appendix a supporting documentation of identification and ......appendix a supporting documentation...

Appendix A

Supporting Documentation of Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Solutions

A.1 Assumed Footprints of Potential Relocation Sites

A.2 Analysis: Location Relevant to Built Development

A.3 Analysis: Potential Rerouting Options

A.4 Analysis: Brock Street Pedestrian Crossing

A.5 Analysis: Accessibility and Universal Design Requirements

A.6 High-Level Evaluation of Potential Relocation Opportunities

A.7 Detailed Evaluation of Alternative Solutions

A.8 Evaluation Weighting and Scoring

Appendix A.1

Assumed Footprints of Potential Relocation Sites

1

Appendix A.1

Assumed Footprints of Potential Relocation Sites As part of Step 1B: Identification of Relocation Constraints and Opportunities, the potential relocation opportunities were evaluated. For evaluation purposes and comparison between potential relocation sites, a typical configuration of a DTP was assumed for each opportunity area.

The assumed footprint for each potential relocation site is shown in Exhibit 1 through Exhibit 7.

Exhibit 1: Existing DTP Footprint at Brock & Bagot

Appendix A.1

2

Exhibit 2: Assumed Footprint for Brock, from Montreal to Wellington

Exhibit 3: Assumed Footprint for Brock & Wellington

Appendix A.1

3

Exhibit 4: Assumed Footprint for Clarence, from Bagot to Wellington

Exhibit 5: Assumed Footprint for Queen & Bagot

Appendix A.1

4

Exhibit 6: Assumed Footprint for Queen & Wellington

Exhibit 7: Assumed Footprint for Queen & King

Appendix A.2

Analysis: Location Relative to Built Development

1

Appendix A.2

Analysis: Location Relative to Built Development To understand the proximity of development for each potential relocation opportunity, the amount of built development area (building density) within a defined catchment area of each site was assessed. The findings of this analysis were included in Step 1C: High-Level Evaluation of Relocation Opportunities.

Built development was measured in terms of building density area1. Three catchment areas were assessed, including:

200m walk distance (approx. 2-3 minute walk time) 300m walk distance (approx. 3-4 minute walk time) 400m walk distance (approx. 4-5 minute walk time)

The comparison of total built developed area within the three catchment areas is shown for each potential relocation site in Table 1. Relative preferences are indicated symbolically (least preferred shown by , somewhat preferred shown by , and most preferred shown by ).

1 Example calculation: 12m x 36m building with 3 storeys equals 1,296 m2 of building density.

Appendix A.2

2

Table 1: Built Development within Defined Catchment Areas of Potential Relocation Sites

Potential Relocation Site

Total Built Developed Area

within 200m (m2)


within 300m (m2)


within 400m (m2) 2

Overall

Brock & Bagot

134,225

275,116

433,021

Brock, from Montreal to Wellington

95,642

242,453

407,322

Brock & Wellington

106,049

244,395

445,725

Clarence, from Bagot to Wellington

94,481

256,356

423,206

Queen & Bagot

92,077

203,990

349,381

Queen & Wellington

86,345

198,018

331,674

Queen & King

74,446

163,631

317,835

Overall, the existing DTP location at Brock and Bagot Streets, at Brock and Wellington Streets, and at Clarence Street are most preferred. The location at Brock, from Montreal to Wellington, is somewhat preferred. The three locations on Queen, at Bagot, Wellington, and King, are least preferred.

The catchment area map for each potential relocation site is shown in Exhibit 1 through Exhibit 7.

2 Limited information of built development was available for the 400m catchment area analysis, which lowers the amount of built development for the three locations on Queen. North Block District redevelopment was not included in these calculations as no approved applications were available to be considered at this time. It is understood that the development potential is expected to accommodate ground floor commercial with multi-storey residential above the site. This type of development within the North Block would not be a primary reason to shift the DTP location. Built development north of Ordnance Street was not included in this analysis (approx. 300m walk distance from Queen and Bagot).

Appendix A.2

3

Exhibit 1: Catchment Areas (200m, 300m, 400m) for Brock & Bagot

Exhibit 2: Catchment Areas (200m, 300m, 400m) for Brock, from Montreal to Wellington

Appendix A.2

4

Exhibit 3: Catchment Areas (200m, 300m, 400m) for Brock & Wellington

Exhibit 4: Catchment Areas (200m, 300m, 400m) for Clarence, from Bagot to Wellington

Appendix A.2

5

Exhibit 5: Catchment Areas (200m, 300m, 400m) for Queen & Bagot

Exhibit 6: Catchment Areas (200m, 300m, 400m) for Queen & Wellington

Appendix A.2

6

Exhibit 7: Catchment Areas (200m, 300m, 400m) for Queen & King

Appendix A.3

Analysis: Potential Rerouting Options

1

Appendix A.3

Analysis: Potential Rerouting Options To evaluate the impacts to the Kingston Transit operations, potential rerouting options were developed for the alternative solutions of Improving the Existing Site or Relocating to Clarence Street. The findings of this analysis were included in Step 2C: Detailed Evaluation of the Alternative Solutions.

The existing bus routing to access the Downtown Transfer Point (DTP) is shown in Exhibit 1. The current routing is relatively efficient. No significant detours are made to access the DTP.

Exhibit 1: Existing Routing to Access the DTP

The current bus stop configuration at the DTP includes seven bus stops. However, the four stops on Brock Street effectively operate as two zones. The existing bus stop configuration at the DTP is shown in Exhibit 2. The major transfer trends in the morning and afternoon peak periods are shown in Table 2.

Appendix A.3

2

Exhibit 2: Existing Bus Stop Configuration at the DTP

Table 1: Major Transfer Trends in the AM and PM Peak Periods

AM Peak Period Transfer Trends PM Peak Period Transfer Trends

1 (St Lawrence College) 4

4 1 (Montreal St)

701 1 (St Lawrence College)


502 602

601 4


601 701

1 (Montreal St) 502

701 501

702 602

Appendix A.3

3

Improve the Existing Site To assess potential improvements to the existing site, two aspects were considered, including:

Potential to improve routing access to the DTP Potential to rearrange bus stops and improve transfer distance for major transfer trends

Rerouting Access to the DTP Currently, routes access the DTP in a relatively efficient manner. In reviewing rerouting access to the DTP, only one route could be improved. Route 12 – Highway 15 could be improved to travel northbound on Bagot Street, rather than King Street, and share the existing bus stop for Route 602 (further discussion in the section below). A conceptual rerouting option for the existing DTP location is shown in Exhibit 3.

Exhibit 3: Conceptual Rerouting Option for Existing DTP Location

Rearranging Bus Stops In reviewing transfer trends, seven of the eleven major transfer trends require passengers to transfer around the corner of Bagot and Brock, in which buildings block visibility. Six of these transfers involve either Route 4 or 701. Since both of these routes use the DTP as a turning point from eastbound to westbound travel the bus stops could be located on either Bagot or Brock without rerouting. As such, moving these bus stops for Routes 4 and 701 from Bagot to Brock would reduce walk distance and improve visibility for many passengers.

Appendix A.3

4

The two major transfer movements that require crossing the Brock/Bagot intersection were assessed, but due to the efficient routing of 602, it is not recommended that the bus stops be rearranged to reduce transfers that require street crossing.

The Route 12 – Highway 15 bus stop on Brock, east of Bagot, could be relocated to northbound on Bagot, north of Brock (shared with the 602 bus stop), if the route is modified as discussed in the previous section. This bus stop location would reduce impacts to the sidewalk patio at the Queen’s Inn, as well as provide a more compact footprint of the DTP.

More detailed analysis is required at a later project stage to assess the physical feasibility and capacity of rearranging the bus stops. Schedules may need to be adjusted to accommodate the routes, as well as having assigned bus stops.

