvements $ 23,071
Broker
MurT - pave existing 3.0m gravel and replace stairs
12 179 MurT Chedoke RT Hwy 403 Dundurn 4680 $ 1,100,000
with ramp at Hwy 403
1&8 180 MurT Hamilton-Brantford RT Bridlewood Dr Ewen 4000 MurT - pave existing 3.0m gravel $ 300,000
11 181 Fifty North Service South Service 650 BL w reconstruction - MTO $ 11,247
Greenhill to Bruce Trail to
5&9 182 MurT First Rd W First Rd W 750 MurT 4.0m pave $ 201,153
Glover Mtn Rd
1 183 Main Frid Dundurn/ Jackson 300 BL or devise 2-way/ MurT $ 115,357
7&8 184 Rymal Rd West 5th Upp Sherman 2900 Bike Path w reconstruction $ 173,035
9 185 MurT Mtn Ave Mountain Ave/ Lake Ave Ridge Rd/ Devil's Punch Bowl 420 MurT 4.0m pave $ 3,634
3 186 MurT Gage Park Cumberland Montclair/ Maple 590 MurT 6.0m pave $ 245,018
12 187 MurT Iroquoia Heights to Old Mohawk Chedoke RT Old Mohawk Rd 850 MurT 4.0m pave $ 235,328

Cycling Project Priority List 5

 MurT Museum of Steam & Tech link (Globe
4 188 Woodward Red Hill Valley Trail 750 MurT 4.0m pave $ 152,271
Park)
3 189 MurT Gage Park to Escarpment Rail Trail 390 MurT 4.0m pave $ 507,570
7 190 MurT Limeridge-McQueston Mohawk Rd S of Rymal 3800 MurT 4.0m pave & bridge $ 3,460,705
15 191 MurT Fallsview Sydenham Rock Chapel Rd 1400 MurT 4.0m pave $ 258,652
15 192 North Waterdown Dr Hwy 6 Joe Sams MurT 3200 MurT 4.0m pave $ 200,000
2 193 MurT Claremont to Escarpment Rail Trail Claremont Corktown Park 1000 MurT 3.0m pave switchback on slope TBD
1 194 MurT Locke bridge & Locke St Waterfront Trail Locke/ York Blvd 1133 6.0 m platform & BL S of Barton, modify osp $ 2,307,137
9 195 MurT Eramosa Karst & Fletcher Highland Rymal/ Bellagio 1200 MurT 4.0m pave & BL S of Rymal funding by others
4&5 196 MurT RHV bridge Armstrong Eugene 250 MurT 4.0m pave $ 1,153,568
AEGD (Airport Employment Growth
11 & 12 197 AEGD development BL w development TBD
Development)
6,7,8,
11 & 198 MurT South Transmission Lines Wilson/ Hwy 52 Stonehenge and Reg Rd 56 separate approval
12
13 & 15 199 Innovation stairs Innovation Dr Old Guelph Rd stairs w bike trough separate approval
1&8 200 Dundurn stairs stairs exist - develop retrofrit for bikes separate approval
3&7 201 Wentworth stairs stairs exist - develop retrofrit for bikes separate approval
3&7 202 Henderson lift at Sherman incline lift - separate EA required separate approval
TOTAL ESTIMATED URBAN COST $ 38,604,731
Notes:
Short segments of shared on-street signed routes are not listed above but are identified in Appendix A.
For most multi-use trail projects above, the cycling portionof the total cost would be 50% of the above value
All lengths above are centreline lengths

Cycling Project Priority List 6

 BL = Bike Lane
MurT = Multi-use Recreational Trail
PS = Paved Shoulder
osp = On-street Parking
TWLTL = Two-way Left-turn Lane
Rural Roads

