This is the exact embedded text of the captured official document.
Snapshot fd785c262846 · verified 2026-06-05 ·
original document ·
archived snapshot ·
unofficial consolidation, the official version is held by the municipal clerk.
CAPE BRETON REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
www.fathomstudio.ca
In Association with
EXP
Dr. John Gillis
Date
August 18, 2022
Prepared by
2022
"THE GROUNDWORK FOR
ALL HAPPINESS IS GOOD
HEALTH."
- Leigh Hunt
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................ 2
The 2022 AT Plan Overview....................................................3
AT Suitability Criteria..............................................................5
Top 10 AT Priority projects.....................................................9
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION........................................1
1.1
What's Changed Since the 2008 AT Plan?..................2
1.2
The Rise of MicroMobility .............................................4
1.3
The Changing Nature of CBRM.....................................6
1.4
The Benefits of Active Transportation..................... 13
1.5
Community Engagement Findings........................... 18
1.6
Online Survey Results................................................. 25
CHAPTER 2
INVENTORY & ANALYSIS......................35
2.1
Addressing the Health Priorities of CBRM.............. 35
2.2 The 2008 CBRM AT Plan Implementation................41
2.3 Thematic Mapping........................................................41
2.4 Collisions in CBRM....................................................... 57
2.5 Collisions in Canada.................................................... 58
CHAPTER 3
AT MASTER PLAN...................................61
3.1
Establishing Priorities for the New AT Plan.............61
3.2 The 2022 AT Plan Overview....................................... 62
3.3 AT Suitability Criteria.................................................. 64
3.4
Community AT Plans................................................... 66
3.5 Sidewalk AT Facilities................................................. 80
3.6
Rails to Trails................................................................ 82
3.7
References..................................................................... 87
3.8
Provincial Blue Routes................................................ 89
CHAPTER 4
IMPLEMENTATION..................................91
4.1
Cost Estimates and Phasing Plan.............................. 91
4.2 Top 10 AT Priority Projects........................................ 95
4.3 Policy Changes.............................................................. 96
4.4
Maintenance Standards............................................100
4.5 Signage Implementation........................................... 102
4.6
Grants...........................................................................104
4.7
Outreach and Implementation................................ 107
CHAPTER 5
CBRM AT STANDARDS........................ 109
5.1
Guiding Principles..................................................... 110
5.2 Creating an "AAA" Culture in CBRM....................... 113
5.3 Definitions................................................................... 116
5.4
Pedestrian Facilities..................................................120
5.5 Pedestrian Space........................................................122
5.6
Separated Sidewalks.................................................123
5.7
Non-Separated Sidewalks........................................126
5.8
Pedestrian Crossings................................................ 127
5.9
Bicycle Facilities......................................................... 131
5.10 Separated Bikeways - Buffered / Unbuffered....... 132
5.11 Separated Bikeways - Protected Bike Lanes.........135
5.12 Bikeway Crossings..................................................... 139
5.13 At Transit Stops.......................................................... 140
5.14 Mixed Facilities........................................................... 143
5.15 Shared Roadways....................................................... 146
5.16 Rural Roadways.......................................................... 151
5.17 Design Considerations..............................................153
5.18 Nova Scotia Blue Route.............................................. 155
CHAPTER 6
WAYFINDING STANDARDS..................157
6.1
What is Wayfinding.................................................... 157
6.2 Best Practices.............................................................. 160
6.3 Signs in a Mobile Age................................................. 162
6.4
Recommendations.....................................................164
6.5 CBRM AT Brand System............................................ 166
6.6
CBRM AT Sign Types.................................................. 167
APPENDIX A
2008 AT Plan Built Projects..............................................173
APPENDIX B
Sydney River Multi Use Trail Schematic Design..........185
C H A P T E R 0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CBRM's first Active Transportation (AT) Plan was adopted by council in 2008. Since then, the
municipality, province, and federal governments have 3-way cost shared almost $14m - or about $1m
per year - in AT projects from 2008 to 2022. This new CBRM AT Plan will guide the municipality's
investment over the next 20 years, expanding the network and providing more affordable mobility
options for residents, sustainable forms of transportation, and additional options for healthy living
within the municipality. AT Spending is proposed to increase from $1m/year to $1.5m/year.
AT VS RECREATION TRAILS
Active transportation focuses on
commuting between two destinations
- like a home to work or school;
oftentimes replacing auto transportation.
Conversely, recreational trails are usually
used for exercise and enjoyment rather
than for commuting.
This difference is an important
distinction for CBRM. The plan's
proposed AT projects focus on AT
commuting rather than recreational
walking, running or cycling type uses.
While recreational trails have many
benefits, they are not a focus for this
plan and ultimately should be planned,
built, and maintained through a different
municipal budget.
GROWING AT ADOPTION IN CANADA
Since the 2008 plan, there has been
rapid growth and adoption of active
transportation across the country and
around the world.
AT facilities are no longer considered
a non-essential amenity; they are
quickly becoming essential municipal
infrastructure that improve residents'
quality of life. In response to this
attitude shift, government engineering
departments are re-prioritizing their
focus away from auto-centric road design
to multi-modal forms of transportation
including walking, cycling, transit and
more 'complete streets' solutions.
THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR AT GROWTH IN
CBRM
According to the 2016 Census, 43% of
CBRM commuters travel less than 15
minutes to work. This cohort of people
with short commute times is ideal
for future implementation of active
transportation networks, usually
translating to less than 10-15km which
is an ideal distance for most cyclists and
some walkers. Looking at the national
averages for modal split, CBRM has
more drivers (82.6% compared to 74%),
significantly less public transit (2.6% vs
12.4%), less cycling (0.2% vs 1.4%), and
less walking (4% vs 5.5%). It is important
to note this data focuses only on
commuting to work and does not include
commuting to school, or commuting to
shopping, etc.
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
Early definitions of Active Transportation (AT)
focused on human-powered forms of transportation,
like walking/running, cycling, and other self-
propelled mobility variations such as wheelchairs,
skateboards, scooters, in-line skates, cross-country
skiing, and even kayaking. With a recent rise in
personal electric mobility, AT has grown to include
the use electric bikes (e-bikes), Segways, and
e-scooters, which have all recently experience
an uptake in popularity and availability. Active
transportation should be combined with other
modes of transportation like public transit to create
integrated mobility networks throughout the region.
AT FACILITIES
AT facilities refers to physical infrastructure
needed to make active transportation work,
such as sidewalks, pathways, bike lanes, multi-
use trails and on-street bike lanes or shoulders.
The most effective infrastructure creates a
connected network between homes and important
destinations like schools, work, public transit,
downtowns and parks and recreation facilities.
2 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
THE 2022 AT PLAN OVERVIEW
The 2022 AT plan aims to build on the successes of the 2008 AT
Plan by focusing directly on improving the health and quality
of life of residents by expanding AT infrastructure in populated
areas. Overall, the plan works to link population centres to
schools, downtowns, business centres, shopping areas, and other
communities.
This plan lays out the next 20 years of AT investment within the
municipality, focusing on locations able to:
»
Increase AT participation and reduce residents' reliance on cars
»
Create greater social equity and improve peoples lives in
measurable ways
»
Leverage the economic benefits and reduce municipal costs of
traditional transportation network expansion and maintenance
»
Improve safety for vulnerable populations like youth and
seniors.
A key priority for this plan is to shift private vehicle-based
commuting to forms of active transportation. Since commuting is
measured in the national census every 5 years, progress can be
tracked.
AT is most widely used when the trip distances do not exceed 5km for
walking (about a 1 hour walk) and 15-20 km for cycling (about a 1 hour
bike ride). As a result, this 2022 plan focuses more specifically
on projects within CBRM's various urban communities. The
specific communities have been carefully selected by the project
stakeholders and local residents. The primary focus is reducing
vehicle reliance in exchange for safer AT routes connected to
key, routine destinations within CBRM's populated communities
(including Sydney, Sydney River, Sydney Mines, North Sydney, Glace
Bay, New Waterford, and Louisbourg).
In the more rural areas of CBRM, this plan is supported by the
continued expansion of the provincial Blue Routes, implemented by
the Province of Nova Scotia.
CBRM AT VISION
The consultants worked closely with local residents, businesses,
academic institutions, and CBRM's staff and council to develop a
vision statement and goals for the next important phase of CBRM's
Active Transportation plan.
CBRM's Active Transportation Plan update will improve the lives
of vulnerable and every day municipality's residents with the
provision of more equitable transportation options, safer routes for
students, healthier commuting options, and improved connective
infrastructure within CBRM's densest, growing areas.
WORK COMMUTING TARGETS FOR THE AT PLAN
The commuting targets of this 20-year plan aim to change the
modal split in CBRM by:
»
Doubling the walking commuting from 4.1% in CBRM to 8%
»
Increasing cycling or assisted mobility commuting from 0.2%
to 6%
»
Increasing transit commuting from 2.7% to 7%
»
Increasing the % ride share from 8.4% to 12% of all private
vehicle trips.
»
Decreasing private vehicle trips from 82% to no more than
70%
STUDENT COMMUTING AT TARGETS
The Cape Breton-Victoria Regional Centre for Education (CBVRCE)
oversees the education of 12,000 students, with 60% of those
students take the bus. The remaining 40% are a combination of
walkers/cyclists, parent drivers, and student drivers for high
schools. CBVRCE estimates that driving traffic for students is large,
but the figure remains untracked.
This AT Plan sets the following student commuting targets:
»
To reduce bus use from 60% to 55% by increasing the
radius for middle and high school students from 2km to the
provincial standard of 2.5km. Elementary student radius will
remain at 1km (vs the 1.5km provincial standard).
»
To ensure walking/cycling students are no less than 30% of
the population. This target will require a way to track how
students get to school (driving vs walk/cycling).
| 3
Each 1% change represents 340 people in CBRM shifting their
behaviour from one mode of transportation to another
MAX.
TARGETS
2016
2022
2032
2042
4.1%
4.5%
6%
8%
0.3%
0.5%
4%
6%
2.7%
3%
5%
7%
8.4%
9%
10%
12%
82%
<82%
<75%
<70%
WALKING/
RUNNING
CYCLING OR
ASSISTED AT
TRANSIT
RIDESHARE
AS PASSENGER
PRIVATE VEHICLE
MINIMUM TARGETS
| 4
2042 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
AND INTEGRATED MOBILITY TARGETS
| 4
| 4
4 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
AT SUITABILITY CRITERIA
The new 2022 Plan recognizes the significant potential for CBRM's
residents to adopt AT commuting in the forthcoming years due to
the increased availability of micromobility options. Micromobility
includes electric-assisted personal mobility, improved integrated
mobility with buses, support from higher levels of government
with new funding programs, and greater use as the network grows
throughout CBRM.
AT infrastructure can be costly to build and maintain. As such,
it is important to focus spending in the areas that will see the
greatest use. Additionally, the success of the network is tied closely
to its overall connectivity; having numerous small, unconnected
facilities is counter-productive to increasing AT adoption. The more
interconnected the network, the much greater the chance it will be
used. When embarking on building out the AT network, it requires
significant investment before adoption reaches a tipping point.
CBRM's current rate for AT adoption for commuting is less than
5%. However, the Law of Innovation of Diffusion sets out that
mass adoption doesn't usually happen until about 16% adoption
(Innovators are the first group at 2.5%, followed by early adopters
in the next 13.5%). Considering this, AT use among CBRM's
residents is in its infancy, and will require further implementation
and outreach to reach its full potential.
In a large regional municipality, we understand there will be
pressures to make changes to the priorities or to the locations of
the proposed facilities; however, it is vital to remain as consistent as
possible to the proposed plan to ensure the contiguity of the network.
The plan has been designed to address the local needs of the
community and to increase AT adoption as rapidly as possible.
Costs for AT facilities can be substantially reduced when they are
built as part of planned street capital improvements. Since these
programs fluctuate from year to year based on funding availability
from higher levels of government, it is hard to predict when they might
happen in CBRM. Consequently, there will be inherent changes in the
AT priorities based on future street upgrades. On the same token, a
high AT priority project might increase the priority of a future capital
improvement project.
The municipal AT components of this plan are geared towards
municipal owned roads and lands. The Province will address their
contribution to the plan through the Blue Routes. Any additional
AT projects on provincial roads must be developed as a formal
partnership between the Province and CBRM .
Based on the feedback the team received throughout this process,
the following ranking of criteria are listed below:
1.
Projects should be able to assure a high degree of use by the
local community (e.g. hundreds of user per day vs dozens of
users per day) by linking dense population centres to high
desirable destinations (work, school, parks, etc.).
2.
Each project should be able to measurably reduce people's
reliance on motor vehicle transportation in CBRM. The intent is
to reduce vehicle commuting and increasing AT use or transit
use for commuting to work, school, or to complete day-to-day
activities that might otherwise require travel by car. Projects
should decrease traffic congestion and promote a modal shift to
transit and active transportation in CBRM.
3.
Projects should promote social equity amongst CBRM's
vulnerable populations (youth, seniors, those in poverty, those
with disabilities) reducing the requirement for car ownership to
participate in society, education, or the local economy.
4.
Projects that extend or improve upon the existing AT network
to increase the connectivity of the network should be a
priority.
5.
Projects should ensure travel by active transportation is easier,
safer, more convenient and more enjoyable than travelling by
car.
6.
Projects that can be coordinated with future public works
capital investments to create new complete streets should be
prioritized.
7.
Projects should focus on the needs of local residents first - but if
the goals complement tourism, it would be considered an added
bonus.
8.
Projects should improve the design of complete communities in
CBRM
These criteria are listed in relative importance for prioritizing
future AT investment and were part of the criteria for assessing
new projects proposed in this AT Plan. A scoring matrix (Table 1-1)
was developed to assess future projects that might veer from the
recommended plan. In the matrix, each project should be evaluated
and scored by multiplying each criteria score by its sub-criteria
score. Where multiple sub-criteria apply, each should be scored as
well. The total of all the sub-total scores gives the overall project
score. Projects that score:
»
> 50 points have a high priority
»
30-50 points have an intermediate priority
»
20-30 points have a a low priority
»
< 20 should not be built without a logical rationale.
| 5
Criteria
Criteria
Score
Sub-Criteria
Score
Sub-Total
Projects should be able to assure a high degree of use by the local community (e.g. hundreds of user
per day vs dozens of users per day) by linking dense population centres to high desire destinations
(work, school, parks, etc.).
10
> 1000 people/km2
1
10
500-1000 people/km2
0.9
25-500 people/km2
0.8
<25 people/km
0.5
Projects that can be coordinated with future public works capital investments to create new
complete streets should be prioritized.
9
Combine with other Capital Works project
1
9
Land owned by CBRM
1
9
Funding Stream availability
0.5
4.5
Each project should be able to measurably reduce people's reliance on motor vehicle transportation
in CBRM. The intent is to reduce vehicle commuting and increasing AT use or transit use for
commuting to work, school, or to complete day-to-day activities that might otherwise require travel
by car. Projects should decrease traffic congestion and promote a modal shift to transit and active
transportation in CBRM.
8
Directly Connects to or within a downtown
1
Within 2km of a downtown
0.5
4
Within 1km of an elementary school
0.7
5.6
Within 2km of an junior or high school
0.4
Within 0.5km of a park that has courts or sportsfields serving 20 or more sports participants
0.4
Projects should promote social equity amongst CBRM's vulnerable populations (youth, seniors, those
in poverty, those with disabilities) reducing the requirement for car ownership to participate in
society, education or the local economy.
7
Avg Residential Property Assessment within 1km of the project < $150,000
1
7
Project is within 1km of a school
0.5
3.5
Project is within 0.5km of a seniors home with more than 20 seniors
0.5
Project is within 2km of a CBU or NSCC
0.5
3.5
Project directly connects to a bus routes
0.25
1.75
Projects that extend or improve upon the existing AT network to increase the connectivity of the
network should be a priority.
6
Project Connects to an existing AT Network
1
6
Project is within 0.5km of an existing AT Network
0.5
Projects should ensure travel by active transportation is easier, safer, more convenient and more
enjoyable than travelling by car.
5
Project is on an inactive rail line
1
5
Project is on a road that has less than 4 driveways per 100m avg.
0.5
Project has scenic views of the ocean
0.3
1.5
Projects should focus on the needs of local residents first, but if the goals compliment tourism, that
would be considered an added bonus.
3
Project serves the local residents but would also help drive touristm
0.5
1.5
Projects should improve the design of complete communities in CBRM
2
Projects are integrated into new subdivisions or urban developments with over 100 units
1
2
Projects within 0.5km of a new development (<5 years old) with over 100 units
0.5
Total
73.85
Proposed AT Project Name :
Steps.
1. Multiply the Criteria score by the Sub-criteria Score
2. If multiple sub-criteria apply, perform step 1 for each sub-criteria
3. Add up the Sub-total Scores
Table 1-1
AT Project Scoring Criteria Matrix. Sample Scoring Sheet
AT Priorities Based on Score:
High priority: > 75 points
Med Priority: 50-75 points
Low priority: 20-50 points
< 20 should not be built without a logical rationale.
6 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
FUNDING ALLOCATION AND PRIORITIES WITHIN THE COMMUNITIES
As a regional municipality, funding should be allocated
generally proportionally to the urban communities in the
municipality. It would be difficult to appropriate exact amounts
to each of these communities every year, but the funding targets
should be projects that are generally consistent with the population
proportions in the urban communities.
The AT Master Plan in this chapter generally follows the discussed
funding proportions and the scoring matrix on the previous page.
Future public works allocations are difficult to predict since the
engineering department projects five years into the future, and are
based on funding programs available to the municipality through
provincial and federal governments.
CBRM's rural communities will be serviced primarily by the
Provincial Blue Route instead of by CBRM since these roads are
mostly owned and managed by the Province. The Province is
implementing the Blue Route over time as part of their capital
improvements as repairs and expansions are needed. The Province
has no definitive time line for the implementation of the Blue Route
in CBRM; since most roads are upgraded and repaired on a 30-40
year cycle, we would expect much of these improvements to be
made over the life of this AT plan or the next update.
THE AT MASTER LIST
The 2022 AT Plan picks up where the last 2008 Plan left off,
carrying forward a few of the projects which were not implemented
(like the Sydney River Multi-use Trail). The 2022 Plan includes a
wide range of AT improvements in various communities which
follow the AT Suitability Criteria outlined in the previous section.
The new projects also help to extend the network from the 2008
Plan and assumes funding for AT will increase from $1m per year
to $1.5m per year over 20 years, resulting in $30m of built AT
projects by 2042. The master plan outlines the proposed projects
and priorities for implementation in each of the focus communities
for this plan.
Blow-ups of the plan for each community are shown in the Master
Plan Chapter.
AT FACILITIES
There are five AT facility types recommended for the AT master
plan including:
1.
Bicycle lanes (also known as separated bicycle lanes, paved
shoulders, buffered bike lanes, or cycle tracks) which share
the street right-of-way with vehicles. Some bike lanes are
protected or buffered using a combination of horizontal
separation (a painted buffer of a certain width) and vertical
separation (bollards, curbs, flex posts, parked cars, etc.) to
achieve "All Ages and Abilities (AAA)" status - a requirement to
fulfil some funding programs in Nova Scotia.
2.
Multi-use trails are often separated from the street and
shared with walkers, joggers, wheelchairs, bikes and other
personal mobility devices. These facility types are some of the
safest and most used, but they can be more expensive to build
and maintain. Rails to trail conversions like the Coal Town
trail fall into this category.
3.
Sidewalks are dedicated to walkers, joggers and wheelchairs
and part of the connective AT fabric.
4.
Bike boulevards are designated streets where cars and bikes
share the road. Oftentimes, bike boulevards are located on
streets with low speeds and traffic volumes. The streets are
sometimes modified to include bicycle friendly geometry,
vehicle speed bumps, lower speed limits, painted 'sharrows' or
other shared indicators and signage.
5.
Blue routes are provincially designated bicycle infrastructure
that includes painted 1m road shoulders or dedicated multi-
use trails on provincial road right-of-ways.
| 7
Figure 1.2 2022 AT Master Plan
L E G E N D
Bicycle Lanes
Multi-Use Trail
Bike Blvd
Blue Route
Sidewalk
8 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
PHASES TOTALS
The High priority projects were assumed to be completed
in the first 10 years of the AT Plan. The Medium priority
in years 10-15, and the low priority in years 15-20.
Generally this works out to about $1.15m per year but this
does not include capital improvements needed on streets
to make some of these projects work (e.g. road widening
and moving curbs and gutters, moving storm sewers, new
crosswalks, etc).
»
Phase 1 Total (no tax) - $14.1m
»
Phase 2 Total (no tax) - $5.2m
»
Phase 3 Total (no tax) - $3.7m
ANNUAL BUDGET CHANGE
The cost of additional capital works improvements
needed to make the AT infrastructure work could be as
high as an additional 25% of the overall cost, plus annual
inflation and possibly some land acquisition costs, so we
recommend increasing the $1m per year budget to $1.5m.
That would increase CBRM's portion from $330k per year
to $500k per year.
TOP 10 AT PRIORITY
PROJECTS
While Chapter 3 sets out the proposed AT projects in
each community and the priorities of each project (high,
medium and low), there are a number of potentially
high profile projects that could kick start this 2022 AT
Plan. These projects are based on the scoring criteria
results Table 1-1, what we heard from the community
and stakeholders, and the project's potential to raise the
profile of AT in CBRM.
1.
Sydney River Multi-use trail - This trail was
one of the highest requested items in the public
engagement and extends Sydney's waterfront for
locals and tourists alike. Its implementation would
likely be one of the most signature AT projects in
CBRM raising the profile of active transportation.
2.
The Prince and Upper Price Bike Lanes - This
connection will connect downtown Sydney and the
waterfront to the MaryAnn Corbett Trail and the
Mayflower Mall through a densely populated part of
Sydney.
3.
The King Street Bike Lanes - These lanes would
connect a densely populated area of North Sydney
with the North Sydney Mall, and the North Sydney
waterfront.
4.
The Grand Lake Road sidewalk - This very busy
commercial area needs sidewalks on the north side
of the street as soon as possible.
5.
Lingan / Hankard / Victoria Bike Lane in Whitney
Pier - This bike lane will link up to the existing Blue
Route already constructed north of Whitney Pier.
6.
The Kings Road Multi-use trail - Connecting Sydney
River under the 125 highway and connecting to
Sydney.
7.
The Maryann Corbett Trail - extension to downtown
Glace Bay. This 6km extension is the next phase of
this important multi-use trail and has provincial and
municipal jurisdiction.
8.
The Ellsworth / Heelan / Emerald / Union Bike
Lanes - connects the future Blue Route in New
Waterford through downtown.
9.
Esplanade / Kings / George Bike Lanes - This
proposal will extend the George Street bike lanes
and will link much of downtown Sydney and the
waterfront with new AT infrastructure.
10. The Washbrook Creek Greenway - This important
greenway will link several schools through some
dense neighbourhoods in Sydney
| 9
AT VS RECREATION TRAILS
Active transportation focuses
on commuting between two
destinations like a home and
work or school - oftentimes
replacing transportation by
automobiles. Conversely,
recreational trails are usually
used for exercise and enjoyment
rather than for commuting.
This is an important distinction
for CBRM. AT projects
proposed in this plan focus
on AT commuting rather than
recreational walking, running
or cycling type uses.
C H A P T E R 1
INTRODUCTION
CBRM's first Active Transportation (AT) Plan was adopted by council in 2008. Since then, the
municipality has invested in a wide range of high-profile community AT projects in various locations
throughout the municipality, providing more affordable mobility options for residents, sustainable
forms of transportation, and alternative options for healthy living within the municipality.
The municipality - in partnership with
the provincial and federal governments
- has leveraged matching funding for
AT implementation every year since the
2008 AT Plan's adoption, securing about
$1m for various AT projects per year
(1/3 funding from each of the 3 levels of
government). This investment has resulted
in some highly visible and much loved
community AT projects like the Whitney
Pier Community Heritage Trail, the
Greenlink Trail system, and the Maryann
Corbett Trail - as well as local sidewalk
projects. Almost $14m has been spent on
these projects and their subsequent upkeep
since 2008 (about $5m comes from CBRM
funding).
In 2021, with the nearing completion
of many of the AT projects identified in
the 2008 plan, CBRM commissioned the
next phase of its AT plan for adoption
and roll-out in 2022 to guide the next 20
years of investment in AT infrastructure.
Like traditional road and infrastructure
building projects, AT infrastructure is
expensive to install, and, in some cases
maintain, so it is important to provide a
clear rational for prioritizing projects.
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
Early definitions of Active Transportation (AT)
focused on human-powered forms of transportation,
like walking/running, cycling, and other self-
propelled mobility variations such as wheelchairs,
skateboards, scooters, in-line skates, cross-country
skiing, and even kayaking. More recently with the
growth in personal electric mobility, it also includes
the use of personal mobility aids like electric bikes
(e-bikes), Segways, and e-scooters which are growing
in popularity and availability. Active transportation
should also be combined with other modes of
transportation like public transit to create integrated
mobility throughout the region.
AT FACILITIES
AT facilities refers to physical infrastructures
needed to make active transportation work,
such as sidewalks, pathways, bike lanes, multi-
use trails and on-street bike lanes or shoulders.
The most effective infrastructure creates a
connected network between homes and important
destinations like schools, work, public transit,
downtowns and parks and recreation facilities.
33%
CBRM
33%
Province
of NS
33%
Gov. of
Canada
$1M/YR
$14M
AT INVESTMENT IN CBRM
FROM 2008-2022
2008 - 2022
| 1
1.1
WHAT'S CHANGED SINCE THE 2008 AT PLAN?
A lot has changed in active transportation since the plan was
initially launched in 2008. Notably, AT has become more
mainstream, more visible/desirable, and more accessible
to people travelling in cities throughout Canada. These
trends will continue to shift travel behaviours for Canadians,
encouraging increased walking, greater personal mobility and
increased transit over the plan's 20-year lifespan. For CBRM,
it is crucial to expand the AT network while building on the
visible successes of the 2008 AT Plan.
These new trends growing AT adoption include the following:
2. COMPLETE STREETS AND THE RE-PRIORITIZATION OF TRANSPORTATION
Transportation engineers and urban planners long viewed streets through the lens of
moving vehicle traffic. The more recent 'complete streets' movement looks more broadly
at the role of streets in our communities encouraging multi-modal travel including more
biking, walking, and transit trips. Multi-modal transportation is more inclusive because it
provides affordable options for larger segments of the population: Seniors who don't want
to or cannot drive, youth too young to drive, people with disabilities, millennial and others
who want to avoid the cost of owning a vehicle, low-income residents, and those who simply
choose to include cycling and walking along with other options.
1. THE NATIONAL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR CANADA (2021-2026)
In 2021, the government of Canada launched the $400m National AT Strategy with funding
for capital projects and planning projects.
1.
The planning projects have a funding limit of up to $50k for individual planning
projects. This program is designed to "help vulnerable communities and address
structural inequities, given the demographics and/or current state of active
transportation" helping to create 'shovel-ready' projects within 24 months.
2.
The capital project funding will provide up to 60% of the value of municipal projects
with up to 100% funding for projects in indigenous communities like Membertou.
3. BATTERY TECHNOLOGY AND ELECTRIC MOBILITY
In the last decade, new advances in lightweight battery technology have increased
e-mobility's accessibility and public prominence. What used to be the exclusively
relegated to the domain of electric wheelchairs is now available in the form of e-bikes,
e-scooters, e-skateboards. As of 2020, the global electric bicycle market alone is estimated
at $24.3 billion, and is expected to nearly triple to $65.8 billion by 2030. Nova Scotia's
Electric Vehicle Rebate Program offers a $500 rebate for e-bikes with a minimum retail
value of $1,200. The continued growth in electric transportation will significantly increase
the demand for active transportation in Canada.
2 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR A NEW PLAN FOR CBRM?
Moving forward, there will be greater funding opportunities
available to municipalities, increased participation in
AT mobility by residents, acceptance of AT as a viable
transportation option, newer electric options to overcome the
accessibility barriers hindering entry into personal mobility,
and an increased recognition for more inclusive, multi-modal
forms of transportation.
CBRM is in the unique position of being able to access national
and provincial programs to grow its AT network and identify
areas for greater density near its downtowns and population
centres - ultimately increasing the desirability for active
transportation. Lastly, the comparatively low cost for land in
CBRM provides a unique opportunity to expand AT facilities,
thereby growing and improving the region's network.
5. THE HOUSING CRISIS AND INFLATION
Canada's housing crisis began long before the pandemic, but the cost and availability of
housing has been rapidly accelerating due to supply chain issues, material costs, and larger
migration trends of people moving from big cities to smaller urban centres like CBRM.
At the same time, the recent Ukraine-Russia conflict has caused considerable inflation
while substantially increasing gas prices. The additional strain on the cost of driving has
forced people to rethink their relationship with their car - and in some cases, their homes.
Additionally, more people are turning to apartment living rather than home ownership - often
causing increased density in parts of cities where transit and cycling would be considered
appealing and cost effective options. Combining increased density with AT and transit is a good
practice for cities.
6. AT MOMENTUM
When new AT programs were introduced in the early 2000's, there was significant
backlash from drivers and business owners who did not want to share the public roads (or
loose parking spaces) with AT infrastructure. As networks start to build-out, more people
are using them reducing the 'special interest' stigma that plagued some early AT projects.
The cyclist vs. driver mentality is starting to wane in cities that have invested and are
seeing higher use of the At infrastructure.
4. THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
In 2019 pandemic has drastically changed behaviours and well-entrenched norms
relating to transportation, offering city planners and engineers the opportunity to pilot
projects that would have been considered unnecessary before the pandemic. Many
municipalities introduced the 'slow-street' movements - closing down some local streets
to local-only traffic and creating new bicycle boulevards. Additionally, rolling lock-downs
and remote working afforded people the opportunity to start walking or cycling regularly;
these increases are expected to last long after the pandemic.
| 3
1.2
THE RISE OF MICROMOBILITY
Micromobility refers to a range of small,
lightweight vehicles operating at speeds typically
below 25 km/h, driven by individual using human
power or assisted electric power. Micromobility
devices include traditional bicycles, skateboards,
scooters, roller skates, and wheelchairs, as well as
their new electric counterparts: e-bikes, electric
scooters, electric skateboards, gyroboards, electric
unicycles, and electric pedal assisted (pedelec)
bicycles. They can be privately-owned or available
through a shared fleet (often referred to as 'shared
mobility').
In 2020, the global micromobility market was
valued at $44.12 billion and has a projected value
of $214.57 billion by 2030, with a compound
growth of 17.4% from 2021 to 2030 (The Global
Micromobility Market, 2020). Many of the shared
mobility platforms also include a phone app to
show dock stations, charging stations, and vehicle
locations so they are easy to find, easy to return,
easy to 'rent', and easy to charge. In 2021, the
City of Montreal paused its e-scooter pilot project
due to problems with non-compliance amongst
users (no helmets, users not returning scooters to
designated areas, and use outside of designated
areas). Prior to the pause, e-scooter use was 61% of
the micromobility trips, with JUMP e-bikes making
up the remainder of trips. The city's analysis
in 2021 found that while e-bikes were less used
overall, more people respected the regulations
and were able to take longer trips then on
e-scooters. Due to the large size of CBRM, an e-bike
pilot (perhaps expanding on the CBU rideshare
program) may precede shared e-scooters.
For micromobility solutions to grow and prosper
in CBRM, the municipality will have to accelerate
their network implementation and increase the
density of residential units in their downtowns.
Linking the CBU to downtowns in the CBRM will
remain a high priority . The availability of these
new micromobility solutions could double or triple
the number of AT trips taken in CBRM in the next 10
years if the new micromobility trends reach CBRM.
0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
e-skateboards
e-unicycles
e-bikes
electric scooters
$44B
$51B
$60B
$71B
$83B
$98B
$115B
$135B
$158B
$186B
$218B
Figure 1.3 The projected rise in Micromobility worldwide
4 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
| 5
1.3
THE CHANGING NATURE OF CBRM
CBRM is Nova Scotia's second largest municipality.
However, the region has experienced a slow decline in
its population since 1961, when it peaked at 131,507
people. In 2001, the municipality had a population
of 105,965; by 2017, the population was 93,878,
representing an average loss of approximately
-760 people per year (0.8%). In 1995, eight smaller
municipalities were amalgamated by the province to
form the CBRM.
Currently, the municipality sprawls over 2,471 km2
(the seventh largest in Canada behind Ottawa and
Chatham-Kent). The majority of the population
resides along the municipality's northern coast in the
communities of Sydney Mines, North Sydney, Sydney
River, Sydney, Whitney Pier, Glace Bay, New Waterford,
and Louisbourg (see Figure 1.4). These areas have
been selected as the focus for AT projects, as the most
people live, work and go to school here. As such, these
proposed projects will experience the impact the most
people, thereby increasing the potential for AT use.
POST SECONDARY GROWTH
One bright spot in CBRM's economy comes from
Cape Breton University and NSCC. In 2019, CBRM's
population grew for the first time since the
1960's, partially due to increased enrolment from
international students at Cape Breton University.
There was an additional increase of 2,249 non-
permanent residents in CBRM in 2019 when CBU's
international student population grew by about 3,500.
Non-permanent residents generally include temporary
foreign workers and international students.
Cape Breton Island's total population increased
by 1,491 people in 2019 to 134,850 - mostly as a
result of new growth in CBRM. Further, CBU saw its
undergraduate enrolment increase by 44% between
2017 and 2018. Today, international students make up
almost half of the student population at CBU and these
students pay twice as much for tuition as domestic
students, helping to offset the declining domestic
enrolment and dwindling government funding. CBU
currently has a 40-bike bikeshare program on the
campus that is extremely well used.