Appendix A.3

5

Relocating to Clarence Street Conceptual rerouting options were assessed for Clarence Street, including the option of a one-way westbound facility, or a two-way facility. The feasibility of these bus stop configurations would require additional analysis at a later project stage. A conceptual rerouting option for the one-way westbound Clarence Street option is shown in Exhibit 4. The following assumptions were made in developing the rerouting option:

No reconfiguration of existing one-way streets to two-way streets (Princess Street remains one-way eastbound, Brock Street remains one-way westbound, and Johnson Street remains one-way eastbound)

It is more preferable to remain on existing travel corridors as much as possible to reduce impacts to bus stops either upstream or downstream from the DTP, as riders are already familiar with existing corridors

In general, routes travelling eastbound on Princess were extended to Wellington, turning south on Wellington to access Clarence

In general, routes travelling eastbound on Johnson were extended to Wellington, turning north on Wellington to access Clarence

In general, routes travelling northbound on Bagot were detoured eastbound on Johnson, turning north on Wellington to access Clarence

In general, routes travelling westbound on Brock were detoured south on Wellington to access Clarence

A conceptual rerouting option for the two-way Clarence Street option is shown in Exhibit 5. The following assumptions were made in developing the rerouting option:

No reconfiguration of existing one-way streets to two-way streets (Princess Street remains one-way eastbound, Brock Street remains one-way westbound, and Johnson Street remains one-way eastbound)

It is more preferable to remain on existing travel corridors as much as possible to reduce impacts to bus stops either upstream or downstream from the DTP, as riders are already familiar with existing corridors

It is more preferable for buses to continue travelling in the projected direction, rather than “backtracking” in a loop on Brock, between Bagot and Wellington

The number of bus stops on the north and south sides of Clarence were balanced as much as possible, also considering route frequencies

Eastbound routes turning westbound at the DTP along Princess were extended to Wellington, turning south on Wellington to access Clarence from the east

Eastbound routes turning southbound at the DTP continued to turn south on Bagot to access Clarence from the west, then detoured southbound on Wellington, eastbound on William, to continue going southbound on Bagot

Northbound routes turning westbound at the DTP were detoured eastbound on Johnson, turning north on Wellington to access Clarence from the east

Appendix A.3

6

Northbound routes turning eastbound at the DTP were continued north on Bagot, to access Clarence from the west

Exhibit 4: Conceptual Rerouting Option for Clarence Street, One-Way Westbound Facility

Exhibit 5: Conceptual Rerouting Option for Clarence Street, Two-Way Facility

Appendix A.3

7

The impacts of the rerouting options were measured as the additional travel distance and turning movements. These values were measured on a per day basis, accounting for the number of trips each bus makes through the DTP. This accounts for the larger impact that the higher frequency and express routes have on the network as whole. The additional distance, turning movements, and through intersection movements per day is shown for both rerouting options in Table 2.

Table 2: Additional Distance and Turning Movements per Day of Clarence Street Rerouting Options

Route Daily Trips

Clarence Street One-Way Westbound

Clarence Street Two-Way

Additional Distance

(m)

Additional Turning

Movements

Additional Through

Movements

Additional Distance

(m)

Additional Turning

Movements

Additional Through

Movements

1 - St. Lawrence College 31 9,703 124 0 7,936 124 -31

1 - Montreal St 30 7,590 60 30 7,590 60 30

2 - St. Lawrence College 30 9,510 60 0 7,680 120 -30

2 - Division 30 7,590 60 30 7,590 60 30

3 - Kingston Centre 30 1,440 60 0 1,380 60 0

4 - Cataraqui 31 10,044 0 62 10,106 0 62

12 - Kingston Centre 56 2,632 112 0 2,576 112 0

12 - Hwy 15 54 -18,576 0 0 -30,672 -54 54

18 - Train Station 14 4,466 28 0 3,598 56 -14

501 - Portsmouth Ave 93 29,481 186 0 23,808 372 -93

502 - Cataraqui 69 17,457 138 69 17,388 138 69

601 - Queen's / KGH 61 2,013 122 0 15,616 244 -61

602 - Innovation Dr PnR 84 22,008 336 -84 3,276 168 0

701 - Cataraqui 48 15,600 0 96 15,696 0 96

702 - King's Crossing 49 12,397 0 98 12,397 0 98

TOTAL - 133,355 1,286 301 105,965 1,460 210

Assuming an average speed of 19.48 km/h1, this results in an 5.5 to 6.9 hours of additional run time per day for the relocation to Clarence Street. The actual additional time per route would be greater, as the average speed in the downtown area is likely slower, an increase in turning movements and signalized intersections would increase operating time, cost, potential for delays, and schedules would need to be adjusted.

1 As per Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA), Canadian Transit Fact Book, 2013 statistics for Kingston Transit. Note that average speed of downtown operations is likely lower than this value.

Appendix A.3

8

In addition, both rerouting options increase bus volumes on multiple street segments, including:

Johnson Street, between Bagot and Wellington Princess Street, between Bagot and Wellington William Street, between Bagot and Wellington Wellington Street, between Princess and William

Rerouting Option to Mitigate Impacts Based on the conceptual rerouting options for Relocating to Clarence Street, a refined option was developed to mitigate impacts, particularly to reduce bus volumes in residential neighbourhoods, and to gain efficiencies by rerouting further upstream of the DTP. This rerouting option is for a two-way configuration on Clarence Street. This refined rerouting option was used to evaluate the Relocate to Clarence Street option in Step 2C: Detailed Evaluation of the Alternative Solutions.

The refined rerouting option for the two-way Clarence Street option is shown in Exhibit 6.

Exhibit 6: Refined Conceptual Rerouting Option for Clarence Street, Two-Way Facility

The impacts of the rerouting options were measured as the additional travel distance and turning movements. These values were measured on a per day basis, accounting for the number of trips each bus makes through the DTP. This accounts for the larger impact that the higher frequency and express routes have on the network as whole. The additional

Appendix A.3

9

distance, turning movements, and through intersection movements per day is shown for both rerouting options in Table 2.

Table 3: Additional Distance and Turning Movements per Day of Refined Clarence Street Rerouting Option

Route Daily Trips

Clarence Street Refined, Two-Way

Additional Distance (m)

Additional Turning Movements

Additional Through Movements

1 - St. Lawrence College 31 10,478 124 0

1 - Montreal St 30 9,690 60 30

2 - St. Lawrence College 30 9,600 60 30

2 - Division 30 9,720 60 30

3 - Kingston Centre 30 -990 0 30

4 - Cataraqui 31 10,354 62 31

12 - Kingston Centre 56 19,208 224 0

12 - Hwy 15 54 -30,672 0 -216

18 - Train Station 14 4,676 56 -14

501 - Portsmouth Ave 93 29,760 186 93

502 - Cataraqui 69 17,388 138 69

601 - Queen's / KGH 61 183 122 0

602 - Innovation Dr PnR 84 3,276 168 -84

701 - Cataraqui 48 19,584 0 96

702 - King's Crossing 49 12,348 0 98

TOTAL - 124,633 1,260 193

Assuming an average speed of 19.48 km/h2, this results in 6.4 hours of additional run time per day for the relocation to Clarence Street. The actual additional time per route would be greater, as the average speed in the downtown area is likely slower, an increase in turning movements and signalized intersections would increase operating time, cost, potential for delays, and schedules would need to be adjusted.

The distribution of bus stops on the north and south sides of Clarence Street is shown in Exhibit 7. For this rerouting option, bus stops are relatively balanced on the north side and south sides of Clarence Street. The bus bay assignment would be determined at a later project stage, depending on the configuration of the transfer point and the number of bays.

2 As per Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA), Canadian Transit Fact Book, 2013 statistics for Kingston Transit. Note that average speed of downtown operations is likely lower than this value.

Appendix A.3

10

Exhibit 7: Bus Stop Configuration at the DTP for Refined Clarence Street Rerouting Option

The major transfer trends in the morning and afternoon peak periods for this option are shown in Table 4. In the morning peak period, a number of transfers need to cross Clarence Street (either midblock or at the ends of the transfer point). In the afternoon peak period, the major transfer movements are better balanced across the site.

Table 4: Major Transfer Trends in the AM and PM Peak Periods for Refined Clarence Street Rerouting Option

AM Peak Period Transfer Trends PM Peak Period Transfer Trends


4 1 (Montreal St)



502 602

601 4


601 701

1 (Montreal St) 502

701 501

702 602

Appendix A.4

Analysis: Brock Street Pedestrian Crossing

1

Appendix A.4

Analysis: Brock Street Pedestrian Crossing To understand both bus operation and pedestrian impacts at the Downtown Transfer Point (DTP) from midblock pedestrian crossings on Brock Street in the vicinity of Montreal Street, a high-level assessment of the existing and potential future conditions of the intersection was conducted. The findings of this assessment inform the selection of the alternative site locations.

Existing Conditions The City of Kingston and the Hotel Dieu Hospital have previously expressed concerns with the pedestrian midblock crossings of Brock Street that occur between Sydenham and Montreal Streets. Pedestrians in this area have two main desire lines:

Between the Hotel Dieu Hospital and Chown Memorial Parking Garage Between the Hotel Dieu Hospital and the Downtown Transfer Point

The Brock / Montreal Street intersection facilitates pedestrian movements between the DTP and the hospital. It currently has marked crossings at all three legs, which provide pedestrians with right-of-way during a green signal phase for Montreal Street at two locations, as shown in Exhibit 1. Both crossings observe relatively large pedestrian volumes (1,820 on the west leg and 652 on the east leg per day)1. In addition, even higher numbers of pedestrians are observed to cross midblock (approximately 2,500 per day)2 west of Montreal Street and east of Sydenham Street.