Priority Length 2017 Cost

Ward Road from to Design Concept
Ranking (m) Estimate
11 1r Chippewa Rd @ Hwy 6 20 resolve crossing for Greenbelt Route $ 92,285
15 2r Centre Concession 8 E Concession 7 E 1800 PS widen asphalt $ 259,553
11 3r East Townline Mud Highland 1100 shared on-street - signed $ 9,517
15 4r Centre Warren/ Carlisle Rd Progreston 775 PS widen asphalt $ 111,752
15 5r Centre Grinstone Creek Concession 5 E 450 PS widen asphalt $ 64,888
15 6r Centre Puslinch Townline Woodend 8630 PS widen asphalt $ 1,244,412
14 7r Edgewood Safari Hwy 6 900 shared on-street - signed $ 7,787
11 8r Binbrook Rd Trinity Church Fletcher 1260 PS widen asphalt $ 181,687
11 9r Binbrook Rd Southbrook Niagara border 6100 PS widen asphalt $ 879,596
9,10 &
10r Ridge Rd Devil Punch Bowl Dewitt 2910 MurT 4.0m pave $ 576,784
11
10 & 11 11r Ridge Rd Dewitt Niagara border 7000 PS widen asphalt $ 1,241,528
13 12r York Rd Olympic Valley Rd 1700 PS w reconstruction or 2-way cycle track on W side $ 323,576
13 13r MurT York Rd & York Rd at Old Guelph Valley Rd Hwy 6 interchange 2500 MurT 4.0m pave & 600m of PS on York Rd $ 576,784
13 & 15 14r Valley Rd Rock Chapel York Rd 1400 PS widen asphalt $ 230,714
15 15r Carlisle Rd Hwy 6 Burlington border 5850 PS widen asphalt $ 843,547
11 16r Eighth Rd E Ridge Rd Niagara border 4420 PS w dev or reconstruction $ 637,347
14 17r Safari Waterloo border Edgewood 19700 PS widen asphalt $ 3,124,729
14 18r Brock Freelton Rd Hwy 5 12600 PS widen asphalt $ 1,816,870
14 19r Brock Hwy 5 Hwy 8 2120 PS widen asphalt $ 305,696
11 20r MurT Reg Rd 56 S/ Kirk Southbrook Binbrook Cons Area 3000 MurT 3.0+ m pave $ 576,784
11 21r MurT Reg Rd 56 N Dalgleish Cemetery 4600 MurT 3.0+ m pave $ 2,307,137
15 22r Millgrove Hwy 6 Hwy 5 4400 PS widen asphalt $ 634,463
13 23r Old Guelph Rd Paterson York Blvd 3525 PS w dev or reconstruction $ 670,944
9 & 11 24r First Rd E Ridge Rd Highland 3750 PS w dev or reconstruction $ 540,735
14 & 15 25r Harvest Brock Sydenham 3280 PS widen asphalt $ 472,963
15 26r Sydenham Hwy 5 Sydenham bridge (Romar) 2830 PS widen asphalt $ 408,075
11 27r Westbrook & Golf Club Woodburn/ Golf Club Rd York St (Niagara) 10234 shared on-street - signed $ 11,536
11 28r Tapleytown Rd/ Hwy 20/ Woodburn Rd Highland Binbrook Rd 7200 shared on-street - signed & PS on Hwy 20 $ 11,536
12 29r Book Shaver Fiddler's Green 2475 PS widen asphalt $ 356,885
14 30r Jerseyville Brant border Paddy Green/ private rd 10175 PS widen asphalt $ 1,467,195
15 31r Concession 4 W Millgrove Sdrd Hwy 6 1775 PS widen asphalt $ 255,948
11 32r White Church Glancaster Trinity Church 10500 PS widen asphalt & MurT W of Upp James $ 1,514,059