At the time this report is being written, Nova Scotia
Community College (NSCC) is constructing the new
NSCC campus on Sydney's downtown waterfront.
The $170m campus will open in September 2024
and will accommodate up to 1600 students and 220
140k
120k
100k
80k
60k
40k
20k
0
105,965
102,250
95,887
94,694
93,878
Population (thousands)
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
Figure 1.4
Population decline in CBRM 2001-2017. The new 2021 census data will not be
available until after the summer of 2022.
6 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Figure 1.5 Population Density in Nova Scotia 2016.
staff. The new campus will be one of
the flagship schools out of the 14 NSCC
campuses across the province. The
NSCC is important to the province's and
CBRM's economies. 82% of graduates
are employed within their field of study
within a year, and 94% of those employed
stay working in Nova Scotia. The Sydney
campus graduates about 500 students per
year. As part of this plan's engagement
sessions with CBU and NSCC, there were
discussions of a shared bikeshare program
between the two facilities which should be
explored further.
Active transportation and transit are
vital to both CBU and NSCC students
and staff. In the case of the new NSCC
campus, the parking lot is being scaled
down from 500 cars at the current campus
to 250 cars (most reserved for staff) at
the new downtown campus to promote
students living in the downtown and/or
commuting using transit or AT. Extending
the waterfront AT network and continuing
to expand the network around CBU will be
critical to the success of the campus.
C B R M P O P U L A T I O N
I N 2 0 1 6
98,722
% O F P O P U L A T I O N
O V E R 6 5 +
23%
% O F P O P U L A T I O N
W I T H P O S T S E C O N D A R Y
E D U C A T I O N
50%
U N E M P L O Y M E N T
R A T E
17.6%
Figure 1.6 NSCC Waterfront Campus opening in 2024.
| 7
DEMOGRAPHICS
An 'age structure graph' (or population pyramid), provides a
good social narrative of the population distribution in CBRM.
Generally speaking, there are three types of population
pyramids including:
Expansive: Pyramidal in shape, the
expansive population pyramids show a
larger percentage of the population in the
younger age cohorts, usually with each age
cohort smaller in size than the one below
it. This type usually indicates a young and
growing population.
Constrictive: Constrictive population
pyramids are used to describe populations
that are elderly and shrinking. Constrictive
pyramids can often look like beehives and
typically have an inverted shape with the
graph tapering in at the bottom.
Stationary: Stationary, or near stationary,
population pyramids are used to describe
populations that are not growing. They are
characterized by their rectangular shape,
displaying somewhat equal percentages
across age cohorts that taper off toward the
top.
CBRM's population is the stationary pyramid, but it does
have a bulge around 60 years old (Baby Boomers) and 19-
24 years old (millennials) age groups. The latter curve is
expected to move up the pyramid, meaning the bulge in the
15-25 year olds will produce a bulge in the 0-4 age groups in
10-years time, due to 15-25 year olds having having children.
Similarly, if life expectancy continues to increase, we will see
the Baby Boomer bulge (50-70 year olds in 2016) be around
70-90 years old in two decades (2026-2036). There should be
another bulge in young families, newborns and seniors in
CBRM over the next decade.
Silent
Gen.
Baby Boomers
Millennials Gen-X
Post
Millennials
13%
12,350
14,755
22,310
44,860
Age 0-14
Age 15-29
Age 30-64
Age 65+
16%
24%
48%
Figure 1.7 Population Pyramid For CBRM (2016)
Figure 1.8 CBRM average age distribution projection to 2026
49,625 44,655
Male
Female
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
0 to 4 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 69 years
70 to 74 years
75 to 79 years
80 to 84 years
85 years and over
2006
105,925
94,285
82,672
2016
2026
8 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Like many communities in Atlantic Canada, CBRM has a large
proportion of seniors with a bulge in the 55-75 year range
extrapolating from the 2016 population pyramid (Fig 4) up to 2021.
In 2021, the largest 5-year age category is now in the 65-70 year
category. About 24% of the CBRM population in 2016 was over 65
years of age, representing a high seniors population. A second,
smaller bulge is found in the 20-30 year old cohort representing
about 15% of the total population. As it relates to the most vulnerable
age populations for AT, the 5-14 year old age group (8% of the
population) and over 65 (24% of the population) would be considered
vulnerable and primary targets for new AT infrastructure.
In contrast to CBRM's population changes, Membertou's population
has increased from 912 people in 2011 to 1015 people (11.3%
growth or 2.25% per year).
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
In 2019, Statistics Canada released its growth projections for Nova
Scotia up to 2043 illustrating a range of potential growth scenarios.
The most ambitious scenario called for 1.078m people by 2043 and
1m people by 2025. Just a few months after the release of this report,
the worldwide pandemic hit, surpassing all high growth targets and
reaching 1m by December of 2021. Most of this new growth is coming
from young people moving out of larger cities and provinces. In the
first quarter of 2021, 5,696 people moved to Nova Scotia from other
countries and other parts of Canada. By July of 2021, Halifax saw a
year over year increase of 9,000 new residents due to Nova Scotia's
safety record through the pandemic and the province's relatively low
housing prices.
In 2019, NS welcomed 7,580 new permanent immigrants (a 27%
increase) before pausing the program as a result of COVID in
2020 (See Figure 1.9). The 2021 immigration figures are expected
to exceed 2019. The government of Nova Scotia is targeting to
double its population to two million by 2060 by attracting 25,000
newcomers per year through a combination of migration from
other parts of Canada and strategic immigration efforts. While
Halifax is seeing much of the growth since the pandemic, there
is every reason to believe that CBRM could capture some of these
new immigrants to surpass the current average loss of about 1,200
people per year. CBU is already capitalizing on its international
student growth, helping to increase CBRM's population for the
first time in five decades. Many of the immigrants coming to Nova
Scotia come (in order of highest to lowest) from India, China, the
Philippians, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria. All of these countries
have a strong cycling and walking culture and many will be looking
to do what is culturally familiar once they get to Nova Scotia.
Tourism in Cape Breton is also starting to accelerate with recent
international recognition as a safe and exciting destination:
1.
Travel + Leisure Magazine named Cape Breton Canada's #1
Island Destination 4th year in a row.
2.
Voted #1 Island in North America by Conde Nast Traveler
magazine.
3.
Cape Breton acknowledged by CNN Travel as one of the Worlds
best destinations to visit in 2022.
These tourists will benefit from new AT infrastructure enhancing
their visit to CBRM and may eve entice some to live in one of Nova
Scotia's most scenic communities.
While there is optimism for slow growth in CBRM for the first time
in a half century, there are still challenges to overcome. Without a
full snapshot of the more recent immigration trends as a result of
COVID, the consultants used an average age distribution model. This
model projects the population trend of CBRM from 2016-2026 by
using historical data from the last decade (2006-2016) as shown in
Figure 1.8. However, this analysis does not account for new trends
in discussed in the immigration section. Assuming past trends, we
might expect CBRM's population to decrease from 94,285 people (in
2017) down to 82,672 people in 2026 (see Figure 1.4).
Figure 1.9 Immigrants to NS
| 9
Figure 1.10 2006 & 2016 CBRM Commuting destination for the employed labour force aged 15 years and over vs
Canada commuting destinations in 2016.
MODAL SPLIT
The National Census provides information on commuting methods
in Canadian municipalities. As the 7th largest municipality in
Canada, it is unsurpising commuting to work is highly skewed
towards vehicles in CBRM. In the 2006 census, walking and cycling
are a combined category (6.4%), whereas in the 2016 census, the
two are broken out separately (walking - 4.05%, cycling - 0.2%).
Between these two census periods it would appear that walking
and cycling has decreased in CBRM; however, only 25% of those
surveyed were asked the question about commuting, so there is a
margin of error accompanying this question. From 2006 to 2016,
there appears to be a slight increase in public transit (from 1.9% to
2.7%), but also an increase in driving from 77.6% to 82.6%.
Looking at the national averages for modal split (see Figure 1.10),
CBRM has more drivers (82.6% compared to 74%), significantly
less public transit (2.6% vs 12.4%), less cycling (0.2% vs 1.4%), and
less walking (4% vs 5.5%). It is important to note this data focuses
only on commuting to work and does not include commuting to
school, or shopping, etc. However, data offers a useful comparison
for the community survey's findings highlighted in this chapter.
The data seems to indicate little change between the time the
last AT plan was adopted in 2008 and the 2016 census; however,
it will take several years to change commuting patterns once the
infrastructure is fully implemented. It will be interesting to see
what the upcoming 2021 census data will show.
76%
2006 CBRM
Commuting
2016 CBRM
Commuting
2016 CANADA
Commuting
Driving
Car Passenger
Transit
Other
Active Transportation
12%
83%
74%
5
12
7
8%
2%
3%
6%
4%
10 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Figure 1.11 2016 CBRM average travel duration
commuting to work
TRAVEL TIME TO WORK
According to the 2016 Census, 43% of CBRM commuters travel less
than 15 minutes to work (see Figure 1.11). The short commute times
are ideal for potential active transportation usersbecause it often
translates to less than 10-15km in distance in urban areas, or 30-45
minutes of cycling and less than an hour of walking.
The long form census asked more detailed questions. The average
travel time by car in CBRM to 17.6 minutes, the average travel time by
bus at 31 minutes, and by cycling/walking at 12.8 minutes.
As the municipality moves to increase density near its downtowns
and employment centres, there could be a substantial reduction in
commuting time which will bode well for future AT development.
Denser the urban centres correlates with increased use of AT
infrastructure. If the municipality continues to sprawl, the more
likely people will resort to travelling by motor vehicles. Policies which
encourage denser forms of development in the urban cores will be
much more sustainable and much less costly for the municipality.
COMMUTING DURATION IN CBRM
Mode of Commuting
< 15 mins
15 - 29 mins
30 - 44 mins
45 - 59 mins
> 60 mins
Avg mins
Car, truck or van
43%
39%
13%
3%
2%
17.6
Driver, alone
43%
40%
13%
2%
2%
17.5
Ride-share to work
47%
34%
13%
3%
3%
18.2
Sustainable transportation
45%
26%
18%
6%
5%
20.1
Public transit
14%
26%
37%
12%
11%
31.6
Active transport
64%
26%
7%
1%
2%
12.8
Other method
36%
24%
18%
6%
15%
34.7
5 KM/HR
1.5 KM
7 KM
15 KM
25-30 KM/HR
50-70 KM/HR
Average Speed
Average Distance in 15 mins
SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS
According to the 2016 census, CBRM resident's median total
income in 2015 was $53,833, compared to the national median
income of $70,336. After tax, these incomes translate into $48,237
for CBRM and $61,348 for all of Canada. The average income for
CBRM households in 2015 was $68,465 compared to $76,797 for
Canada households.
CBRM's economy was historically resource based on coal mining,
steel, and fisheries. These industries essentially collapsed during the
'90s, compounding the population decline and economic challenges.
Despite COVID, the municipality is poised to realize successes due to
tourism, the developing technology sector, post-secondary growth,
cruise ship growth related to the new berth, a new port, immigration,
and the anticipated rapid growth of the province.
Comparing the latest labour force data between July of 2020 and
2021, employment in Cape Breton increased by 1,500 (+3.1%)
while labour force was down 1,000 (-1.7%). Between 2021 and
2020, the number of unemployed people decreased by 2,500 and
the unemployment rate decreased by 4.1 percentage points to
12.6% in July 2021 (16.7% in 2020, 16.7% in 2019, and 14.7% in
2018). The number of persons not included in the labour force
increased by 300 when compared to the same period one year ago.
These are all optimistic signs for the future of CBRM but reinforce
the importance of more affordable forms of transportation for
residents in order to participate in the work force.
EDUCATION
Education levels in CBRM are slightly increasing over time.
25% of the population does not have a minimum high school
education, 25% has a high school diploma, and the remaining 50%
has pursued post secondary education (see Figure 1.13). These
education levels are just slightly lower than the Canadian average,
but this can be accounted for due to the higher average age of the
population in CBRM compared to Canada.
CBRM is home to the Cape Breton University, housing
approximately 5,500 students, the Canadian Coast Guard College
which houses about 200 students and 100 staff, and the new NSCC
Waterfront Campus which will be home to 1,600 students and 220
staff. The Cape Breton-Victoria Regional School Board oversees
12,545 students, 1,004 teachers, and 867 non-teaching staff in
more than 41 schools in CBRM and Victoria County.
For CBRM's AT network, it will be important to link population
centres with educational facilities. With the closest downtowns in
the region. NSCC's recent move to downtown Sydney should bring
life and vitality to downtown businesses while expanding housing
for students in the downtown. It will be critical to link these
important education centres within the overall AT network.
Education is also linked to economic prosperity; when the
regional economy languishes, the availability of transit
service and AT infrastructure is that much more appealing for
impoverished residents.
Figure 1.12 CBRM Employment income groups in 2015
for the population aged 15 years and over in private
households.
Figure 1.13 CBRM Highest certificate, diploma or
degree for the population aged 15 years and over in
private households.
12 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0
Obesity Rate (%)
Obesity Rate (%)
Walk + Bike + Transit Trips (% of Total)
Walk + Bike + Transit Trips (% of Total)
USA
Australia
Canada
Great Britain
Norway
Netherlands
Latvia
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Figure 1.14 Obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg · m−2) prevalence and rates
of active transportation (defined as the combined percentage
of trips taken by walking, bicycling, and public transit).
"Walking, Cycling, and Obesity Rates in Europe, North America,
and Australia" (Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 2008,
5, 795-814)
1.4
THE BENEFITS OF ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
A comprehensive active transportation plan has the potential
to help residents move safely and efficiently throughout the
CBRM - from home to school, work, shops, parks, and other
important, routine destinations. Communities invested in active
transportation recognize significant health and safety benefits,
improved sustainability outcomes, and even economic and
financial benefits. The following objectives have been identified by
CBRM stakeholders as important to this plan:
COMMUNITY HEALTH
By providing better AT infrastructure to link homes to various
destinations in the municipality, people become more physically
active - reducing obesity and increasing longevity and quality of
life for residents.
In 2018, 63.1% of the Canadians aged 18 or over were classified
as overweight (27% were classified as obese and 36% classified
as overweight). The current obesity rates are twice as high as
they were in the 1970s. Obesity is a serious health problem, often
linked with many chronic diseases, including: type 2 diabetes,
cardiovascular disease, hypertension, osteoarthritis and certain
types of cancer. In 2021, the correlated increase in chronic disease
costs the Canadian health care system upwards of $7 billion; this
cost is projected to increase to $9 billion in 2021.
Many studies note the direct correlation of obesity rates and the
percentage of walking or biking trips in countries around the world
(see Figure 1.14). Specifically, as walking and cycling participation
increase, obesity rates go down. In contrast, inactivity results in
obesity and disease prevalence; physical activity is associated
with improved physical, mental, and social health outcomes, and a
reduction in disease prevalence and associated costs.
ENVIRONMENT & SUSTAINABILITY
Active transportation has the lowest pollution rates in terms of
transportation, reducing reliance on fossil fuel consuming cars
(which in turn removes tons of CO2 emissions from the air), reduces
air pollution and energy consumption, and creates more equitable
communities. This also improves people's health as well as the
health of the local environment.
In 2019, 25% (185.8 megatonnes of CO2) of Canada's total
greenhouse gas emissions (730 megatonnes total) came from
the transportation sector, with a further 26% (191 megatonnes)
from the oil and gas sector. Between 1990 and 2019, emissions
increased by 21.4%, or 129 Mt CO2 eq. Active Transportation could
help meet Canada's ambitious 2030 climate change targets of 511
megatonnes. Almost half the noxious air pollutants in urban areas
are emitted by automobiles and almost 20% of toxins in freshwater
rivers, lakes, and wetlands come from the transportation sector.
In CBRM, the greatest opportunity for reducing environmental
impacts related to driving is to convert the <15 minute driving
commuter cohort to AT users. In CBRM, 43% of all driving
commutes are less than 15 minutes (15km) and these short
distant driving commutes are ideally suited for new AT
commuters. These short distance commuters travel about 98
million kilometres per year in CBRM, consuming 11.5 million
lites of fuel and creating 33,600 tons of CO2 every year. For every
1% increase in AT commuting (352 people) in CBRM, there is a 1.2
million kilometre reduction in driving, a 139,000 litre reduction in
fuel use (926 barrels of oil), a 410 ton reduction in CO2 emissions,
$195k savings from fuel spending ($550 per person).
| 13
COMPLETE COMMUNITIES
To develop a user base and ensure AT plans are feasible, planners
and urban designers must ensure the shortest possible routes to
key destinations. Studies demonstrate individuals who choose
active transportation for every day purposes prefer routes that
are efficient, safe, and aesthetically pleasing; developing AT
routes that meet these standards yields denser, better-connected
communities than those without. A reduction in urban sprawl
results in a non-auto dependent commuting cohort, reducing the
overall amount of money a municipality spends on infrastructure
implementation, and maintenance. Consequently, the reduced
municipal costs and higher tax rates allow for more funding to pay
for recreation and transportation infrastructure. The combination
of compact streets, improved parks, and transportation networks
creates communities that are easy to navigate, safer, cleaner - and
ultimately - offer a higher quality of living.
Compact grids and accessible distances create equitable
communities. Communities that are auto-dependent and require a
car restrict opportunities for lower income individuals who cannot
afford to own a car. However, offering alternative transportation
methods gives individuals access to jobs, health services, and
community-based amenities that are otherwise inaccessible.
Complete communities are also healthier communities. Within
CBRM, 40.59% of survey respondents live within 10km of their
workplace - suggesting it is reasonable many people would be
able to walk or bike to work. Increasing physical activity reduces
the chances of chronic diseases leading to premature illness and
death. Creating dense, walkable communities and implementing
AT networks offers individuals the ability to walk or bike to work,
thereby increasing their physical activity level while reducing their
risk of developing an illness later in life. The ultimate result of
incorporating active transportation is estimated to be $3 dollars in
health savings for every dollar spent.
The combined efforts of policymakers, local employers, city
builders, and many other individuals are required to build
complete communities. However, the cost-savings in health and
infrastructure and the increased quality of life are instrumental in
developing CBRM's future.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
In coastal communities like Cape Breton, active transportation
networks provide access to scenic resources - increasing tourism
attraction and spending in local communities. Cycling tourism
is rapidly growing around the world; in 2016 Ontario's Cycling
Tourism Plan resulted in cycling visitors spending $428 million
in the province (1.8% of all visitor spending) . Throughout Cape
Breton, there are several bicycle groups specializing in multi-day
tours. Further, the nearby Cabot Trail is a popular destination for
cyclists throughout the country. Connecting the AT Plan to the
proposed Blue Routes and nearby trails will ensure that CBRM
is primed for developing its own cycle-based tourism, thereby
potentially garnering the municipality similar economic gains.
Copenhagen's bi-annual cycling estimates that for every kilometre
travelled by bicycle, the city gains approximately $0.14. While this
seems like an insignificant amount of money, when combined total
cost savings equal almost $41 million.
In 2012, Copenhagen saved $357 million a year in health costs
due to bike-related health savings. While it is critical to note that
Copenhagen is the pinnacle of a bicycle-oriented city (80% of the
population bikes every day), this study demonstrates the immense
benefits investing in active transportation could yield for CBRM.
14 |
C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
developing heart
disease or cancer in half
cycling to work can
cut a rider's risk of
frequent physical
activity reduces anxiety and
age-related weight gain,
leading to improved
sleep quality
MENTAL
PHYSICAL
400-1000
calories an hour
cycling burns between
32% higher
a physically active lifestyle had a wellbeing score
than inactive individuals
reducing the
chances of
developing
cognitive changes
related to dementia
exercise is linked
to brain health,
as we age
regularly cycling and walking
burns fat, tones muscle,
and improves flexibility
| 15
THE HEALTH
BENEFITS OF ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION
16 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
CBRM'S 15 MINUTE DRIVING COMMUTER POPULATION (42% OF ALL COMMUTES) RESULTS IN:
EVERY 1% INCREASE IN AT COMMUTING IN CBRM (352 PEOPLE) RESULTS IN :
98 MILLION KM DRIVEN EVERY YEAR
CREATES 33,600 TONS CO2
410 TON REDUCTION IN CO2
11.5 MILLION LITRES OF FUEL CONSUMED
139K LITRE REDUCTION OF FUEL
REDUCTION IN 926 BARRELS OF OIL
EQUIVALENT OF 274 HOMES
ELECTRICITY USE FOR 1 YR
$195,000 TOTAL SAVINGS FROM FUEL OR $550
SAVINGS PER PERSON PER YR
1.18 MILLION KM REDUCTION IN DRIVING
THE ENVIRONMENTAL
BENEFITS OF ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION
This page is intentionally blank
| 17
| 17
1.5
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FINDINGS
In the summer and fall of 2021 (through the height of the COVID-19
pandemic) the consultants and the CBRM project managers began
a community outreach process to inform the directions and
recommendations of this plan. The engagement process included
a social media outreach strategy through Facebook and Instagram,
over 20 stakeholder interviews, the creation of a dedicated project
website to share information and progress with the public and
provide feedback to the consultants (www.CBRM-atplan.ca), an
online survey, a full week of workshops, meetings and site visits in
CBRM. The report also included draft presentations at key stages of
the plan. The outcomes from those sessions are presented below:
AT STRATEGY BRAND
A brand was developed and adopted early in this project to unify
the messaging, graphics, and communication methods for the
project from start to finish. The "CBRM In Motion" tagline was
developed to communicate the objective of this project to residents
and stakeholders. The early intent of the brand was to use it on
future signage, future communications, the website, and future AT
development projects after this plan was completed.
SOCIAL MEDIA OUTREACH
A comprehensive social media campaign was launched about four
weeks before AT Week to ensure maximum participation during
the week-long community engagement sessions. CBRM pushed
the campaign through its Facebook and Instagram (@cbrmgov)
recreation portals which have over 2,500 followers.
DEDICATED WEBSITE
A dedicated project website was created and launched in August
of 2021 holding all of the links for consultant and community
feedback, including links to the online survey, the Instagram posts
(which was part of the social media outreach), and key timeline
milestones of the project. The website included sign up links for the
community workshops as well as regular updates for the public to
provide additional feedback.
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
Over 20 stakeholder interviews were conducted with community
leaders that represent diverse community interests. The
consultants spoke to people whose work is dedicated to economic
development, climate change mitigation, tourism generation,
environmental sustainability, education, transportation and more.
The stakeholders recognize that these are early days for AT in
CBRM and that the high visibility of some of the signature projects
should bode well for future plans and projects.
Stakeholders praised the overall improved transit system,
including improved bus service, signature projects, and improved
active transportation connections between select communities
across CBRM. In addition, the local connections to the Nova Scotia
Blue Route have been well received in the community and should
result in both local use and tourist use.
Figure 1.15 CBRM>>IN>>MOTION Social Media posting examples
18 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Figure 1.16 CBRM IN MOTION brand templates, colour schemes, typefaces, icons and graphic standards
| 19
CONCEPT DIRECTION 2
ICONS
TYPEFACE:
POPPINS
COLOUR PALETTE
RGB 26 31 86
HEX 1A1F57
RGB 106 184 121
HEX 2E9592
RGB 252 204 92
HEX FCCC5C
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy
nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi
enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit
lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem vel eum iriure
dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore
eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et ac.
PARAGRAPH HEADER
HELP US PLAN
FOR THE FUTURE
However, several gaps in the transit system were also flagged
by stakeholders. Areas that require attention included lack of
infrastructure, negative perceptions around active and public
transit users, outreach and education, and maintenance of existing
infrastructure. In particular, safety was flagged as a huge concern
for people who may want to use active transportation more, but
feel uncomfortable doing so. Signage was also raised several times,
praising CBRM for their trails and existing assets, but commenting
this knowledge is informal and could be better disseminated.
Stakeholders felt there were connections to be made between
improved active transportation options and the various
portfolios they represented, like climate change, tourism, and
economic development. In particular, stakeholders wanted to see
redevelopment options for the major transit routes leaving and
entering Sydney, including Prince Street, George Street, and Kings
Road/Esplanade. In terms of approaching this work, stakeholders
wanted to ensure we were taking an all ages and abilities approach
to planning, as well as looking at how active transportation options
could contribute to improved equity, planning for growth, and
community cohesion. All agree that AT is fundamental part of
city-building and improved quality of life in CBRM and it has the
potential to create greater equity for all populations and age groups
in the municipality.
The issue of ATV use came up at several meetings, however despite
some strong sentiments to the contrary, most people recognize
that the ATV groups have been instrumental in helping to
implement the AT network in the municipality and will continue to
be important partners moving forward.
Most groups recognize the amazing potential of the yet-to-be-
realized Sydney River Multi-use Pathway and many groups
lamented the wide swath of waterfront land that is underutilized
due to the old railway ownership. Most agree that the stretch of
rail-line from Open Hearth Park to the Sydport connector rail line
will likely never be used again and would be ideal as a multi-use
trail between Sydney River and downtown Sydney. Most agree
this project would be a signature AT project that would be widely
used by the local community and tourists alike. At the same
time, most groups recognize the need for a better AT connector
between Sydney and North Sydney in the absence of a public ferry
connection.
Interviews with the school board, CBU and NSCC underscored
the importance of better AT networks around local schools
and the surrounding neighbourhoods, and the need for full AT
connectivity between CBU and downtown Sydney and the new
NSCC Waterfront Campus.
20 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
LOUISBOURG
SYDNEY &
SURROUNDING
AREA
GLACE BAY,
DOMINION &
NEW WATERFORD
NORTH SYDNEY &
SYDNEY MINES
SEPTEMBER 13, 6 PM
LOUISBOURG FIRE HALL
7485 MAIN ST, LOUISBOURG
SEPTEMBER 14, 6 PM
ROYAL CAPE BRETON ROOM,
JOAN HARRISS CRUISE PAVILION
74 ESPLANADE, SYDNEY
SEPTEMBER 15, 6 PM
GLACE BAY MINERS FORUM
151 LOWER N ST, GLACE BAY
SEPTEMBER 16, 6 PM
JOHN J. NUGENT FIREMEN'S CLUB
1 ELLIOT STREET, SYDNEY MINES
1-3PM MEETINGS WITH CBRM
STAFF AT CITY HALL
3:30-6PM CONSULTANTS TOUR
OF COMMUNITY
6-8:30PM PUBLIC WORKSHOP IN
LOUISBOURG
9-12AM GROUND TRUTHING IN
LOUISBOURG
1:30-3PM CBU/NSCC WORKSHOP
6-8:30PM PUBLIC WORKSHOP IN
SYDNEY
9-12AM GROUND TRUTHING IN
SYDNEY & SURROUNDING AREA
1:30-3PM CBVRCE SCHOOL
BOARD MEETINGS
6-8:30PM PUBLIC WORKSHOP IN
GLACE BAY
9-12AM GROUND TRUTHING IN
GLACE BAY, DOMINION & NEW
WATERFORD
1:30-3PM CBRM COUNCIL
WORKSHOP
6-8:30PM PUBLIC WORKSHOP IN
NORTH SYDNEY
8-11AM GROUND TRUTHING
IN NORTH SYDNEY & SYDNEY
MINES
11-12:30 PM WRAP UP WITH
STAFF
SEP
SEP
SEP
SEP
SEP
13
14
15
16
17
ALL PARTICIPANTS ARE ENCOURAGED TO BRING A MASK TO THE EVENTS TO WEAR AT YOUR DISCRETION.
Cape Breton Regional Municipality (CBRM) is creating a new Active Transportation Plan.
The Plan will outline infrastructure upgrades and new routes required to improve the
walkable and wheelable network across the Municipality.
We welcome everyone to participate in AT week activities throughout September 13-17,
at the locations, dates, and times below. The design consultants for this project, Fathom
Studio, will lead the sessions to gather feedback from the community.
CBRM ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
ENGAGEMENT WEEK ACTIVITIES
MONDAY
TUESDAY
WEDNESDAY
THURSDAY
FRIDAY
Figure 1.17 CBRM IN MOTION AT Engagement Week events summary
| 21
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP
The consultants hosted 6 workshops over the course of
AT Week which was scheduled from Sept 13-17 in 2021.
Over 50 attendants attended the various sessions during
engagement week. The following is a summary of the
findings and suggestions.
Louisbourg Workshop, Sept 13, 2021
Residents that participated in the Monday evening
workshop highlighted the need to connect AT routes to the
Parks Canada assets at both ends of the Town (Fortress
Louisbourg and the Louisbourg Lighthouse). The group
noted the new Develop NS Visitor Experience Project
near the waterfront and work completed to create new
sidewalk connections to recent downtown streetscape
improvements. While lamenting the loss of the school
in the community, there was general agreement that a
waterfront connection was needed to connect between
the community and the end of the Parks Canada multi-use
trail on the Kennington Cove Road. The group discussed
the possibility of a multi-use trail through the old fishery
property meeting up at the Commercial Street Extension.
Sidewalks from Main Street to this location was also seen
as important. The next high priority for the community
was to link the Lighthouse to downtown on an AT route.
The group noted the new sidewalks on the Havenside
Road could connect up with the old rail corridor which
is grown over but still used today. The old rail line could
function as a multi-use trail to the lighthouse and to a
coastal trail all along the waterfront to the east of the
lighthouse over to the West Shore Road. There was much
discussion about the need for better wayfinding signage
and the important work of the ATV community in trail
building and maintenance around the town.
CBU / NSCC Workshop, Sept 14
Staff participants from CBU and NSCC both noted the
high use and importance of the Maryann Corbett trail for
students and other members of the community. The group
was anxious to continued extensions of this trail into
downtown Sydney and Glace Bay. With NSCC's impending
move to the waterfront, they are anxious to see a similar
level of connectivity with their new campus and would
appreciate the Sydney River Multi-use trail connection to
move students off of Kings Road and onto the waterfront.
CBU already has a well used bikeshare program (40 bikes)
and NSCC commented that they might want to explore a
shared service between CBU and NSCC. Both NSCC and
CBU mentioned that they would benefit from adequate
density alloted to new zones around the campuses to
allow for some multi-res housing for students. NSCC
commented that they are cutting their parking down from
500 spaces at the current campus to 200 spaces on the
new campus so there will need to be provisions to deal
with student parking in the downtown and access from a
more remote parking lot (possibly near Open hearth park)
using AT or a student shuttle service like at the Dartmouth
Campus. There was some discussion about the need for
bollards on the trail to keep ATV's off it.
Sydney Workshop, Sept 14, 2021
The Sydney workshop on Tuesday Sept 14 was well
attended with about 25 participants working at 5 tables.
Participants attended from many of the surrounding
communities including Westmount, Sydney River,
Sydney and Whitney Pier. Many of the groups were highly
supportive of new sidewalks near schools, new on street
bike lanes, and specifically of the need to implement the
Sydney River Multi-use Trail. There was also consensus
that new projects like the Washbrook connector have
been well received but need to be extended into the
surrounding communities and connected to other future
AT infrastructure. There was some discussion about
transit service routes and timing limitations and the need
to connect future AT routes to transit services and making
transit bike friendly. There was also discussion about
the need for a safe bike route from the Mayflower Mall to
downtown Sydney and the overall pedestrian danger of
Welton Street and the crosswalks and sidewalks on this
street specifically. The groups agreed that bike lanes and
bike paths are currently a sporadic patchwork and there's
not enough safe routes yet to effectively move the dial on
commuting in CBRM. There was some comments about
parking in downtowns being mostly free and readily
available so car use is high.
CBVRCE School Board Workshop, Sept 15, 2021
Members of the school board participated in an afternoon
22 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Figure 1.18 Louisbourg Workshop
Figure 1.19 Sydney Workshop
| 23
workshop where several issues were identified including:
»
Sidewalks - lack of sidewalks, condition of sidewalks, or
narrow width of sidewalks makes walking to school in
some areas dangerous. Need to do a condition assessment
on sidewalks around the municipality. Sidewalks around
schools are not generally provincial responsibility. The
Board only gets capital funding from the province. No
other pots of money.
»
Crosswalks and lack of crossing guards in some locations
is an issue for safety for some schools.
»
Of the roughly 12,000 students in 38 schools, 60% are
bused on 86 full-time buses and 40%. There are many
students unnecessarily riding buses and many parents
drive their kids to school. The walking distance standards
for elementary students is 1.6km for the province and
1.0km for CBRM. For middle school and high school, it is
2.4km for the province and 2km in CBRM.
»
There are not many kids biking to school
»
The school board has been trying to create incentive
programs to get kids walking or biking. Food has been a
great motivator. There needs to be a culture shift from
protecting kids to protecting them from obesity and
mental health issues.
»
CBVRCE Would be happy to partner with CBRM on
programs to get kids walking and biking and that may
mean a program for parents to make them feel more
confident about the safety of the network.
Glace Bay, Dominion, New Waterford Workshop, Sept 15, 2021
Several participants in the workshop are committed cyclists
and are highly supportive of new AT infrastructure. The Coal
Town Trail has been a huge blessing for the communities it
goes through but it also attracts other CBRM residents and
tourists for recreational walking and cycling. There has been
a good working relationship between many of the other trail
user groups like the ATV users and other groups and this
could be a model for future rail conversions in CBRM. For the
Coal Town trail to be a true AT connector, it must connect
better into downtown Glace Bay and to the Maryann Corbett
trail (at both ends). There are many other off-road trails in
the community that are well used by walkers and cyclists.