The controlled nature of the Brock/Montreal Street intersection also allocates dedicated time for through moving buses on Brock Street. Under the current fixed signal timing plan, 43 seconds of the 80 second cycle time is dedicated to green time for westbound bus and traffic movements, and 28 seconds is allocated for pedestrian crossing movements3. This signal timing balances the needs of pedestrians, buses, and vehicular traffic, and ensures the efficient, consistent, and reliable movement of buses throughout the day.

1 As per traffic count data provided by the City of Kingston, January 2015 2 As per Draft Brock Street Pedestrian Crossing Review Memorandum, BA Group, May 2015 3 The remaining ~9 seconds is for the all-red interval between green phases

Appendix A.4

2

Exhibit 1: Existing Conditions of Brock Street Crossing

Potential Future Conditions The City has commissioned several studies in recent years to understand and address pedestrian and vehicular safety in the vicinity of the Brock/Montreal Street intersection. Currently, BA Group has developed a preferred recommendation4 to improve pedestrian safety at this location. The main aspects of the draft recommendation relevant to the DTP are as follows:

1. Installation of a controlled pedestrian crossing of Brock Street immediately west of the Hotel Dieu and Chown Memorial Parking Garage entrances, as shown in Exhibit 1;

2. Removal of the traffic control signal at the Brock/Montreal Street intersection (replace with stop signs for the southbound and northbound movements on Montreal Street and the Hotel Dieu Hospital driveway); and

3. Removal of the 7 m wide speed humps, which are commonly misinterpreted as formal crosswalks.

The study also recommends a phased implementation, by first replacing the existing 7 m flat top speed humps with a more conventional 4 m speed humps and providing a raised decorative crosswalk at Brock/Montreal in the short-term.

4 As per Draft Brock Street Pedestrian Crossing Review Memorandum, BA Group, May 2015

Appendix A.4

3

Future Implications Implementing the draft recommendation provides pedestrians with a dedicated midblock crossing midblock on Brock Street west of Montreal Street via an actuated pedestrian signal. This is intended to encourage a reduction in uncontrolled midblock crossings and provide pedestrians with dedicated right-of-way. Typically, flashing beacons at pedestrian signals are activated immediately after the signal has been actuated, with no delay, requiring that vehicles stop and give right-of-way. This type of crossing facilitates convenient crossings for pedestrians with no wait time. However, in cases where there are high pedestrian volumes, this can cause delays for through traffic.

With regards to the DTP, this type of midblock pedestrian crossing will impede efficient bus operations for both of the alternative site locations at Brock and Bagot Streets and on Clarence Street. Assuming that the 2,500 daily midblock crossing pedestrians all utilize the midblock crossing, this would result in 250 pedestrians crossing per hour5. For a pedestrian to safely clear the roadway width, each crossing would require approximately 15 seconds of signal time. In the worst case scenario of assuming a random distribution of pedestrian arrivals at the crossing, this would result in 3,750 seconds of signal time allocated to pedestrian crossings in one hour (more time than the 3,600 seconds available in an hour). In addition, the pedestrian signal would be continuously actuated during the peak hour. As such, both bus and traffic operations would fail under this scenario.

As well, the removal of the traffic signal at Brock/Montreal Street does not preclude right-of-way pedestrian crossings occurring at this location unless both marked crossings are removed (the short-term draft recommendations suggest a raised decorative crosswalk at the Brock/Montreal intersection). If both the marked crosswalks and traffic signals are removed at this intersection, pedestrians may continue to intuitively cross Brock Street at the intersection, but would no longer have a protected right-of-way. As this would also increase walking distances and create a less intuitive crossing, this is an undesirable solution from the perspective of pedestrian safety, as well as an accessible DTP at the Brock and Bagot Street location.

Conversely, if the crosswalks remain and the traffic signals are removed at the Brock/Montreal Street intersection, bus operations and reliability would be impeded, as this would allocate constant right-of-way to crossing pedestrians. In addition, there would no longer be a protected crossing phase for pedestrians, and no visual indicators for vehicles (such as midblock crossing lights or traffic signal).

5 Assuming a typical 10% peak hour factor

When designing midblock crosswalks….

Actuated pedestrian signals (half-signals), hybrid beacons, or rapid flash beacons may be considered at midblock locations where infrequent crossings make a traffic signal or stop sign unnecessary. Fixed-time signals or passive detection are preferable to push-button detection.

– NACTO Urban Street Design Guide

Appendix A.4

4

Alternative Option An alternative option is suggested to address the issues stated above from both a pedestrian and bus operation standpoint, as follows:

Retain the traffic signal at Montreal Street & Brock Street Provide a raised, decorative crosswalk (or a pedestrian

crossing table) at the midblock location and provide a fixed time pedestrian signal that is coordinated with the Brock/Montreal Street signal (as this design is not typical of dedicated pedestrian signals at an intersection, additional signage and makings should be provided for visual cues6)

Provide decorative bollards at the raised crosswalk (or pedestrian crossing table) to emphasize the appropriate location to cross and to offer protection from the roadway. Decorative bollards could also be used along Brock Street to provide visual cues that guide pedestrians to the designated crossing areas at both the Brock/Montreal Street intersection and the midblock crossing

Increase education and enforcement in the area

This option would require additional study prior to implementation.

Conclusions The draft recommended changes to the Brock/Montreal Street intersection results in the following implications for pedestrians and bus operations at the DTP:

Bus operations will be impeded. If pedestrians are given right-of-way at midblock crossing without a further level of control, bus flow and general traffic would be substantially reduced during peak hours and throughout the day. As midblock pedestrian crossings would not occur consistently throughout the day, it would be difficult to schedule potential bus operation delays and for buses to operate reliably. This would impact both the Brock and Bagot Street and the Clarence Street options similarly.

Pedestrian walking distances to and from the DTP will be increased and will become less intuitive if the marked crosswalks and the traffic signal are removed at the Brock/Montreal Street intersection. In this scenario, pedestrians may continue to cross Brock Street at the intersection, but would no longer have a protected right-of-way.

If the crosswalks remain and the traffic signals are removed at the Brock/Montreal Street intersection, bus operations and reliability will be impeded as they will be required to give right-of-way to crossing pedestrians whenever there is crossing demand.

An alternative option, preferred for both pedestrians and bus operations, should be considered.

6 Design could use the same pedestrian crossing light at intersections, featuring walk / don’t walk symbols, such that pedestrians understand the need to wait.

Appendix A.5

Analysis: Accessibility and Universal Design Requirements

1

Appendix A.5

Analysis: Accessibility and Universal Design Requirements To understand the design requirements to meet accessibility standards and universal design principles at the Downtown Transfer Point (DTP), existing policies were assessed to recommend accessible and universal design criteria. The findings of this analysis inform the physical layout and placement of amenities and street furniture at the DTP, and guide the understanding of limitations and opportunities at the alternative site locations.

Existing Policies A combination of four policies/principles governs the design of the DTP, including Universal Design Principles, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), the City of Kingston Facility Accessibility Design Standards (FADS), and the Kingston Transit Accessible Transit Services Handbook (ATSH). A brief overview of each of the policies/principles, as it relates to the DTP, is discussed in the following sections.

Universal Design Principles Universal design is defined as “The design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design.” These principles go above and beyond the requirements for accessibility (to meet the needs of people with disabilities), and considers a wider variety of users (such as children, seniors, parents with strollers, and includes people with disabilities). The design of the DTP should be driven by universal design, as the intent of the transit system is to provide mobility for nearly everyone.

The universal design philosophy is structured around seven design principles, as follows:

Equitable use – The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities. Flexibility in use – The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences

and abilities. Simple and intuitive to use – Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of

the users’ experience, knowledge, language skills or current concentration level. Perceptible information – The design communicates necessary information effectively

to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user’s sensory abilities. Tolerance for error – The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of

accidental or unintended actions. Low physical effort – The design can be used efficiently and comfortably with a

minimum of fatigue.

Appendix A.5

2

Size and space for approach and use – Appropriate size and space are provided for approach, reach, manipulation and use, regardless of user’s body position, size, posture, or mobility.

The City of Kingston FADS incorporates these principles of universal design.

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 In terms of accessible design standards, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), 2005, O. Reg. 191/11: Integrated Accessibility Standards provides standards for the design of built environments. Although transportation and transit infrastructure is not outlined in the AODA standards, the design of the DTP would follow Part IV.1 Design of Public Spaces Standard (Accessibility Standard for the Built Environment), Exterior Paths of Travel. This section applies to the design of newly constructed and redeveloped exterior paths of travel that are designed and constructed for pedestrian travel and are intended to serve a functional purpose.