Cycling Project Priority List 7

 14 33r MurT Valens CA Valens Rd Lennon 2250 MurT 3.0m $ 807,498
13 & 14 34r Middletown/ Binkley Hwy 8 Mineral Springs 3500 PS & pave road in segment $ 444,124
12 & 14 35r Mineral Springs Binkley Sulphur Springs 2250 PS widen asphalt $ 350,396
15 36r Maddaugh Road/ Puslinch Town Line Road Centre Highway 6 2800 PS widen asphalt $ 403,749
9 & 11 37r Highland Upp Centennial Niagara border 9200 PS w reconstruction $ 1,326,604
12 38r Carluke Shaver Glancaster 3500 PS widen asphalt $ 504,686
11 39r Mud Eleventh Niagara border 850 PS widen asphalt $ 122,567
15 40r Concession 6 E Hwy 6 Centre Rd 2750 PS widen asphalt $ 396,539
11 41r Fifty Cokers Ridge 1750 PS widen asphalt $ 448,450
15 42r Concession 11 E Hwy 6 Centre Rd 2600 PS widen asphalt $ 299,928
14 43r Kirkwall/ Woodhill N of Safari Rd N of Concession 4 W 6900 PS widen asphalt $ 994,953
14 44r Foreman/ Kirkwall Gore Rd N of Safari Rd 6200 shared on-street - signed $ 9,229
14 45r Woodhill N of Concession 4 W N of Governor's 5500 shared on-street - signed $ 5,768
14 46r Woodhill/ Field N of Governor's Jerseyville 4575 PS widen asphalt $ 659,697
14 47r Governor's Lynden Binkley 7100 PS widen asphalt $ 819,034
6,7 & 11 48r Miles Rymal Haldibrook 10700 PS widen asphalt $ 1,542,898
12 49r Shaver Garner Carluke 6000 PS w dev or reconstruction $ 865,176
12 50r Sunny Ridge Hwy 403 Wilson 1300 PS widen asphalt $ 187,455
14 51r Sunny Ridge Jerseyville Hwy 403 1200 PS widen asphalt $ 173,035
6 & 11 52r Trinity Church Pinehill Golf Club 1650 PS widen asphalt $ 214,131
11 53r Upp James Airport Rd/ Mt Hope Haldibrook 4900 MurT 3.0+ m pave $ 890,266
14 54r Hwy 6 Edgewood Carlisle Rd 600 MurT 3.0+ m pave MTO jurisdiction
14 55r Hwy 8 Cambridge border Middletown 18000 MurT 3.0+ m pave MTO jurisdiction
15 56r Hwy 5/ Dundas St Sydenham Hwy 6 3010 PS widen asphalt MTO jurisdiction
TOTAL ESTIMATED RURAL COST $ 33,223,493
Notes:
Short segments of shared on-street signed routes are not listed above but are identified in Appendix A.
For most multi-use trail projects above, the cycling portionof the total cost would be 50% of the above value
All lengths above are centreline lengths

Cycling Project Priority List 8

Appendix C: Spot Modifications in Coordinated Works
C
 APPENDIX C
Spot Modifications in Coordinated Works