The community has been following the Glace Bay and Area
Revitalization Plan for downtown improvements, trails, and
new parks. The coastal trail is well used by locals and has
the potential to be a real tourist destination but it needs to be
formalized more and better safety measures need to be put in
place for the eroding shoreline. Many of the sidewalks in the
community are very old and are in very poor shape. There is a
real need for some safe, on-street bike lanes in the communities.
North Sydney & Sydney Mines Workshop, Sept 16, 2021
Participants at the workshop highlighted a number of critical
issues with AT infrastructure in the communities including:
»
The need for an AT connection between North Sydney
(both sides of Sydney Harbour still need to be connected).
»
The main streets in North Sydney and Sydney Mines
desperately need AT infrastructure like bikes lanes or
bike trails.
»
The future of the rail line through the community is
less certain than other parts of CBRM and will likely
be preserved for future rail for the foreseeable future.
There is less opportunity for a Coal Town Trail on this
side, so it's all the more important to develop the other
infrastructure in the community.
»
The waterfront streets through both communities should
have both bike lanes and sidewalks for locals and tourists.
»
Some of the parks and sports fields are not well connected
by trails in the communities.
»
Plans for a new high school in the industrial park should
include sidewalks and bike lanes.
»
An AT connection between North Sydney and Sydney
mines is a priority.
»
Passengers waiting at Marine Atlantic might enjoy a bike
rental at the terminal through the communities if the AT
connections were installed.
24 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
1.6
ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS
An online survey was launched the week prior to AT Week (Sept
13-17, 2021) and remained active for 2 months until November
2021. 649 participants filled out the survey and the results are
summarized in this section below. The first series of questions
were categorizers, designed to tease out differences between
genders, age groups, employment status, and community.
These categories may be useful for CBRM in the future to better
understand the needs of the various communities in CBRM.
Q1) What is your gender?
Almost two-thirds of the survey respondents were female (67.23%).
This may indicate a preference for AT topics by women, women
were more active in finding the link to the survey than men, or
more comfortable filling out the survey than men. Other online
surveys in CBRM have a more equitable breakdown of men and
women so this degree of participation seems to indicate a greater
interest in the topic and potentially higher participation in AT
projects going forward. On-the-ground surveys of use should
confirm or disprove this theory.
Q2) How old are you?
The largest age demographic represented by survey respondents
were individuals aged 50-64 years old (31.89%) which is generally
the most populous age group in CBRM. The remaining respondents
consist of individuals aged 21-34 (17.03%), 35-49 (27.07%), and 65+
(19.20%).
Individuals under 21 had the lowest survey response rate (4.80%).
Consequently, the results of this survey may not incorporate the
desires of CBRM's youth population, a key group interested in AT.
The lack of youth response could indicate outreach-related issues
rather than a lack of interest in AT. Secondly, research suggests
survey responses from youth participants are declining at national
and international levels. Due to the project's implementation and
long-term regional effects, the AT plan has a significant effect
on the region's younger generation. As such, future consultation
and outreach should make a specific effort to engage the younger
audiences on the platforms that they frequent.
Male
Male
Male
Female
Female
Female
Non-binary
Non-binary
Non-binary
Prefer not to say
Prefer not to say
Prefer not to say
Q1) What is your gender?
Answered: 647 Skipped: 2
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
under 21
21 - 34
35 - 49
50 - 64
65+
Q2) How old are you?
Answered: 646 Skipped: 3
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
retired
in school
working
Not working
Q2) Are you currently...
Answered: 647 Skipped: 2
| 25
Q3) Are you currently...
Over half (57.96%) of the survey population are currently
working. The remaining respondents are retired (24.88%),
in school (13.45%), or not working (7.11%). Given most
respondents are currently employed, this reflects a need for
AT routes to connect people from their homes to places of
work. Secondary consideration should be given for AT routes
connecting individuals from their residences to primary,
secondary, and post-secondary educational institutions.
Q4) What CBRM community do you live in?
Over a quarter of respondents (29.48%) live in Sydney. Glace
Bay/Dominion/Reserve Mines (15.59%) and Sydney Mines/
North Sydney (14.66%) are the communities with the second
and third largest representation. Generally, these responses
follow the population in these communities. To maximize
AT use, placing new AT routes in densely populated areas
will be essential. The Blue Routes will address the more
rural areas of CBRM.
16.05% of survey respondents did not have their
community listed. This may reflect participants outside
of CBRM or residents in CBRM that do not consider
themselves as 'rural' residents.
Q5) Do you own...
Car ownership represents the largest demographic in the
survey population. Respondents own one (56.63%) or two
or more (29.80%) cars (86% car ownership). The majority
of the population (93.13%) do not own a motorcycle. Over
half (55.4%) of respondents own one or more bikes (36.79%
own one bike and 18.57% own two or more bikes). 2.4%
of the respondents own an e-bike and we will expect this
number to climb rapidly over the next 10-20 years. 2% of
respondents own a wheelchair and 15.50% own one or more
ATV's. 13.7% own a scooter or a skateboard.
Given the high bicycle ownership in CBRM, we would expect
relatively high uptake of multi-use trails. In all the age
categories above 35, about 1/3 of the respondents owned
bikes. In the 21-34 category, less than 20% owned bikes and
below 21 years of age, less than 10% owned bikes. Looking
more specifically at bike ownership in the survey, a pivot-
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Sydney
Glace Bay /
Dominion /...
New Waterford
Sydney Mines /
North Sydney
Westmount
Louisbourg
Whitney Pier
Rural CBRM
Not listed
Q4) What CBRM community do you live in?
Answered: 648 Skipped: 1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
no
yes, I own one
yes, I own 2 or more
a car/truck
A motorcycle
a bike
an e-bike
a wheelchair
an ATV
a skateboard
or scooter
Q5) Do you own...?
Answered: 647 Skipped: 1
33%
33%
37%
43%
44%
49%
53%
57%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Glace Bay / Dominion / Reserve Mines
Louisbourg
New Waterford
Whitney Pier
Westmount
Sydney
Sydney Mines / North Sydney
Rural CBRM
Q5a) % Bike Ownership in CBRM Communities
26 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
poor
adequate
average
good
excellent
Walking
trails
Sidewalks
Bike trails
& bikes lanes
Transit
service
Parks
Q6) How would you rate the following in your local community?
Answered: 646 Skipped: 3
table from the raw data suggests the following ownership
in these CBRM communities (see Q5a).
Q6) How would you rate the following AT amenities in your
local community?
The highest rated amenities in CBRM were, in order of
highest to lowest, parks, walking trails, sidewalks, transit,
and lastly, bike trails/lanes. At least 1/3 of all responses
rated all amenities as poor showing that many people
are not happy with the level of service. Over 60% of the
respondents rates bike trails/lanes as poor showing the
area that CBRM needs the most attention. Almost half
the respondents rated transit as poor as well. A range of
10% to 26% of respondents felt current AT amenities were
either "Adequate" or "Average".
Few residents rated the current AT amenities as excellent
(1.12% for bike lanes; 2.56% for current transit; 2.56% for
transit service). Overall, walking trails (6.76%) and parks
(5.54%) received the highest response in the excellence
category but these were still fairly low.
Q7) How would you rate the following in CBRM?
Respondents seemed to be more forgiving of AT
infrastructure when looking at CBRM as a whole. Perhaps
because they don't know these areas as well as their
local community. Still, the 'poor' rating is lower for
CBRM than it is for their local community. The trend of
what people like and dislike in CBRM follows the trends
in their local community. This suggest residents are
somewhat satisfied with the current infrastructure for the
municipality when compared to response rates for specific
communities. Response rates in the excellent ranking
remain low however. Again, these responses suggest a
need for targeted AT improvements in the region, with a
specific focus on improving bike trails, transit service, and
sidewalks.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
poor
adequate
average
good
excellent
Walking
trails
Sidewalks
Bike trails
& bikes lanes
Transit
service
Parks
Q7) How would you rate the following in CBRM?
Answered: 640 Skipped: 9
| 27
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
never
sometimes
usually
always
Walking/Runni
ng
Biking
Bus
Car Pool
My vehicle
Q10) How often do you travel to work/school using the
following modes?
Answered: 550 Skipped: 99
Q8) On average, how much time do you spend daily on the
following activities?
The most popular forms of physical activity is walking,
with biking and running a distant second. Almost 50% of
respondents said they walked for 30mins to an hour per
day. Most cyclists (22.39%) spend less than 30 minutes
biking, or 30 minutes to an hour (12.12%). Runners
(17.84%) spend less than 30 minutes or 30 minutes to an
hour running, (9.61%). Walking for 30 minutes to an hour
was the most popular form of physical activity (52.17%
said 30 minutes). Additionally, respondents spent less
than 30 minutes (16.59%) or 1-2 hours (20.45%) walking
a day. Skateboarding and ATV'ing were the least popular
activities. Skateboarding's low popularity on the survey
could be attributed to the lack of the youth response rate.
This activity is specifically popular for teenagers and
young adults; additional outreach may be required for a
more accurate response.
Future AT routes should focus on systems encourage
walking, cycling and running due to their popularity
among residents.
Q9) How do you get around CBRM?
Unsurprisingly, most respondents use the car regularly
(83.28%) to get around CBRM. The second most popular
transportation method was walking sometimes (37.88%)
to regularly (29.18%). The fewest respondents use a
wheelchair (0.73%) or skateboard regularly (0.92%).
The majority of individuals using public transit relied
on it rarely (18.51%). About 5% of the respondents cycle
regularly or sometimes (16%). Carpoolers rarely used the
service (16.85%), or sometimes (12.64%), but rarely used
the service regularly (3.30%). Overall, inline skating/
skateboarding and wheelchair/motorized scooters were
the least regularly used method of transportation. As
previously stated, most respondents get around CBRM in
their cars followed closely but less frequently by walking,
then biking, then transit.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
N/A
rarely
sometimes
regularly
Car/Truck
Public Transit
Walking
Bicycle
ATV
Car Pool
Inline Skating
/ Skateboard
Wheelchair /
Motorized
Taxi
Q9) How do you get around the CBRM? Check all that apply
Answered: 627 Skipped: 22
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
N/A
less than 30 minutes
30 mins to an hour
1-2 hours
More than 2 hours
Biking
Walking
Running
Skateboarding
ATV'ing
Q8) On average, how much time per day do you spend on the
following activities?
Answered: 627 Skipped: 22
28 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Less than 2 km
Less than 2 km
Less than 2 km
Between 2 and 5 km
Between 2 and 5 km
Between 2 and 5 km
Between 5 and 10 km
Between 5 and 10 km
Between 5 and 10 km
Between 10 and 25
Between 10 and 25 km
km
Between 10 and 25 km
Greater than 25 km
Greater than 25 km
Greater than 25 km
N/A
N/A
N/A
Q11) What is the approximate distance from your home to your
work/school?
Answered: 569 Skipped: 80
Less than 10
Less than 10 minutes
minutes
Less than 10 minutes
Between 10 and 30
Between 10 and 30 minutes
minutes
Between 10 and 30 minutes
Between 30 mins to
Between 30 mins to an hour
an hour
Between 30 mins to an hour
More than an hour
More than an hour
More than an hour
Q12) On average how long is your typical commute (one way) to
your work/school?
Answered: 510 Skipped: 139
Q10) How often do you travel to work using the following modes?
When comparing these results to the 2016 Commuter
Census results, there are some general similarities but the
census question asks binary questions, while this survey
adds the frequency consideration which provides slightly
different results. For instance, in the 2016 census, 86% of
commuters used their car in CBRM. In this survey, when
asked how frequently, respondents 'always' use their car
56% of the time and with less frequency only up to 77%
of the time. Walking and running and carpooling to work
happens occasionally up to 25% of the time.
Biking was the least popular method for commuting to
work regularly (0.40%), followed by carpooling (1.60%),
walking/running (4.51%), and bus (5.93%). According
to a 2016 StatsCan survey, 12.4% of Canadians use
public transit, 12.1% carpooled, and 6.9% used active
transportation (walking or cycling) on average. Ultimately,
CBRM's reliance on AT and alternative transportation
methods are below the national average, suggesting a
need for improvements across the region.
Q11) What is the approximate distance from your home to
your work/school
What is considered as walkable can vary according
to distance and physical ability. However, a walkable
distance is generally considered to be a 45-60 minute
walk (approximately 5 km). 24% of respondents live
less than 5km from their work suggesting it may be
possible to increase walking commuting in CBRM. A
10km bike ride takes around 25-30 minutes at an average
speed of 16-20km/hr. Almost 42% of all respondents live
within 10km of their work or school so with good bike
infrastructure, it should be relatively easy to increase
bike ridership for commuting.
These findings paint a real picture of the opportunity for
AT expansion in CBRM.
No, it would not
No, it would not make
make
any difference
any difference
No, it would not make
any difference
Possibly more often
Possibly more often
Possibly more often
es, definitely
es, definitely more often
more often
es, definitely more often
Other (please
Other (please specify)
specify)
Other (please specify)
Q14) If the walking/biking/transit infrastructure was improved
in your community, would you use it more frequently to get to
work/school?
Answered: 557 Skipped: 97
| 29
Q12) On average, how long is your typical commute (one
way) to your work/school?
Over half (54.12%) of survey respondents spent 10 to
30 minutes getting to work or school. 30.59% spent less
than 10 minutes, and 12.35% spent 30 minutes to an
hour. Based on previous responses to survey questions,
we can assume the majority of respondents rely on
cars as a method of transportation. However, with 30%
of the respondents taking less than 10 mins to get to
work (even if by car), this category could be converted
to bike use or running relatively easy with the right
infrastructure.
Q13) If the walking/biking/transit infrastructure was
improved in your community, would you frequently use it
more frequently to get to work/school?
"Yes, definitely more often" (38.42%) was the most
responded to category, reflecting a solid desire for a AT
improvements to change behaviours. If we also consider
the 'possibly more often' (22.44%), that's over 61% of all
CBRM commuters could be enticed into other forms of
transportation if improvements were made in the AT
network.
Q14) Are you interested in using alternative (active
transportation) strategies to get around CBRM?
More than half (54.03%) of respondents said they would
be interested in using active transportation methods to
get around CBRM. Over a quarter (28.99%) selected "Not
Sure." "No" received the lowest response rate with 16.98%.
Coupled with responses in the previous categories,
this suggests while participants rely on their cars, the
implementation of improved AT networks could be widely
adopted by the community.
Q15) If no, Why not? (please check all that apply)
Weather and snow-clearance (37.09%), destinations are too
far (35.62%), safety concerns (35.16%), and destinations
are not connected by trails/sidewalks (34.25%) were the
most responded to categories. Over one quarter (26.94%)
relied on the habitual use of a vehicle, 15.07% felt active
transportation was too physically demanding (this might
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Physical
health and...
to improve my
mental health
to reduce
pollution
to reduce
reliance on...
For the social
benefits
To reduce costs
Other (please
specify)
Q16) If yes, why? (Please check all that apply)
Answered: 407 Skipped: 242
Physical health and exercise
To improve my
mental health
To reduce
pollution
To reduce reliance on
fossil fuels
For the social benefits
To reduce costs
Other (please specify)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Not Sure
Not Sure
Not Sure
Q14) Are you interested in using alternative (active
transportation) strategies to get about CBRM?
Answered: 583 Skipped: 66
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Destinations
are too far
Destinations
are not...
Physically too
demanding
Habitual use
of vehicle
Weather and
snow-clearance
Safety
concerns
No interest
Other (please
specify)
Q15) If no, why not (Please check all that apply)?
Answered: 219 Skipped: 430
Destinations are not
connected by trails/sidewalks
Physically too demanding
Habitual use of vehicle
Weather and snow-
clearance
Safety concerns
No interest
Other (please specify)
Destinations are too far
30 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Very comfortable
Comfortable
Uncomfortable
Very uncomfortable
Not sure / Not applicable
Walking on a
paved
multi-use
trail
Walking on a
gravel
multi-use
trail
Walking on
the sidewalk
Walking on
the shoulder
of a rural
road
Walking on
the shoulder
of a town
road
Q17) Please indicate your comfort level with regard to walking for
each of the following statements?
Answered: 564 Skipped: 85
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Very comfortable
Comfortable
Uncomfortable
Very uncomfortable
Not sure / Not applicable
Q18) Please indicate your comfort level with regard to biking for
each of the following statements?
Answered: 537 Skipped: 112
Biking on
a paved
multi-use
trail
Biking on
a gravel
multi-use
trail
Biking on
the
sidewalk
Biking on
the
sidewalk
Biking on
arterial
(major)
streets,
with
painted
bike lanes
Biking on
arterial
(major)
streets,
with wider
curb lanes/
shoulders
Biking on
arterial
(major)
streets,
sharing the
road with
vehicles
be overcome by new electric micromobility), and 19.18%
said they were uninterested.
Connectivity and distance are two of the biggest issues
regarding the implementation of active transportation in
the region. Future strategies should consider intra- and
interconnectivity throughout the region, and methods of
transport that are not physically strenuous like around
coastal shorelines that are flat. Supporting new e-bike
and e-scooter infrastructure could also eliminate the
strenuous fears. Addressing safety, connectivity, and
strenuousness in the strategy could win over some
potential naysayers.
Q16) If yes, why? (please check all that apply).
Over three-quarters (86.24%) of the survey respondents
were interested in physical health and exercise, 68.04%
wanted to improve their mental health, 60.20% were
interested in the reduction in pollution. Similarly,
53.81% were interested in reducing their reliance on
fossil fuels. 42.26% were interested in AT for the social
benefits, and 55.53% were interested in cost reduction.
3.69% said they were interested in AT for other reasons.
Overall, this suggests that CBRM's population interest
revolves around the use of AT for managing a healthy
lifestyle. Future networks should focus on enabling
physical activity. Secondary focus should be on strategies
that reduce pollution and fossil fuel emissions.
Q17 Please indicate your comfort level with regards to
walking for each of the following statements:
When asked about their comfort level regarding different
walking environments, 47.49% of respondents felt
very comfortable walking on the sidewalk (42.11% said
comfortable, 5.56 said uncomfortable, 3.05% said very
uncomfortable), walking on gravel multi-use trail (38.49%
said very comfortable, 41.37% said comfortable, 9.53%
said uncomfortable, and 5.94% said very comfortable), or
on a paved multi-use trail (49.55% said very comfortable,
37.73% said comfortable, 7.00% said uncomfortable, and
2.51% said very uncomfortable) as the most enjoyable
walking experiences. Comparatively, respondents
rated walking on the shoulder of a rural road (31.07%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Q19) Please indicate your level of agreement with the following
statements, regarding initiatives that might encourage you to
walk or bike more often:
Answered: 491 Skipped: 158
Improved
sidewalk
and
pathway
mainten
ance
More
sidewalks
and
pathways
Im
proved
road
main
ten
ance
More bike
lanes or
paved
shoulders
for cycling
(on-street)
More
multi-
use
trails
(off-
street)
Better
educa
tion for
cyclists
and
pedes
trians
Better
educa
tion for
motor
ists
Reduced
traffic
speeds
More
bike
parking
at key
destina
tions
Secure
bike
parking
at work/
school
Shower
and
locker
rooms
at work/
school
Im
proved
signage
for bike
and
pedes
trian
routes
A
cycling
and
trails
routes
map
More
connec
tions
to key
destina
tions (i.e.
shop
ping,
school,
down
town)
No
improve
ments
are
neces
sary, the
existing
trails
and
side
walks
are
meeting
my
needs
Nothing
will
encour
age me
to walk
more
often
| 31
said very comfortable, 36.61% said uncomfortable, 21.79% said
comfortable, and 6.25% said very comfortable), and walking on the
shoulder of a town road (38.28% said very uncomfortable, 35.96%
said uncomfortable, 18.42% said comfortable, and 4.11% said
comfortable) as the most uncomfortable walking experiences.
This suggests CBRM's future AT plan should consider paving
and broadening sidewalks to encourage use and improve the
user's overall experience. Gravel can be considered for multi-
use trails, but shoulder paths should be avoided.
Q18) Please indicate your comfort level with regards to biking for
each of the following statements:
When asked about their biking preferences, the majority of
respondents preferred biking on a paved multi-use trail (37.71%
said very comfortable, and 26.08% said comfortable), biking on
a gravel multi-use trail (24.1 6% said very comfortable, 29.03%
said comfortable), and on minor residential streets (11.78% said
very comfortable, 38.82% said comfortable) as their preferred
place to bike. Major arterial streets with wider curb lanes/
shoulders (12.38% said very uncomfortable and 28.14% said
uncomfortable) and sharing the road on major arterials (32.34%
said very uncomfortable and 27.48% said uncomfortable) were
disfavoured by the survey population. Future cycling plans
should avoid implementing cycling lanes on major arterials and
opt for multi-use trails or bike lanes on minor arterials. These
implementations will enable rider comfort for future AT users.
Q19) Please indicate your level of agreement with the following
statements, regarding initiatives that might encourage you to walk
or bike more often:
When offered different areas of potential improvement,
respondents selected improved sidewalk and pathway
maintenance (58.80%), more sidewalks and pathways (56.93%),
improved road maintenance (62.60%), and more multi-use trails
(off street) (53.46%) as the areas requiring the most attention.
The initiatives that were the least responded to were shower and
locker rooms at work/school (21.98%), reduced traffic speeds
(23.37%), and more bike parking at key destinations (31.08%).
Despite the fact that the three latter categories had the fewest
respondents, at least 20% of the survey population flagged these
areas as requiring attention and improvement. This suggests
residents feel there are many areas requiring improvement to
facilitate the implementation of CBRM's AT network.
Q20) Please indicate your level of agreement with the following
statements, regarding issues that may make you use your vehicle less
Most respondents felt an improved trail and bike system would
increase the likelihood of them using a vehicle less. Access to
carpool was the least popular improvement method (9.43%). 6.93%
of respondents said nothing would encourage them to drive their car
less often. The need for connectivity and improved transportation
networks has been strongly echoed throughout the survey
document. As a result, connectivity and trail improvements should
be the AT plan's primary focus going forward.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Q20) Please indicate your level of agreement with the following
statements, regarding issues that may make you drive less:
Answered: 478 Skipped: 171
Fuel prices
greater than
$1.50/L
Fuel prices
less than
$2.00/L
Convenient
public transit
system
Access to
carpool
Access to a
Car Share
(a vehicle
available for
communal
use)
Improved
trail and bike
system
Nothing will en
courage me to
drive my vehicle
less often
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
32 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
| 33
SUMMARY
CBRM
AT SURVEY
86% own one or
more cars
To get to work:
Of the survey respondents:
Overarching Goals
Respondents regularly use
the following methods to
get around CBRM:
18.57% own one or
more bicycles
83.28% drive
5.17% cycle
To understand how CBRM's residents access the community and the current
interest in active transportation, a survey was distributed amongst the
municipality's residents. Currently, the majority of residents own and drive
vehicles for their primary transportation method. However, most respondents
live within the community and have shown an interest in using active
transportation if they were given the opportunity and infrastructure to do so.
Of the 649 survey respondents, the survey found that:
0.40%
always cycle
40.59% of
respondents live within
10km of their school/
place of work
84.71% of respondents
commute for less than 30
minutes a day
More than half of
respondents would be
interested in using AT methods
29.18% walk
0.92% skateboard/
inline skate
7.08% use transit
2.06% ATV
3.30% carpool
0.73% use a
wheelchair
3.80% taxi
4.51%
always walk/run
56.20% always
use their own vehicle
Focus on improving and adding to the
existing infrastructure (improved sidewalk,
road and pathway maintenance, and more
road and cycling pathways) to increase
ridership in throughout the CBRM.
Respondents were interested in AT to
improve their overall health, increased
exercise, and reducing reliance on fossil
fuels and resultant pollution
Reducing shared bike lanes an
supporting e-bike and e-scooter
infrastructure would address fear-
related issues surrounding AT use,
potentially increasing the number of users
in the municipality.
34 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
To understand the next 20 years of AT projects for CBRM, it is imperative to fully understand the
existing conditions potentially influencing future AT projects, lessons learned from past project's
implementation, new priorities underlying future routing decisions for different AT types, and the
potential health impacts of those decisions. Ultimately, this section focuses on developing a suitability
analysis for prioritizing future AT infrastructure to formulate the AT master plan in the following chapters.
C H A P T E R 2
INVENTORY & ANALYSIS
O B E S I T Y R A T E I N C B R M
42%
S Y D N E Y - V I C T O R I A
C H I L D P O V E R T Y R A T E
36.5% (2020)
L I F E E X P E C T A N C Y
I N C B R M
2YRS LESS THAN
NOVA SCOTIANS
4YRS LESS THAN
CANADIANS
2.1
ADDRESSING THE HEALTH
PRIORITIES OF CBRM
Municipal governments serve to address the needs and priorities of local
communities as they relate to land use, local infrastructure maintenance,
planning and upkeep (transportation, water/sewer/stormwater, recreation,
parks, etc.), and local services (fire, police, recycling and waste disposal, transit,
finance, planning, etc.). Though healthcare is a provincial jurisdiction, municipal
operating expenditures often contribute to the social determinants of health.
Municipal services like social housing can be direct contributors while other
services like recreation or transportation are indirect contributors.
Planning is a major, indirect contributor to public health as this department
often establishes where people can live, the density and dispersion of the
municipality's population, access to water, sewers, parks and recreation, and
- to some extent - the economic prosperity of the region. Generally speaking,
the more a community sprawls, the more dependant its residents become on
automobiles, thereby negatively affecting a neighbourhood's overall walkability.
Oftentimes, the municipality must work with its provincial and federal partners
to address the unique health-related needs of its population. In the case of CBRM,
there are age-related illnesses (obesity, atherosclerosis, Alzheimer's, stroke,
etc.) associated with its older population, environmental illnesses from past
industrial land uses (cancers, respiratory illnesses, etc.), and poverty related
illnesses (addictions, malnutrition, mental health, etc.). Life expectancy in the
municipal is about two years shorter than the provincial average and three
years less the national average due to the factors above. CBRM residents
have a life expectancy of 78.2 years, as compared to 80.4 for NS, and 82.1 for
Canada. In CBRM, one in three residents is considered obese, while smoking
rates continue to exceed both the provincial and national averages. In 2020,
| 35
the Sydney-Victoria riding had a child poverty rate of 36.5%, the
highest in Nova Scotia (27.8% in Nova Scotia) and Nova Scotia had
the third-highest provincial child poverty rate in Canada (18% in
Canada) ("The Child Poverty Report Card", 2020). For seniors 65
and over in CBRM, the poverty rate is 20% compared to 18% for NS
and 14% cent nationally.
EXERCISE IS THE BEST MEDICINE
While there is no magic bullet to address the many health needs of
CBRM residents, physical activity and exercise is the leading cure
to many physical and mental health challenges in CBRM. Regular
physical activity is one of the easiest ways to reduce the risk for
chronic disease and to improve quality of life. Some of the benefits
of physical activity include:
»
Improve memory and brain function (all age groups).
»
Protecting against many chronic diseases (stroke, colon
cancer, osteoporosis, hypertension, breast cancer, type 2
diabetes, coronary heart disease)
»
Aid weight loss.
»
Lower blood pressure and improve heart health.
»
Improve sleep quality.
»
Reduce feelings of anxiety and depression.
»
Combat cancer-related fatigue.
»
Improve joint pain and stiffness.
»
Maintain muscle strength and balance.
»
Increase life span.
Physical inactivity costs our health-care system over $6.8 billion
a year in Canada in 2021. Less than half of Canadian adults take
at least 7,500 steps per day, which falls within the 'physically
active lifestyle' category. This rate has earned Canadian adults an
"F" for sedentary behaviours. Kids in 2021 earned an "F" as well
since only 21% of 5- to 11-year-olds engaged in active play and
non-organized/unstructured leisure activities for more than 1.5
hours per day on average. In the same study, adults received an "F"
in active transportation and children received a "D-" because data
show that only 21% of 5-19 year olds typically use active modes of
transportation.
While the pandemic may have accelerated the downward trends,
our physical activity rates have been on the decline for decades.
22%
26%
27%
29%
29%
30%
35%
35%
38%
38%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
British Columbia
Ontario
Quebec
Alberta
Manitoba
Prince Edward Island
Saskatchewan
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
NFLD / Labrador
Figure 2.1 Obesity prevalence by province compared to Canadian average (27%), 2017
27% Avg
36 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
THE OBESITY LITMUS TEST
Obesity is a leading indicator of physical activity and CBRM
experiences one of the highest rates of obesity than other
municipalities in Canada. Figure 2.2 reveals that Cape Breton
has an obesity rate of 41.9% - one of the highest in Canada and
significantly higher than the Canadian average of 26.6% and the
Nova Scotian average of 35%.
Active transport exists as one of the most promising and
sustainable options for combating obesity. While other methods
of physical activity can be more dependent on circumstances and
less of a long-term commitment, the same types of issues don't
apply to active transportation. While it may be difficult to motivate
oneself to go to the gym, the same cannot be said about motivating
oneself to go to work, (for obvious reasons).
Figure 2.3 shows that the reasons for higher obesity are complex,
but include greater unemployment, less education, and lower
socioeconomic status. These are all factors faced by CBRM, and so
having a strategy to overcome obesity and get citizens moving is all
the more important.
SO HOW EXACTLY DOES ACTIVE TRANSPORT HELP LIMIT OBESITY?
A study published in the journal "The Lancet Diabetes and
Endocrinology" found that "Walking, cycling or taking public
transport to work helps middle-aged adults lose body fat and
weight," (The Canadian Press). The study looked at over 150,000
people in the UK between the ages of 40-69, and how they get to
work each day along with their physical health. The study found
that a "53-year-old man who cycles to work weighed 11 pounds
less," and "Cycling to work also resulted in a 1.7 drop in body mass
index (BMI-an estimate of body fat based on weight and height)
compared to someone who drove to work" (The Canadian Press). As
these statistics display, we can see a direct impact on body weight
and thus, the risk of obesity, simply from biking to work instead of
driving. This is an easy, and practical way we can actively work to
limit obesity in the CBRM. With each person who decides to bike
to work instead of driving, we expect see a direct impact on the
overall risk of obesity.
This study also commented on the benefits of both walking and
taking public transport to work. While the benefits weren't as high
as when cycling, the study still found lower reported Body mass
index's for those who walked or took public transport.
Figure 2.2 Municipalities with the lowest and highest adult (18+) rates of obesity in Canada.
Community health Survey 2015-2018
| 37
It isn't hard to understand how walking twice a
day is good for you, but some may question how
taking public transport does this? It turns out,
simply walking to and from the bus stop both
before and after work can make a noticeable
difference in Body Mass Index. This research
shows the small-scale impact of active transport,
and the difference it has on an individual level.
WHERE HAVE SYSTEMS OF ACTIVE TRANSPORT
WORKED BEFORE?
One country that has been more progressive
than Canada when it comes to active transport
is Australia. There has been significant overall
recognition of active transport and its benefits
throughout the entirety of Australia. In fact, "All
Australian states and territories have endorsed
some form of AT policy or position statement,
demonstrating awareness at the state government
level of the value of encouraging more walking
and cycling" (Brown, Vicki et al.).
Now, research from Australia suggests that active
transport could have a financial benefit due to
decreased healthcare costs. This study assumed
that around 2-3% of the Australian population
between the ages of 18-49 walk to work, and
around 1% of the population bikes to work, fairly
low totals. Modelling data found that if even
these modest totals could be doubled, the total
healthcare cost savings could be around $20.6
million.
These savings come as a result of less people
needing to be treated for obesity related diseases.
It is here where we can begin to discuss the
financial impacts of health in relation to active
transport. It is no secret that obesity related
diseases such as heart disease or diabetes
end up incurring high financial costs that are
inevitably eaten up by taxpayers. But if there
really is this much of a benefit on the healthcare
system stemming from active transport, this
program will end up paying for itself in the end.
This makes active transport even more of a no
brainer. This data shows that even an extremely
small increase in those utilizing active transport
could result in huge impacts financially. That
means more tax-payer money available to invest
in education, recreation, and other methods of
improving the Cape Breton community, rather
than being needed for often preventable diseases.
Figure 2.3 Obesity prevalence in Canadian adults by socioeconomic status, 2017
LESS THAN
HIGH SCHOOL
EDUCATION
40%
HIGH SCHOOL
EDUCATION
34%
POST SECONDARY
EDUCATION
24%
Obesity decreases with higher
household education
38 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Figure 2.4 Obesity prevalence (%) in Canadian adults by rural-urban place of residence and by sex
A LITTLE WALKING COULD GO A LONG WAY
Researchers at Memorial University in NFLD found that
just doubling the amount of walking in St. John's could
have big impacts financially. One of the researchers was
quoted as saying, "We found that over a 10-year period if we
doubled the amount of walking in St. John's we would see 18
premature deaths prevented and we would see an economic
benefit of more than $117 million dollars,"
Here, we can see the in numbers the direct impact active
transportation can make over a prolonged period of time.
Further, just like the previous studies, this study is also
only requiring a modest uptake in walking. As Holloway
explained, "The research we did talks about doubling the
amount of walking for people in St. John's. That equals three
more minutes of walking a day for every person. So if you
can walk to a grocery store instead of driving, that's more
than a three-minute walk for most people, it'll make a huge
difference". Based on the research, if everyone in St. John's
walked for three minutes a day for 10 years, it would save 18
people from dying prematurely and would save taxpayers
$117 million in healthcare costs.