In should be noted that AODA allows exceptions to the requirements for exterior paths of travel, such as if it would affect the cultural heritage, natural heritage, or natural environment, or if it is “not practicable to comply with the requirements, or some of them, because existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces or features, such as where increasing the width of the exterior path would narrow the width of the adjacent highway or locating an accessible pedestrian signal pole within 1,500 mm of the curb edge is not feasible because of existing underground utilities.”

City of Kingston Facility Accessibility Design Standards, 2009 The City of Kingston Facility Accessibility Design Standards (FADS), 2009 provides the accessibility requirements for the design and construction of new facilities, as well as the retrofit, alteration or addition to existing facilities owned, leased or operated by the City of Kingston. However, the standard does not apply to the public right-of-way. As the DTP is located within the public right-of-way, it is not mandatory that the design of the DTP comply with the FADS (including Section 4.5.10 Transportation Facilities).

However, it is recommended that the design of the DTP be consistent with the FADS wherever possible to ensure adequate and consistent universal design throughout the City of Kingston. With regards to Section 4.5.10 Transportation Facilities, the DTP should comply with the specifications for Transit Terminals, if possible. It should be noted that these standards go above and beyond the AODA standards for exterior paths of travel.

Kingston Transit Accessible Transit Services Handbook, 2012 The Kingston Transit Accessible Transit Services Handbook, 2012 specifies the minimum accessibility requirements for various aspects of the Kingston Transit system. The bus stop guidelines incorporate the requirements identified in the FADS.

In terms of accessible bus zone design, the handbook distinguishes between Accessible Bus Stops and Functionally Accessible Bus Stops (bus stops that do not have all the

Appendix A.5

3

required accessible features). Functionally Accessible Bus Stops are being addressed over time as outlined in the Kingston Transit Redevelopment Plan. Any improvements to existing bus zones or new construction must ensure that all accessibility requirements are met.

Recommended Design Criteria Accessibility standards were reviewed across multiple policies to recommend design criteria for the DTP. Only the design features relevant to the physical layout and placement of amenities and street furniture were reviewed (dimensions of the accessible route, clearances, bus shelters, seating and benches, street furniture, surface material, illumination, etc.). A discussion of existing policies and recommended accessibility and universal design standards for the DTP is provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Discussion and Recommendation of Accessible and Universal Design Standards for the DTP

Design Feature Discussion of Existing Standards Recommended

Standard Clear Width The AODA standard for exterior paths of travel is

a minimum clear width of 1,500 mm, which can be reduced to 1,200 mm to serve as a turning space where the exterior path connects with a curb ramp.

As per FADS, the DTP would be considered an exterior accessible circulation path (an exterior continuous and unobstructed way of passage from one place to another)

As per FADS standard (Section 4.1.4 Accessible Routes, Paths & Corridors): The minimum clear width of an exterior

accessible circulation route is 1,500 mm. The preferred minimum clear width is 1,830 mm to allow two wheelchairs to pass.

Every accessible route less than the preferred 1,830 mm shall provide an unobstructed passing space of 1,830 mm in width and 1,830 mm in length located not more than 30 m apart.

All facilities shall have convex mirrors at intersections along an accessible route to allow people who are deaf, deafened, or hard of hearing to see on-coming pedestrian traffic.

Designated areas for snow piling are to be provided for exterior accessible routes, located away from pedestrian routes.

Minimum clear width of 1,830 mm

Convex mirrors at intersections along the accessible route

Appendix A.5

4


Standard Cross Slope

As per the AODA standard for exterior paths of travel, the maximum cross slope must be no more than 1:20, where the surface is asphalt, concrete or some other hard surface.

As per FADS standard (Section 4.1.4 Accessible Routes, Paths & Corridors), accessible routes shall have a cross slope not steeper than 1:50 (2%).

Maximum cross slope of 1:50 (2%)

Running Slope

The existing running slope on Brock Street between Bagot and Montreal Streets is 1:35 (2.9%). The existing running slope on Bagot and Clarence Streets are minimal and are considered to be level.

As per the AODA standard for exterior paths of travel, the maximum running slope of the exterior path must be no more than 1:20, but where the exterior path is a sidewalk, it can have a slope greater than 1:20, but it cannot be steeper than the slope of the adjacent roadway.

As per FADS standard (Section 4.1.4 Accessible Routes, Paths & Corridors): Accessible routes shall have a running slope

not steeper than 1:25 (4%). An accessible slope steeper than 1:25 is considered a ramp and would follow FADS Section 4.1.9 Ramps. Brock Street between Bagot and Montreal Streets is not considered a ramp.

If the accessible route is not level with the adjacent surface by more than 200 mm, the edges shall be protected.

Accessible routes shall have level rest areas spaced no more than 30 m apart.

Maintain current running slope

Maximum running slope of 1:25 (4%) Note: If level rest areas are provided the effective length is reduced and running slope will become steeper

Level with the adjacent surface

Appendix A.5

5


Standard Ground Surface Material

As per the AODA standard for exterior paths of travel, the surface should be firm, stable, and slip resistant.

As per FADS Section 4.5.10 Transportation Facilities for Bus Stops, bus stops shall incorporate a paved, firm, level surface. Bus shelters shall be located on firm, level pads approximately at the same elevation as the sidewalk or walkway.

As per ATSH, bus stop design includes a concrete surface at the front and rear doors of a bus, and concrete connection to existing pathways or sidewalks. Shelters are placed on upgraded pads that connect to an existing sidewalk or path.

Concrete surface along the entire DTP

Level and consistent surface material at bus stops, bus shelters, and along the accessible route

Detectable Warning Surfaces

As per FADS Section 4.5.10 Transportation Facilities for Transit Terminals, the edges of platforms shall incorporate a continuous detectable warning surface of at least 600 mm wide.

As per ATSH, bus stops should include provisions for future tactile warning surface indicators pending AODA Built Environment requirements.

As per FADS Section 4.4.8 Detectable Warning Surfaces, “While detectable warning surfaces may be considered for use on exterior accessible routes on municipal sites, they are not a requirement at this time. They are also not recommended at this time for the general public right-of-way. Further research is required as to the most appropriate way to install and maintain these surfaces, especially with respect to winter weather conditions.”

Detectable warning surfaces are used outdoors at transit facilities in cities with similar weather conditions (ex. Calgary Transit)

Incorporate a detectable warning strip along the curb of the bus zones within the DTP, of appropriate width

Appendix A.5

6


Standard Bus Shelter Size

As per FADS Section 4.5.10 Transportation Facilities for Bus Stops, bus shelters shall incorporate sufficient clear floor space to accommodate a person using a wheelchair or scooter. The clear floor space of a wheelchair is a minimum of 760 mm x 1,220 mm, and the clear floor space of a scooter is 660 mm x 1,370 mm. To accommodate a frontal approach into the bus stop, the minimum dimensions should be a doorway width of 1,100 mm and shelter depth of 1,370 mm.

As per ATSH, accessible bus stops should have provisions for future shelter placement offering sufficient room to manoeuvre mobility assistive devices. New City-owned shelters meet the FADS requirements, and are general a minimum of 1,524 mm x 2,348 mm. The waiting area for mobility aid devices within the accessible shelters is a minimum of 1,117 mm x 1,448 mm.

New City-owned shelters are sufficient (minimum size of 1,524 mm x 2,348 mm, with an accessible space of 1,117 mm x 1,448 mm)

Open face shelters are preferred, and should provide an accessible space of 1,100 mm x 1,370 mm

Bus Shelter Clearance

As per FADS Section 4.5.10 Transportation Facilities for Bus Stops, bus shelters shall have clearances around at least two sides of the shelter, including the landing pad side of at least 1,220 mm.

No standard is specified for clearance around a bus shelter in the ATSH.

Minimum clearance adjacent to shelters of 1,220 mm on at least two sides

Minimum clearance along entire DTP curb/landing pad of 1,220 mm

Seating and Benches

As per FADS Section 4.5.10 Transportation Facilities for Bus Stops, bus shelters shall feature at least one seat with armrests and a seat height between 400 mm and 450 mm. For Transit Terminals, seating shall be provided at or close to boarding points and shall have a seat height between 450 mm and 500 mm, be of contrasting colour to their background, and have an adjacent, level, firm ground surface of at least 920 mm x 1,370 mm.

As per ATSH, benches in the City-owned accessible shelters have a seat height of 451 mm, and do not encroach into the mobility aid device waiting area.