Ward Street Segment Description

LRT development may shift this north-south route westerly to Breadalbane. Detailed
Breadalbane St/ design would require connections at York Blvd. Maintain the Head/Hunt connection with
1 York Blvd to King St
Dundurn St (#145) possible signal (to be further reviewed) and two-way bike path along the west side of the
street southerly to Main St.
Dundurn St to Hess LRT development may modify this east-west route, but it is proposed to continue to be
1 & 2 York Blvd
St accommodated in the York Blvd r.o.w.
Hamilton-Brantford Old Ancaster Rd to
1 & 13 Pave the trail, 4m wide.
Rail Trail Ewen Rd
1, 8, & Chedoke Radial Hwy 403 to Dundurn
Pave the trail, 4m wide.
12 Trail St
Improve eastbound crossing of Queen St, define a two-way route between Caroline St
2 Napier St (#118) Queen St to Bay St
and Bay St.
Catharine St to Modifications (possible lane restriction for auto traffic) at minor streets along the south
2 & 3 Cannon St
Sherman Ave side of the cycle track.
James St to Plan for bike lane opportunities on Wilson St if the Cannon Cycle Track is not confirmed
2 & 3 Wilson St (#3)
Sherman Ave after the three-year pilot concludes (2014 - 2017).
Possible conversion of the upbound bike lane into a two-way facility to connect to the
2 & 7 Jolley Cut
planned Claremont Access multi-use trail.
Barton St to Investigate the possibility of a two-way cycle track with LRT design and potential two-way
3 Sanford Ave
Delaware Ave conversion.
Montclair Ave or Maple Ave as an alternate connection to Gage Park via Ottawa St
Montclair Ave Gage Park
3 (#135) to both the Pipeline 1860 Trail (#147) and the Escarpment Rail Trail connector
(#25) connections easterly
(#189).
Gage Ave to
3 & 4 Lawrence Rd Possible two-way cycle track on south side & sidewalk on north side.
Kenilworth Ave
A coordinated project with the Federal Government and the City of Burlington has been
considered to create a contiguous lake-side multi-use trail crossing of the canal,
Beach Strip Lift
5 including an approach ramp on the Hamilton side. An alternate consideration is an on-
Bridge (#21)
road solution that could be closed when bridge capacity is needed for QEW bypass
traffic.
Ward Street Segment Description
Pritchard Falls to
5 & 6 Red Hill Valley Trail Enhance this segment with pavement/ asphalt and less-steep grades
Mount Albion Trail
Upper Ottawa St LINC to Stone Consider both on-street bike lanes for continuity and a multi-use trail to connect
6
(#127) Church Rd McQuesten Trail to Stone Church Rd, crossing Upper Ottawa at Redbury St.
6, 7 &
Bendamere Ave To Broker Dr Add bicycle boulevard elements and new signal at Upper James and South Bend.
8
6, 7 &
Limeridge Rd At interchanges Enhance cycling connections through existing traffic signals.
8
6, 7 &
Stone Church Rd Consider a painted buffer on this arterial street.
8
First Rd W/
9 Highbury Dr/ South of Mud St Create a continuous bike lanes on existing where possible.
Picardy Dr
10 Millen Rd Over QEW Complete bike lane connection.
10 &
North Service Rd various segments Consider a painted buffer as the street is an arterial/ collector.
11
Chedoke Radial Iroquoia Heights
12 Consider an alternate connection between rail trail and Bluebell Cres.
Trail (#187) Conservation Area
Governor’s Rd Bridlewood Drive to
13 Consider a two-way cycle track or bike path on the south side.
(#68) Creighton Rd
Sydenham St/
Livingstone Dr to Investigate the option of a Queen St connection including new stair and bike trough to
13 Queen St (#137 &
Alma St/ Victoria St Livingstone Dr using existing City easement, and address downbound cycling speeds.
#155)
Instead of paved shoulders along the narrow and sloped roadway, explore a road
closure in the vicinity of the CN railway crossing to significantly reduce the volume of
Old Guelph Rd
13 York Rd to York Blvd motor traffic. The street would then be suitable as a shared facility instead of requiring
(#23r)
paved shoulders, and would continue to provide full access between the various RBG
gardens.
Hwy 5 crossings at Sydenham Rd
15 Provide protected crossings at these two intersections
(#56r) at Rock Chapel Rd
Hwy 6 underpass to
15 Borer's Creek Trail Pave the trail, 4m wide.
Chudleigh St
Union St to Mountain Consider restrictive lane operations or Bicycle Boulevard devices to further encourage
15 Mill St (#156)
Brow Rd through motor traffic to use the new Burke St/ Waterdown Rd connection.

Spot Modifications in Coordinated Works 2

Appendix D: Bike Parking Strategy
D
Appendix D
City of Hamilton Bicycle Parking Strategy
1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background
The City of Hamilton provides cycling infrastructure throughout the City including off-
road multi-use paths, on-street dedicated bike lanes, on-street signed bike routes and
bike parking facilities to serve the needs of recreational and commuter cyclists. The City
of Hamilton’s Cycling Master Plan, Shifting Gears, considers bike parking as an
essential component of the cycling network. The availability of safe and convenient bike
parking facilities is an important factor in increasing the uptake of this sustainable and
healthy mode of transportation.
The City of Hamilton’s Transportation Planning Section manages and installs bicycle
parking within the City’s right-of-way. Other City departments are responsible for
managing bicycle parking in other public locations, such as at parks and community
centres. For the purposes of this document, the focus is on bicycle parking within the
right-of-way.
This document provides an overview of the City of Hamilton’s right-of-way bicycle
parking strategy. Detailed design guidelines are beyond the scope of this document,
and are included in an internal design guideline document.

1.2 Objectives
The objectives of this Bike Parking Strategy are to:
 Provide background information about bicycle parking including the main types of
bike parking, important considerations for locating bicycle parking, and more.
 Provide guidance on the identification of existing bike parking facilities.
 Provide guidance on the identification, planning, installation and maintenance of
new bike parking facilities to improve the end-of-trip experience for cyclists.
2.0 Bike Parking Facilities
Bike parking facilities (or bike racks) are infrastructure built for safely and securely
storing bicycles. Bike parking facilities are found across the City at a variety of locations.
In general, bicycle parking facilities should be located in areas where there are
significant trip generators. High-density residential areas, business districts, offices,
educational institutions, community centres and public spaces are examples of trip
generators. When safe and accessible parking facilities are readily accessible, cyclists
are more likely to travel by bicycle.
Bike parking is often categorized by the duration of intended use: short-term and long-
term. Short-term bike parking is often used by customers and visitors for relatively short
periods of time (up to several hours). Long-term bike parking is typically used by
employees and tenants for periods of time lasting more than several hours. It is
important to consider these two groups of bike parking facilities independently because
of the different needs of the users. For example, convenience and proximity to
destination may be a priority for users of short-term bicycle parking, while users of long-
term parking may prefer a sheltered method of storage.
Different types of bike parking, outlined in more detail in the following sections, are
designed to meet different needs. It is important to consider these needs when selecting
the most appropriate type of bike parking infrastructure to install.