IMPROVING MENTAL HEALTH THROUGH ACTIVE TRANSPORT
So far, we have covered the benefits that active transport can
have on our physical health, such as lowering body weight
and body mass index, and how it can prevent premature
deaths. Further, we have also seen how preventing obesity
related diseases, and improved overall physical health in
general can save tax-payers millions of dollars in prevented
healthcare costs.
However, another important benefit of active transport that
can sometimes be forgotten is the impact on a person's mental
health. As we have begun to focus more closely as a society
on mental health in general, we have looked for ways we can
improve our mental health. Time and again, it has been proven
by doctors and researchers that being physically active has a
positive impact on our mental health. It follows that increasing
active transportation (and thus physical activity) in the
community will have a positive impact on the mental health of
those using active transportation.
LOWERING THE RISK OF DEPRESSION
When talking about mental health, one important aspect
is depression. A study from the American Journal of
Psychiatry, and authored by University of New South Wales
senior research fellow Simon Rosenbaum, looked at data
from 49 studies around the world, with a sample of over
266,000 participants. It found that those who exercise
on a regular basis were less likely to develop depression,
"Those who followed weekly guidelines to get 150 minutes of
moderate aerobic activity, such as cycling or brisk walking,
were less likely to develop depression over nearly eight
years of follow up compared with those who didn't meet the
guideline" (Zafar). This study shows that physical activity
can statistically reduce the risk of developing depression.
The minimum required amount of physical activity is
| 39
150 minutes a week in order to reduce one's risk of developing
depression in this study. This equates to just 30 minutes a day. So,
if a person was able to bike 15 minutes to and from work, 5 times a
week, they would be reducing their risk of developing depression.
Just a small change to how a person commutes is truly all one
needs to make a positive impact on their mental health.
IN WHAT WAYS DOES PHYSICAL ACTIVITY IMPROVE YOUR MENTAL
HEALTH?
In order to better understand how our brains and mental health are
improved through physical activity, consider an article from award
winning neuroscientist Dr. Wendy Suzuki. Suzuki is a professor of
Neuroscience and Psychology at New York University and recently
published an article for CNBC in the United States about 4 brain
changing effects of exercise.
1.
The first effect exercise has on our brain is that it decreases
feelings of anxiety. Suzuki explains this happens as a result
of several chemicals being released into our brain when we
exercise, "Studies have shown that every time you move your
body, a number of beneficial neurotransmitters, including
dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin and acetylcholine,
gets released into your brain. These substances can decrease
feelings of anxiety and depression" (Suzuki).
2.
The second effect exercise has is improving one's focus and
concentration. Suzuki references one of her studies that found
improved focus after a workout, "In one of my lab experiments,
I found that a single workout can help improve your ability to
shift and focus attention. This is an immediate benefit that
can last for at least two hours after 30 minutes of exercise"
(Suzuki).
3.
The third effect exercising has on our brains is the promotion
of growth of new brain cells. "One of the most significant
benefits of exercise, scientists have found, is that it promotes
neurogenesis, or the birth of new brain cells. This is essential
to improving cognitive function" (Suzuki). Neurogenesis is an
important process that takes place over the course of our entire
lives. Utilizing active transport to maintain regular exercise can
help promote neurogenesis throughout one's life.
4.
The fourth and final way exercise improves our brain's
health according to Suzuki, is protection from brain aging
and neurodegenerative diseases. "Longitudinal studies in
humans suggest that regular exercise can increase the size
of the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex, both of which are
susceptible to neurodegenerative diseases such as dementia
and Alzheimer's. So while exercising won't completely prevent
or cure normal cognitive decline in aging, doing it consistently
can help reduce or delay the onset of it" (Suzuki).
LINKING THE BENEFITS OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY WITH ACTIVE
TRANSPORT
As discussed, there are many benefits to physical activity on both
our physical and mental health. However, the barrier that prevents
many people from reaching higher levels of physical activity is
the lack of time. Many people who look for ways to improve their
physical health through exercise find that traditional ways of
staying fit can be far too time consuming to be practical when
combined with other responsibilities.
Active transportation creates that desperately needed opportunity
for busy adults to achieve these levels of physical activity without
any significant time commitments. Where an activity such
as pickup soccer can take up someone's whole night, active
transportation provides the same physical benefits from a
commute without taking up excessive amounts of time. While it
may take slightly longer to get to work, other methods actually end
up taking far more time when considering time spent getting ready
and transportation to and from the activity.
40 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
2.2 THE 2008 CBRM AT PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION
The 2008 AT Plan outlined almost $5m in funding for short term
projects which encompassed about 77km of various improvements
including new trails, sidewalk upgrades, multi-use trails, paved
shoulders and on-street bike lanes. The report also outlined
another $15m in longer term projects which encompassed about
314 km in various AT improvements.
The 2008 AT Plan was successful at improving awareness
about the benefits of active transportation and identifying large
signature projects to improve connections between communities
across the municipality. As a large 'Community of Communities',
multi-use paths like the Maryann Corbett Trail from Sydney to
Glace Bay help to improve connectivity of communities not just
physically but also in spirit.
In the intervening years between this plan and the 2008 plan,
CBRM has completed the following projects:
1.
Whitney Pier Community Heritage Trail, Sydney
»
3 metre hard packed gravel path suitable for walkers,
cyclists, and wheelchair users
»
Features: illuminated at night, benches, informational
panels
2.
Open Hearth Park, Sydney
3.
Greenlink Rotary Park Trail system, Sydney
»
3 metre wide gravel paths suitable for walkers and
cyclists
»
Features: benches
4.
Maryann Corbett Trail, Sydney to Glace Bay
»
3 metre paved path suitable for walkers, cyclists, and
wheelchair users
»
10 km in length
5.
Coal Town Trail, Glace Bay (Ongoing)
6.
Westmount Walking Loop, Westmount
7.
New Waterford Walking Loop, New Waterford
8.
Bike Lanes on George Street
The 2008 Plan helped bring walking and cycling to the forefront
of the conversation, but much has changed and there remains
a lot of unfinished work. Further, the plan did not achieve all of
the identified projects, implement local active transportation
infrastructure, advance the creation of new policy, or create
opportunities for partnerships and programs for outreach and
education. These gaps were identified through consultation with
stakeholders and the community, and will remain the focus of this
new active transportation plan.
A deeper description of these projects and the lessons learned
from them is located in Appendix A of this report.
2.3 THEMATIC MAPPING
The maps on the following pages have been compiled to convey
important information relevant to selecting the appropriate AT
routes through the targeted communities of this plan. These
include population density maps, existing sidewalks, trails,
and parks , key community destinations, road hierarchies and
pedestrian/cyclist vehicle collisions. Overlaying these maps
provides a clearer picture of the proposed AT network, its planned
connectivity, and how roads can be re-prioritized for active
transportation instead of solely for automobiles.
Chapter 3 of this report uses these inventory maps to establish the
AT Master Plan.
| 41
L E G E N D
Concrete Sidewalks
Blue Route Shoulder
On-road Bike Lane
Paved Cycleway
Paved Trails
Unpaved Mixed Use Trail
Figure 2.5 Built 2008 AT Plan
This plan shows what AT elements have
been built since the adoption of the 2008
AT Plan. Though there have been many
kilometres of new sidewalks, the major
recognized AT projects have included
the Whitney Pier Community Heritage
Trail, the Greenlink Trail system, the
Westmount Walking Loop, the George
Street bike lanes, the SPAR Rd paved
shoulders, the Maryann Corbett Trail, and
several kilometres of Blue Route along
with many kilometres of new sidewalk
radiating from neighbourhoods to the
region's downtowns.
42 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
L E G E N D
0-25 people/km2
25-500 people/km2
500-1k people/km2
1k-2.5k people/km2
Figure 2.6 CBRM Population Density
Only about 1.2% of CBRM's area is urbanized
with over 25 people per km2. AT infrastructure
will be most utilized where population
densities warrant their regular use so higher
density areas should be prioritized. Other
areas (shown in light green) are simply too
sparsely populated and sprawling to achieve
a high level of AT use. The exception to this
is the provincial Blue Route which is mostly
located in scenic coastal areas of rural CBRM
and will be developed by the province.
In the map above, the Blue areas should be
targeted as high priorities, followed by the
orange areas and then the yellow areas. The
exceptions are inter-community connections
like between Sydney River and downtown
Sydney, and other important commuter
connections
| 43
Figure 2.7 CBRM Context and Communities
As the 7th largest municipality in Canada, CBRM
encompasses 2,430.06 km2 and has a population
density of 38.8 people/km2. The municipality has
over 1,600 km of roads or roughly 59 people per km
of road. This low density makes it challenging and
expensive to maintain the existing road network
and emphasizes the need for an expanded active
transportation network in the denser areas of the
municipality. The areas shown in yellow are some of
the higher density neighbourhoods in CBRM spanning
about 29.43 km2 and increasing the urban population
density to 1,016.0/km2. The areas shown in green are
the two First Nations Reserves in the municipality
AT will have the most impact in the population
centres of CBRM. AT funding should generally
be based on the population density of specific
communities
44 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Community
2016 Pop
% Pop
Sydney
29,904
32%
Glace Bay
19076
20%
Sydney Mines
14135
15%
New Waterford
7344
8%
North Sydney
5699
6%
Whitney Pier
4612
5%
Dominion
3570
4%
Westmount
2731
3%
Sydney River
2514
3%
Coxsheath
2333
2%
Louisbourg
877
1%
L E G E N D
Level 1 - Urban Street
Level 2 - Urban Street
Level 3 - Urban Street
Level 4 - Urban Street
Level 1 - Regional Road
Level 2 - Rural Road
Level 3 - Rural Road
Level 4 - Rural Road
Level 5 - Road
Figure 2.8 Road Hierarchy
CBRM prioritizes their roads according to
traffic volumes with Level 1 as a primary urban
arterial for main streets in CBD's. Level 2 are the
major urban collectors for streets emanating
from the cores. Level 3 are the minor urban
collectors channelling neighbourhood traffic
to urban and suburban collectors. Level 4 are
the neighbourhood through streets used for
local traffic. While the level 1 and 2 streets
are prioritized for vehicle traffic, they may or
may not be suitable for AT depending if there
is room for additional facilities or depending
on the number of driveway crossings (which
reduces safety). Generally AT should focus on
Urban/Suburban streets with the exception of
Blue Routes. The road hierarchy though is not a
predictor of AT suitability since its emphasis is
on moving vehicles. But, these road hierarchies
do demonstrate the hierarchy of traffic volumes
which is a good indicator of AT priorities and
connections that may be needed.
| 45
Figure 2.9 CBRM Sidewalks - 2021
According to the Crosswalk Strategy (2017),
CBRM has built and maintains over 365
kilometers of public sidewalk . This includes
1,438 crosswalks in total, and more specifically,
109 of these are signalized and 22 are equipped
with audible signals. The sidewalks are in
varying conditions from poor to new. CBRM
oversees the maintenance on sidewalks on an
as-needed basis as funds become available in
various communities.
Sidewalks are valued in and around the schools
of the municipality and where lacking, should
be installed as part of this plan. The walking
distance standards for elementary students in
CBRM is 1km and for middle school and high
school, it is 2km. Accordingly, all roads within
0.5km of a school should have sidewalk on one
side and all Level 1 - 4 Urban Streets within 1km
of elementary and within 2km of middle and
high schools should have sidewalks on at least
one side of the road. These sidewalks should be
in good conditions.
46 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
L E G E N D
Courts
Fields
Parks
Track
Beaches
Figure 2.10 Municipal Parks
The CBRM offers a range of recreational
facilities, open spaces, and beaches throughout
the region. Offering AT users destination points
improves the overall use of the network for
both daily commuters and recreational activity.
The future AT network should focus on the
existing location of parks, schools, and beaches
to determine a route and wayfinding strategy
allowing future users to navigate and connect
to these amenities. Larger sports field facilities
could be important destinations for commuting
while smaller recreational parks serve local
communities and are likely not commute
destinations which would be targeted for AT
infrastructure beyond sidewalks.
| 47
Figure 2.11 CBRM Bus Routes 2021
There are currently 13 bus routes plus an express
route servicing CBRM. In a rural context, transit
can reduce the number of drivers throughout the
municipality while connecting remote communities.
Most buses in CBRM have bike racks and there is a
dedicated handi-trans charter service for disabled
residents. Future AT routes should connect dense
neighbourhoods to bus stops wherever possible
making transit more accessible to the populated
communities of CBRM. Whenever possible, bus
routes through populated areas should include
sidewalks on the side of the street that has a bus
stop(s). Integrating AT with transit to maximize
integrated mobility should be a high priority of the
municipality.
48 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Figure 2.12 CBRM ATV Trails
There are hundreds of km's of ATV trails in CBRM
managed by the Isle Royal ATV Club and the Marconi
Trail Blazers ATV Club. Generally speaking, AT
trails and ATV trails are separated to minimize risks
to pedestrians, however, in a rural municipality
like CBRM, the ATV groups can sometimes be an
important ally in getting shared use trails built and
maintained like on the Coal Town Trail where the
ATV groups and Velo Cape Breton came together to
co-develop the old DEVCO rail line into a multi-use
trail. There are about 50-60k ATV's in the province
and their annual registration fees ($52) pay for trail
improvements around the province through the Off-
Highway Vehicle Fund ($40 of the $52 charge goes
to the fund). Except for Glace Bay, many designated
ATV routes avoid populated urban centres and so
are generally unsuitable for the AT network except
Glace Bay (Coal Town Trail) and the Peacekeepers
Way Highway ATV route on the east boundary of
Sydney. Future rail to trail conversions though could
be shared-use AT trails through rural areas like the
potential future Lingan rail corridor.
| 49
L E G E N D
Proposed Road Route
Proposed Trail Route
Proposed Multi-use Path
CBRM - Multi-Use Path
Figure 2.13 Provincial Blue Routes
The cycling blue routes will be funded and
maintained by the province. Once built, the
blue route will connect cycling networks
throughout Nova Scotia. CBRM's 2022 AT Plan
should the province's blue route for potential
funding partnerships. Additionally, future
infrastructure should connect to the proposed
and existing routes to ensure connectivity
throughout Cape Breton and the rest of the
province. The CBRM - MUP lines have been
highlighted by Cycle Nova Scotia as having
preliminary studies and implementation
completed, but require further funding,
design development, and property secured
to be fully realized. In considering priority
routes, CBRM should focus on developing
missing connections within the existing
communities.
50 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
L E G E N D
Potential/existing
AT Trail
Recreational Trail
Figure 2.14 CBRM Walking Trails
The CBRM has 29 designated walking trails
situated in high-density and rural areas.
Recreational trails allow CBRM's residents to
partake in physical activity, such as running
and jogging. Where these trails connect
neighbourhoods with other commuting
destinations (schools, downtowns, libraries,
sports fields, etc.) they may be suitable as
part of the AT network. In contrast, stand
alone recreation-only trails which are not
used specifically as part of a commute are not
suitable for the AT network. It is important to
distinguish between the purpose of commute-
based AT routes and recreation trails.
| 51
Figure 2.15 Schools
There are seventeen elementary schools and
seven junior high schools servicing the AT plan's
area of interest. Tne standard walking distance
for elementary school students is 1km, and 2km
for junior and high school students.To promote
active transportation among CBRM's younger
generation and their caretakers, future networks
should prioritize connections from residential
areas to schools. Since these routes will primarily
serve younger populations, they should focus on
safety while maximizing effiency. Lastly, future AT
priorities should prioritize the route's proximity to
exisiting schools.
L E G E N D
Elementary School
Junior/High School
1km Buffer
2km Buffer
52 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
L E G E N D
College/University
Hospital
Library
Police
P
+
Figure 2.16 Services and Institutions
Within each of CBRM's communities, there
are several public institutions serving the
communities. To ensure the AT network will be
well-used and responsive to community needs,
future plans should consider the locations
of these services within the inter- and intra-
community context. Specific attention should
be paid towards connecting AT networks to
colleges/university, libraries and hospitals.
| 53
L E G E N D
ferry terminal
bus terminal
department store
shopping mall
bike shop
retail center
Figure 2.17 Retail and Transit
To ensure regular use, the AT network should
connect users to shopping centres and stores where
they can complete routine tasks. Throughout the
CBRM, the majority of these centres are found in
high-density areas. Ultimately, the AT network should
focus on connecting to retail to promote commuting
to retail in addition to commuting to work and school.
Doing so encourages a regular, robust use of the
AT network by CBRM's residents. Secondly, the AT
network should connect to transit terminals so users
can cycle or walk to transit stations within their
community, consequently expanding the AT network
and promoting transit use.
54 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
L E G E N D
coastal discovery
centre
heritage & culture
centre
monument
C
?
theatre
lighthouse
museum
information centre
Figure 2.18 Visitor Services, Community, and Culture
The location of visitor, community, and
cultural centres are important in deciding how
the AT network will be used for recreational
and tourist uses. The municipality offers
several community destinations with regular
events that could be considered a commute
destination for residents. These include
theatres, gyms, museums or other community
facilities. Recreation and tourist based
destinations would have a lower priority for AT.
beach
arena
gym
boardwalk
| 55
L E G E N D
Pedestrian
Cyclist
0
Pedestrian
Cyclist
45
90
135
180
225
0
Pedestrian
Cyclist
75
150
225
300
0
5
5
5
5
3
2
9
3
3
19
26
25
15
16
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2017
2018
17
14
16
19
9
6
10
20
30
Pedestrian
Male
Cyclist
Female
Figure 2.19 Injury by Gender
Figure 2.20 Injury by Transportation Type
Figure 2.21 Injury by Year
Unknown
Yes
No
Figure 2.22 Collisions Data 2007-2018
56 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2
2.4 COLLISIONS IN CBRM
The data provided by CBRM offers the location and number of
collisions from 2007 to 2018 (with the exception of 2015 and 2016).
In total, there were 231 collisions between vehicles and pedestrians
and cyclists.
Over three-quarters (76%) of collisions were pedestrian related,
with over half (64.7%) of these collisions resulted in an injury.
Though cyclists had fewer accidents comparatively, the collisions
within this group resulted in more injuries (75%) than vehicular
collisions with pedestrians. These statistics further reinforce
a need for effective cyclist pavement markings combined with
separated or protected cycle tracks along routes experiencing
heavy vehicular traffic. Secondly, given the high rates of
pedestrian collisions occurring at crosswalks, future AT plans
and implementation should focus on upgrading the existing
pedestrian infrastructure. Further, there should be an emphasis
on pedestrian-vehicle conflict zones.
Looking at Figure 2.22, it becomes evident that the majority of
collisions occurred within CBRM's higher density communities.
Specifically, most collisions took place along major arterials,
suggesting that pedestrians and cyclists find themselves at the
highest risk of collisions along routes that are shared or often
intersect with vehicular traffic. In further considering survey and
workshop results, it becomes evident CBRM's residents feel unsafe
sharing the roadway with vehicular traffic and would be more
likely to use AT routes if they were separated. Looking forward,
CBRM should explore protected and separated bike paths to reduce
the rate of collisions and promote the use of bike paths throughout
the municipality.
Secondly, the greatest rate of collisions occurred amongst CBRM's
male population. However, the majority of survey respondents
were female. These findings suggest CBRM's female population
show the most interest in the AT plan's future, but the current
system has either a higher usage by males, or males are more
prone to injury and collisions than females. Moving ahead, CBRM
and future consultation efforts should make an effort to target
and gain insight from the municipality's male population. Doing
so would enable an egalitarian view of how the current and future
AT network is currently used, challenges faced, and necessary
improvements.
To reduce overall collisions, the plan and resultant designs should
focus on implementing measures to ensure any roads over 50 km/hr
have adequate road markings and barriers to ensure cyclist safety.
These measures and appropriate methods of implementation are
discussing in the AT standards section. Attention to additional traffic
calming measures - e.g. speed calming measures, tree-lined streets,
etc. - should be included in resultant AT infrastructure projects.
Lastly, future infrastructure should consider whether it is feasible
to prioritize cycling and sidewalk infrastructure above new road
networks in new roadway development.
Figure 2.23 Collisions Per Year 2007-2018
YEAR
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2017
2018
GRAND TOTAL
Involvement
Injury
Cyclist
7
6
9
5
5
16
4
7
9
3
71
Pedestrian
33
24
16
22
17
23
23
18
36
27
239
Pedestrian (x2)
2
2
Grand Total
40
30
25
27
22
39
27
25
45
32
312
Figure 2.24 Deaths 2007-2018
INVOLVEMENT
DEATHS
Cyclist
1
Pedestrian
2
Pedestrian (x2)
0
Grand Total
3
Figure 2.25 Collisions at Crosswalks 2007-2018
CROSSWALK
INJURY
GRAND TOTAL
Involvement
No
Unknown
Yes
Cyclist
17
17
12
46
Pedestrian
63
40
77
180
Pedestrian (x2)
2
2
Grand Total
80
57
91
228
Figure 2.26 Injury Counts 2007-2018
SEX
F
M
GRAND TOTAL
Involvement
Injury
Cyclist
9
37
46
Pedestrian
87
88
176
Grand Total
96
125
222
| 57
2.5 COLLISIONS IN CANADA
Transport Canada hosts a National Collision Database (NCDB)
which contains data on all reportable transportation related
collisions in Canada each year. The last analysis was done in 2018
and provides a good snapshot of the pre-pandemic collision data
across the country. In 2018, the number of motor vehicle related
fatalities was 1,922; down 64% from 2,904 in the year 2000. Over
68% of those fatalities (1,300 people) were car related, 17% were
pedestrian relates (332 people), 2.3% were bicycle related (44
people), 10% was motorcycle related (200 people) and 2.4% was
non-stated (46 people).
The number of serious injuries decreased to 9,494 in 2018; down
6.1% from 2017 (10,107) and down substantially by 64% from 2000
(15,581). These changes come as the population increases and
are likely the result of vehicle and road safety improvements. The
fatality rate fell from 1.62 per 10k registered motor-vehicles, down
to 0.77 per 10k.
The number of fatalities per 100,000 population increased slightly
to 5.2 in 2018 (from 5.0 in 2017), yet is still the second lowest on
record. The number of fatalities per billion vehicle kilometres
travelled slightly increased to 4.9 in 2018 (from 4.8 in 2017); also
the second lowest recorded
The rural nature of Atlantic Canada increases the fatality rate
from 5.2 in Canada per 100k of population to 7.8 in Nova Scotia. As
well, the fatality rate increased from 4.9 people per billion vehicle
kilometres travelled for Canada to 6.3 people per billion kilometres
travelled in Nova Scotia.
Figure 2.27 shows that cycling is one of the safest forms of
transportation with only 2.3% of all fatalities and serious
injuries in 2018 when compared to 68% resulting from vehicle
related fatalities. Walking or jogging pedestrians are still
relatively high at 17% of fatalities and 16 of serious injuries.
50%
2018 Fatalities
Canada
Drivers
Passengers
Pedestrian
Motorcyclist
Cyclist
18%
17%
2%
10%
960
340
332
44
200
47%
2018 Serious
Injuries Canada
19%
16%
2% 12%
4233
1715
1399
361
1092
Per 100,000 Population
Per Billion Vehicle-
Kilometres
Per 100,000 Licensed
Drivers
Fatalities
Injuries
Fatalities
Injuries
Fatalities
Injuries
Canada
5.2
412.4
4.9
391.1
7.2
575
NL
7.4
517
7.2
498.9
6.6
460.8
PE
9.8
424.2
9.6
415.6
13.2
573.8
NS
7.8
747.8
6.3
603.5
10.2
978.9
NB
6.5
348.3
5.6
301.1
9
484.3
Figure 2.27 2018 Fatalities and Serious Injuries by category. https://tc.canada.ca/en/road-transportation/
statistics-data/canadian-motor-vehicle-traffic-collision-statistics-2018
Figure 2.28 2018 Fatalities and Serious Injuries in Canada and Atlantic Canada. https://tc.canada.ca/en/
road-transportation/statistics-data/canadian-motor-vehicle-traffic-collision-statistics-2018
58 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
L E G E N D
CBRM
Province
Membertou First Nation
Membertou Development
Corporation
Eskasoni First Nation
Private
Louisbourg
Figure 2.29 Road Ownership
Many of the AT projects for this plan are
proposed in road corridors except some of
the multi-use trail projects. Since CBRM is
partially funding the implementation of this
plan, most of the AT projects proposed will be
on municipally owned land with the exception
of the the provincial Blue Routes and off-road
multi-use trails. For AT facilities on provincial
roads outside the Blue Route, CBRM would
have to establish a partnership with the
province or First Nations groups to develop AT
facilities on non-CBRM owned lands.
| 59
Source: Tyler Gouthro
60 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
The previous chapter outlined the thematic maps and inventory which will shape the priorities of the
future AT network for CBRM. This chapter outlines the proposed AT network to be built out over the
next 20 years, the integrated mobility targets and the supportive policies needed to implement the
plan. The AT Master Plan is the culmination of months of public engagement, and coordination with
staff and council on the specific projects which will grow the AT network in CBRM into the future.
C H A P T E R 3
AT MASTER PLAN
3.1
ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES FOR THE NEW AT PLAN
The previous 2008 AT Plan set out to prioritize
linkages between the various urban communities
of CBRM and - with a few exceptions - has been
implemented with many notable projects like the
Maryann Corbett Trail, the Greenlink Trail, and the
SPAR Road shoulder widening, etc.
Guided by the 2008 Plan, the municipality has spent
about $330k per year since 2008 on various AT
projects. Additionally, CBRM has also leveraged over
$1 million per year from other levels of government,
proving AT as a good investment for CBRM.
Moving forward, the new AT plan will focus
more on local AT projects to connect populated
neighbourhoods to key commuting destinations. There
are community connector projects that need to be
realized from the 2008 plan, including:
1.
The Sydney River Multi-use Trail
2.
The Prince and Upper Prince Bike Lanes
3.
The King Street Bike Lanes
4.
The Grand Lake Road Sidewalk
5.
Lingan/Hankard/Victoria Bike Lane in
Whitney Pier
6.
The Kings Road Multi-use Trail
7.
The Maryann Corbett Trail
8.
The Ellsworth/Heelan/Emerald/ Union Bike Lanes
9.
Esplanade/Kings/George Bike Lanes
10. The Washbrook Creek Greenway
The reasons some of these projects have not been built
mostly have to do with external factors outside the
control of the municipality. For instance, the Sydney
River Multi-use trail and parts of the North Sydney-
Sydney connector trail were proposed on parts of the
Cape Breton Central Nova Scotia Railway (owned by
Genesee & Wyoming). However, consensus has yet to
be reached on the future of this specific rail line by all
three levels of government. Despite the Sydney River
Trail's failure to be implemented, the consultants
heard unanimously that this was an important priority
project for CBRM.
The new local community priorities are expanded in
this chapter.
| 61
3.2 THE 2022 AT PLAN OVERVIEW
Building on the many successes of the 2008 AT Plan, one of the key
objectives of this plan is to improve the health and quality of life of
residents by expanding the AT Infrastructure in populated areas,
linking neighbourhoods to schools, downtowns, business centres,
shopping areas, and other communities.
This plan lays out the next 20 years of AT investment within the
municipality in locations that can:
»
Increase AT participation and reduce resident's reliance on
cars,
»
Create greater social equity and improve peoples lives in
measurable ways
»
Leverage the economic benefits and reduce municipal
costs of traditional transportation network expansion and
maintenance
»
Improve safety for vulnerable populations like youth and
seniors.
A key priority for this plan is to shift commuting from private
vehicles to other forms of active transportation. Since 'commuting'
is measured in the national census every 5 years, progress can be
tracked. Similarly, the number of students using school buses in
CBRM are also tracked, so it is possible to set targets for increasing
student AT use. Non-work related commuting is difficult to track
except using local surveys.
To be clear, AT networks and recreational trails are distinct. AT
commuting is designed to connect people from where they live
to major destinations, ultimately reducing their reliance on
automobiles. Comparatively, the primary objectives of recreational
trails are focused on the user's enjoyment and health, but the trail
itself is usually the destination and not the conduit. While both
trails are important, AT is usually commuter-driven, focusing on
connecting where people live to a specific destination like a school,
shopping area, or downtown. Therefore, commuting AT networks
are the focus of the 2022 AT plan.
AT is most widely used when the trip distances do not exceed 5km for
walking (about a 1 hour walk) and 15-20 km for cycling (about a 1 hour
bike ride). As a result, this 2022 plan focuses more specifically
on projects within CBRM's various urban communities. The
specific communities have been carefully selected by the project
stakeholders and local residents. The primary focus is reducing
vehicle reliance in exchange for safer AT routes that connect to key,
routine destinations within the CBRM's populated communities
(including Sydney, Sydney River, Sydney Mines, North Sydney,
Glace Bay, New Waterford, and Louisbourg).
In the more rural areas of CBRM, this plan is supported by the
continued expansion of the provincial Blue Routes, implemented
by the Province of Nova Scotia.
CBRM AT VISION
The consultants worked closely with local residents, businesses,
academic institutions, and CBRM's staff and council to develop a
vision statement and goals for the next important phase of CBRM's
Active Transportation plan.
CBRM's Active Transportation Plan update will improve the lives of
vulnerable and everyday residents of the municipality by providing
more equitable transportation options for residents, safer routes
for students, more healthy options for commuting and better
connective infrastructure within the denser growing areas of the
municipality.
WORK COMMUTING TARGETS FOR THE AT PLAN
The commuting targets of this 20-year plan are to change the
modal split in CBRM by:
»
Doubling the walking commuting from 4.1% in CBRM to 8%
»
Increasing cycling or assisted mobility commuting from 0.2%
to 6%
»
Increasing transit commuting from 2.7% to 7%
»
Increasing the % rideshare from 8.4% to 12% of all private
vehicle trips.
»
Decreasing private vehicle trips from 82% to no more than
70%
STUDENT COMMUTING AT TARGETS
The Cape Breton-Victoria Regional Centre for Education (CBVRCE)
oversees the education of 12,000 students, with 60% of those
students take the bus. The remaining 40% are a combination of
walkers/cyclists, parent drivers, and student drivers for high
schools. The Board estimates that driving traffic for students is
large, but the figure is not tracked.
This AT Plan sets the following student commuting targets:
»
To reduce bus use from 60% to 55% by increasing the
radius for middle and high school students from 2km to the
provincial standard of 2.5km. Elementary student radius will
remain at 1km (vs the 1.5km provincial standard).
»
To ensure walking/cycling students are no less than 30% of
the population. This target will require a way to track how
students get to school (driving vs walk/cycling).
62 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Each 1% change represents 340 people in CBRM shifting their
behaviour from one mode of transportation to another
MAX.
TARGETS
2016
2022
2032
2042
4.1%
4.5%
6%
8%
0.3%
0.5%
4%
6%
2.7%
3%
5%
7%
8.4%
9%
10%
12%
82%
<82%
<75%
<70%
WALKING/
RUNNING
CYCLING OR
ASSISTED AT
TRANSIT
RIDESHARE
AS PASSENGER
PRIVATE VEHICLE
MINIMUM TARGETS
| 63
2042 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
AND INTEGRATED MOBILITY TARGETS
| 63
| 63
3.3 AT SUITABILITY CRITERIA
The new 2022 Plan recognizes that there is significant potential
for CBRM's residents to adopt AT commuting in the forthcoming
years due to the widening availability of micromobility options.
Micromobility includes electric-assisted personal mobility,
improved integrated mobility with buses, support from higher
levels of government with new funding programs, and greater use
as the network grows and builds out in CBRM.
AT infrastructure can be costly to build and maintain. As such,
it is important to focus spending in the areas that will see the
greatest use. In addition, the success of the network is tied closely
to its overall connectivity; having numerous small, unconnected
facilities is counter-productive to increasing AT adoption. The
more connected the network is, the much greater the chance it will
be used. When embarking on building out the AT network, it often
takes a lot of investment before adoption reaches a tipping point.
AT Adoption for commuting in CBRM is still less than 5%. The
Law of Innovation of Diffusion sets out that mass adoption doesn't
usually happen until about 16% adoption (Innovators are the
first group at 2.5%, followed by early adopters in the next 13.5%).
Considering this, AT use among CBRM's residents is in its infancy,
and will require further implementation and outreach to reach its
full potential.
In a large regional municipality we understand there will be
pressures to make changes to the priorities or to the locations of the
proposed facilities. But it is important to stick, as much as possible,
to the plan to ensure the contiguity of the network. The plan has
been designed to address the local needs of the community and to
speed adoption as rapidly as possible. Costs for AT facilities can be
substantially reduced when they are built as part of planned street
capital improvements. Since these programs fluctuate from year to
year based on funding availability from higher levels of government,
it is hard to predict when they might happen in CBRM. So there
will be inherent changes in the AT priorities based on future street
upgrades. On the same token, a high AT priority project might
increase the priority of a future capital improvement project.
The municipal AT components of this plan are geared towards
municipal owned roads and lands. The Province will address their
contribution to the plan through the Blue Routes. Any additional
AT projects on provincial roads must be developed as a formal
partnership between the Province and CBRM .
Based on the feedback the team received throughout this process,
the following ranking of criteria includes:
1.
Projects should be able to assure a high degree of use by the
local community (e.g. hundreds of user per day vs dozens of
users per day) by linking dense population centres to high
desire destinations (work, school, parks, etc.).
2.
Each project should be able to measurably reduce people's
reliance on motor vehicle transportation in CBRM. The intent
is to reduce vehicle commuting and increasing AT use or
transit use for commuting to work, school, or to complete
day-to-day activities that might otherwise require travel by
car. Projects should decrease traffic congestion and promote a
modal shift to transit and active transportation in CBRM.