New City-owned shelters are sufficient (seat height between 400 and 450 mm, with an armrest)

Bench height between 450 and 500 mm

Minimum clearance adjacent to benches of 920 mm x 1,370 mm

Appendix A.5

7


Standard Street Furniture

As per FADS Section 4.3.17 Street Furniture, street furniture (ex. waste receptacles, light standards, signs, planters) shall not reduce the required width of an access route, and be located to one side of the normal path of pedestrian travel.

As per ATSH, a bus stop should have no obstructions such as hydro poles, newspaper boxes, etc. that would compromise the mobility of a person using a mobility aid device.

Street furniture must not be placed within the accessible route and clearances of other amenities

Illumination As per FADS Section 4.1.4 Accessible Routes, Paths & Corridors, all portions of an accessible route shall have a minimum lighting level of 50 lux.

As per FADS Section 4.5.10 Transportation Facilities for Transit Terminals, lighting levels at all boarding platforms shall be at least 100 lux at the platform or boarding-surface edge.

Minimum illumination of 50 lux along the accessible route

Minimum illumination of 100 lux along the curb of the DTP

Visible and Audible Signals

As per FADS Section 4.5.10 Transportation Facilities for Transit Terminals, boarding locations shall incorporate visible and audible warning signals to advise travellers of approaching vehicles

Provide visible and audible warning signals

Appendix A.6

High-Level Evaluation of Potential Relocation Opportunities

1

Appendix A.6

High-Level Evaluation of Potential Relocation Opportunities Qualitative comments of Step 1C: High-Level Evaluation of Potential Relocation Opportunities

Screening Criteria

Brock and Bagot (Base Case)

Brock, from Montreal to Wellington Brock and Wellington Clarence, from Bagot to

Wellington Queen and Bagot Queen and Wellington Queen and King

Proximity to key Downtown destinations and majority of Downtown development

Significant built development density within 400m walk distance; location is close to the Princess Street corridor, Hotel Dieu Hospital, City Hall, Market Square, and Kingston Frontenac Public Library; online survey indicated numerous destinations in the vicinity of the site

Moderate built development density within 400m walk distance; location is close to the Princess Street corridor, Hotel Dieu Hospital, City Hall, Market Square, and Kingston Frontenac Public Library; online survey indicated numerous destinations in the vicinity of the site



Less built development density within 400m walk distance; location remains close to the Princess Street corridor and is closer to the North Block District, but is farther away from Hotel Dieu Hospital, City Hall, Market Square and Kingston Frontenac Public Library; online survey indicated few destinations on Queen Street

Less built development density within 400m walk distance; location remains close to the Princess Street corridor and is closer to the North Block District, but is farther away from Hotel Dieu Hospital, City Hall, Market Square and Kingston Frontenac Public Library; online survey indicated few destinations on Queen Street

Less built development density within 400m walk distance; location remains close to the Princess Street corridor, City Hall, Market Square and is closer to the North Block District, but is farther away from Hotel Dieu Hospital and Kingston Frontenac Public Library; online survey indicated few destinations on Queen Street

Directness of transit route access and efficiency of bus flow

Existing transit routing and bus flow works well

Moderate rerouting required




Inconvenient rerouting, increased travel distances

Inconvenient rerouting, increased travel distances

Effectiveness of transfers for transit customers

Buildings block bus visibility on perpendicular streets, ~160m max. walk distance to transfer, may need to cross an intersection or driveways to transfer

Low visibility of buses on a long straight segment, ~200m max. walk distance to transfer, more passengers need to cross an intersection or driveways to transfer

Buildings block bus visibility on perpendicular streets, ~180m max walk distance to transfer, longer block faces provides an opportunity to eliminate street crossings to transfer buses, passengers may need to cross driveway access for Hanson Memorial Parking Garage

Good visibility in an open bus-only facility, ~100m max. walk distance to transfer, depending on bus bay configuration passengers may need to cross parked buses to transfer

Buildings block bus visibility on perpendicular streets, ~160m max. walk distance to transfer, block length is similar to existing location which may require passengers to cross an intersection to transfer buses

Buildings block bus visibility on perpendicular streets, ~180m max. walk distance to transfer, longer block faces provides an opportunity to eliminate street crossings to transfer buses, passengers may need to cross driveway access to a surface parking lot

Buildings block bus visibility on perpendicular streets, ~180m max. walk distance to transfer, longer block faces provides an opportunity to eliminate street crossings to transfer buses

Appendix A.6

2

Screening Criteria




Availability of sidewalk space and opportunities for placemaking

Some opportunity to improve placemaking on the wide sidewalk on Brock; opportunity to widen the narrow sidewalk on Bagot

Some opportunity to improve placemaking, on the wide sidewalk on Brock west of Bagot; limited opportunity east of Bagot due to narrow sidewalk and sidewalk patio at The Queen’s Inn; adjacent Hanson Memorial Garage limits opportunities

Some opportunity to improve placemaking; narrow sidewalks on Brock and Wellington; adjacent Hanson Memorial Garage limits opportunities

Significant opportunity for placemaking as a transit-only facility

Limited opportunities for placemaking unless sidewalk is widened; narrow sidewalk on both Queen and Bagot, adjacent land use is a parking lot that facilitates backdoor deliveries to commercial building

Limited opportunities for placemaking unless sidewalk is widened; narrow sidewalk on both Queen and Wellington, adjacent land use is a parking lot that facilitates backdoor deliveries to commercial building

Some opportunities for placemaking in conjunction with North Block District redevelopment if sidewalk is widened; narrow sidewalk on both Queen and King

Conflicts with other vehicles and traffic

High traffic volumes on Brock are impacted by buses merging with traffic; low impact on Bagot due to moderate traffic volumes and wide road space

High traffic volumes on Brock are impacted by increased buses merging with traffic

Buses rerouted on Wellington may conflict with other vehicles due to the narrow road space on Wellington, between Bagot and Queen

Closure of Clarence between Bagot and Wellington has minimal traffic impacts due to low volumes on Clarence; bus-only facility eliminates conflicts between buses and other moving vehicles

Increased bus volumes and parked buses would conflict with high traffic volumes on Queen; relatively low impact to Bagot

Increased bus volumes and parked buses would conflict with high traffic volumes on Queen and narrow road space on Wellington between Princess and Queen

Increased bus volumes and parked buses would conflict with high traffic volumes on Queen; relatively low impact to King

Stakeholder, transit customer, and public preference

Preference for existing location

Preference to stay at or within a one block radius of existing DTP

Preference to stay at or within a one block radius of existing DTP

Preference to stay within a one block radius of existing DTP

Not preferred, as location is two blocks from existing DTP

Not preferred, as location is three blocks from existing DTP

Not preferred, as location is four blocks from existing DTP

Capital cost estimate, relative to other locations

Relatively low capital cost to improve existing site

Moderate capital cost to modify sidewalk space and curb lines and provide bus stop infrastructure


Moderate capital cost to modify sidewalk space and curb lines and provide bus stop infrastructure; opportunities to enhance the site (placemaking) may increase capital cost




Appendix A.6

3

Screening Criteria




Overall Outcome Preferred Carry forward

Least Preferred Do not carry forward

Somewhat Preferred Do not carry forward

Preferred Carry forward




Summary Existing location is preferred as it is in a central location in the downtown, within walking

distance to many key destinations. Transit users

are familiar with the layout of the transit network and

routes. It is served by the most direct route

configuration.

Although visibility is improved for a linear facility,

the configuration in this location would result in similar traffic and bus

conflicts that currently exist and would require more passengers to cross an intersection to transfer.

Limited benefits in relation to the impacts.

The location is somewhat preferable from multiple

perspectives. However, it does not provide the potential for a large

improvement over the existing location in relation to

the impacts and cost to construct a new site.

This location is most preferred overall, as the potential for a bus-only

facility creates significant opportunities for

placemaking, improves the customer experience.

However, potential enhancements to the site may entail higher capital

costs.

Location is too far away from the majority of downtown destinations to provide

convenient access. Transit customers displayed a high

preference for a location that is close to the existing DTP.

Location is too far away from the majority of downtown destinations to provide


preference for a location that is close to the existing DTP. Location is not preferable for

transit operations as significant bus re-routing

would be required.

Although the location is closer to future North Block District redevelopment, the

location is too far away from the majority of downtown destinations to provide


preference for a location that is close to the existing DTP. Location is not preferable for

transit operations as significant bus re-routing

would be required.