2.1 Short-Term Bicycle Parking

Short-term bike parking is intended to be used for less than several hours at a time.
Such facilities are located near shopping areas, recreation centres and parks. Short-
term bicycle parking includes:
Boulevard Parking: Facilities located on street boulevards, which is City right-of-way,
either between sidewalks and buildings or sidewalks and roads, are one of the most
common types of short-term bike parking. These facilities are most commonly found in
areas with high retail and service amenities, such as Business Improvement Areas
(BIAs).
On-Street Parking: Often referred to as bike corrals, on-street bike parking includes on-
street facilities where there is limited space on nearby boulevards and sidewalks. These
facilities are usually surrounded by a curb or bollards to provide a buffer between
cyclists and motor vehicles. On-street parking is located on City right-of-way.
City Assets: This includes facilities that are located at or near City offices, libraries,
arenas, pools, and community centres. Facilities within City parks and along City trails
are also included. New City assets are now required to include bike parking as part of
the building design process.
Schools: The City is not responsible for the installation and maintenance of bicycle
parking facilities on elementary, secondary or post-secondary school properties.
However, there is a bike parking grant program for schools through the Smart Commute
Program. Schools can apply for a one-time grant of up to $600 for bike parking so long
as they are have or are in the process of developing a School Travel Plan and agree to
the terms and conditions of the grant.

2.2 Long-Term Bicycle Parking

Long-term and monitored bike parking is intended to be used for more than several
hours at a time. These facilities are often located near workplaces, schools and
transportation hubs, and are typically monitored. Long-term bicycle parking includes:

City of Hamilton Bicycle Parking Strategy 2

Sheltered: This type of bike parking is commonly found at post-secondary institutions
and major transportation loading and access hubs. Sheltered parking is accessible to
everyone, and provides shelter from the elements. Sheltered bike parking is often
provided and maintained by the property owner.
Secure Parking: This type of bike parking is most often found near workplaces, post-
secondary institutions, and at major transportation loading and access hubs. Access to
this type of parking is limited to registered users only, providing a higher level of
security. Further, most secure facilities are also sheltered from the elements.
Event Parking: Event parking, commonly referred to as valet bike parking, is a method
of securely storing a large number of bikes at a special event or venue. The
infrastructure is generally temporary and can be set up on a variety of land uses. Having
convenient and safe bike parking facilities at events and venues provides attendees
piece of mind about the safety of their bicycle and the ease of finding a parking space.
3.0 Identification of Existing and Potential Bike Parking Facilities

3.1 Existing Bike Parking

In 2015, the City of Hamilton conducted a city-wide bike parking audit to identify and
collect data about all existing bike parking infrastructure within the City right-of-way. The
following information was collected about existing bike parking facilities: location, type of
rack, condition, capacity, nearby attractions and amenities, and compliance with City
design guidelines. Results from the audit are being used to identify gaps in the current
bike parking network. Further, a living inventory of all existing bike parking facilities is in
the process of being developed to help inform future infrastructure maintenance and
improvements. In total, over 900 existing racks were inventoried through the bike
parking audit, with a total capacity for over 4,000 bikes.
The identification of existing bicycle parking on private property has not been
formalized. Generally this information is kept by the respective property owners or
maintenance teams. It is recommended that property owners or managers keep track of
this information, especially for the purpose of regular maintenance.