3.
Projects should promote social equity amongst CBRM's
vulnerable populations (youth, seniors, those in poverty, those
with disabilities) reducing the requirement for car ownership
to participate in society, education or the local economy.
4.
Projects that extend or improve upon the existing AT network
to increase the connectivity of the network should be a
priority.
5.
Projects should ensure travel by active transportation is
easier, safer, more convenient and more enjoyable than
travelling by car.
6.
Projects that can be coordinated with future public works
capital investments to create new complete streets should be
prioritized.
7.
Projects should focus on the needs of local residents first, but
if the goals compliment tourism, that would be considered an
added bonus.
8.
Projects should improve the design of complete communities
in CBRM
These criteria are listed in relative importance for prioritizing
future AT investment and were part of the criteria for assessing
new projects proposed in this AT Plan. A scoring matrix (Table
1-1) was developed to assess future projects that might veer from
the recommended plan. In the matrix, each project should be
evaluated and scored by multiplying each criteria score by its sub-
criteria score. Where multiple sub-criteria apply, each should be
scored as well. The total of all the sub-total scores gives the overall
project score. Projects that score:
»
> 50 points have a high priority
»
30-50 points have an intermediate priority
»
20-30 points have a a low priority
»
< 20 should not be built without a logical rationale.
64 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Criteria
Criteria
Score
Sub-Criteria
Score
Sub-Total
Projects should be able to assure a high degree of use by the local community (e.g. hundreds of user
per day vs dozens of users per day) by linking dense population centres to high desire destinations
(work, school, parks, etc.).
10
> 1000 people/km2
1
10
500-1000 people/km2
0.9
25-500 people/km2
0.8
<25 people/km
0.5
Projects that can be coordinated with future public works capital investments to create new
complete streets should be prioritized.
9
Combine with other Capital Works project
1
9
Land owned by CBRM
1
9
Funding Stream availability
0.5
4.5
Each project should be able to measurably reduce people's reliance on motor vehicle transportation
in CBRM. The intent is to reduce vehicle commuting and increasing AT use or transit use for
commuting to work, school, or to complete day-to-day activities that might otherwise require travel
by car. Projects should decrease traffic congestion and promote a modal shift to transit and active
transportation in CBRM.
8
Directly Connects to or within a downtown
1
Within 2km of a downtown
0.5
4
Within 1km of an elementary school
0.7
5.6
Within 2km of an junior or high school
0.4
Within 0.5km of a park that has courts or sportsfields serving 20 or more sports participants
0.4
Projects should promote social equity amongst CBRM's vulnerable populations (youth, seniors, those
in poverty, those with disabilities) reducing the requirement for car ownership to participate in
society, education or the local economy.
7
Avg Residential Property Assessment within 1km of the project < $150,000
1
7
Project is within 1km of a school
0.5
3.5
Project is within 0.5km of a seniors home with more than 20 seniors
0.5
Project is within 2km of a CBU or NSCC
0.5
3.5
Project directly connects to a bus routes
0.25
1.75
Projects that extend or improve upon the existing AT network to increase the connectivity of the
network should be a priority.
6
Project Connects to an existing AT Network
1
6
Project is within 0.5km of an existing AT Network
0.5
Projects should ensure travel by active transportation is easier, safer, more convenient and more
enjoyable than travelling by car.
5
Project is on an inactive rail line
1
5
Project is on a road that has less than 4 driveways per 100m avg.
0.5
Project has scenic views of the ocean
0.3
1.5
Projects should focus on the needs of local residents first, but if the goals compliment tourism, that
would be considered an added bonus.
3
Project serves the local residents but would also help drive touristm
0.5
1.5
Projects should improve the design of complete communities in CBRM
2
Projects are integrated into new subdivisions or urban developments with over 100 units
1
2
Projects within 0.5km of a new development (<5 years old) with over 100 units
0.5
Total
73.85
Proposed AT Project Name :
Steps.
1. Multiply the Criteria score by the Sub-criteria Score
2. If multiple sub-criteria apply, perform step 1 for each sub-criteria
3. Add up the Sub-total Scores
Table 3-1
AT Project Scoring Criteria Matrix
AT Priorities Based on
Score:
High priority: > 75 points
Med Priority: 50-75 points
Low priority: 20-50 points
< 20 should not be built
without a logical rationale.
| 65
FUNDING ALLOCATION AND PRIORITIES WITHIN THE COMMUNITIES
As a regional municipality, funding should be allocated
generally proportionally to the urban communities in the
municipality. It would be difficult to appropriate exact amounts
to each of these communities every year, but the funding targets
should be projects that are generally consistent with the population
proportions in the urban communities.
The AT Master Plan in this chapter are general proportional to the
size of the urban community and the scoring matrix on the previous
page. Future public works allocations are difficult to predict since
the engineering department projects 5 years into the future, and
are based on what funding programs become available to the
municipality through provincial and federal governments.
CBRM's rural communities will be serviced primarily by the
Provincial Blue Route instead of by CBRM since these roads are
mostly owned and managed by the Province. The Province is
implementing the Blue Route over time as part of their capital
improvements as repairs and expansions are needed. The Province
has no definitive timeline for the implementation of the Blue Route
in CBRM but since most roads are upgraded and repaired on a 30-
40 year cycle, we would expect much of these improvements to be
made over the life of this AT plan or the next update.
3.4 COMMUNITY AT PLANS
The 2022 AT Plan picks up where the last 2008 Plan left off, carrying
forward a few of the projects which were not built (like the Sydney
River Multi-use Trail). The 2022 Plan includes a wide range of
AT improvements in various communities which follow the AT
Suitability Criteria outlined in the previous section. The new projects
also help to extend the network from the 2008 Plan. The plan
assumes that funding for AT will be increased from $1m per year to
$1.5m per year over 20 years resulting in $30m of built AT projects by
2042. The master plan outlines the proposed projects and priorities
for implementation in each of the focus communities for this plan.
Blow-ups of the plan for each community is shown on the following
pages.
AT FACILITIES
The next chapter outlines the detailed design standards for the
different AT topologies proposed for CBRM, but for the purpose of
this chapter, there are 5 AT facilities for the master plan including:
1.
Bicycle Lanes (also known as separated bicycle lanes, paved
shoulders, buffered bike lanes, or cycle tracks) which share
the street right-of-way with vehicles. Some bike lanes are
protected or buffered using a combination of horizontal
separation (a painted buffer of a certain width) and vertical
separation (bollards, curbs, flex posts, parked cars, etc.) to
achieve "All Ages and Abilities (AAA) status which is required
to fulfil some funding programs in Nova Scotia.
2.
Multi-use Trails are often separated from the street and
shared with walkers, joggers, wheelchairs, bikes and other
personal mobility devices. These facility types are some of the
safest and most used but they can be more expensive to build
and maintain. Rails to trail conversions like the Coal Town
trail fall into this category.
3.
Sidewalks are dedicated to walkers, joggers and wheelchairs
and part of the connective AT fabric. Sidewalk facilities are
highlighted in the next section (3.6) separate from the other
facilities.
4.
Bike boulevards are designated streets where cars and bikes
share the road when the street is low speed and has low traffic
volumes. The streets are sometimes modified to include
bicycle friendly geometry, vehicle speed bumps, lower speed
limits, painted 'sharrows' or other shared indicators and
signage.
5.
Blue Routes are provincially designated bicycle
infrastructure that includes painted 1m road shoulders or
dedicated multi-use trails on provincial road right-of-ways.
There are many variations on these 5 facilities which are covered
more in the next AT Standards chapter.
66 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Figure 3.2 2022 AT Master Plan
L E G E N D
Bicycle Lanes
Multi-Use Trail
Bike Blvd
Blue Route
| 67
North Sydney
Priority
Length
Location
Type
Description
1
High
1.8 km
King St
Bike Lanes
The King Street bike lanes should extend from the waterfront to the
Sobeys plaza. The existing road width is about 10.5m and should mostly
be easy to retrofit. From Pierce to Commercial Street road widening will
be needed or a dedicated 3.2m multi-use cycleway could be considered
through this stretch on the south side. The average grade is 2.6% with a
few select lengths of 6% max.
2
High
2.5 km
Queen St /
Commercial
St
Bike Lanes
This bike lane should link the eventual Blue Route termination at
Musgrave Lane to Pleasant Street near the Marine Atlantic Terminal.
This will be a high cost improvement that should be coordinated with
future streetscape improvements. The average slope is 2.6% with a few
short runs of 8% slopes.
3
Med
1.9 km
Regent St /
High St
Bike Blvd
This Bike Boulevard will link the waterfront to the North Sydney Mall.
4
Med
0.8 km
Archibald
St
Bike Blvd
This Bike Boulevard links the Ferrisview Elementary School
5
Low
0.9 km
Blowers /
Station
Bike Lanes
This bike lane links Pleasant Street to Kings Street. The average road
grade is 2.7% and there is a 60m stretch of steep 8% grade.
6
Med
0.4km
Wilkie St
Bike Blvd
This route will provide direct access to Ferrisview Elementary School
for students who live in the catchment area for the former Seton
Elementary School. It also provides a direct rout to North Sydney Mall
via High Street.
7
High
0.4 km
305
Highway
Bike Lane
Connects Sydney Mines to North Sydney
8
NA
15.1 km
Keltic Dr /
Seaview Dr
Bike Lane
The provincial Blue Route Connector linking Sydney to North Sydney.
This will be the province's responsibility.
Sydney Mines
Priority
Length
Location
Type
Description
9
High
2.5 km
Memorial
Dr
Bike Lanes
The Memorial Drive bike lanes will link Memorial High and the future
middle school site (near Hillier). The road is mostly 10m wide so some
slight widening is needed to accommodate. The maximum slopes are
8% on this road for a very short stretch but the average grade is 2.5%
10
High
1.5 km
Fraser Ave.
Bike Lane
Most of the road width is about 10m so some slight widening will be
needed. The maximum slope is 7% for a very short stretch but the
average slope is 1.3%. This cycle lanes will link many communities to
downtown Sydney Mines, Munroe Academy and Jubilee Elementary.
11
High
5.1 km
Shore Rd &
Main St
Bike Lane
Most of the slopes along this stretch are gradual with an average slope
of 3.3% and a few peak slopes of up to 10% for very short distances.
Most of the road is 10m wide so some slight widening will be needed.
This road links many of the uphill communities in Sydney Mines
with the waterfront, Northside Hospital, Harbourview Elementary,
Sydney Mines Middle School, Downtown Sydney Mines, the Northside
Education Centre and Jubilee Elementary.
SYDNEY MINES AND NORTH SYDNEY
The linkage between Sydney and North Sydney remains unbuilt in
2022 but is planned as part of the provincial Blue Route upgrades in
the future. The rail line through the community could eventually be an
ideal AT backbone but its future is still uncertain, and of all the lines
in Cape Breton, this one is likely the most important to retain for rail
economic development linking the new NovaPorte to the mainland. All
Bike Blvd proposals in this neighbourhood should include sidewalk on
at least one side of the street.
68 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Figure 3.3 2022 AT Master Plan: Sydney Mines & North Sydney
1
5
9
11
12
10
13
14
15
3
8
2
4
7
6
L E G E N D
Bicycle Lanes
Multi-Use Trail
Bike Blvd
Blue Route
Sidewalk
12
Low
0.7km
Pitt St
Bike Lane
This stretch is mostly flat with an average road grade of 2.4% and a few
localized max grades of 6%. This road will link the Sydney Mines fields
with downtown Sydney Mines and many of the communities to the
south.
13
Low
1.5 km
Park Rd
Bike Blvd
This bike boulevard links the Dr. T.L. Sullivan School to the local
community. The road is very flat with an average grade of 1%. Some
of the asphalt walkways should be replaced with concrete in the
future. Further, this bike boulevard will connect former students from
Florence Elementary School (now closed) to Dr. T.L. Sullivan School.
Additionally, this route will accommodate travel to the community of
Florence.
14
Low
0.8 km
Staffold Ave
/ Clyde
Bike Blvd
This bike boulevard links the Munroe academy with the bike
boulevards and neighbourhoods to the east. The average slope is 1.1%
but there is about 200m of 6% street grade.
15
Low
1.3 km
King,
Huron,
Richard St
Bike Blvd
The street connects the surrounding neighbourhoods with the Jubillee
Elementary and Harbourview Hospital and downtown Sydney Mines.
The average slope is 1.9% with about 200m of Richard Street at 6%.
Sydney Mines
Priority
Length
Location
Type
Description
| 69
WESTMOUNT, COXHEATH, SYDNEY RIVER, SYDNEY & WHITNEY PIER
Assuming the G&W rail line is maintained to NovaPorte, and that
the remaining rail line east of the Sydport Access Road can be
leased, the following AT network is imagined for the life of this plan
WESTMOUNT / Coxheath
Priority
Length
Location
Type
Description
1
Med
8.9 km
Westmount
Rd /Sydport
Access Rd /
Bike Lane
The Westmount bike lanes will complement the recently built
sidewalks on the Westmount Road providing linkages to the Coast
Guard College, NovaPorte, Mackenzie College, the Sydport Industrial
Park, and the community of Westmount by linking to downtown
Sydney. The average slope of this route is very flat at 2.2% with a few
hundred metres of 6-8% road extending from the waterfront to the
Sobeys plaza. The existing road width is about 10.5m and will be easy
to retrofit.
2
Low
1.3 km
Sydport
Access
Bike Lane
This short stretch of bike lane will connect the Westmount bike loop to
the Sydport Industrial Park. Should the NovaPorte come online, this
would increase the priority to medium priority.
3
Med
4.5 km
G&W Rail
-Sydport
Rd. to Lewis
Dr.
Multi-Use
Trail
If the G&W rail line east of the Sydport Access Road to Lewis Dr. can be
leased, this multi-use trail should be developed as a 3.2m wide crusher
dust pathway on the existing rail line.
4
Low
7.7 km
Coxheath
Rd.
Bike Lane
The Coxheath Road bike lane would create a loop from Keltic Drive,
through Coxheath to the Blacketts Lake Road and on to the King Street
Blue Route providing a 13km loop. The populations in Coxheath along
this road are generally low, making this a low priority project.
5
High
0.3 km
Mt.
Florence St
Bike Blvd
The Mt. Florence Street Bike Boulevard connects Westmount to the
Coxheath Elementary School
6
High
0.7km
Sunnydale
Drive.
Bike Blvd
The Sunnydale Drive Bike Boulevard connects Westmount to Robin
Foote Elementary School
Sydney River
Priority
Length
Location
Type
Description
7
High
1.2 km
G&W Rail
Lease along
Kings Rd
Multi-use trail
The Sydney River cycleway is an important multi-use trail linkage
between the Fatima Dr. and the rail crossing at Keltic Dr. This is
a much needed trail connection and will require some elevated
cycleway connections under the bridge abutment for the Highway.
This cycleway will require work around the new roundabout and a
crossing on an exit lane of Highway 125 into Sydney. This work will
need to be coordinated or performed by the NSTIR.
8
High
3.1 km
Fatima /
Carmichael
/ Riverview
Bike Blvd
This looped bike boulevard around Fatima, Carmichael, and
Riverview Drive will connect much of Sydney River to the new
Cycleway and the Sydney River Elementary School.
9
High
0.3 km
Highway 4
Bike Lane
There is a short stretch of the Blue Route that needs to be extended on
CBRM roads to link up to the new Sydney River Cycleway.
10
Low
3.2 km
Powerline
ROW
Multi-use trail
This crusher dust multi-use trail will link the Sydney River with the
327 and the 7th Exchange. The trail already exists but it should be
cleaned up, regraded and surfaced with 2.5m wide crusher dust for
cyclists and walkers (working with Nova Scotia Power).
70 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
WESTMOUNT
COXHEATH
SYDNEY RIVER
SYDNEY
MEMBERTOU
WHITNEY PIER
Figure 3.4 2022 AT Master Plan: Sydney, Sydney River, Whitney Pier, Westmount, Coxheath
1
21
9
30
33
31
32
15
20
22
16
17
19
29
18
23
26
25
24
27
28
6
14
3
2
7
12
13
11
8
10
4
5
L E G E N D
Bicycle Lanes
Multi-Use Trail
Bike Blvd
Blue Route
| 71
Sydney
Priority
Length
Location
Type
Description
11
High
6.5 km
Sydney
River to
downtown
Sydney
Multi-use
trail
The Sydney River multi-use trail is one of the community's highest
priority trails linking Keltic Dr along the G&W rail line to Open Hearth
Park and on to Esplanade. Two alignments have been presented in
this report but the on-rail alignment (land lease from G&W) is by
far the most desirable and cost effective. The trail is within a few
hundred metres of the most dense population in CBRM and would
link Wentworth Park, NSCC, the Sydney Shopping Centre, Downtown
Sydney and Open Hearth Park. The trail would require a range of
crosswalks and special road crossings. If the rail lease can be secured
for more than twenty years it should be asphalt. If less than twenty
years, crusher dust should be used.
12
High
3.0 km
Kings/
Esplanade
/ Ortana/
George
Bike Lane
The onstreet bike lanes extend from the rail line at King Rd, north up
Esplanade to Ortana Dr extending to George Street all the way to Ferry
Street. This important Bike lane links NSCC, City Hall, the Port of
Sydney and a wide range of waterfront uses including the boardwalk.
The cross section of Esplanade, like George Street, is extremely wide
and could be accommodated with careful design.
13
High
1.4 km
Townsend /
Sheriff
Bike Lane
The Townsend Street bike lanes will terminate at the new NSCC
Campus and will link NSCC and the waterfront to the backside of
the Sydney Shopping Centre and eventually Prince Street. Most of
this route is 2-way except 3 blocks (Esplanade to George) is 1-way
eastbound. The bike lanes will match either the 1-way or 2-way traffic.
14
Med
2.8 km
George St
Bike Lane
The George Street bike extension is phase 2 of the George Street bike
lanes installed as part of the 2008 Plan. It will connect from Townsend
St all the way to the highway interchange.
15
High
1.6 km
Prince St
Bike Lane
The Prince Street Bike Lanes link the waterfront, Charlotte Street,
downtown Sydney and Open Hearth park up to a fork at Victoria Rd.
This road is very dangerous and has seen many accidents so it will be
built as part of a future road widening and streetscape improvement
project. This project will depend on major street changes to Prince in
and around the Sydney Shopping Centre so it has a medium priority.
16
High
3.1 km
Upper
Prince /
Green Rd
Bike Lane
The Upper Prince/Green Rd. bike lanes are crucial in connecting the
Prince Street lanes from downtown to the future Tartan Downs site,
the Mayflower Mall and the Maryann Corbett Trail. The average slope
is about 2.5% with a steep section around 7% in the first 200m from
Prince Street. Consideration will need to be given as to the manner in
which access to Upper Prince Street at Ashby Corner for the proposed
bike lane will be provided as there is no direct street access at this
point.
17
Low
1.9 km
Terrace
Street
Bike Lanes
The Terrace Street Lanes will connect the Sydney Academy in the
north to the Sherwood Park Education Centre in the south. This route
has some steep sections in around 10% grade but has an average
grade of 3.1%.
18
Med
0.7 km
Mt Kemmel,
Alexandra,
King
Bike Lane
This bike lane connects the end of the Greenlink trail near Membertou
with the new Sydney River Multi-use trail. This is an important
cycling connection needed to connect Membertou to downtown
Sydney.
19
Low
0.7 km
Cottage Rd /
Royal Ave
Bike Lane
The Cottage Road bike lane connects the George Street bike lane with
Brookland Elementary and the new Washbrook Trail greenway. This
project has a "Low" priority rating which could change if the "High"
priority Washbrook Greenway Trail is constructed sooner than later.
20
High
0.9 km
Ferry /
Dorchester
Bike Lane
The Ferry bike lane connects the existing George Street bike lane with
Open Hearth Park and its trail networks. Similarly, the Dorchester
connector connects waterfront park with the existing bike lane at
George Street.
72 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Whitney Pier
Priority
Length
Location
Type
Description
30
High
3.4 km
Lingan /
Hankard /
Victoria
Bike Lane
Beginning at the intersection of Spar Road and Lingan Road, the bike
lane turns on Hankard Street and right on to Victoria Road to the
South Bar Entry. The average grade of this route is 2.2% and there is
about 100m of 8% roads but most of the roads are fairly gentle. As a
route through the downtown, this work should be coordinated with
streetscape improvements in downtown Whitney Pier
31
Low
20.3 km
NS Power
Lingan Rail
Line
Multi-use
trail
When the Lingan Power Plant is eventually closed (sometime in the
next 20 years), CBRM should consider purchasing or leasing this rail
line for a future connector between Whitney Pier and New Waterford.
32
Low
1.0 km
Spar Rd
Multi-use
Trail
If the NS Power rail line is ever developed as an AT trail, a multi-use
trail connection just north of the existing Walmart Superstore should
connect the new trail with Highway 4 and the Maryann Corbett
Trail. This may eventually warrant removing the bike lanes recently
installed along the Spar Road near the end of this plan's life.
33
High
0.8 km
Jarnieson /
Cameron
Bike Blvd
This bike boulevard will connect the Whitney Pier Memorial Middle
School to Harbourside Elementary School through the new Victoria
Road cycle lanes.
Sydney
Priority
Length
Location
Type
Description
21
Med
1.4 km
Victoria /
Inverness
Bike Lane
This is a much needed bike lane connecting Sydney to Whitney Pier,
and Whitney Pier to Highway 4 commercial business.
22
Low
0.6
S Road
Bike Lane
If and when the Sydney River multi-use trail is constructed, this
trail connection will connect Sydney River to Whitney Pier and the
Whitney Pier Community Heritage Trail. This road has not been built
yet but should include this AT infrastructure when it is constructed.
23
Med
1.8 km
Cabot St /
Oxford
Bike Blvd
This bike boulevard links the proposed George Street bike lanes with
Brookland Elementary, the new Washrook Trail Greenway, and the
Tartan Downs site.
24
Low
1.3 km
Common
/ Cottage
/ Bernard
Lind
Bike Blvd
This bike boulevard connects the George Street bike lanes with the
Washbrook Greenway and the Sherwood Park Education Centre.
25
High
1.6 km
Washbrook
Creek
Multi-use
Trail
The Washrook Trail greenway is a complement to the Greenlink Trail
connecting the Sherwood Park School with Brookland Elementary.
The trail will follow the river corridor as a 3.2m asphalt multi-use trail
along its length connecting various park assets along the route.
26
High
0.8 km
Greenlink
Trail
Extension
Multi-use
Trail
The Greenlink extension will link the east side of Wentworth Park
through a series of trails and floating boardwalks from Argyle Street
to the end of Shandwick Street which is the start/end of the Greenlink
Trail. This important connection links the Greenlink Trail to
Wentworth Park.
27
Low
1.4 km
Churchill
Bike Lane
These bike lanes are needed to complete the terminus of the Churchill
Dr bike lanes connecting to the future Membertou 7th Exchange
development.
28
Med
1.3 km
Malcom
Munroe
School
Multi-use
Trail
The Munroe School greenway will link various surrounding
neighbourhoods to the Munroe Middle School. There may be issues
with securing land due to most of the land being developed on private
and public property.
29
High
1.1 km
Hwy 125
Multi-use
Trail
The Maryann Corbett Trail is routed around the Emergency Service
Centre to the Mayflower Mall but a branch should continue along the
Grand Lake Road to Green Road.
| 73
NEW WATERFORD
New Waterford is lacking in bike infrastructure, but blessed with
sidewalks. However, some are in very poor condition and are in
need of replacement. The future of the Town's AT infrastructure, in
part, hinges on the future of the Lingan Generating Station and the
NS Power rail line. If the rail line ever becomes available for trails,
one of the AT projects below (Ellsworth Hinchey bike lanes) may
not be needed, though this route is one of the most scenic in CBRM.
New Waterford
Priority
Length
Location
Type
Description
1
High
5.8 km
Ellsworth
/ Heelan /
Emerald /
Union
Bike Lane
This bike lane connects the north and south blue routes through
New Waterford starting at Webbs Lane near the Joe Burns Field and
ending at the Lingan Road. This route should also include sidewalks
on at least one side where missing. This route will connect many of the
major destinations in New Waterford including a range of community
sports fields, several commercial areas, the Breton Education Centre,
Greenfield School. The average slope of this route is 3% but there
are is a 400m stretch near the Greenfield School that has some steep
slopes between 8-10%.
2
Med
2.8 km
Plummer
/ King /
Emerald
Bike Lane
This loop connects the Ellsworth backbone to New Waterfords
downtown, additional sports fields, the New Waterford Hospital, the
Breton Education Centre and the Sobeys. The average road slope is 2%
but there is a half kilometre stretch of between 6-8% roads.
3
Low
4.8 km
Ellsworth /
Hinchey
Bike Lane
This route will connect the Collier Lands Park to the Lingan
Generating Station meeting up with the provincial blue route. The
route links the community of New Waterford to the Generating station
lands but it will also be one of the more scenic coastal routes through
New Waterford. Should the rail line become available before this route
is built, this route may not be needed except a small connector from
the end of the Blue Route to the rail line.
4
Low
0.3 km
8 St
Bike Lane
This short stretch of bike lane will connect the Hinchey Ave. bike lane
to downtown New Waterford if the Hinchey Bike Lane is built.
5
Med
1.7 km
Warren / 8
St / Macleod
/ Mahon
Bike Blvd
This bike boulevard loop connects to the Ellsworth bike lane and the
Breton Education Centre and related sports fields. There are a few
areas that need sidewalk along this route.
6
Med
0.6 km
James /
Ratchford
Bike Blvd
This short stretch of bike boulevard connects the Greenfield School
from the main Union Highway bike lanes.
74 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Figure 3.5 2022 AT Master Plan: New Waterford
1
1
1
2
2
4
5
3
3
6
L E G E N D
Bicycle Lanes
Multi-Use Trail
Bike Blvd
Blue Route
| 75
GLACE BAY
Glace Bay benefits from the Coal Town Trail but there is a serious
gap in the At infrastructure elsewhere in the Town. The Maryann
Corbett trail needs to be linked into downtown Glace Bay and
downtown Dominion needs to be linked to the Coal Town Trail. The
eventual Blue Route lanes will connect the dead end of the current
Coal Town Trail.
Glace Bay - Dominion
Priority
Length
Location
Type
Description
1
High
1.6 km
Highway 4
to Wilson
Rd
Multi-use
Trail
This is the next phase of the Maryann Corbett Trail extending from
where it ends west of Sunnyside Drive to the Wilson Road intersection.
Most of this route is part of the Blue Route so it will be coordinated by
the province. This last remaining stretch will connect the Tompkins
Memorial High.
2
High
4.4 km
Highway 4
Multi-use
Trail
This portion of the Maryann Corbett Trail is on CBRM roads and will
be CBRM's responsibility. This phase will complete the link between
Sydney and Glace Bay ending at the Coal Town Trail. This stretch links
the Glace Bay High, the Superstore and Canadian Tire commercial
area, and the YMCA and we expect this trail will see a lot of use. The
average grade along this route is 1.6% and there are very few sections
over 6%.
3
High
3.0 km
Route 4 /
Route 28
Bike Lane
This bike lane will connect the end of the Mary Anne Corbett Trail to
downtown Glace Bay, the Bayplex, the Miners Memorial Park, and the
Miners Museum and ends at the Glace Bay Hospital and Glace Bay Bird
Sanctuary.
4
Med
0.6 km
Main St
Bike Lane
This short stretch connects the Coal Town Trail at Mckeen to the Glace
Bay waterfront and the Bayplex
5
Med
1.6 km
Stirling /
West
Bike Lane
This segment ends at the John Bernard Croak School and connects
the Table Head Municipal Park grounds, and several commercial
businesses around Tablehead ending at the John Bernard Croak
School.
6
Med
0.1 km
2nd St
Multi-use
Trail
This short multi-use trail connects the end of the bike lane at the John
Bernard Croak School to the Coal Town Trail
7
Med
0.9
Centre
Bike Blvd
The Centre Ave. bike boulevard connects some of the coastal
trails and Black Diamond Park to the West Ave. cycle lanes and
John Bernard Croak School.
8
Med
1.0 km
Currie
Bike Blvd
The Currie bike boulevard connects the downtown commercial area to
the Oceanview Education Centre on an average 2.4% slope road.
9
Med
1.5 km
King /
Commercial
Bike Lane
This stretch of bike lanes through Dominion connects the Blue Route
to the Dominion Community Centre up to park Street where it ends at
the Coal Town Trail. It also connects many of the local neighbourhoods
in Dominion to the Dominion Beach Provincial Park. In the next update
to the AT plan this end could connect to downtown Glace Bay down the
Hwy 28.
10
Med
1.3 km
Seaview /
Rebecca
/ School /
Dragatic
Bike Blvd
This route connects the Hwy 28 cycle lanes to the Glace Bay
Elementary School and back to the Park Street Mira River Greenway
76 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Figure 3.6 2022 AT Master Plan: Glace Bay and Dominion
2
2
8
1
3
3
6
9
7
5
4
10
L E G E N D
Bicycle Lanes
Multi-Use Trail
Bike Blvd
Blue Route
Coal Town Rd
| 77
LOUISBOURG
The Town needs to connect the end of the Provincial Blue Route to
the Old Town Trail in the National Park, as well as the downtown to
the lighthouse site.
louisbourg
Priority
Length
Location
Type
Description
1
High
2.3 km
Route 22
Bike Lane
This bike lane will connect the end of the Provincial Blue Route
through downtown Louisbourg to the Parks Canada Visitor Centre
Entrance and on to the Old Town Trail.
2
Med
1.4 km
Rail ROW
Multi-use
Trail
This multi-use trail follows the old rail corridor. The proposed multi-
use trail bridges the gap from the lighthouse to downtown Louisbourg.
3
Low
7.0 km
Coastal
Trail
Bike Blvd
The Centre Ave Bike Blvd connects some of the coastal trails and Black
Diamond Park to the West Ave Cycle Lanes and John Bernard Croak
School.
Figure 3.7 2022 AT Master Plan: Louisbourg
2
1
3
L E G E N D
Bicycle Lanes
Multi-Use Trail
Bike Blvd
Blue Route
78 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Figure 3.8 Sidewalk AT Facilities
There are some important segments of sidewalk needed to complete some of the AT network as
show in the plan above. This map does not consider the existing sidewalk conditions and there
may need to be existing sidewalks repaired to make them usable for the network.
| 79
3.5 SIDEWALK AT FACILITIES
Sidewalks are a critical part of the AT network and are particularly
important near bus stops, in and around schools, near downtowns,
and as part of the connective tissue for other AT infrastructure.
Identifying suitable areas for sidewalk infrastructure is relatively
straight forward and generally follows the same AT Suitability
Criteria outlined in Chapter 3.4.
CBRM does not currently have a sidewalk condition
assessment so it is much more difficult to identify areas
where the sidewalk needs to be replaced. A sidewalk condition
assessment was not part of the scope of work for this plan,
but going forward, CBRM Public Works should ensure that
sidewalk conditions are safe if they are part of the AT network.
Potential Sidewalk Connections - Central
Location
Length
(m)
Kevin Quinlan-Walmart bus shelter to island
0.90
Rotary Drive - S. Bentinck to Civic #297
0.51
Rotary Drive - S. Bentinck to Civic #297
0.45
Towerview Place - Civic 50 to Alexandra
0.14
Centennial Dr-Upper Prince to Ranna
0.72
Cape Breton St-Inglis to Victoria Rd
0.53
Lingan Rd - Jamieson to Church
0.30
Skye Waye Dr - Sunnydale to Applecross
0.14
School St-Kings rd to Richardson
0.12
Young St - Borden to Victoria
0.06
Hospital St - Cabot to Centennial Rink
0.25
Upper Prince - Reeves to Cowbay Rd Overpass
1.02
Argosy St - Borden to Victoria
0.06
Brookdale St - Manse to Victoria
0.17
Westmount Rd-College to Fairhaven
0.30
Daley Dr-Anderson to MacNamara
0.20
Mason St-Kings to Argyle
0.13
Nepean St - Civic 37 to Charlotte
0.50
Prince Street Sidewalks - Northern Edge
2.80
Inglis St - Existing an Prince
0.06
Keltic Dr - Bridge to existing
0.11
Spar Rd-Kevin Quinlan to 125 intersection
1.00
Potential Sidewalk Connections - East
Renwick Park to Queen Elizabeth Pedestrian Tunnel
0.04
Potential Sidewalk Connections - East
Memorial Drive - High School to Eveleigh
0.40
Memorial Drive - Eveleigh to Tobin Avenue
1.38
Baird Street - Continue loop to Holic
0.23
Station Street - Blowers to King
0.48
Musgrave Lane - Queen to Regent
1.56
Table 3-9 Sidewalk AT proposal
80 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Figure 3.10 2008-2042 Composite Plan
Combining the as-built 2008 plan with the proposed 2022, the complete network becomes
visible. This plan shows the anticipated build-out of the network in 2042. The 2008 "as-built"
lines are thinner and transparent to illustrate the old plan and new plan combined.
L E G E N D
Bicycle Lanes
Multi-Use Trail
Bike Blvd
Blue Route
Sidewalks
| 81
Comparatively speaking,
the cost of building AT
infrastructure on the rail
line could be significantly
cheaper than the cost of
building trails in public
street corridors.