Legend

Least Preferred

Somewhat Preferred

Most Preferred

Appendix A.7

Detailed Evaluation of Alternative Solutions

1

Appendix A.7

Detailed Evaluation of Alternative Solutions Qualitative and quantitative comments of Step 2C: Detailed Evaluation of Alternative Solutions

Criteria Description / Considerations

Alternative Solutions Evaluation

Do Nothing Improve the Existing Site Relocate to Clarence Street

Transit Customers

Location of Transfer Point

Proximity to key downtown destinations and the centroid of development

Relatively central location within the downtown

~130m to Hotel Dieu Hospital ~350m to City Hall and Market Square ~160m to Kingston Frontenac Public Library ~100m to Princess Street corridor

Same distance to key downtown destinations as Do Nothing

Relatively central location within the downtown, located approx. 70m from existing site

~180m to Hotel Dieu Hospital ~280m to City Hall and Market Square ~180m to Kingston Frontenac Public Library ~170m to Princess Street corridor

No preference. Distance to key destinations is relatively the same.

Convenience of Transfers

Potential walking distance between transfers

Maximum ~160m walk distance to transfer Majority of transfers require ~85m walk Some transfers may require crossing the

Brock/Bagot intersection

Maximum ~160m walk distance to transfer Majority of transfer trends require ~30-60m

walk Some transfers may require crossing the

Brock/Bagot intersection

Maximum ~100m walk distance to transfer Majority of transfer trends require of transfer

trends require ~30-60m walk Depending on bus bay configuration, majority

of transfers may require a midblock crossing of the bus-only facility

Relocating to Clarence Street and Improving the Existing Site are equally preferred. Similar walk distances and potential crossings to transfer.

User Safety Potential conflicts with buses, vehicles, and driveway accesses when transferring and accessing the site

Potential conflicts with turning vehicles when crossing the Brock/Bagot intersection to transfer

Potential conflicts with three driveway accesses for Bruce Memorial Parking Garage and surface parking lot on Brock Street

Similar potential conflicts with turning vehicles and driveway accesses as Do Nothing

Potential conflicts with parked and slow moving buses

No conflicts with other moving traffic or driveway accesses when transferring buses

Potential conflicts with other moving vehicles at the Brock/Bagot intersection

Relocating to Clarence Street and Improving the Existing Site are equally preferred. Transfers require crossing general traffic at Brock/Bagot, and require crossing moving and parked buses at Clarence.

User Comfort Quality of transit amenities, such as shelters, benches, lighting, and amount of waiting space

Facility is not well maintained with deteriorating or lack of amenities

Limited waiting space, shared with pedestrians (narrow sidewalk on Bagot)

Potential to provide high quality amenities and improve user comfort

Potential to provide additional waiting space

Potential to provide high quality amenities and improve user comfort

Potential to provide additional waiting space

Relocating to Clarence Street and Improving the Existing Site are equally preferred. Similar amenities can be provided to improve user comfort.

Understandability and Legibility

Quality and availability of transit information and signage

Intuitiveness of transfer function and site layout

Visibility of other buses

Limited bus schedule and route information Text size on available signage is small and

cannot be seen from a distance General bus zones are assigned, but buses

do not always stop in the same locations Buildings block visibility when transferring

buses around the corner

Improved visibility of other buses through signage and information

Assigned bus stops improves understanding Buildings block visibility when transferring

buses around the corner

Improved visibility of other buses through signage and information

Assigned bus stops improves understanding Clear visibility of buses in a bus-only facility

Relocating to Clarence Street is slightly more preferred than Improving the Existing Site. Improved visibility and understanding in a bus-only facility. Similar opportunities to improve signage and information exist.

Appendix A.7

2




Accessibility and Universal Design

Ability to comply with accessibility standards and universal design principles

Description of accessibility / mobility barriers

Numerous accessibility barriers exist Uneven curb and sidewalk surface along

Brock Street; including a uneven transition from a brick paved bus pad to concrete sidewalk

Obstructions for mobility devices include hydropoles, trees, benches, garbage receptacles, and limited space between curb and bus shelters

Slope along Brock Street is an inconvenience to mobility devices, but is within accessibility standards

Cross slope along the driveway access for Robert Bruce Memorial Parking Garage and surface parking on Brock Street is an inconvenience to mobility devices

Potential to apply universal design principles and comply with accessibility design standards

Many obstructions may be removed by providing an even hard surface, wider open shelters, and improved placement of streetscape elements

Slope along Brock Street is an inconvenience to mobility devices, but is within accessibility standards

Opportunity to widen sidewalk on Bagot Street to improve accessible clear width

Pedestrian space on Brock Street is wide enough to accommodate an accessible sidewalk as well as transit loading area

Cross slope along the driveway access for Robert Bruce Memorial Parking Garage and surface parking on Brock Street remains an inconvenience to mobility devices

Potential to apply universal design principles and comply with accessibility design standards

Sidewalk and accessible width would be limited due to narrow right-of-way, however adequate street furniture and clear width could be provided

Improving the Existing Site is preferred. Significantly more pedestrian space is available to accommodate accessibility requirements.

Transit Customer Summary

Relocating to Clarence Street is slightly more preferred than Improving the Existing Site. Do Nothing is not preferred.

Kingston Transit Operations

Transit Network Impacts

Directness of route access and efficient bus flow

Current routing to access DTP is relatively efficient

No rerouting and no change in flow efficiency

Current routing to access DTP is relatively efficient

Potential for small increases in flow efficiency

All north-south routes must deviate to stop east-west on Clarence, resulting in greater turning movements

~124,500m of route deviations per day

Improving the Existing Site is preferred. Bus stops and site location provide for efficient bus routing.

Reliability of Operations

Relative increase or decrease in overall bus turning movements

Potential for delays, such as exclusivity of transfer point, impact of traffic congestion, intersection control, etc.

Delays due to unassigned stops and adjacent traffic lanes – buses must either wait until the bus ahead of it leaves the bus stop, or needs to reverse out of the bus bay to merge with other traffic

Occasional conflicts with parked/loading vehicles

Delays will occur when buses merge back into traffic and at adjacent intersections

Bus stops could be assigned to improve operations

Occasional conflicts with parked/loading vehicles could be reduced if bus-only lane and signage are clear

Significant potential delay from increase in total turning movements and through intersection movements

Increased potential delay from greater travel distances

~1,250 more turning movements per day ~200 more through intersection movements

per day Removes conflicts with parked/loading

vehicles

Improving the Existing Site is preferred. Lowest potential for delay from intersection turning movements.

Transfer Point Capacity

Number of bus stops/bays

Ability to accommodate or expand to meet future needs

Number of bus stops vary depending on bus operations – 6 bus zones exist but buses do not always align themselves with the stops

Some space to expand facility on Bagot

7 bus zones that can accommodate 12 buses at the same time

Articulated buses can be accommodated at up to 5 bus stops

Additional space to expand facility on the east side of Bagot Street

5 bus zones that can accommodate 10 buses at the same time

Articulated buses can be accommodated at up to 2 bus stops

Limited potential to expand site, although future buses could stop on Bagot or Wellington

Improving the Existing Site is preferred. More space and greater ability to expand for future needs.

Appendix A.7

3




Operational Function

Visibility and communication between operators

Ability to accommodate bus staging and parking

Ability to accommodate driver layover needs

Buildings on northwest corner of Brock and Bagot are sightline barriers

Limited ability to accommodate bus staging and parking within current site; additional block faces could be used

Location is ~280m to the lunch relief facility

Buildings on northwest corner of Brock and Bagot are sightline barriers

Limited ability to accommodate bus staging and parking within current site; improved bus stop allocation could free some space, but additional block faces could be used


No sightline barriers Some ability to provide additional staging

and bus parking space; additional block faces on Bagot or Wellington could be used


Relocating to Clarence Street is preferred. Greater visibility between buses and ability to meet staging and layover needs.

Kingston Transit Operations Summary Improving the Existing Site

is preferred.

Downtown Community

Opportunities for Placemaking

Ability to create a “place” and support for city-building initiatives

No potential for placemaking Minimal support for city-building

Some potential for placemaking through improved amenities and architectural design, thereby strengthening the presence of the DTP

Large footprint of the site, and distribution along multiple streets limits ability for placemaking

Ability to tie into the placemaking on Princess Street

Some support for city-building

Some potential for placemaking by creating a downtown focal point anchored by transit, attractive architecture, and people-friendly design

Limited pedestrian space for street furniture or for people to gather

Some support for city-building

Improving the Existing Site and Relocating to Clarence Street are equally preferred. Both provide opportunities for placemaking and have drawbacks.

Residential Neighbourhood Impacts

Relative increase or decrease in bus volumes in stable residential neighbourhoods

Relatively low impact to stable residential neighbourhoods when routes access the DTP

Relatively low impact to stable residential neighbourhoods when routes access the DTP; potential rerouting may decrease bus volumes in some residential neighbourhoods

Some impact to stable residential neighbourhoods when routes access the DTP; rerouting introduces bus volumes on Johnson, between Bagot and Wellington, and on Wellington between Johnson and Brock

Future expansion of the site may have more impact on residential neighbourhoods

Improving the Existing Site and Do Nothing are equally preferred. No impact to stable residential neighbourhoods.