3.2 Potential Bike Parking

The presence of easily accessible and convenient bicycle parking is an important factor
in promoting cycling as a form of transportation, so it is necessary to continuously grow
and develop this network.
To improve the provision of bicycle parking at high demand locations (also known as trip
generators) that are not within the City’s right-of-way, the City of Hamilton is actively
engaging the development community to integrate Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) measures such as bicycle parking into development applications.
The Transportation Demand Management Land Development Guidelines (available at

City of Hamilton Bicycle Parking Strategy 3

www.hamilton.ca/develop-property/policies-guidelines/transportation-demand-
management-land-development-guidelines) were created as a tool for developers and
City staff to include TDM initiatives into new development, redevelopment and existing
buildings through the development approval process. This document also provides
recommended bicycle parking rates for different land uses. To promote the
incorporation of bicycle parking into existing buildings that are not within the City’s right-
of-way, resources are available to help property owners and managers identify vendors
and properly locate the racks.
Potential sites for new bike parking within the City’s right-of-way are identified through
the bike parking audit and community requests, summarized in the following sections.

3.3 Bike Parking Audit

In addition inventorying all existing bike parking, potential locations for new bike parking
were identified as part of the bike parking audit. This was based on on-site anecdotal
evidence of insufficient parking (e.g. the absence of bike parking at major destinations
and points of attraction, overflowing bicycle racks and bicycles locked to fences or other
objects that obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic).

3.4 Community Requests

In order to obtain community input about bike parking facilities within Hamilton, the City
has developed a bike rack request process. Community members who would like to
request the installation of a new rack on City right-of-way can complete and submit a
simple rack request form found on the City website (www.hamilton.ca/streets-
transportation/biking-cyclists/cycling-in-city). When a request is received, City staff
review the request to ensure that the location is on City right-of-way and that the
installation would not obstruct other modes of transportation. If the location is approved
and funding is available, the requested infrastructure is installed. This process generally
takes between 8-12 weeks, depending on the location.
In 2016, Cycle Hamilton, a member-supported coalition of individuals, communities, and
organizations that works together to promote a healthy, safe, and sustainable cycling
culture in Hamilton, conducted interactive community engagement around bicycle
parking. Cycle Hamilton collected feedback from community members regarding bicycle
parking recommendations by bringing a map of the City to various community events. In
total, nearly 100 locations were recommended for additional bicycle parking through this
process. These recommendations are currently being investigated for feasibility.
4.0 Prioritization of Bike Parking Installations
The City’s bicycle program includes the provision of bicycle parking infrastructure,
maintenance of the bicycle parking database (existing and requested infrastructure),
improving and upgrading existing facilities as required, and the formalization of policies
and procedures related to bike parking facilities within municipal documents.

City of Hamilton Bicycle Parking Strategy 4

In order to most effectively and efficiently implement these installations, prioritization is
crucial. The following factors are considered when prioritizing bike parking facility
projects:
 Expected need, impact and reach of project
 Cost of project and availability of funding
 Timeframe
 Required coordination and agreements with other organizations
 Potential planning constraints
The following City locations have been identified as priorities for biking parking
installations:
 Business Improvement Areas (BIAs): Business Improvement Areas (BIA)
represent a group of property and business owners within a defined geographic
area who collectively develop, promote and protect the commercial viability of the
area. There are 13 BIAs within the City of Hamilton.
 Major Destinations: These are points of interest and destinations such as
galleries, transit hubs, museums, parks, etc.
 HSR Stops: bike parking at transit stops improves multi-modal access.
 Trail connections: having bicycle parking at trail connections is important for
facilitating multi-modal access. For example, recreational trail users may wish to
cycle to a trail and park their bike while they go hiking or jogging.
5.0 Bike Parking Maintenance
Bike parking maintenance is an important consideration in the provision of bicycle
parking facilities. It is recommended that all facilities be visited at least once every two
years in order to identify and rectify issues including:
 Rusting
 Superficial damage (scuffs and vandalism)
 Damaged components
 Loose or broken bolts
A regular maintenance program requires an up to date inventory of all existing facilities.
It is recommended that the location (GPS coordinate and nearest intersection), type of
rack, capacity and current status of the rack be documented. This is currently being
developed for facilities on City right-of-way through the bike parking audit.
As part of the maintenance program, it is recommended that racks be sanded and
painted with Tremclad (or a similar type of paint) if rusting or surficial damage is
observed. Loose or damaged bolts should be replaced immediately for the safety of
users and the security of the bicycles. Bike parking maintenance is generally the
responsibility of the party that funded for the installation unless other arrangements are
made.

City of Hamilton Bicycle Parking Strategy 5