3.6
RAILS TO TRAILS
The rail lines through CBRM are a legacy to
the region's industrial past, representative of
the fabric of coal and steel that grew CBRM's
economy. Sadly, the days of coal and steel are
gone but the network of rail lines remain as
an economic and recreational opportunity for
the municipality. The Cape Breton & Central
Nova Scotia Railway (CBNS) is owned by
Genesee & Wyoming and extends from Truro to
downtown Sydney. This rail line could become
an important part of the future NovaPorte
near Westmount. In 2021, the Province of Nova
Scotia extended its $30k per month subsidy to
the middle of 2022 (as it has done on numerous
occasions) while studying the feasibility of
making the line active again to support the
NovaPorte container terminal. Clearly, the
economic impact of restoring rail for the new
container port cannot be understated; the rail
line from Truro to Westmount must be reserved
for potential reinstatement in the future.
However, the Westmount to downtown Sydney
line has no immediate purpose and could serve
as a backbone of an urban AT connector.
The process of rail abandonment is complex and
time consuming. Generally, decision-making
favours maintaining the corridors for future
rail reinstatement whether it is feasible or not.
The only maintenance cost for rail owners for
an unused rail line is to ensure the lines in
safe condition for the public (e.g. bridges for
public safety and navigation, road crossing in
safe working order, etc). On the other hand, if a
company decides to go through the abandonment
process, they must go through environmental
cleanup, advertise the rail line for any other
potential rail operating for 12 months, and go
through a complex government process. Clearly,
the Rail Act favours maintaining the status quo.
Consequently, many communities like CBRM are
left with the industrial blight of a discontinued
and unusable rail line.
RAIL LEASE FOR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
There is another option to rail abandonment.
The Windsor Hantsport Railway had not
operated a train on the line since 2010, and
like the CBNR line, the line is considered
'discontinued' but not 'abandoned'. Both HRM
and some Kings County municipalities have
signed a lease agreement to build trails on top
of (or beside) rails and to acquire the rail line
if it ever is abandoned. As part of the lease
agreement, there is an acknowledgement that
if the rail line were ever reopened, AT uses
would have to be removed. In the case of the
W&HR line, Kings County, New Minas, Wolfville,
Kentville and the Town of Windsor currently
have lease agreements in place which includes a
leasing charge of $2,500 per year per kilometre.
The capital cost of removing the rail ties and
building the trail bed is left to the municipality,
as is maintenance costs and insurance for
bridges and other unused infrastructure.
While this may sound like an expensive and
risky proposition for CBRM, consider that every
time road work is completed near a rail line,
the municipality must hire the rail owners
consultants to ensure that rail crossing safety
measures and standards are followed. This
cost can be substantial. A rail lease would
likely eliminate the need for these costs while
the lease was in place. Not to mention the cost
difference of building infrastructure in CBRM's
public roadways compared to the cost of using
the rail line instead. A cost comparison below is
presented for the Sydney River Multi Use trail
comparing building on the rail line vs off the
rail line. Comparatively speaking, the cost of
building AT infrastructure on the rail line could
be significantly cheaper than the cost of building
trails in public street corridors.
82 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
L E G E N D
Public Works and Government
Genesee & Wyoming
Potential G&W Rail Lease
Coal Town Trail
Emera Utility Services
Figure 3.11 CBRM Rail Lines
Rail lines in CBRM are owned by either the Cape Breton and Central Nova Scotia Railway Ltd
(owned by Genesee & Wyoming Inc) or NS Power. In 2021, the Province of NS extended its $30k
per month subsidy to the middle of 2022 while it studies the feasibility of making the line active
again to support the NovaPorte container terminal (shown in Brown).
| 83
THE SYDNEY RIVER MULTI-USE TRAIL
The length of the rail line between the Sydport Access Road
and downtown Sydney is 10.1 km long and if a rail lease could
be sought, it might cost about $25k per year using a similar
price for the W&HR lease. Securing a lease arrangement with
G&W for this branch would be cost effective for CBRM and a
significant amenity for all residents of the municipality.
The Sydney River Multi-Use Trail was one of the most requested
trails throughout this process. It has the potential to link Sydney
River and parts of Membertou to downtown Sydney, the Sydney
Waterfront, Wentworth Park, NSCC and the Cruise Port along
some of the municipality's most picturesque oceanfront land. It
would likely see very high use - possibly some of the highest in
CBRM - if built.
Ideally this linkage would extend from Open Hearth park to
Wentworth Park and all the way to the Sydport Road as part of
the North Sydney connector which remains unbuilt today. If the
lease negotiations with G&W remain prolonged for this leg of
trail, CBRM may have to consider the on-road connector along
Keltic Drive option proposed in the 2008 plan.
To compare the cost differences between using rails-to-trails
vs. public and private lands to route the trail, the consultants
prepared 2 possible alignments for the Sydney River Multi-use
trail; one using the rail alignment, and the other using public
and private lands off of the rail line.
Off-Rail Alignment
The first option explores a 3.6km alignment, from Keltic Drive
to Kings Road near the STP, which stays off the rail corridor
with the exception of two crossing where existing roads
currently cross the line. This alignment crosses 32 private
properties which would need to either be acquired in full or
an easement secured across them. The cost of acquiring these
properties/easements has not been estimated but we would
expect at least $2m and significant staff time and investment to
secure property. The trail would likely have to be phased over
time as properties were secured and built in stages. The price
escalation and community cost for having to build over time
could also be substantial.
This alignment would require substantial shoreline infilling,
retaining walls, bridges, stormwater management and
regrading, and cut and fill to bring the minimum trail elevation
to a safe height of about 3m above high water mark (enough
for safe sea level rise). The preliminary class D cost estimates
for this off-rail project bring it in around $10.4m (Figure 3.13).
We assume land acquisitions would take upwards of $2m and
several years to negotiate. This alignment likely would take 5-10
years to build in phases. Appendix B includes the schematic
drawings for this alignment.
While this option may seem far-fetched, please note 2022 Plan's
consultant team, Fathom Studio, was involved with the design
of a similar 3km Dartmouth Harbourfront Trail developed by
the Waterfront Development Corporation (Now Develop NS).
The Dartmouth Harbourfront Trail runs adjacent to a rail
line, and the majority of the trail was secured and built over
approximately two years as part of the new sewage treatment
plant construction in 2011. So while this option is possible, it is
not optimal.
On-Rail Alignment
The on-rail alignment from Keltic Drive to Kings Road is slightly
shorter route. The trail would be 3.2km and would not require
land purchases, cut and fill, retaining walls, or shoreline
infilling, and would need fewer drainage improvements than
the previous option. Essentially, if the rail ties were taken up,
the flat railbed is primed for a trail. The preliminary class D
cost estimates for this On-Rail project bring it in around $2.2m
(Figure 3.13). This is roughly one quarter the cost of the off-rail
alignment. Further - if the lease could be secured -it could be
built in a single season.
The on-rail alignment, if chosen, should create a series of
interesting destination parks along the route which include
interpretive nodes, seating areas, signage, public art, view
points, beaches, and possibly sheltered areas as part of a public
washroom facility.
Rail Line AT VS Public Street AT
This cost estimate demonstrates the tremendous savings
attributed to using existing rail infrastructure when compared
to in public road easements. The public easement AT normally
requires changes to curbs and gutters, travel lanes, stormwater
drainage, sidewalks, signage and signalization works, and
occasionally, land purchases or expropriations. Dedicated
multi-use trails on rail corridors are generally much cheaper
even with land leases.
84 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
| 85
Figure 3.12 Sydney River Multi-Use Trail
86 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
3.7
REFERENCES
Off-Rail Line Option
Trail Length
3600 m
Retaining Wall Length
550 m
Item
Quantity Units
Unit Price
Total
Clearing & Grubbing
2.304 ha
30,000.00
$
69,120.00
$
Base Fill Volume (from Civil3D)
51000 cu m
50.00
$
2,550,000.00
$
Base Cut Volume (from Civil3D)
4090 cu m
12.00
$
49,080.00
$
Type 1 Structural Fill (150mm)
2808 cu m
45.00
$
126,360.00
$
Type 2 Structural Fill (250mm)
4680 cu m
45.00
$
210,600.00
$
Retaining Wall (550x2m high)
1100 sq m
400.00
$
440,000.00
$
Railings
550 m
150.00
$
82,500.00
$
Asphalt Path (3.2m)
576 cu m
600.00
$
345,600.00
$
Light Standards @ 30m OC
120 ea
7,000.00
$
840,000.00
$
Interpretive Rest Stations
4 ea
50,000.00
$
200,000.00
$
Storm Drains
20 ea
2,000.00
$
40,000.00
$
Gravel Shoulder (1m each side)
1080 cu m
45.00
$
48,600.00
$
150mm Topsoil and Hydroseed
5040 sq m
15.00
$
75,600.00
$
Sub-Total
5,077,460.00
$
Estimated Land Costs
2,000,000.00
$
Contingency (20%)
1,415,492.00
$
Inflation for building in phases (10%)
707,746.00
$
Design and Construction Admin (15%)
973,942.80
$
Legal/Admin for Land Acquisition
200,000.00
$
Total (no Tax)
10,374,640.80
$
On-Rail Line Option
Trail Length
3250 m
Item
Quantity Units
Unit Price
Total
Remove/Dispose Rail Ties
3250 m
12.00
$
39,000.00
$
Type 1 Structural Fill (150mm)
2535 cu m
45.00
$
114,075.00
$
Asphalt Path (3.2m)
520 cu m
600.00
$
312,000.00
$
Light Standards @ 30m OC
108 ea
7,000.00
$
756,000.00
$
Interpretive Rest Stations
4 ea
50,000.00
$
200,000.00
$
Gravel Shoulder (1m each side)
975 cu m
45.00
$
43,875.00
$
150mm Topsoil and Hydroseed
4550 sq m
15.00
$
68,250.00
$
Sub-Total
1,533,200.00
$
Contingency (20%)
306,640.00
$
Design and Construction Admin (15%)
275,976.00
$
Land Lease over 10 years @2500/yr/km
81,250.00
$
Total (no Tax)
2,197,066.00
$
Figure 3.13 Sydney River Multi-Use Trail Options
Off-rail Alignment (3.6km)
On-rail Alignment (3.2km)
| 87
WHITNEY PIER TO NEW WATERFORD TRAIL
NS Power operates a 22km long branch of the rail line between
New Waterford and Whitney Pier. This line was designed to
connect the Lingan Generating Station to the coaling piers on
Sydney Harbour. Coal is unloaded from ships and stored at the
pier, loaded onto trains, and delivered to the Lingan Generating
Station. Since 2012, NS Power has been shutting down two of
Lingan's generators during the summer months due to lower
residential and industrial demand, increased renewable
energy use, and to meet their environmental targets set by the
government. NS Power is also considering permanently shutting
down those generators within the life of this plan (2022-2042) as
part of its renewable energy transition from coal.
Should the line become available within the life of this plan and no
other rail use be found, it would be ideally suited for a multi-use
trail between Sydney, Whitney Pier and Glace New Waterford.
COAL TOWN TRAIL & ADDITIONAL DEVCO MULTI-USE TRAILS
The Coal Town Trail has been a thundering success. Its multi-use
nature (allowing for walkers, joggers, cyclists, ATVs, snowmobiles,
horseback riders, skiers, snow-shoers, etc.) has attracted a broad
cross-section of the municipality's residents. The trail is managed
by a variety of special interest groups including Velo CB, Cape
Breton Road Runners, Bay it Forward, off-road vehicle clubs,
horseback clubs, and snowshoeing clubs. Each group has access
to unique funding opportunities allowing for improvements and
maintenance to the trail. ch group brings a variety of in-kind
assistance from its members.
There have been some conflicts between land owners and
motorized/non-motorized trail users but generally speaking the
trails have worked well for a wide variety of users. Future rail
conversions will likely follow a similar model of use, ownership
and maintenance and it is not the intent of this AT plan to weigh in
on the compatibility or legality of motorized users. The trail does
work well as an AT corridor today attracting walkers, cyclists and
other non-motorized users, making it convenient and safe to get to
school, to work and to other local destinations from the different
neighbourhoods of Glace Bay and Dominion. By this standard, it
is an active transportation success story for CBRM. It also attracts
many tourists and residents of CBRM from other communities due
to the outstanding scenery and 13km length so it also works well as
a recreational trail.
New multi-use trails are in the planning stages for linkages to
Louisbourg and Gabbarus, and the trail groups would be anxious
to mobilize on the Sydney Rover Trail if a lease can be secured.
Extending the end of the Coal Town Trail at the Gardiner Road
through to Cape Breton University is also a high priority for the
groups.
We expect future rail conversions will follow a similar model
as the Coal Town Trail though there may be further motorized
restrictions as the trail goes through downtown areas. The trail
has strict guidelines for use which is policed by CBRM and its
members.
FUTURE G&W TRAIL LEASES THROUGH NORTH SYDNEY/SYDNEY
MINES
The North Sydney and Sydney Mines G&W lines have an uncertain
future but many in the province recognize the importance of
this line for future economic development. As such, investment
for trails is a lower priority than for bringing back rail. And until
the future of this line is more certain, CBRM should focus on
developing other off-rail AT infrastructure in these communities
until such time as the rail is ever abandoned.
88 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Figure 3.14 CBRM Provincial Blue Routes
3.8 PROVINCIAL BLUE ROUTES
The Provincial Blue Routes are located on secondary highways
using a combination of paved shoulders, shared lanes, and hard
surfaced trails on provincially owned roads. Once completed
across Nova Scotia, the Blue Route will include about 3,000km of
signed bicycle routes. In CBRM, there are approximately 180km of
planned Blue Routes. To date, only about 20% of the network has
been completed, with the stretch between Whitney Pier and New
Waterford being the most recent.
There is no planned phasing for the route but the network is
installed as roads are upgraded over time. Since most roads need
upgrades on a 30+ year schedule, it is likely the majority of these
routes will be implemented throughout the lifetime of the 2022
Plan. Further, priority consideration should be given for routes that
connect to existing projects
Some of the provincial Blue Route roads meet CBRM owned
roads. Where this occurs, CBRM should continue the Blue Route
to ensure connectivity between communities. These include
routes in North Sydney/Sydney Mines, through New Waterford,
through Dominion and Glace Bay, and between Sydney River
and Sydney. These routes provide the backbone to the rural AT
network in CBRM and should be considered as priority projects
for future implementation.
L E G E N D
Provincial Blue Routes
CBRM Road Connections
to link the Blue Route
| 89
90 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
CBRM has had great success implementing the 2008 plan and the results have provided a strong
foundation to build upon going forward. The next 20 years should see much broader adoption of
the network and much higher growth in AT usage. This chapter outlines the policy changes that
should be adopted to support this plan, the cost estimates and phasing, the funding sources, and
administrative and maintenance requirements to put this plan in motion.
C H A P T E R 4
IMPLEMENTATION
4.1
COST ESTIMATES AND PHASING PLAN
Using the recommendations in the previous
chapters, class D cost estimates were assembled
to show the cost of implementing the AT Plan (in
2022 $$) over the next two decades up till 2042.
The proposed phases for improvements in
this plan were prepared based on the AT
Suitability Criteria outlined in Chapter 3.4 but
was not coordinated with Public Works' capital
works program over the next decade. In our
discussions with Engineering, we understand
that the capital works program changes year
to year based on the availability of matching
funding. As noted in the AT Plan chapter, the
best way to capitalize on spending for AT is to
coordinate it with other road alteration projects
in the region. So, with that said, the phasing
priorities proposed in this plan is subject to
change based on the year-to-year priorities and
funds available for capital works projects.
The scope of this project did not allow for
a sidewalk and infrastructure condition
assessment, so there will likely be additional
funds needed for sidewalk reinstatements in
areas where sidewalk conditions are very poor.
Priorities for sidewalk reinstatement should
follow the same priorities outlined in this AT
plan.
Some of the cycle lane projects in this report
may be dependant on road widening as
recommended in the AT Standards chapter
(Chapter 4). The cost estimates have not
considered new curb and gutter installation or
stormwater repositioning, as it was assumed
these costs would be part of the capital budgets
for road upgrades.
Class D estimates are high level and assume a
20% contingency. We have included a 10% fee
for design and engineering in the estimates. The
costs in these tables exclude HST but include all
material and labour.
UNIT COST ASSUMPTIONS
1.
For the gravel trail we assumed a width of
3.2 metres for the path with 6" of type 1
base and 2" crusher dust. We also assumed
that there would be culverts and ditching
improvements along the proposed trails
which are factored in that number along
with standard landscaping (topsoil/
hydroseed). Price: $290/m
2.
The paved multi-use trail was assumed
to be 3.2 metres wide paved along with
subgrade gravels extending on either
side. We assumed a medium duty asphalt
| 91
(3") over a 6" Type-1 base. We also assumed that there
would be culverts and ditching improvements along the
proposed trails which are factored in that number along
with standard landscaping (topsoil/hydroseed). Price:
$430/m
3.
Sidewalk was priced assuming 1.5 m wide concrete
sidewalk with Type 1 gravel sub-grade. Price: $125/m
4.
Pricing for bike lane extension is based on a 1 metre wide
extension of the roadway and includes gravels, asphalt,
paint and an allowance for culvert extensions. Bike
painting is based on CBRMs input for typical costs for
road painting (note that the per metre is for one side of the
roadway). Price: $72/m
5.
Pricing for Bike Blvd includes 'sharow' painting on both
sides of the street every 200m and asphalt speed bumps
every 500m as well as some Bike Blvd signs every 200m
on both sides. Price: $8/m
NOTE: These assumptions do not account for curb changes,
moving powerpoles, hydrants, catch basins or manholes, or
other infrastructure alterations which may be necessary to
implement the AT network.
Type
cost/M
Gravel Trail
$290.00
Multi-Use Trail
$430.00
Concrete Sidewalk
$125.00
Bike Blvd
$8.00
Bike Lanes
$72.00
North Sydney
Street
Type
Length (km)
Unit Cost/meter
Priority
High Priority
Med Priority
Low Priority
King St
Bike Lane
1.8
120.00
$
High
216,000.00
$
Queen St / Commercial St
Bike Lane
2.5
38.00
$
High
95,000.00
$
Memorial Drive - High School to Eveleigh
Sidewalk
0.4
217.00
$
High
86,800.00
$
Memorial Drive - Eveleigh to Tobin Avenue
Sidewalk
1.4
199.01
$
High
278,618.00
$
Baird Street - Continue loop to Holic
Sidewalk
0.2
305.96
$
High
61,191.00
$
Station Street - Blowers to King
Sidewalk
0.5
280.82
$
High
140,410.00
$
Musgrave Lane - Queen to Regent
Sidewalk
1.6
269.18
$
High
430,695.00
$
305 Highway
Bike Lane
0.4
38.00
$
High
15,200.00
$
Wilkie St
Bike Blvd
0.4
3.00
$
Med
1,200.00
$
Regent St / High St
Bike Blvd
1.9
3.00
$
Med
5,700.00
$
Archibald St
Bike Blvd
0.8
3.00
$
Med
2,400.00
$
Blowers St
Bike Lane
0.9
38.00
$
Low
34,200.00
$
Subtotal
1,323,914.00
$
9,300.00
$
34,200.00
$
Contingency (20%)
264,782.80
$
1,860.00
$
6,840.00
$
Design and CA (10%)
132,391.40
$
930.00
$
3,420.00
$
Sub-total
1,721,088.20
$
12,090.00
$
44,460.00
$
Community Total
1,777,638.20
$
Sydney Mines
Street
Type
Length (km)
Unit Cost/meter
Priority
High Priority
Med Priority
Low Priority
Memorial Dr
Bike Lane
2.5
38.00
$
High
95,000.00
$
Fraser St
Bike Lane
1.5
38.00
$
High
57,000.00
$
Shore Rd & Main St
Bike Lane
5.1
38.00
$
High
193,800.00
$
Pitt St
Bike Lane
0.7
38.00
$
Low
26,600.00
$
Park Rd
Bike Blvd
1.5
3.00
$
Low
4,500.00
$
Saffold Ave / Clyde
Bike Blvd
0.8
3.00
$
Low
2,400.00
$
King, Huron, Richard St
Bike Blvd
1.3
3.00
$
Low
3,900.00
$
Subtotal
345,800.00
$
-
$
37,400.00
$
Contingency (20%)
69,160.00
$
-
$
7,480.00
$
Design and CA (10%)
34,580.00
$
-
$
3,740.00
$
Sub-total
449,540.00
$
-
$
48,620.00
$
Community Total
498,160.00
$
92 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Westmount
Street
Type
Length (km)
Unit Cost/meter
Priority
High Priority
Med Priority
Low Priority
Westmount Rd /Sydport Access Rd /
Bike Lane
8.9
38.00
$
Med
338,200.00
$
Sydport Access
Bike Lane
1.3
38.00
$
Low
49,400.00
$
G&W Rail to Trail
Multi-Use Trail
4.5
430.00
$
Med
1,935,000.00
$
Coxheath Rd
Bike Lane
7.7
38.00
$
Low
292,600.00
$
Mt Florence St
Bike Blvd
0.3
3.00
$
High
900.00
$
Sunnydale Drive
Bike Blvd
0.7
3.00
$
High
2,100.00
$
Subtotal
3,000.00
$
2,273,200.00
$
342,000.00
$
Contingency (20%)
600.00
$
454,640.00
$
68,400.00
$
Design and CA (10%)
300.00
$
227,320.00
$
34,200.00
$
Sub-total
3,900.00
$
2,955,160.00
$
444,600.00
$
Community Total
3,403,660.00
$
Sydney River
Street
Type
Length (km)
Unit Cost/meter
Priority
High Priority
Med Priority
Low Priority
Kings Rd
Multi-use trail
1.2
430.00
$
High
516,000.00
$
Faitma / Carmicheal / Riverview
Bike Blvd
3.1
3.00
$
High
9,300.00
$
Highway 4
Bike Lane
0.3
38.00
$
High
11,400.00
$
Powerline ROW
Trail
3.2
290.00
$
Low
928,000.00
$
Subtotal
536,700.00
$
-
$
928,000.00
$
Contingency (20%)
107,340.00
$
-
$
185,600.00
$
Design and CA (10%)
53,670.00
$
-
$
92,800.00
$
Sub-total
697,710.00
$
-
$
1,206,400.00
$
Community Total
1,904,110.00
$
Sydney
Street
Type
Length (km)
Unit Cost/meter
Priority
High Priority
Med Priority
Low Priority
Sydney River to downtown Sydney
Multi-use trail
6.5
430.00
$
High
2,795,000.00
$
Esplenade / Kings / George
Bike Lane
3
38.00
$
High
114,000.00
$
Townsend St
Bike Lane
1.4
38.00
$
High
53,200.00
$
Ferry / Dorchester
Bike Lane
0.9
38.00
$
High
34,200.00
$
Highway 125
Bike Lane
1.1
38.00
$
High
41,800.00
$
Washbrook Creek
Multi-use Trail
1.6
430.00
$
High
688,000.00
$
Greenlink trail Extension
Multi-use Trail
0.8
430.00
$
High
344,000.00
$
Centennial Dr-Upper Prince to Ranna
Sidewalk
0.1
90.00
$
High
9,000.00
$
Cape Breton St-Inglis to Victoria Rd
Sidewalk
0.5
228.00
$
High
114,000.00
$
Hospital St - Cabot to Centennial Rink
Sidewalk
0.3
200.00
$
High
60,000.0
$
Upper Prince - Reeves to Cowbay Rd Overpass
Sidewalk
1
236.00
$
High
236,000.00
$
Prince Street Sidewalks - Northern Edge
Sidewalk
2.8
125.00
$
High
350,000.00
$
Inglis St - Existing an Prince
Sidewalk
0.1
125.00
$
High
12,500.00
$
Keltic Dr - Bridge to existing
Sidewalk
0.1
125.00
$
High
12,500.00
$
Spar Rd-Kevin Quinlan to 125 intersection
Sidewalk
1
230.00
$
High
230,000.00
$
Prince St
Bike Lane
1.6
38.00
$
High
60,800.00
$
Upper Prince
Bike Lane
3.1
38.00
$
High
230,000.00
$
George St
Bike Lane
2.8
38.00
$
Med
106,400.00
$
Mt Kemmel, Alexandra, King
Bike Lane
0.7
38.00
$
Med
26,600.00
$
Munroe School
Multi-use Trail
1.3
430.00
$
Med
559,000.00
$
Victoria / Inverness
Bike Lane
1.4
38.00
$
Med
53,200.00
$
Cabot St / Oxford
Bike Blvd
1.8
3.00
$
Med
5,400.00
$
School St-Kings Rd to Richardson
Sidewalk
0.1
420.00
$
Med
42,000.00
$
Mason St-Kings to Argyle
Sidewalk
0.1
170.00
$
Med
17,000.00
$
Common / Cottage / Bernard Lind
Bike Blvd
1.3
3.00
$
Low
3,900.00
$
S Road
Bike Lane
0.6
38.00
$
Low
22,800.00
$
Cottage Rd / Royal Ave
Bike Lane
0.7
38.00
$
Low
26,600.00
$
Terrace Street
Bike Lane
1.9
38.00
$
Low
72,200.00
$
Churchill
Bike Lane
1.4
38.00
$
Low
53,200.00
$
Rotary Drive - S. Bentinck to Civic #297
Sidewalk
0.5
520.00
$
260,000.00
$
Rotary Drive - Civic #297 to County Line
Sidewalk
0.4
525.00
$
Low
210,000.00
$
Towerview Place - Civic 50 to Alexandra
Sidewalk
0.1
450.00
$
Low
45,000.00
$
Skye Waye Dr - Sunnydale to Applecross
Sidewalk
0.1
330.00
$
Low
33,000.00
$
Kevin Quinlan - Walmart Bus Shelter to Island
Sidewalk
0.1
180.00
$
Low
18,000.00
$
Westmount Rd-College to Fairhaven
Sidewalk
0.3
333.33
$
Low
100,000.00
$
Daley Dr-Anderson to MacNamara
Sidewalk
0.2
350.00
$
Low
70,000.00
$
Nepean St - Civic 37 to Charlotte
Sidewalk
0.05
240.00
$
Low
12,000.00
$
Subtotal
5,385,000.00
$
809,600.00
$
926,700.00
$
Contingency (20%)
1,077,000.00
$
161,920.00
$
185,340.00
$
Design and CA (10%)
538,500.00
$
80,960.00
$
92,670.00
$
Sub-total
7,000,500.00
$
1,052,480.00
$
1,204,710.00
$
Community Total
9,257,690.00
$
| 93
Whitney Pier
Street
Type
Length (km)
Unit Cost/meter
Priority
High Priority
Med Priority
Low Priority
Lingan / Hankard / Victoria
Bike Lane
3.4
38.00
$
High
129,200.00
$
Spar Rd
Multi-use Trail
1
430.00
$
Low
430,000.00
$
Lingan Rd - Jamieson to Church
Sidewalk
0.3
230.00
$
High
69,000.00
$
Young St - Borden to Victoria
Sidewalk
0.1
150.00
$
Low
15,000.00
$
Argosy St - Borden to Victoria
Sidewalk
0.1
150.00
$
Low
15,000.00
$
Brookdale St - Manse to Victoria
Sidewalk
0.2
205.00
$
Low
41,000.00
$
Jameson / Cameron
Bike Lane
0.8
38.00
$
High
30,400.00
$
Subtotal
228,600.00
$
-
$
501,000.00
$
Contingency (20%)
45,720.00
$
-
$
100,200.00
$
Design and CA (10%)
22,860.00
$
-
$
50,100.00
$
Sub-total
297,180.00
$
-
$
651,300.00
$
Community Total
948,480.00
$
New Waterford
Street
Type
Length (km)
Unit Cost/meter
Priority
High Priority
Med Priority
Low Priority
Ellsworth / Heelan / Emerald / Union
Bike Lane
5.8
38.00
$
High
220,400.00
$
Plummer / King / Emerald
Bike Lane
2.8
38.00
$
Med
106,400.00
$
Ellsworth / Hinchey
Bike Lane
4.8
38.00
$
Low
182,400.00
$
8 St
Bike Lane
0.3
38.00
$
Low
11,400.00
$
Warren / 8 St / Macleod / Mahon
Bike Blvd
1.7
3.00
$
Med
5,100.00
$
James / Ratchford
Bike Blvd
0.6
3.00
$
Med
1,800.00
$
Subtotal
220,400.00
$
113,300.00
$
193,800.00
$
Contingency (20%)
44,080.00
$
22,660.00
$
38,760.00
$
Design and CA (10%)
22,040.00
$
11,330.00
$
19,380.00
$
Sub-total
286,520.00
$
147,290.00
$
251,940.00
$
Community Total
685,750.00
$
Glace Bay and Dominion
Street
Type
Length (km)
Unit Cost/meter
Priority
High Priority
Med Priority
Low Priority
Highway 4
Multi-use Trail
1.6
430.00
$
High
688,000.00
$
Highway 4
Multi-use Trail
4.4
430.00
$
High
1,892,000.00
$
Route 4 / Route 28
Bike Lane
3
38.00
$
High
114,000.00
$
Renwick Park to Queen Elizabeth Pedestrian TunneSidewalk
0.4
125.00
$
High
50,000.00
$
Main Street
Bike Lane
0.6
38.00
$
Med
22,800.00
$
Stirling / West
Bike Lane
1.6
38.00
$
Med
60,800.00
$
2nd St
Multi-use Trail
0.1
430.00
$
Med
43,000.00
$
Central
Bike Blvd
0.9
3.00
$
Med
2,700.00
$
Currie
Bike Blvd
1
3.00
$
Med
3,000.00
$
King / Commercial
Bike Lane
1.5
38.00
$
Med
57,000.00
$
Seaview / Rebecca / School / Dragatic
Bike Blvd
1.3
3.00
$
Med
3,900.00
$
Subtotal
2,744,000.00
$
193,200.00
$
-
$
Contingency (20%)
548,800.00
$
38,640.00
$
-
$
Design and CA (10%)
274,400.00
$
19,320.00
$
-
$
Sub-total
3,567,200.00
$
251,160.00
$
-
$
Community Total
3,818,360.00
$
Louisbourg
Street
Type
Length (km)
Unit Cost/meter
Priority
High Priority
Med Priority
Low Priority
Route 23
Bike Lane
2.3
38.00
$
High
87,400.00
$
Rail ROW
Multi-use Trail
1.4
430.00
$
Med
602,000.00
$
Havenside Sidewalk
Bike Blvd
0.1
125.00
$
Low
12,500.00
$
Subtotal
87,400.00
$
602,000.00
$
12,500.00
$
Contingency (20%)
17,480.00
$
120,400.00
$
2,500.00
$
Design and CA (10%)
8,740.00
$
60,200.00
$
1,250.00
$
Sub-total
113,620.00
$
782,600.00
$
16,250.00
$
Community Total
912,470.00
$
Phase Estimates (no Tax)
14,137,258.20
$
5,200,780.00
$
3,868,280.00
$
Total Estimate (no Tax)
23,206,318.20
$
Cost per Year (20 years)
1,160,315.91
$
94 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
PHASES TOTALS
The High priority projects were assumed to be completed in
the first 10 years of the AT Plan. The Medium priority in years
10-15, and the low priority in years 15-20. Generally this works
out to about $1.15m per year but this does not include capital
improvements needed on streets to make some of these projects
work (e.g. road widening and moving curbs and gutters, moving
storm sewers, new crosswalks, etc).
»
Phase 1 Total (no tax) - $14.1m
»
Phase 2 Total (no tax) - $5.2m
»
Phase 3 Total (no tax) - $3.7m
ANNUAL BUDGET CHANGE
The cost of additional capital works improvements needed
to make the AT infrastructure work could be as high as an
additional 25% of the overall cost, plus annual inflation and
possibly some land acquisition costs, so we recommend
increasing the $1m per year budget to $1.5m. That would
increase CBRM's portion from $330k per year to $500k per year.
4.2 TOP 10 AT PRIORITY
PROJECTS
While Chapter 3 sets out the proposed AT projects in each
community and the priorities of each project (high, medium and
low), there are a number of potentially high profile projects that
could kick start this 2022 AT Plan. These projects are based on
the scoring criteria results Table 1-1, what we heard from the
community and stakeholders, and the project's potential to raise
the profile of AT in CBRM.
1.
Sydney River Multi-use trail - This trail was one of the
highest requested items in the public engagement and
extends Sydney's waterfront for locals and tourists alike. Its
implementation would likely be one of the most signature AT
projects in CBRM raising the profile of active transportation.
2.
The Prince and Upper Price Bike Lanes - This connection
will connect downtown Sydney and the waterfront to the
MaryAnn Corbett Trail and the Mayflower Mall through a
densely populated part of Sydney.
3.
The King Street Bike Lanes - These lanes would connect
a densely populated area of North Sydney with the North
Sydney Mall, and the North Sydney waterfront.
4.
The Grand Lake Road sidewalk - This very busy
commercial area needs sidewalks on the north side of the
street as soon as possible.
5.
Lingan / Hankard / Victoria Bike Lane in Whitney Pier -
This bike lane will link up to the existing Blue Route already
constructed north of Whitney Pier.
6.
The Kings Road Multi-use trail - Connecting Sydney River
under the 125 highway and connecting to Sydney.
7.
The Maryann Corbett Trail - extension to downtown
Glace Bay. This 6km extension is the next phase of this
important multi-use trail and has provincial and municipal
jurisdiction.
8.
The Ellsworth / Heelan / Emerald / Union Bike Lanes -
connects the future Blue Route in New Waterford through
downtown.
9.
Esplanade / Kings / George Bike Lanes - This proposal
will extend the George Street bike lanes and will link much
of downtown Sydney and the waterfront with new AT
infrastructure.
