Regional Pedestrian and Cycling Masterplan (PCMP) Completed: March 2011

Regional Transportation Plan CONTEXT: Building on Travel Choices Directive to establish a regional approach to walking and cycling came from Travel Choices Strategy (2002) This is a sub-strategy of the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) RGS Sub-strategy: Travel Choices Regional Transportation Plan TDM Strategy PCMP Corridor Study Ph I Rapid Transit Project Transit Future

Phased Approach to PCMP Understand the Context Jurisdictional complexities Definition of “regional” and “regionally significant” in the context of active transportation Consultation Technical Advisory Committee (municipalities) Citizen’s Advisory Committee (community) Advocates’ Sessions Draft the Masterplan

Practical Purpose of a Masterplan What we learned regarding establishing a regional approach to active transportation Efficiencies gained through coordination Consistency is most important

Masterplan Vision 4 Types of Cyclists “The Capital Region will be a truly livable and environmentally sustainable community, where walking and cycling are key components of an innovative and integrated transportation system. Citizens of all ages in all parts of the region will find active travel irresistible on a seamless network of Class I on- and off-street facilities appropriate for user of all abilities. In 2038, the CRD will be lauded for its 15% regional and 25% high density area mode share for cycling and 15% mode share for pedestrian travel.”

Mode Shares No Change in Mode Share Over the Last Ten Years

Project Overview 5 “Es” Engineering Encouragement Education Evaluation Enforcement

Engineering Primary Inter-Community (PIC) Bikeway Network Goal is to upgrade the network to Class I or “Low Stress” bikeways

Metrics 775 km bikeway network 192 km meet Class 1 standard 583 km need improvement Existing Proposed Total Multi-use, off street trail 110 18 128 Separated on-street cycle track 329 Bike lane / shoulder way 68 191 259 Shared 14 45 59 192 583 775

Relationship Between Network Development, Programs and Mode Split

Engineering – On-Street Bikeway Typology Recommended Facility Separation Big idea

Level of Separation Based on speed and volume Credit: GVCC and Pedal Forward

Engineering – On-Street Bikeway Typology

Engineering – On-Street Bikeway Typology RURAL

Engineering – On-Street Bikeway Typology

Engineering – On-Street Bikeway Typology

Colwood: Existing Facilities 2 1

Colwood: Proposed Facilities 2 3 1

Example: Sooke Road Strong / fearless Enthused and confident Interested but concerned

Engineering – Pedestrian Standards Universal design Consistent facilities installed throughout the region Focus on high pedestrian traffic areas: transportation hubs, commercial centres, civic destinations Pedestrian and Cycling Design Guidelines Wayfinding Transit accessibility Parking standards

Education and Encouragement Active Safe Routes to School ASRTS Road Skills Courses Special Events / Promotion Rights and Responsibilities Education Detour management for construction zones

Evaluation and Enforcement Inter-municipal Oversight Cttee (PCMP) Bicycle and Pedestrian Account Police Liaison

Regional Transportation Plan Next Step: “E”mplementation Short Term Medium – Long Term Distill big, long-term, ambitious plan down to short-term actions RSP – Gas Tax Proposal Oversight Cttee Soft E’s Innovation Pilots Amenities Regional Transportation Plan Recommendations for moving forward