Business Impacts

Impact to adjacent businesses

Number of driveways or pedestrian accesses affected

Accommodation of curb space for on-street loading and deliveries

Numerous adjacent commercial businesses, including retail, restaurants with sidewalk patios, offices, banks, and lodging

Driveway and pedestrian access shared with sidewalk space at the DTP

Some existing conflicts with on-street loading and deliveries, particularly on Bagot

Existing land uses are compatible and benefit from increased foot traffic of a DTP

Some potential to reduce impact by rearranging bus stops to a smaller footprint

Driveway and pedestrian access continues to be shared with sidewalk space at the DTP

On-street loading may be strictly prohibited to improve bus operations

Existing land uses are compatible and benefit from increased foot traffic of a DTP

Three major properties, including offices in the Canada Post building and Hayne’s Hall clinic (Queen’s Family Health Team), and commercial/retail at the northwest corner of Clarence/Wellington intersection (Dr. S. Vakan and Associates, Pearle Vision, Market Pharmacy)

All properties have pedestrian access from alternate block faces

Impact to private surface parking lot on the north side of Clarence Street – access would be reconfigured from Brock

Existing land uses are somewhat compatible but would not benefit from increased foot traffic of a DTP

All options are equally preferred. No significant difference in impact to business across the options, as different businesses will be impacted by each option.

Appendix A.7

4




Downtown Community Summary

Relocating to Clarence Street and Improving the Existing Site are equally preferred. Do Nothing is not preferred.

Other Transportation Users

Traffic Impact to traffic flows and congestion (qualitative discussion of level of service at key intersections and midblock segments)

Traffic impacted by buses merging into traffic on Brock and Bagot

Relatively low impact to traffic flows

Traffic continues to be impacted by buses merging into traffic on Brock and Bagot

Potential for negative impacts to traffic due to improvements that prioritize bus movements and pedestrian / passenger space

Potential for positive impacts to traffic due to greater efficiency of bus movements

Improved flow on Brock Street due to elimination of buses merging into traffic

New traffic signals to be installed at Clarence and Wellington intersection

Potential bus-only phase required at Brock/Bagot intersection

Increased delay to general traffic flow, due to greater number of bus turning movements, and intersection control

Closure of Clarence from Bagot to Wellington to general traffic

Improving the Existing Site and Do Nothing are equally preferred. Relatively low impact to existing traffic flows.

Active Transportation

Ease of pedestrian flows to and through the transfer point

Potential improvements to sidewalk infrastructure

Ease of cycling movements to and through the transfer point

Impact on cycling infrastructure

Pedestrians accessing properties along the DTP and walking through share the space and need to weave around transit customers

Existing sidewalk and pedestrian space on Brock is in poor condition, with uneven surfaces

Brock Street is a signed/sharrow cycling facility – conflicts exist between cyclists and buses pulling out of bus stop

Pedestrians accessing properties along the DTP and walking through would continue to share the space and may need to weave around transit customers

Potential to provide additional space and improved sidewalk facilities and streetscaping for pedestrians

Cycling flows and infrastructure may improve from more efficient bus movements and greater visual separation of buses from moving traffic

Removing bus stop infrastructure and transit customers waiting on Brock and Bagot would free up existing sidewalk space and improve pedestrian flows

Pedestrian environment could be improved by removing bus stop infrastructure on Brock and Bagot

Cycling route on Brock could be improved, depending on the allocation of on-street parking

Relocating to Clarence Street is preferred. Pedestrian and cycling flows are improved on Brock and Bagot.

Parking Supply and Access

Change in on-street and/or off-street public parking (approximate number and location of parking spaces)

Impacts to parking access for both public and private lots

No change to existing public parking supply No impacts to the four existing parking lot

accesses

No change to existing public parking supply Potential closure to the parking lot / driveway

access on Brock, east of Montreal – the driveway is not heavily used, and can be accessed from Montreal

Removes 42 angle on-street parking spaces on Clarence Street (including 2 handicap spaces)

Potential replacement of ~20 parallel on-street parking spaces on Brock Street and Bagot Street, and near Bagot and Johnson – these replacement parking spaces are in higher utilized locations

Requires relocation of driveway access to a private surface parking lot on the north side of Clarence Street to Brock Street

Improving the Existing Site and Do Nothing are equally preferred. Minor to no impacts to public and private parking.

Pedestrian Safety Pedestrian safety in the vicinity of the site

Potential pedestrian safety concerns / conflicts, as many transit users and other pedestrians are observed to cross Brock Street midblock, particularly to access the Hotel Dieu Hospital

Potential pedestrian safety concerns / conflicts, as many transit users and other pedestrians are observed to cross Brock Street midblock, particularly to access the Hotel Dieu Hospital

Reduces potential midblock crossings on Brock Street – transit users accessing Hotel Dieu Hospital would cross the Brock/Bagot intersection and continue on the south side of Brock Street

Relocating to Clarence Street Is preferred. Midblock pedestrian crossings on Brock would be reduced for transit customers.

Appendix A.7

5




Vehicular Safety Potential changes and trends in collision impact types

Existing collision history indicates more sideswipe, angle, and rear end collisions on Brock and Bagot at the DTP, and more turning movement collisions at the Brock/Bagot intersection

Similar collision impact types as existing Potential reduction in collisions from more

efficient bus movements and greater visual separation of buses from moving traffic

Potential reduction in sideswipe and angle collisions from buses merging into traffic or from vehicles attempting to avoid buses

Potential increase in rear end collisions from additional traffic signal

Potential increase in turning movement collisions from increased bus turning movements at intersections

All options are equally preferred. Impact to collision trends are difficult to predict and will depend on the final design and construction of the site.

Other Transportation Users Summary All options are equally preferred.

Other Environmental Aspects

Air, Noise, and Vibration impacts

Impact to surrounding properties regarding air, noise, and vibration

No change from existing impacts of bus operations

Site is in close proximity to Hotel Dieu Hospital, which represents a sensitive receptor

Air quality impacts from bus operations is not a significant impact as compared to background roadway traffic

Relatively minor air, noise and vibration impacts

Site is in close proximity to Hotel Dieu Hospital, which represents a sensitive receptor


Localized air, noise, and vibration impacts during surface and subsurface construction

Relatively minor air, noise and vibration impacts

Site is slightly further away from Hotel Dieu Hospital, which represents a sensitive receptor


Slight increase in air quality, noise, and vibration impacts from bus operations due to increased travel distances and potentially greater idling at intersections

Localized air, noise, and vibration impacts during surface and subsurface construction

Do Nothing is preferred. Relocating to Clarence Street is slightly preferred over Improving the Existing Site, although both have relatively minor air quality, noise, and vibration impacts. No air, noise, and vibration from construction impacts in Do Nothing.

Built and Cultural Heritage Resources

Impact to built and cultural heritage resources

Site is adjacent to 1 designated BHR under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, 3 listed sites in the City of Kingston Heritage Register, and 4 properties of interest identified by the City of Kingston

Brock and Bagot Streets are identified as CHLs

No impact as there is no construction or change to the existing condition

Site is adjacent to 1 designated BHR under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, 3 listed sites in the City of Kingston Heritage Register, and 4 properties of interest identified by the City of Kingston

No impact to BHRs anticipated as a dedicated bus lane and bus shelters already exist. Curb alterations with increase existing sidewalk width and improve and enhance the environment in front of resources

Brock and Bagot Streets are identified as CHLs

No impact to CHLs anticipated as current alignment, vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns, and streetscape will not be significantly altered

Construction activities and staging should be suitably planned and undertaken to avoid impacts/protect the identified cultural heritage resources

Site is adjacent to 3 properties of interest identified by the City of Kingston

No impact anticipated as the current angle parking will be converted to dedicated bus lanes, with relatively little impact to existing pedestrian sidewalks

Clarence Street is identified as a CHL No impact to CHL anticipated as current

alignment, vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns, and streetscape view to the waterfront will not be significantly altered

Construction activities and staging should be suitably planned and undertaken to avoid impacts/protect the identified cultural heritage resources

Do Nothing is preferred. Improve the Existing Site and Relocating to Clarence Street are equally preferred. Although there are no construction impacts from doing nothing, streetscape improvements can enhance the environment in front of the cultural heritage resources.