10. The Washbrook Creek Greenway - This important
greenway will link several schools through some dense
neighbourhoods in Sydney
| 95
4.3 POLICY CHANGES
To assist in the timely implementation of this AT Plan, there will
need to be some modifications or additions to CBRM's policies in its
existing or upcoming documents. The following recommendations
should be considered.
MUNICIPAL PLANNING STRATEGY & LAND USE BYLAW
The MPS updates are currently underway and we assume there will
be policy statements added relating to climate change adaption,
integrated mobility, active transportation, transportation,
sustainability, growth nodes and density, downtowns, sprawl,
recreation, community safety, health and well-being, and diversity,
inclusion, and equity. The timing of the MPS and LUB changes
follows this plan and so many of the targets identified in this plan
could be added to the MPS targets. The following general policies
should be considered in these documents:
Municipal Planning Strategy
1.
Density: Development patterns in CBRM have often followed
industrial development related to resource extraction and
processing which has waned since the mid 1900's. This has
led to many sprawling low density neighbourhoods and
separated land uses which fosters a reliance on the private
automobile throughout the municipality. Increasing density
in close proximity to where people work, go to school and
shop is an important way to reduce reliance on the automobile
and change mobility patterns towards transit and active
transportation. The use of infill developments for denser
forms of housing is a positive way to reduce new sprawl and
new streets and services. Ideally 50% of all new housing in
CBRM can be created without building new roads in areas
where there is water/sewer capacity and near areas where
people work or go to school. These are usually located around
the region's downtowns or along main transit corridors. Well
developed active transportation and transit should be a carrot
for developers to develop higher density in these areas (public
investment should spur private investment).
2.
Mobility: There is a growing trend towards travel options
that are more healthy, more sustainable, and more enjoyable.
Walking, jogging, or biking for all or just part of a commute is
an effective way to get healthy while reducing the reliance on
private automobiles. Encouraging and enabling more people
to use active transportation and/or transit requires rethinking
the design of our transportation network and the design of
our communities to place a greater emphasis on multimodal
transportation. Developers should work with CBRM in
developing these more sustainable options. Linking active
transportation with an a growing network of green transit
routes provides a wider array of mobility options and foster
transit supportive lifestyles. The targets of this plan is to shift
private auto commuting from 82% to less than 70% in the next
20 years, and to increase AT commuting from 4.5% today to >
20% in 20 years.
3.
Complete Streets: Transportation solutions that favour or
prioritize the automobile are no longer the way to plan our
communities. Complete Streets are both a policy and design
approach that considers how to achieve safe travel for those
walking, cycling, driving automobiles, and riding public
transportation. It recognizes that the road corridor must
be shared by all modes of transportation, in some cases
favouring one form of transportation over another (e.g. transit
priority corridors). The old approach of simply adding more
lanes to accommodate more traffic is giving way to a more
holistic view of how to shift mobility patterns to other forms of
transportation by providing more and better transportation
options. Complete Streets promote improved safety, better
health, improved equity and inclusion, and more sustainable
outcomes.
4.
Complete Communities: is a planning framework that aims
to meet the basic needs of all residents in a community,
regardless of income, age, or culture through integrated
land use planning, transportation planning, and community
design. One metric of Complete Community design is to
ensure access to services within a 5-15 minute walk, which
contrasts the typical segregated land use and sprawl models
characteristic of the suburbs. It also focuses on providing a
wide mix of housing types and different tiers of affordability
in the community. It also provides for a broader range of
land uses within the radius of the community including
residential, commercial, office, institutional, and recreational
instead of sole purpose zones separated by large distances.
Lastly, Complete Communities provide a wide range of
transportation options within and outside of the community
including transit, active transportation, private vehicles, and
ridesharing. Sidewalks are a critical component of all streets
in this model.
96 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
5.
Parks & Open Spaces: Parks are an integral part of any
community and are particularly relevant as density increases
and these spaces are important amenities since many urban
dwellers don't have yards. CBRM has a Recreation Master
Plan but no Parks Master Plan. A Parks Master Plan should
be prepared to create a hierarchy of parks and park systems
around CBRM as well as parkland dedication guidelines to
guide staff and developers in ensuring the right type of park
infrastructure is achieved in future neighbourhoods and
connections are provided to these parks through AT networks.
The Master Plan could also include an Urban Forest Master
Plan to guide developers and the municipality on the planting
of new tree species around the municipality. In the absence
of parkland guidelines or urban forest standards, the MPS
and LUB could provide some guidance. The following section
outlines some considerations for Parkland Standards for
CBRM.
6.
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity: In a shrinking community
like CBRM, there is a wide array of different age groups, socio-
economic groups, and a growing mix of immigrants. Providing
a wider range of transportation options to vulnerable and
affected members of the community, should be an important
goal of the municipality. Social equity, as well as diversity and
inclusion outcomes, should be addressed through investments
in community development, infrastructure, programs, and
facilities.
7.
Affordability: Since the onset of COVID-19, affordability and
inflation is impacted all communities in Canada. Housing
affordability is being felt widespread across the country as
the cost of goods and services are escalating. CBRM has an
advantage as its relates to the value of existing housing stock
which is escalating at a much slower pace than other parts
of the country. The municipality has a role to play in housing
affordability as it relates to permitting more dense forms of
development (more multifamily housing options, smaller lot
requirements, increasing lot coverage or height requirements,
and the servicable boundary of the municipality. Planning
policies should help improve housing affordability by
supporting a diverse range of housing options in communities.
8.
Health and Well-being: As an aging community, CBRM must
be active in the health and well-being of its residents through
the introduction of policies and programs that encourage
healthier living and infrastructure and programs that provide
healthier outcomes. It should include healthy transportation
options, healthy recreation choices, and access to clean
air, water, and land. Access to affordable housing, healthy
foods, green spaces, public places, and accessible facilities
that encourage community participation are essential to
community health. Communities and networks in the the
urban core of CBRM can be designed, developed, and managed
to improve the wellness of its residents.
Land Use Bylaw
The Land Use Bylaw is also undergoing a major overhaul along with
the MPS so this report precedes the upcoming changes to the LUB.
That said, we recommend the following considerations in support
of this AT Master Plan.
1.
Parking requirements. Many municipalities are eliminating
or vastly reducing their parking requirements. In HRM and
Charlottetown, they have removed parking requirements
for downtown areas and density centres following the recent
movement in other cities in Canada and across the US.
Reducing parking requirements encourages people living in
denser communities to use transit or active transportation.
The Sydney Urban Core Plan recommended revisiting parking
requirements as part of future MPS and LUB changes. We
recommend a similar strategy for zones in dense areas of
CBRM where transit and active transportation are a viable
option. This change will make housing significantly more
affordable (an underground parking spot costs $30-40k) and
creates much healthier lifestyle alternatives.
2.
Bicycle Parking. While car parking standards should be
reduced or eliminated, bike parking requirements should be
increased by requiring Class A (indoor bike parking) and Class
B (outdoor bike parking) bicycle parking in new developments
at a set ratio and a set rate (see Table 4-1 from HRM's Centre
Plan). Like parking standards for parking lots, the LUB should
have standards and geometric design requirements for Class A
and Class B bicycle parking set out in the LUB.
3.
Increased density along AT and transit corridors
near downtowns. Generally speaking, we are confident
that the new LUB will provide guidance on new higher
density developments particularly as infill developments
in downtowns or along important transit / AT corridors.
This additional density will be needed to provide greater
affordability options and to increase the use of AT and transit.
Ideally the density range go from 10-30 units per acre along
urban corridors to 60-100 units per acre in downtowns and
urban cores.
| 97
4.
Adequate setbacks along urban corridors. Urban corridors
need enough room to accommodate complete street
transformations and depending on the road right-of-way
widths, more land may be needed in the future. It will be
important to limit parking between the building and the street
in these zones to reinforce the urban corridor and to bring
residents closer to the street. At the same time, depending
on the scale of collector road, an adequate setback should
be established to allow the road to expand. This is normally
handled through minimum and maximum setback schedules
in the zoning bylaw. Generally speaking, a complete street
corridor that handles less than 20k vpd can be accommodated
in a 20m corridor; 20-30k vpd in a 24m corridor, and greater
than 30 vpd requires a 28m corridor. The min and max
setback schedules should reflect these widths, usually with
a minimum setback of zero in a downtown, 1m or more on a
corridor and a max setback of 2-5m depending on the location.
5.
The LUB should limit future urban sprawl outside of the
servicable boundary. By setting growth targets for the urban
core, CBRM could limit subdivision expansion in rural areas
by setting a limit on the number of lots that can be subdivided
(HRM has set a limit of 8 lots) as of right. The only way to
go through a rural subdivision is through a conservation
subdivision process which is much like a development
agreement which reserves a much larger parkland dedication
(50% in HRM). This approach would substantially reduce the
number of new municipal roads and would focus growth in
urban areas where it can utilize active transportation and
transit.
Subdivision Bylaw
The subdivision bylaw in CBRM is very old and is need of a
modernizing. There are significant missing elements including:
1.
Parkland dedication requirements and standards. Most
municipalities in Canada use 10% parkland dedication for
all subdivided land used for development. For example,
a developer subdividing 100 acres must provide 10 acres
or cash-in-lieu. The subdivision bylaw needs to set out the
parkland dedication requirements and when it applies, how
the cash-in-lieu is calculated, and the standards of acceptance
for land. The parkland standards should identify the type
of land not acceptable for parkland and it usually includes
wetlands, streams and rivers, watercourse setbacks of about
20m, environmentally sensitive areas, steeply sloping land
over 10% slopes, susceptible lands over mine shafts, etc. As
well, the standards should indicate the amount of frontage
required to ensure that parks are visible from the street and
not located in people's backyards. Usually the larger the park,
the more frontage is required. A minimum of 6m for pathways
to parks, a minimum of 30m for playgrounds or small parks,
60m for larger urban parks, etc.
2.
Since CBRM does not have a municipal engineering
standards manual, the subdivision bylaw should set out the
requirements for sidewalks in serviced lands. Local roads
in serviced areas should have curb and gutters, stormwater
systems and sidewalk (1.5m min concrete), and street trees
from a predefined list of trees at a rate of 1 caliper sized tree
(60mm min) every 15-20m of frontage. Collector roads with
anticipated future road volumes of 20k vpd should include
sidewalk on both sides of the street and potentially the
provision of AT infrastructure depending on its location and
proximity to other AT infrastructure outlined in this plan. The
plan should also ensure that cul-de-sac heads leave room for
6m trail easements or limit the length of the cul-de-sac if trail
easements are not provided.
Parks Master Plan
CBRM is currently lacking a Parks Master Plan to establish what
facilities are needed for existing parks, what role each park plays
in the network of parks, what facilities and uses are under or over
represented given current sport participation rates, the conditions
of existing facilities, and how the municipality should plan for
future parks. As part of this document, there needs to be policies
on bike parking, linear park networks and other issues relating to
active transportation.
98 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Use
General requirement
Required
percentage of
Class A or
Class B bicycle
parking
Minimum
requirement for
Class B bicycle
parking
Maximum
requirement
Multi-unit dwelling use
1 space for every 2 units
80% Class A
20% Class B
4 spaces
Not Applicable
Large shared housing use
1 space for every 20
bedrooms
80% Class A
20% Class B
2 spaces
Not Applicable
Hotel use
1 space for every
20 guestrooms
80% Class A
20% Class B
2 spaces
Not Applicable
Retail use;
Local commercial use;
Personal service use;
Grocery store use;
Restaurant use
1 space for every
300 sq. m of floor area
20% Class A
80% Class B
2 spaces
Not Applicable
Financial institution use;
Office use;
Hospital use;
Medical clinic use;
Religious institution use
1 space for every
500 sq. m of floor area
50% Class A
50% Class B
2 spaces
Not Applicable
Cultural use;
Minor spectator venue
use;
Major spectator venue
use
1 space for every 20
permanent seats or 1
space for every 250 sq.
m of floor area,
whichever is less
20% Class A
80% Class B
2 spaces
50 spaces
School use;
University or college use
1 space for every
150 sq. m of floor area
20% Class A
80% Class B
2 spaces
Not Applicable
Club recreation use;
Community recreation
use (indoor facilities)
10 spaces if less than
500 sq. m of floor area;
20 spaces for larger
facilities
20% Class A
80% Class B
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Community recreation
use (outdoor facilities)
1 space for every
1,250 sq. m lot area
100% Class B
2 spaces
50 spaces
Parking structure use
1 space for every 20
motor vehicle parking
spaces
100% Class B
2 spaces
50 spaces
Any other use not
specified in this Table or
not exempted from
bicycle parking
requirements in Sections
446 and 447
1 space for every
500 sq. m of floor area
50% Class A
50% Class B
2 spaces
Not Applicable
REGIONAL CENTRE LAND USE BY-LAW | 270
Table 4-1
HRM Centre Plan Bicycle Parking Requirements
| 99
4.4 MAINTENANCE STANDARDS
CURRENT MAINTENANCE PRACTICES AND COSTS
Typical maintenance practices in the CBRM for different trail
systems are described below:
For gravel surfaced trail systems such as the Green Link Trail
and the Whitney Pier Community Heritage Trail, maintenance
includes spot applying additional granular materials in areas
where surficial degradation is present (usually once the underlying
geotextile becomes exposed from wear or erosion). Regrading and
compaction of surface gravels is completed annually. In most years,
some ditching and repairs to culverts are completed. These trails
are not cleared during the winter.
The costs associated with the maintenance of gravel surfaced trails
varies from year to year, however, over the past year costs range
from $1,000 to $15,800 annually for each trail system.
Maintenance practices associated with paved multi-use trails such
as the Maryann Corbett Multi-Use Trail generally include clearing
of snow following snowfall events and salting the surface to prevent
ice buildup. During the warmer seasons, general landscaping,
pruning and trimming vegetation is completed along the trail.
Costs associated with typical maintenance of paved multi-use trails
was not available at the time of this report.
Bike lanes and widened roadway shoulders are maintained with
the roadway itself and includes sweeping of debris from the
shoulder/gutter periodically through the warmer seasons, plowing
and salting the surface during winter months and reinstatement of
line paintings annually. Full maintenance costs were not available
at the time of this report, however, reinstatement of line painting
was estimated to be approximately $2.95 per metre of painting.
RECOMMENDED MAINTENANCE PROTOCOLS
Sweeping
Bicycle lanes are often filled with debris (gravels, broken glass,
etc.) that pose an issue for cyclists. It is recommended that in areas
where bike lanes are present that a regular sweeping schedule is
put in place to remove debris from the travel way. Shared use paths
can also accumulate debris that poses an issue for cyclists. This is
especially true for paths located in coastal areas, paths that extend
through wooded areas and paths along waterways that are subject
to surcharging during storm events.
The following are some recommendations to mitigate the impact of
debris in the travel way for cyclists:
»
Establishment of a regular sweeping schedule for roadways
and pathways that may require routine and special sweeping
needs. This typically involves more frequent seasonal
sweepings, such as in the spring when snow melt leaves
dirt and debris on paths and roadways. It is good practice
to periodically inspect roadways and paths, especially after
storm events. The sweeping program should also be designed
to respond to users requests for sweeping activities.
»
In curbed roadways, debris should be removed with
maintenance vehicles. In roadways without curb or paths,
debris can be swept off the trail/roadway surface.
»
To reduce gravels being introduced into the travel ways, it is
recommended that paved approaches be installed at gravel
trail crossings at roadways.
»
Maintaining local ordinances such as requiring trucks be
tarped while transporting materials, requiring tow-vehicle
operators to remove glass after crashed and requiring
contractors to clean up roadways daily during construction
operations.
Drainage Improvements
Drainage facilities for trail systems often deteriorate over time
due to vegetation growth or build-up of sediments which may
impede surficial flow. This is true for infrastructure in roadways
such as catch basin structures, which may be plugged or require
adjustment of its cover to encourage surficial drainage. The
following are some recommendations for maintenance of drainage:
»
Periodically review ditching and culverts along trail systems
to identify potential areas of concern. Culvert openings may
require some cleaning at the inlet as well as flushing to remove
any sediment build up in the pipe. Ditching improvements
should be carried out as required to ensure positive drainage
and mitigation of ponding.
»
Replace damaged culverts in a timely fashion.
»
Reset catch basin grates flush with asphalt in areas to improve
drainage on roadway shoulders.
Snow Clearance
Snow clearing requirements will differ for different trail types.
Typically in the CBRM, most trail systems are not cleared of snow
during the winter months, however, some multi-use trails and
bicycle lanes should be kept free of snow. The following are some
recommendations for snow clearance maintenance:
»
On streets with bike lanes or shared use shoulders, remove
snow from the travel surface (including concrete gutters and
shoulders). Snow should not be placed or stored on sidewalks
where it will impede pedestrian traffic.
»
Remove snow from multi-use paths that are regularly utilized
by the public in winter months.
100 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Surface Repairs
Cycling and multi-use trail surfaces can be impacted by cracks,
potholes, bumps and other asphalt surface defects. Trail systems
will also see surficial degradation over time from wear and
erosion that could pose an issue for users. The following are some
recommendations for surface treatments:
»
Cycling surfaces should be inspected on a routine basis to
identify potential surficial defects. Surface defects identified
during inspections or after receiving notification from users
should be repaired promptly.
»
Establishment of processes that enable any responsible
agencies to respond to user complaints in a prompt fashion.
»
Prevent any edges of asphalt repairs to run longitudinally
through a bike lane or shoulder.
»
Development of an asphalt preservation program for cycling
surfaces to minimize deterioration and damage.
»
Review gravel surfaces periodically to assess any areas
showing signs of erosion or degradation from use. Repair any
areas that may require additional gravels in a timely fashion. It
should be noted that installation of erosion control measures
may be necessary if degradation persists.
»
Perform preventative maintenance periodically. This would
include ensuring that any drainage systems remain unplugged
and free flowing as well as eliminating intrusive tree roots.
Vegetation
Vegetation growth encroaching onto trail systems can pose issues
for user on the trails as well as cause potential structural damage
to the trail structure. Overgrowth of vegetation can also affect
visibility along trail systems and obscure signage. The following
are some recommendations for maintenance of vegetation:
»
Periodically review trail systems for encroachment of
vegetation and cut back as required to maintain trail sight
lines and visibility of trail signage.
»
Cut back intrusive root systems. This may require installation
of root barrier systems where appropriate.
»
Adoption of local ordinance that require adjacent land
owners to control vegetation along trail systems. Conversely,
ordinances to allow municipal staff to control vegetation
encroaching onto trail systems from private properties could
be adopted.
Signs and Markings
The following are recommendations to help maintain signs and
markings:
»
Periodically review signage and markings to assess their
condition and visibility. This includes reviewing signage at
night to assess the retroreflectivity.
»
Replace any defective or damaged signage identified promptly.
»
Review signal markings on asphalt surfaces periodically
and reinstate as required. High traffic areas may require
reinstatement more than once per year.
| 101
102 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
4.5 SIGNAGE IMPLEMENTATION
CRITICAL PROCESS
Signage is one of the main elements which your AT users will
interact with. While signage seems simple, signs are often
in the ground for 20 or 30 years. It is worth doing well, with a
thoughtful and durable design. The signs provided here are
just a starting point, and we recommend you go through the
following minimum steps to get a sign system and program
you can implement in CBRM. The AT Signage may want to be
coordinated with an overall signage and wayfinding master
plan in the coming years. The steps are highlighted below:
FINGERBOARD
OFF ROUTE
Coastal Link
Destination 1
00 Km
route west
route ouest
Destination 2
00 Km
Destination 3
00 Km
Destination 3
00 Km
Coastal Link
Canada 150 Trail
Destination 2
Destination 3
Coastal Link
ROUTE ID
route west
route ouest
Coastal Link
Coastal Link
Destination 1
Coastal Link
Ganong Nature Park
Destination 1
00 Km
Destination 2
00 Km
00 Km
00 Km
Destination 2
00 Km
2.10 m
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
Establish scale and functional requirements for all
sign types.
LOCATION PLAN
Recommend sign locations throughout the study area.
---
EKISTICS PLANNING & DESIGN - FORM:MEDIA
56
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
Negotiate messaging requirements for all sign types,
along with materials, colour, typeface and other
important details.
Beacon medium
Elements
- directional information
- emergency / contact information
- street address
- place name (square, park, or street)
- municipal identifier
- space for interpretation of the local area
- optional graphic
- local map (customized for each sign's context)
Materials
- Steel structure
- Aluminum face
- Potential of glass surface for maps
Cost estimate
$17,500
CRAFT COUNCIL
OF NL
LSPU
HALL
BASILICA
CATHEDRAL
LEGEND
Main Roads
Secondary Roads
Parks
Destinations
National Historic Site
East Coast Trail
Trails
local map
(customized
for each sign's
context)
space for
interpretation
of the local area
municipal
identifier
optional graphic
street address
place name
(square, park,
or street)
directional
information
emergency /
contact
information
2,413 mm
110 mm
| 103
S I G N T Y P E S U S I N G T H E S E S P E C I F I C AT I O N S:
UP--pedestrian directional
A S S E M B LY:
Sign panels are bolted to posts using
cantilever brackets.
Posts are bolted to ground pin anchor.
M AT E R I A L S:
4.8 mm thick aluminum top panel
(KAPX-0033). Black powder coated. Engineer
grade decal on both sides.
Optional Finial: 3.2 mm thick aluminum 200 x
250 mm (KAPX-0033). Black powder coated.
Engineer grade decal on both sides.
19 mm,special 4-sided brackets (2 brackets
per storey).
50 mm galvanized fluted steel post
(KPAU-0007) 3000 mm long.
Black powder coated.
900 mm long ground pin anchor (KFGX-
0016), Breakaway Pin (KGXX-0001) with
stabilizers (KAPX-0019).
Benson Park
Main Street
Bus Station
Sign panel
Finial
Cantilever bracket
Post
Ground pin
anchor
XX
Border: 10mm
Inset: 4mm
Font: Interstate Regular
Cap Height: 153mm
40 mm
40 mm
115 mm
200 mm
275 mm
460 mm
1,017 mm
2400 mm panels
P1
V4
C O L O U R S
For vinyl, direct print, and paint colour
specifications, refer to Colour Specifications
starting on page 38. Fabricators should
colour match to the Pantone colours
specified.
MESSAGE SCHEDULE
Provide messages for every sign in the program. The
schedule keys to the information in the location plan.
DESIGN INTENT--LAYOUTS
Finalize and document layouts for all sign templates.
BUDGET AND PHASING
Get a budget estimate for the sign designs, based on
quantities established in the location plan. If needed
budgets can be phased over multiple rounds of
fabrication and installation.
4.6 GRANTS
Funding grants change on a regular basis but grants that address
active transportation, transit, micro-transit or micromobility,
community walkability, streetscape design, greenhouse gas
emissions, sea level rise and coastal changes, and community
equity funding may be well suited for application to this plan's
implementation. At the time of publication, the deadlines for many
of these funding deadlines may have passed. However, many of
these grant schedules renew on an annual basis or similar funding
will become available on a yearly basis. The goal of this section is
to offer an overview of funding programs currently and potentially
available for AT programs in CBRM.
The programs that may be available for funding now include:
NATIONAL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FUND:
The National AT fund guide lays out the criteria for selection in the
$400m fund over the next 5 years to support the expansion and
enhancement of active transportation infrastructure and a modal
shift away from cars and toward active transportation..
»
Contact: ATF-FTA@infc.gc.ca
»
Purpose: support projects that improve AT infrastructure.
Expand networks of pathways, bike lanes, trails, pedestrian
bridges, AT planning and stakeholder engagement activities.
»
Goal: promote social equity, make AT accessible, easier,
convenient, fun and safe, encourage AT choice over vehicle,
reduce GHGs, support goals of the Strengthened Climate Plan,
support Canadian economy through reduced congestion,
construction job creation, increased access via AT to local
business.
»
Supporting documents: Canada's National Active
Transportation Strategy.
»
Supported projects: Planning, design and capital projects.
»
Funding Amounts: Planning & design: $50,000.00 (up to
100%), Capital projects: up to 60% of the project cost.
»
Timelines: Opened 2022-2027.
CONNECT2:
Provincial grant through the Nova Scotia Department of Energy
and Mines. Supports projects that offer low or no carbon
transportation projects. Funding for feasibility studies, designs,
pilots, plans, engagement activities, and the implementation of
a variety of clean energy initiatives in NS. Funding for projects
related to walking, biking, rolling, shared mobility, ZEVs, and
transit.
Focus: projects that address short trips, connect destinations,
increase equity and access in transportation opportunities,
and decrease dependency on personal vehicles by improving
transportation hubs and integrated mobility
Main objectives: decarbonization of energy sources, learning
by doing, electrification of community assets, community
lead/readiness approach to clean transportation and energy
transformations.
2 streams of funding:
1.
AT Infrastructure and Design
a.
Tactile urbanism (bike lanes etc), bike grid infrastructure
or design, engineering or feasibility studies
b.
Funding up to $100,000.00 per project
2.
Clean Fleets and Shared Mobility
a.
Shared mobility services pilot projects, bicycle fleet pilots,
zero-emission fleet pilots (max$15k per vehicle), zero
emissions vehicle strategies.
b.
Funding up to $75,000.00 per project.
This grant will cover up to 75% of eligible costs, up to a maximum
of $100,000 for the infrastructure and design projects, up to a
maximum of $75,000 for clean fleets and shared mobility, and up
to a maximum of $50,000 for community building and engagement
projects.
Contacts: Salima Medouar at 902-717-7026, Gabrielle Riley
Gallagher at 902-424-8090, rconnect2@novascotia.ca
Deadline: September 30th, 2021.
FCM GREEN MUNICIPAL FUND 2 OPTIONS - FEASIBILITY STUDY OR
CAPITAL PROJECT
Feasibility Study:
Funds feasibility studies of initiatives that may reduce pollution
in Canadian communities by improving transportation systems
and networks or encouraging people to switch to less polluting
transportation options.
The feasibility study should assess the feasibility (e.g., technical,
financial) of an initiative as well as its potential environmental,
economic and social impacts.
104 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Examples of what you might study:
»
Ridesharing and ride hailing programs
»
On-demand transportation solutions
»
First- and last-mile solutions
»
Bike sharing
»
Connecting commuters to park-and-ride facilities
»
Active transportation infrastructure (e.g., bike lanes)
»
Walking and cycling networks that promote accessibility and
safety
»
Integrated transportation solutions (e.g., bike share and
transit) to reduce fuel consumption and promote transit use.
»
Solutions to reduce personal vehicle use, reduce congestion
and/or incent Zero Emission Vehicle adoption (e.g., low
emission zones, commercial delivery vehicle measures)
FCM Capital Projects:
FCM offers combined loan and grant funding for capital projects
that reduce pollution in Canadian communities by improving
transportation systems and networks or encouraging people to
switch to less polluting transportation options.
Your capital project should do at least one of the following:
»
Reduce the number of vehicles on the road, the number of
kilometres they travel, or the amount of time they spend
transporting people or goods
»
Get people to use their vehicles more efficiently or switch to
less polluting forms of transportation (i.e., a modal shift to
public transit, walking, or cycling).
Examples of what you might implement:
»
Ridesharing and ride hailing programs
»
On-demand transportation solutions
»
First- and last-mile solutions
»
Bike sharing
»
Connecting commuters to park-and-ride facilities
»
Active transportation infrastructure (e.g., bike lanes)
»
Walking and cycling networks that promote accessibility and
safety
»
Integrated transportation solutions (e.g., bike share and
transit) to reduce fuel consumption and promote transit use.
»
Solutions to reduce personal vehicle use, reduce congestion
and/or incent Zero Emission Vehicle adoption (e.g., low
emission zones, commercial delivery vehicle measures)
NS ACTIVE COMMUNITIES FUND:
To help your community get active and stay active. In particular,
this fund supports community-wide approaches and plans for low
barrier, less structured movement. It is part of Let's Get Moving
Nova Scotia: An action plan for increasing physical activity in Nova
Scotia. You can use this fund to help you:
»
Plan, develop or evaluate policy
»
Plan, create, improve, or evaluate physical environments (The
fund is limited to supporting low-cost physical environment
initiatives.) plan, create, improve, or evaluate social
environments
Examples of qualifying initiatives:
»
Initiatives that encourage low barrier, less-structured
movement that people can fit easily into their day.
»
Reducing sitting time by, for example, encouraging walking
meetings
»
Unstructured active play
»
Cycling
»
Walking, including using a cane, walker, or wheelchair
May consider programs with more structure for up to $5,000
per application period. Such programs should be flexible for
participants and encourage daily physical activity over the long
term. Initiatives that aim to enhance physical activity among at
least one of the following groups:
»
Youth ages 12-18
»
The aging population, anyone 45 years old or older
»
Females in the above age groups
»
Community members who may have minimal access to
physical activity opportunities
»
Less active adult population (in general)
Amount: up to 75% of up to $25,000.00 (Applications above $5000
must be accompanied by and reflect part of a one year (2021-22)
multi-faceted community wide physical activity plan).
Contact: Valley Region: (Municipalities of Hants West and Clare,
Counties of Digby, Annapolis and Kings): Anna Sherwood, anna.
sherwood@novascotia.ca (902) 670-7933
Timeline: Community applications associated with one-year plans
can be submitted between April 1st and July 15, 2021. Additional
applications from communities who did not exceed the $25,000
limit will be accepted until December 22, 2021
BUILDING VIBRANT COMMUNITIES GRANT
Purpose: This grant is funded by the province of Nova Scotia,
aimed specifically towards not-for-profits, local governments,
businesses and educational institutions. Overall, the fund focuses
| 105
on alleviating poverty by strengthening community organizations
and collaboration. In the past, previous themes included
transportation.
Timelines: TBA
VEHICLE FLEET GRANTS:
Connect 2
"The Connect2 grant program expands Nova Scotian
communities' options for walking, biking, rolling, shared mobility,
ZEVs, and transit while reducing GHG emissions. The program
supports projects that create or enable clean transportation
options and builds infrastructure for short-distance travel and
modes of transport using alternative fuel. We're seeking projects
that test new ideas or best practices that connect destinations,
increase equity and access in transportation opportunities,
and decrease dependency on personal vehicles by improving
transportation hubs and integrated mobility"
Eligible Projects: Clean Fleets and Shared Mobility Projects under
this category may include:
»
Shared mobility services pilot projects
»
Bicycle fleet pilot projects
»
Zero-emission fleet pilot projects (max. $15,000/vehicle
within grant request)
»
Zero Emission Vehicle strategies
Funding: up to 75% of project cost, up to $75,000 per project in
this category.
NRCAN - ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM
Purpose: The grant aims to meet the mandate set by the
Government of Canada for all new light-duty cars and passenger
trucks to transition into electric vehicle fleets, with the ultimate
goal of achieving a zero-emissions by 2035. This program will
span 5 years, offering a total of $280 million. The fund focuses on
increasing the availability of charging and hydrogen refuelling
stations throughout Canada. The program aims to implement
charging stations within the following infrastructure streams:
»
Public Places
»
On-Street
»
Workplaces
»
Multi-Unit Residential Buildings
»
Commercial and Public Fleets (on-road and off-road vehicles)
Amount: A maximum of 50% of total project costs up to a
maximum of $5 million per project, and a maximum of $2 million
per project for delivery-based organizations..
Contact: Proposal is to be delivered via email at infrasubmissions-
demandinfr@nrcan-rncan.g
Timeline: The 2021 deadline closed on September 8, 2021.
However, the program intends to launch another RFP for all
infrastructure streams in the spring of 2022.
FCM GREEN MUNICIPAL FUND
Pilot project: This overarching goal of this fund is to ensure that
low-fossil and low-carbon is accessible, efficient, and convenient
for governments. Through funding, the organizations offers
local governments the opportunity to achieve sustainable
transportation methods, and offers the means and resources to
transition to a carbon-free future. Essentially, the organization
aims to reduce fossil fuel in fleets while offering alternative
methods of transportation at the community level.
»
Funding to eliminate/reduce GHG from any vehicle that
delivers municipal services.
»
Can be used to compare models to see what is most effective
at reducing GHGs
»
Must be able to demonstrate solid business case and the
ability to deliver strong environmental, financial and social
benefits directly to your community or through replication in
other municipalities.
»
Includes all types of vehicles used for municipal services
including police, waste management and leased vehicles.
»
Examples of projects: appropriately sized vehicles for
municipal tasks, fast charging stations for EVs, EV fleet
replacement (especially for medium and heavy duty trucks),
»
Target: should reduce 20% of emissions.
CAPITAL PROJECT: REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL USE IN FLEETS
This project offers a combination of loans and grants to fund
capital projects at the municipal level. The project's intent is to
reduce and avoid; fossil fuels in any vehicle delivering municipal
services. Overall, the project helps municipalities transition into
green-energy by helping them undertake any project focusing
on the reduction of energy consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions.
106 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
»
All classes of vehicles are eligible.
»
Ex. Projects same as above pilot.
»
Must reduce emissions 20% when compared to an existing or
modeled baseline measurement.
»
Stackable with other funding opportunities
Amount: Low-interest loans up to a total amount of $5 million,
and a grant worth up to 15% of the loan. The total funding covers
up to 80% of eligible project costs. Projects classified for high-
ranking loans and grants are qualified for low-interest loans up to
$10 million, and a grant worth up to 15% of the loan. In total, the
funding is covers 80% of the project's total cost.
Contact: Apply through the website
Timeline: Applicants must submit a Initial Review Form, which is
available year-round. Following, applications will be provided to
qualified applicants only.