Appendix A.7

6




Natural Environment

Impact to natural environment

Limited to no natural environmental features in close proximity of the site

One City-owned street tree located on Brock Street approximately 35 m west of Montreal Street


One City-owned street tree located on Brock Street approximately 35 m west of Montreal Street, which would not be impacted, given appropriate measures are undertaken during construction activities.


No impact to the natural environment

Do Nothing, Improve the Existing Site and Relocating to Clarence Street are equally preferred. No impacts are anticipated to the natural environment, as long as the tree at the existing site is protected during construction.

Other Environmental Aspects Summary

All options are equally preferred in the long-term.

Do Nothing is preferred in the short-term, as there would be no construction impacts.

Cost and Feasibility

Construction Cost

Relative comparison of construction cost

No construction required, and no cost to implement

No construction costs

Moderate construction costs Moderate to high construction costs, depending on the amenities and streetscaping

Do Nothing is preferred. Improving the Existing Site is more preferred than Relocating to Clarence Street. No construction costs related to Do Nothing; lower construction costs for Improving the Existing Site than Relocating to Clarence Street.

Transit Operating Costs

Relative impact on transit operating costs

No impacts Slight improvement to existing operating costs from more efficient routing and fewer delays at the DTP

Increase in operating costs from increased travel time and turning movements

Additional costs of scheduling routes, bus operator training, etc.

Improving the Existing Site is more preferred than Do Nothing and Relocating to Clarence Street. Transit operating costs may be improved by more efficient routing and bus stop assignment of Improving the Existing Site.

Property Impacts Potential right-of-way and easement requirements

No impacts Potential easements required during construction

Potential easements required during construction

Property impact to reconfigure private surface parking lot access from Clarence to Brock

Do Nothing is preferred. Improving the Existing Site is more preferred than Relocating to Clarence Street. Fewer property impacts from Improving the Existing Site than Relocating to Clarence Street.

Appendix A.7

7




Utility Impacts Description of potential utility impacts

No impacts Minimal impacts Impacts to subsurface utilities, which may require relocation or replacement (construction would be timed to coincide with any future replacement of subsurface utilities)

Do Nothing is preferred. Improving the Existing Site is more preferred than Relocating to Clarence Street. Fewer utility impacts from Improving the Existing Site than Relocating to Clarence Street.

Ease of Implementation

Ability to implement or construct

No changes to implement or construct Construction staging would require temporary bus stops in the vicinity of the site and potential bus rerouting

Construction could be completed within a short to medium timeframe, depending on the level of utilities impact

Construction could be phased, such as improving Brock Street first, and then Bagot Street at a later time

Construction could be completed with little impact to transit customers, as the existing DTP would remain operational during construction

Construction could be completed within a medium to long timeframe, depending on the level of utilities impact

Do Nothing is preferred. Improving the Existing Site and Relocating to Clarence Street are equally preferred. All options are feasible to implement.

Cost and Feasibility Summary

Improving the Existing Site is more preferred than Relocating to Clarence Street.

Although Do Nothing does not result in additional costs or other impacts, the option does not satisfy the problem/opportunity statement and is hence not preferred.

Overall Summary

Improving the Existing Site is most preferred. Relocating to Clarence Street is somewhat preferred. Do Nothing is least preferred.

Appendix A.8

Evaluation Weighting and Scoring

1

Appendix A.8

Evaluation Weighting and Scoring In addition to the qualitative and descriptive evaluation, an evaluation weighting exercise was conducted. The purpose of the evaluation weighting was to quantitatively balance the impacts for each evaluation criteria. The exercise reaffirmed the conclusion that was determined qualitatively. The three step process involved:

Category Weighting: Applying numerical weightings to the main evaluation categories, such that the sum of all categories totaled 100% (Table 1)

Criteria Sub-Weighting: Applying numerical sub-weightings to the detailed evaluation criteria, such that the sum of the criteria in each category totaled 100%. The criteria sub-weightings were multiplied by the category weightings to determine the overall weighting out of 100%. (Table 2)

Scoring the Alternative Solutions: Based on the qualitative evaluation, each criteria was scored for the three alternative solutions. Using the criteria weightings, a score out of 100 was determined for each alternative solution.

Table 1: Evaluation Weighting and Rationale for the Main Evaluation Categories

Main Evaluation Categories Weight Reasoning

Transit Customers 35% Highest weighting because the key study purpose is to improve the passenger experience for transit customers.

Kingston Transit Operations 15%

Moderate weighting because transit operations are important but are secondary to the transit customer experience.

Downtown Community 25% High weighting because the DTP plays an important

role and affects the vibrancy of Downtown Kingston.

Other Transportation Users 10%

Although impact to other transportation users is important, lower weighting because the focus of the study is transit.

Other Environmental Aspects 5%

Although environmental impacts are important, lower weighting because project is within the existing roadway and will have minor environmental impacts.

Cost and Feasibility 10%

Although cost is important, lower weighting because it is more important to make the appropriate investment to create a safe, accessible, convenient, and comfortable DTP.

Total 100%

Table 2: Evaluation Weighting for Each Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Criteria Sub-Weight Overall Weight Transit Customers 35% 35.0 Location of Transfer Point 15% 5.25 Convenience of Transfers 15% 5.25 User Safety 25% 8.75 User Comfort 10% 3.50 Understandability and Legibility 5% 1.75 Accessibility and Universal Design 30% 10.50

100% Kingston Transit Operations 15% 15.0 Transit Network Impacts 20% 3 Reliability of Operations 35% 5.25 Transfer Point Capacity 15% 2.25 Operational Function 30% 4.5 100% Downtown Community 25% 25.0 Opportunities for Placemaking 40% 10.00 Neighbourhood Impacts 30% 7.50 Business Impacts / Opportunities 30% 7.50 100% Other Transportation Users 10% 10.0 Traffic 15% 1.50 Active Transportation 25% 2.50 Parking Supply and Access 10% 1.00 Pedestrian Safety 30% 3.00 Vehicular Safety 20% 2.00 100% Other Environmental Aspects 5% 5.0 Air, Noise, and Vibration impacts 35% 1.75 Built and Cultural Heritage Resources 50% 2.50 Natural Environment 15% 0.75 100% Cost and Feasibility 10% 10.0 Construction Cost 15% 1.50 Transit Operating Costs 20% 2.00 Property Impacts 30% 3.00 Utility Impacts 10% 1.00 Ease of Implementation 25% 2.50 100% Total 100% 100.0

Appendix A.8

2

Table 3: Scoring the Alternative Solutions

Evaluation Criteria Preference Score Weighting

Do Nothing Improve the Existing Site

Relocate to Clarence Street Do Nothing Improve the Existing

Site Relocate to Clarence

Street Transit Customers Location of Transfer Point 7 7 7 5.25 5.25 5.25 Convenience of Transfers 1 7 7 0.75 5.25 5.25 User Safety 4 4 4 5.00 5.00 5.00 User Comfort 1 7 7 0.50 3.50 3.50 Understandability and Legibility 1 4 7 0.25 1.00 1.75 Accessibility and Universal Design 1 7 4 1.50 10.50 6.00 Kingston Transit Operations Transit Network Impacts 4 7 1 1.71 3.00 0.43 Reliability of Operations 4 7 1 3.00 5.25 0.75 Transfer Point Capacity 1 7 4 0.32 2.25 1.29 Operational Function 1 4 7 0.64 2.57 4.50 Downtown Community Opportunities for Placemaking 1 4 4 1.43 5.71 5.71 Residential Neighbourhood Impacts 7 7 1 7.50 7.50 1.07 Business Impacts / Opportunities 4 4 4 4.29 4.29 4.29 Other Transportation Users Traffic 4 4 1 0.86 0.86 0.21 Active Transportation 1 4 7 0.36 1.43 2.50 Parking Supply and Access 7 7 4 1.00 1.00 0.57 Pedestrian Safety 1 4 7 0.43 1.71 3.00 Vehicular Safety 4 4 4 1.14 1.14 1.14 Other Environmental Aspects Air, Noise, and Vibration impacts 7 4 4 1.75 1.00 1.00 Built and Cultural Heritage Resources 4 7 7 1.43 2.50 2.50 Natural Environment 7 7 7 0.75 0.75 0.75 Cost and Feasibility Construction Cost 7 4 1 1.50 0.86 0.21 Transit Operating Costs 7 7 1 2.00 2.00 0.29 Property Impacts 7 4 1 3.00 1.71 0.43 Utility Impacts 7 4 4 1.00 0.57 0.57 Ease of Implementation 7 4 4 2.50 1.43 1.43 Overall Score 49.86 78.04 59.39

Preference Score Least Preferred = 1 Somewhat Preferred = 4 Most Preferred = 7

appendix a supporting documentation of identification and ......appendix a supporting documentation...

Documents