4.7
OUTREACH AND
IMPLEMENTATION
The successful implementation of AT infrastructure works in
tandem with community outreach projects. Previous national and
international AT plans cite the important of combining multiple
outreach strategies when launching new AT networks. Successful
methods include marketing campaigns, educational outreach,
cycle lane pop-ups, and efforts to help individuals transition into
the regular use of methods of active transportation. In partnering
with local and provincial organizations, municipalities can
encourage and spread awareness of AT networks and their usage to
their residents.
MARKETING STRATEGIES
Marketing strategies for active transportation must include
initiatives to encourage residents to cycle, walk, and use transit
regularly. These strategies can incorporate individual projects,
but should consider the follow types pre- and post- infrastructure
installation.
For residents to consider the role AT networks can play in their
lives, they have to see themselves as a AT user. In this specific
situation, advertising becomes an important strategy. A study from
the University of West England cites the importance of self-image
1
Leonard, S., Spotswood, F., & Tapp, A. (2012). Overcoming the self-image incongruency of non-cyclists. Journal of Social Marketing, 2(1), 23-36.
https://doi.org/10.1108/20426761211203238
congruency in AT marketing. As a theory, self-image congruency
explores how individuals perceive their current self in relation to
their ideal self. Within the realm of marketing, this theory caters
to the idea that an individual is more likely to purchase items
or partake in an activity if they can see their "ideal" self within
the advertisement. While this may be easier to accomplish with
material goods, studies and applications of the theory demonstrate
the success of marketing cycling and walking to potential AT users.
Essentially, an individual who can see a version of their ideal self
in promotional AT material will be more likely to perform said
activity
Research suggests the best application of this method are
advertisements wherein the AT user looks relaxed and happy.
This not only reassures potential AT users about possible
safety concerns, but also encapsulates the idea of a carefree
lifestyle many individuals strive to achieve. Secondly, marketing
campaigns also encourage advertising cyclists using the "every
man" archetype to correct the incorrect notion that every AT user
must be an athlete. The use of advertising to demonstrate cyclists
and walkers as normal people allows individuals to see themselves
as a cyclist or pedestrian. Effective marketing campaigns use a
range of ages, demographics, and lifestyles to target as many user
groups as possible1.
Advertising campaigns should also encourage cyclists and
pedestrians to see one another as human individuals. Addressing
conflicts between AT users and motorists mitigates safety concerns
among potential users and allows both parties to see the other as
people. Humanizing the cyclist, pedestrian, and driver allows all
parties to consider their role on the road, and their duty to consider
the safety of others - regardless of the transportation method they
have chosen.
| 107
108 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
| 109
C H A P T E R 5
CBRM AT STANDARDS
The way we prioritize roadway space
is changing drastically as personal
mobility options and transit gain
momentum around the world. Rather
than weighting the car over all other
modes of travel when designing a street,
active transportation and integrated
mobility planning seeks to 'strategically
re-prioritize' the physical allocation of
the road corridor to accommodate other
forms of transportation like walking,
biking and transit. These more "Complete
Streets" often eliminate or narrow lanes
("Road Diets"), and create more roadside
appeal by adopting "urban forestry" or
"enhanced frontage and furniture zones".
More equitable street designs diversify how
residents can commute throughout CBRM
improving their quality of life and reducing
their costs. In some cases, road dieting can
be less expensive for CBRM to maintain
as well as reducing the municipal carbon
footprint.
Combining different forms of
transportation in a shared road network
requires careful design to maximize
safety for all users. Road design in
Canada is guided by the Transportation
Association of Canada's (TAC) Geometric
Design Guide for Canadian Roads and
associated TAC documents, standards
produced by the National Association of
City Transportation Officials (NACTO), and
some select provincial design publications.
This chapter lays the standards and
best-practices for AT integration in CBRM
and the associated references that form
the basis for developing, enhancing, and
maintaining a robust active transportation
network.
CBRM utilizes the Standard Specification
for Municipal Services (for Nova Scotia)
which contains very little guidance
on municipal road design or active
transportation. Ideally CBRM will develop
its own municipal design guidelines manual
in the near future, but until that time, this
chapter should guide engineers, planners
and designers on how to integrate AT
considerations into future municipal
design/redesign projects along the
corridors prioritized for AT.
The previous AT Master Plan chapter outlined the AT infrastructure types and proposed locations for
a dedicated AT network in CBRM. Combining AT infrastructure with transit and automobiles must
be done carefully and deliberately to ensure that the safety of users and the capacity of the network
is not compromised. This chapter lays out how to integrate AT into CBRM's current road and transit
network using the latest standards and best-practices.
110 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
FOR THE 2022 AT PLAN
110 |C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
5.1
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The following are some of the critical guiding
principles that underly the subsequent AT
design standards.
INCLUSIVE AND ACCESSIBLE
AT facilities should be designed to
accommodate all or as many users as
possible - regardless of demographic,
socio-economic, socio-cultural, or physical
ability. It is recognized that there may be
practical impediments from achieving
this in all situations. Some routes may be
designed to accommodate specialized uses
such as horseback riding, off-road vehicles
or winter activities. Others may support
complementary travel modes such as ferry
or transit service, connections to water based
travel (kayaking / canoing, etc.), and more.
Ultimately, each of these should be planned,
designed, and implemented starting with an
inclusive and accessible model, and ensuring
the appropriate input and coordination take
place between the impacted stakeholders.
INTUITIVE
Facility design should allow users to operate
in a safe, stress-free, cohesive, attractive
and clear environment. Properly design
and implemented, users of each facility
intuitively know what to do, where to do it,
and when it should be done. This results
in existing and new users feeling attracted
to their available facilities and is more
likely to create long term users of the active
transportation networks available to them.
ALL AGES AND ABILITIES (AAA)
All Ages and Abilities (AAA) facilities are
designed to ensure every AT user can safely
and comfortably travel along the AT network.
Users can range from seniors to children,
confident cyclists to new riders, people with
disabilities or other mobility impairments,
bike sharing, recreational, commuter, and
commercial users, and powered or non-
powered mobility.
AAA Philosophy - Providing AAA facilities
promotes the use of constructed AT facilities.
Philosophically, all projects should be
initiated with the intent to provide AAA
compliant facilities by applying AAA best
practices guidelines.
AAA Implementation - In the event an
AAA facility cannot be accommodated,
justification should be provided as to
why. Practically, there are reasons why
fully compliant AAA facilities may not be
feasible including available right-of-way,
cost implications, terrain, stakeholder and
community input, and more.
The following section includes a more
detailed discussion about AAA requirements,
opportunities and characteristics that should
be considered within this AT plan. Further,
each typology discussed in the Standards
section includes an "AAA Considerations"
discussion to address specific situations
relevant to that typology.
CONTEXT SENSITIVE DESIGN
Context sensitive design refers to both
roadway and AT designs specifically tailored
to work within the area they are designed
to serve. Contextual considerations may
include topography, adjacent land use, micro-
climate, history, community and stakeholder
preferences, transportation connectivity
and integration, urban / rural application or
demographics. One size does not fit all. CBRM
includes a large, diverse land area that must
be recognized as the foundation for future AT
facility design and construction.
INCLUSIVE AND
ACCESSIBLE
INTUITIVE
CONTEXT SENSITIVE
DESIGN JUDGEMENT,
STANDARDS, AND
IMPLEMENTATION
| 111
DESIGN CONSISTENCY AND FLEXIBILITY
Consistent selection of facility types and
application of similar design features in similar
situations helps users feel comfortable and
confident during their trips. Facilities should
therefore be developed in a consistent manner
throughout CBRM, but also in the overall
Nova Scotia context so facilities feel familiar
regardless of where people travel. That said,
it is critical to understand that each project
is unique and has a unique set of features
and demands, therefore consistency can be
a balancing act between the standards and
specific project needs.
This guide draws from local and nationally
recognized design publications. The intent of
this section is to provide ranges of applicable
guidelines for facilities relevant to this plan,
and thereby enabling flexibility in how facilities
are designed. Ultimately, completed projects
should be site specific while maintaining
noticeable consistency across the network for
facility users.
DESIGN AND PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT
It is important to understand the impacts of
AT design choices on the larger transportation
environment, including the need to incorporate
and understand: safety implications, value
engineering, geometric accommodation and
transitions, drainage, utilities impact, land use
and more. Engaging the necessary internal
or external professional support will ensure a
successful project. To plan, design, implement
and maintain a successful AT project, project
teams may include engineers, planners,
landscape architects, real estate and various
other specialists
SAFETY
Safety "performance" and safety "perception"
of transportation systems is a critical factor in
the successful implementation of new facilities
and in the level of usage on existing facilities.
This is incredibly important for active
transportation users who are not afforded the
protection of large, stable vehicles that can
reduce the severity of collisions should they
unfortunately occur.
Active transportation users are significantly
more vulnerable within our transportation
system, and locations or situations that have
poor safety performance records, or have
perceived safety issues are often reason
enough for may users to avoid using active
transportation modes. It is critical that
new facilities be design with a focus on the
consistent application of best practice safety
principles at ALL location along a route, as a
single point location can often be enough to
discourage use of the route.
For existing facilities, regular safety reviews
and solicitation of safety issue from the public
should be sought with the intent to mitigate any
safety risks that may be negatively impacting
the use of the route.
DESIGN DOMAIN
The design domain concept helps designers
move away from "standards" or "minimum
acceptable" design values (i.e sidewalk or
lane width, grades, etc.), by providing a range
of appropriate design values. Designers are
therefore better able to better understand and
define acceptable values that may be applicable
to a particular facility. It is important to
recognize that the appropriate design values
will vary from case-to-case depending on the
context, adjacent infrastructure, available
right-of-way, and association to various
selected design features.
The design domain parameters, were
compiled from a variety of sources but are
generally presented in terms as outlined in the
Transportation Association of Canada's (TAC)
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads.
SAFETY
TRANSIT
INTEGRATION
COMPLETE
STREETS
FUTURE USE
CONSIDERATIONS
The design process must consider the interaction between selected
design values. For example, a minimum width sidewalk should not
be installed beside a higher speed roadway with limited separation
between the curb and the sidewalk. Options may include narrowing
the road lanes to provide more separation, increasing the sidewalk
width, or providing improved physical separation between the road
and sidewalks. Similarly, if a road has relatively steep grade, a bike
lane width closer to the upper recommended limit should be used, or
a buffer strip may be considered.
TRANSIT INTEGRATION
Integrating active transportation modes and transit enables people
to travel greater distances, in more adverse weather conditions,
and for purpose-based trips. The proper design of space,
amenities, and the placement of enabling infrastructure is critical
in making transit integration a positive, engaging experience.
Various sections through the report includes guidance on two
primary facets of transit integration:
1.
The treatment of various AT facilities as they pass a typical
transit stop location; and
2.
The design of the areas surrounding a transit stop in order
to effectively integrate with various active transplantation
modes.
COMPLETE STREETS
Complete Street are roadways that are envisioned, planned,
designed, implemented, and maintained with the intent to serve
a wide range of user ages and abilities, using a variety of different
modes of transportation. The complete street concept includes the
physical operating realm for vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, transit,
as well as the surrounding and supporting environment. The
surrounding environment may include features such as lighting,
wayfinding, crosswalks, loading zones, trees and greenery, and
more.
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE - THE MOBILITY REVOLUTION
The world of transportation is rapidly changing. Electric cars,
bikes, and scooters are now commonplace, challenging the concept
that active transportation includes only non-motorized travel (i.e.
should an electric hoverboard be allowed on a multi-use trail that
is traditionally built for non-motorized travel?).
Autonomous vehicles, smart technologies, vertical takeoff and
landing vehicles, drone deliveries, and more are reshaping the
way we view our transportation network - and the pace of change
is accelerating! Existing infrastructure and near- term new
construction projects must be designed to accommodate new
transportation methods within the lifespan of that infrastructure
project. As such, the design guidelines in this chapter will need to
be monitored, updated, and refined as many of the above noted
technologies become more common daily transportation methods.
112 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
| 113
5.2 CREATING AN "ALL AGES AND ABILITIES"
CULTURE IN CBRM
Experienced cyclists have a higher comfort level
cycling with vehicle traffic due to their comfort
and abilities to operating their bike at higher
travel speeds. In many cases, travels speeds
of experienced cyclists can approach vehicle
speeds in the adjacent lanes. Recreational and
less experienced cyclists, which this AT plan is
geared to serve, typically prefer to be separated
from vehicles, particularly as vehicles speeds
and volumes increase. Bicycle participation is
heavily influenced by physical safety and the
perceived comfort level.
As noted in the NACTO document "Designing for
All Ages and Abilities":
"The All Ages & Abilities criteria is a national
and international best practice that should be
adopted for all bicycle facility design and network
implementation; lesser accommodation should
require additional justification. Along with a
problem-solving approach to street design,
the All Ages & Abilities benchmark should be
applied across a city's entire bicycle network to
grow bicycling as a safe, equitable mode for the
majority of people."
Wherever possible, CBRM should adopt AAA
criteria for implementing bicycle facilities.
This chapter provides a general summary
framework as well as specific facility guidance
for implementing AAA facilities.
MOTOR VEHICLE SPEED & VOLUME INCREASES STRESS
Bicycle use is heavily dependent on the stress a
person encounters when using a cycling facility.
The two most common stresses for cyclists
are vehicle SPEED and VOLUME. Both have
negative impacts on users and both contribute
to a increase in potential number and severity of
conflicts on a roadway.
The number of vehicle passing events increase
with speed and volume, decreasing rider comfort
and safety. When car speeds exceed 35 km/hr,
or where traffic volume is higher than 50 vehicle
passes per hour, it reduces cycling comfort and
increases risk.
Such stresses can be removed or reduced
through:
1.
Changing the Street Design - changing cross
sections, land uses, roadside character, or
other features to make the corridor more
bike friendly
2.
Changing Operations - including speed
reductions, signalization, curbside
management, etc.
3.
Changing the Network - including street
closures, turn restrictions, route options,
etc.
AAA PRINCIPLES
SAFETY
More people ride when facilities feel
safe. Safety takes many forms, but
ultimately needs to be viewed from
the user's perspective. Standards are
great - but you need to "ride a mile on
someone else's bike". NACTO research
shows that a set of cities that grew
their bikeway network by 50% over a
span of 7 years, more than doubled
their ridership. Better bike facilities
also directly correlated with increase
safety for people walking, cycling and
driving.
COMFORT
Providing comfortable. low-stress
riding conditions has a significant
impact on ridership. Statistics
suggest only 5 - 10% of the public feel
comfortable riding in mixed traffic
or in painted bike lanes, while close
to 80% indicate they would ride in
protected or off-road bike facilities.
EQUITABLE
Quality infrastructure expands
AT opportunities. Deteriorating
infrastructure reduces use of available
facilities, or worse, discourages a
culture of active transportation use.
Unfortunately, research suggests
that poor network conditions,
disproportionately impacts low-
income communities, people with
disabilities, children and other
vulnerable user populations. These
challenges cause people to either
not ride, or make decisions that are
considered riskier in order to ride.
114 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
THE ALL AGES & ABILITIES DESIGN TOOLBOX
NACTO sets out five major types of bike facilities to meet AAA criteria
guided by Table 5-1 depending on the street context. The NACTO
Urban Bikeway Design Guide provides detailed guidance on bikeway
facilities.
1.
Low-Speed Shared Street allow bicyclists to comfortably
operate across the entire roadway when speed limits are
no greater than 20 km/h. The volume of people walking
and bicycling should be much greater than vehicle
volume to maintain comfort. On these low speed streets,
safety between pedestrians and cyclists can be more
concerning than vehicles. Materials and street edges must
be appropriate for bicycling; materials are often varied
to delineate road space, but any seams or low mountable
curbs must be designed to avoid creating fall hazards for
bicyclists. Argyle Street in Halifax is one of the regions first
Shared Street and was selected as such due to the street's
function to serve local businesses only and its low priority
for moving traffic. Future Shared Streets may be appropriate
in some of CBRM's downtowns where the street is not
important in moving traffic.
2.
Bicycle Boulevards share low speed local streets with
signed bicycle routes. They are characterized by slow
motor vehicle speeds (no greater than 30 km/hr) and low
volumes (less than 2,000 vehicles per day). Sometimes these
are suitable around school zones where the province has
recently reduced speeds to 30 km/hr when children are
present. Sometimes they are combined with speed bumps
to ensure low vehicle speeds and usually are characterized
by sharow road paint, and indicator signage. Sometimes the
street improvements benefit from traffic calming, filtering
most motor vehicle traffic off, and/or prioritizing bicycles
at major and minor street intersections. Bicycles share
the entire street with vehicles. Directional markings and
wayfinding signage provide riders with intuitive, coherent
routing.
3.
Buffered & Conventional Bicycle Lanes provide allocated
space for cyclists in the form of bike lanes adjacent to
roads. Bicycle lanes improve cycling comfort and safety on
streets where the number of passing events is too high for
comfortable mixed-traffic bicycling (< 6000 vehicles per
day), but where curbside activity, heavy vehicles, and lane
invasion are not significant sources of conflict. Buffered bike
lanes are physically separated from traffic with extra space,
usually painted on the road, providing additional separation
from vehicles.
4.
Protected Bicycle Lanes (also known as Cycle Tracks) use a
combination of horizontal separation (buffer distance) and
vertical separation (e.g. flex posts, parked cars, planters, or
curbs) to protect cyclists from car traffic. The combination
of horizontal and vertical buffers can significantly improve
safety and increase the use of bicycles. Particular design
attention must be paid to areas where vehicles, bikes
and pedestrians cross like at intersections, driveways,
roundabouts, bus stops, or in areas with onstreet parking.
| 115
Contextual Guidance for Selecting All Ages & Abilities Bikeways
Roadway Context
All Ages & Abilities
Bicycle Facility
Target Motor
Vehicle Speed
*
Target Max.
Motor Vehicle
Per Day
Motor Vehicle
Lanes
Key Operational
Considerations
Any
Any
Any of the following:
high
curbside activity, frequent buses,
motor vehicle congestion, or
turning conflicts
‡
Protected Bicycle Lane
< 20 km/hr
Less relevant
No centerline,
or single lane
one-way
Pedestrians share the roadway
Shared Street
≤ 35 km/hr
≤ 1,000 - 2,000
< 50 motor vehicles per hour in
the peak direction at peak hour
Bicycle Boulevard
≤ 40 km/hr
≤ 500 - 1,500
≤ 1,500 -
3,000
Single lane
each direction,
or single lane
one-way
Low curbside activity, or low
congestion pressure
Lane, or Protected Bicycle Lane
≤ 3,000 -
6,000
Lane
Greater than
6,000
Protected Bicycle Lane
Any
Multiple lanes
per direction
Greater than
40 km/hr
†
≤ 6,000
Single lane
each direction
Low curbside activity, or low
congestion pressure
Protected Bicycle Lane, or
Reduce Speed
Multiple lanes
per direction
Protected Bicycle Lane, or
Reduce to Single Lane & Reduce
Speed
Greater than
6,000
Any
Any
Protected Bicycle Lane,
or Bicycle Path
High-speed limited access
roadways, natural corridors,
or geographic edge conditions
with limited conflicts
Any
High pedestrian volume
Bike Path with Separate Walkway
or Protected Bicycle Lane
Low pedestrian volume
Shared-Use Path or
Protected Bicycle Lane
* While posted or 85th percentile motor vehicle speed are commonly used design speed targets, 95th percentile speed captures high-end
speeding, which causes greater stress to bicyclists and more frequent passing events. Setting target speed based on this threshold results in a
higher level of bicycling comfort for the full range of riders.
† Setting 25 mph as a motor vehicle speed threshold for providing protected bikeways is consistent with many cities' traffic safety and Vision
Zero policies. However, some cities use a 30 mph posted speed as a threshold for protected bikeways, consistent with providing Level of Traffic
Stress level 2 (LTS 2) that can effectively reduce stress and accommodate more types of riders.
18
‡ Operational factors that lead to bikeway conflicts are reasons to provide protected bike lanes regardless of motor vehicle speed and volume.
5.
Shared-Use & Bicycle Paths are a preferred form of active
transportation where there is room for them. Rail to trail
conversions are typical in areas like CBRM where rail lines
have been decommissioned or unused for long periods.
Shared use paths usually combine with other forms of AAA
facilities to link homes to key destinations like downtowns
or business parks. When shared with pedestrians, the
shared use paths must be designed to ensure cyclist and
pedestrian safety using signage, or other means to slow
cyclists. To become useful for AT, paths work best when
connected to an on-street network that meets the same high
benchmark of rider comfort, and design provides bicycle-
friendly geometry. Ideally, bicycles should be separated
from pedestrians where significant volume of either mode
is present, but where space limitations exist, multi-use
paths are still valuable.
Table 5-1
NACTO AAA Facility Selection Criteria
116 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
5.3 DEFINITIONS
MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE (MMLOS)
The traditional concepts of Level of Service (LOS)
has been applied to transportation systems for
decades, but generally focuses on a roadway or
intersections' ability to accommodate vehicular
traffic. Instead, Multi-Modal Level of Service
(MMLOS) focuses on the degree of service provided
to the number of people, rather than the outdated
number of vehicles on an intersection or roadway.
MMLOS considers the number of pedestrians,
cyclists, truck traffic, transit, emergency access
and private vehicles found at intersections and
roadway in the overall quality of operation in the
facility. Examples of the MMLOS methodologies
can be found in many recent references including
the 2019 Multi-Modal Level of Service Framework
issued by the HRM.
It is important to note that many MMLOS
evaluation guidelines are works in progress
and subject to changes, modifications, and
refinements. While caution should be exercised
in assigning and comparing specific findings
from these analyses, the rigours of completing
these analyses are valuable and revealing the
understand the operations of roadway corridors
and intersections.
ROAD DIETING
In general terms, modern streets are becoming
are becoming narrower. The reduction of lane
widths and the elimination of roadway lanes
recognizes the modern need for roadways to
serve all transportation methods, rather than
focusing solely on the vehicular service to dictate
the design of a typical road section. Table 5-2
and Table 5-3 demonstrate basic roadway widths
for through and parking lanes that should be
considered within a road cross section. The
supplemented widths provide flexibility when
considering the placement and location of
sidewalks and bike lanes.
Roadway
Travel
Lanes
Practical
Lower
Limit
RECOMMENDED
Practical
Upper
Limit
Lower
Limit
Upper
Limit
Width (m)
2.7
3.0
4.0
4.8
Table 5-2 Design Domain for travel Lanes
Parking
Lanes
Practical
Lower
Limit
RECOMMENDED
Practical
Upper
Limit
Lower
Limit
Upper
Limit
Width (m)
2.1
2.1
2.7
3.0
Table 5-3 Design Domain for parking lanes
DESIGN DOMAIN
PRACTICAL UPPER LIMIT
Design values above the
recommended upper limit and the
practical upper limit often still work,
but they are likely to create safety or
operational risks - usually by giving a
confusing message.
Example - if a bike lane is too wide,
drivers may mistake it for a parking
lane or two lanes of travel.
Use of values in this range require
further justification and may require
an explicit evaluation of impacts to
safety.
RECOMMENDED UPPER LIMIT
Design values between the
recommended upper and lower limits
generally do not require justification
for their selection. They are widely
accepted values that typically provide
a safe and accessible environment to
operate in.
RECOMMENDED LOWER LIMIT
Design values below recommended
lower limit should only be used
when there are constraints present
and no other options can be found
to achieve the lower limit. Values
in this range generally put the user
at an increased risk of collision or
operational hazard. Justification is
required for selection of a value in this
range and documentation of the safety
implications is required.
PRACTICAL LOWER LIMIT
Values below the practical lower limit
should not be used due to the risk
and associated liabilities. In these
situations, alternate design options or
routes should be considered.
| 117
RURAL CONTEXT
Rural AT routes are characterized by their proximity to low density
development areas and may include residential, commercial,
institutional and office land uses. Due to the limited amenities,
users are typically limited and facilities tend to serve recreational
purposes rather than commuter needs. Generally, there is need for
flexibility in route locations and networks are often composed of a
higher volumes of off-road trails. Consequently, OHVs (off highway
vehicles) / ATVs (all terrain vehicles) need to be actively considered in
the development of rural AT facilities. Roadways and trails segments
can be municipally or provincially owned, therefore increased levels
of coordination between the province and municipality will likely be
required.
Pedestrian / Bicycle / Multi-use Zone - Clear space used by
pedestrians and cyclists.
Clear Zone - The area between the traffic zone and any object
considered to be a hazard (including pedestrians and bikes) if
there were an errant vehicle. Includes the shoulder zone.
Shoulder Zone - On rural cross sections, the shoulder is the
usable portion of the roadway that is outside of the traffic zone
and may be used for stopped vehicles, recovery of errant vehicles
or emergency services.
Traffic Zone -Includes all traffic travelling along a road corridor.
URBAN CONTEXT
Development in the urban context generally includes medium
to high density mixes of residential, commercial, office and
institutional land uses. There are numerous potential AT users
with the inherent need to travel between various origins and
destinations. While available road ROW may be limited due to
adjacent land ownership and development, road connectivity is
an essential consideration where considering options for route
choices. The municipality is often the primary road authority
with limited provincial routes.
Frontage Zone - Between the pedestrian zone and the
adjacent properties. May range from grassed buffer strip
to a full street front cafe and can be private, public or a
combination of both.
Pedestrian Through Zone - Clear, accessible and safe space
for pedestrians to walk adjacent and generally parallel to a
roadway.
Furnishing Zone - May contain street furniture, lighting ,
trees /planters, bike parking, etc.
Bike Through Zone - This zone may be on the roadway
adjacent to the ancillary or traffic zone or may be separated
from the roadway by the buffer zone depending on the
configuration of the roadway.
Buffer Zone - Can serve a variety of functions within the
roadway ROW and is often adjacent to a bike facility.
Ancillary Zone - Flexibly space located within the
roadway and supports operations for the roadway and the
sidewalk/bicycle through zones. Examples include car
or bike parking, loading zones, transit or taxi stops, curb
extensions, etc.
Traffic Zone - Includes all traffic travelling along a road
corridor.
| 117
Figure 5.4 Components of an Urban Roadway
Figure 5.5 Components of a Rural Roadway
118 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Table 5-6 Facility Selection Guide
SUBURBAN CONTEXT
The suburban context exists between higher density, urban
developed areas, and low density rural areas. Within the
suburban context, there is generally less road connectivity, fewer
intersections and a wider variety of road and AT treatments.
Due to the lack of compact road networks within the suburban
context, active transportation infrastructure and development is
spread out in comparison to an urban setting. Roadways may vary
between urban and rural cross sections. Consequently, there is
typically more flexibility in regard to available road right-of-way or
finding new active transportation corridors. AT trips are usually
oriented towards local usage rather than commuting purposes.
However, confident cyclists or e-mode users may undertake longer
commuter trips to urban centers. Road authority frequently leans
toward municipal units, through provincial responsibilities may
exist in some areas.
FACILITY SELECTION GUIDELINES
Table 5-6 provides a general framework identifying what types of
facilities are suitable for different speeds on the adjacent roadway.
Typically, as the speeds increase the risk of collision frequency and
severity increase. To reduce the risk, greater separation is required
between the roadway and the AT facility.
FACILITY KM/HR:
30
40
50
60
70
80
80+
Shared Roadways - single file
Shared Roadways - side-by-side
Unbuffered Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
Protected Bike Lane
Off-Road Bikeway/Pedestrian Path
Separated Sidewalk
Non-Separated Sidewalk
Walkable Shoulder
0
Facility is Suitable
Facility Use Depends on Context
Facility is Not Suitable
REFERENCES
Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) - Geometric Design
Guide for Canadian Roads
TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines
TAC Pedestrian Crossing Control Guide
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada (MUTCDC)
British Columbia Active Transportation Design Guide
North American City Transportation Officials (NACTO) - Urban
Street Design Guide
NACTO - Global Street Design Guide
NACTO - Designing Streets for Kids
NACTO - Urban Bikeway Design Guide
NACTO - Designing for All Ages and Abilities
NACTO - Don't Give Up at the Intersection
| 119
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
120 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
5.4 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Nearly every trip outside a home begins and ends with access
to pedestrian infrastructure - to walk to work, get to the nearby
transit stop, walk down the street for lunch or to visit friends, and
to take a walk or jog along the waterfront. The goal of the active
transportation network work is to be fully accessible, connected,
integrated and safe in order to serve the public need and further
promote the use of active transportation modes.
When considering pedestrian infrastructure, phrases such as the
"walkable environment" and "pedestrian integrated design" are
often used to represent the fact that the pedestrian facilities are
part of a larger transportation environment. Pedestrian facilities
can be segmented into a number of distinct groups
OFF-STREET PATHWAYS
ENHANCED SEPARATED
SIDEWALKS
SEPARATED SIDEWALKS
NON-SEPARATED
SIDEWALKS
WALKABLE SHOULDERS
Pedestrian/Cycle
Pedestrian Only
Pedestrian Only
Pedestrian Only
Pedestrian Only
Urban/Rural
Urban
Urban
Urban
Urban
ALL AGES AND ABILITIES
NOT AAA SUITABLE
FACILITY SELECTION
Table 5-8was taken from the British Columbia Active
Transportation Design Guides and provides a graphical
representation of what types of pedestrian facilities are suitable
for various combinations of roadway classification and motor
vehicle speeds.
MAIN STREET/COMMERCIAL STREET
(LOCAL, COLLECTOR, OR ARTERIAL)
SCHOOL ZONE(LOCAL, COLLECTOR,
OR ARTERIAL)
LOCAL (URBAN/DEVELOPED RURAL)
COLLECTOR
ARTERIAL
BASIC RURAL/OUTER DEVELOPED RURAL
EXPRESSWAY/FREEWAY
0
10
30
60
20
50
40
70 km/hr+
ENHANCED SEPARATED SIDEWALK
SEPARATED SIDEWALK
WALKABLE SHOULDER OR
OFF-STREET PATHWAY
OFF-STREET PATHWAY
SEPARATED SIDEWALK
SEPARATED
SIDEWALK OR
NON-SEPARATED
SIDEWALK
SHARED SPACE
Table 5-7 Pedestrian Facility Types
Table 5-8 Facility Selection
| 121
Table 5-9 Longitudinal Grade
Table 5-10 Cross Slope
GENERAL PEDESTRIAN REQUIREMENTS
All pedestrian facilities have two primary components:
1.
Facility - referred to as the pedestrian through zone and may
include any of the sidewalk or pathway types noted above.
2.
Crossings - locations where the pedestrian facility crosses
other transportation facilities including crosswalks (mid-
block and intersection), bicycle facilities, or other special
circumstances such as transit stops or a high volume building
entrance.
PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND SIGNAGE
In most cases, sidewalks do not require pavement markings or
signage except at locations where crossings are encountered.
Crossing locations may include intersections, mid-block
crosswalks, intersections with bikeway facilities, or other special
circumstances. Specific requirements at crossing locations
are discussed in greater detail later under each facility type
throughout this chapter.
Further information is also contained in various TAC publications
as well as the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for
Canada (MUTCDC).
GRADES
Flatter grades on pedestrian facilities are preferred in order
to accommodate all users and particularly those with mobility
impairments. Grading guidelines include:
»
Longitudinal grades should not exceed 5% (see Table 5-9).
»
If terrain dictates, steeper grades up to 8% can be used provided
landings are provided at a maximum of 9 meter intervals.
»
Most often, separate sidewalks follow the grades of the adjacent
roadway. In such cases, opportunities should be pursued to
achieve criteria the noted above. If the separate sidewalks do
not meet the outlined standard, the facility is not considered
accessible.
»
Cross slopes on sidewalks should generally be 2% to promote
drainage off the sidewalk (and limit risk of ice buildup). In
situations were there may be a higher percentage of mobility
impairment, lower limits of 1% may be considered (see Table
5-10).
TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS
Transit stops and shelters are generally located in the furnishing
zone of a roadway cross section. Adequate space should be
provided to minimize the impacts or interference of boarding
and alighting movements as well as those waiting for the bus
on the adjacent pedestrian sidewalk movements. The clear
pedestrian through zone should not be encroached by activities
or infrastructure at stop locations. High volumes pedestrian
locations, and locations where there is regular cyclist interaction
with transit stop traffic will require additional space.
OFF-STREET PATHWAYS
Off-Street pathways are separated from roadways, represented
by the both physical separation as well the environment in which
the pathway resides. Off-street pathways can be designated as
pedestrian-only facilities, but are often associated with multi-use,
off-road pathways. For further guidance, see the sections on multi-
use paths.
WALKABLE SHOULDERS
Walkable shoulders are a rural application and are addressed in
greater detail under the rural roadways section later in this section.
MAINTENANCE
Maintenance budgets need to include all necessary costs for items
such as: maintenance reviews and field inspection, line marking
updates and corrections, pavement repair or replacement, snow
clearing requirements, sweeping and cleaning of facilities, signal
and sign repair and maintenance, landscaping, professional
consulting costs for profession advice, re-design and audits, and
more. These budgets must be shared with the appropriate traffic
authorities.
The majority of these costs are associated with existing budgets.
However, CBRM council must approve associated identified
budgets and departmental responsibilities.
Cross Slope
Practical
Lower
Limit
RECOMMENDED
Practical
Upper
Limit
Lower
Limit
Upper
Limit
% Grade
0.6%
1%
2%
5%
Longitudinal
Grade
Practical
Lower
Limit
RECOMMENDED
Practical
Upper
Limit
Lower
Limit
Upper
Limit
% Grade
0%
0.5%
5
8%
122 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
EYE LEVEL
1.3 - 1.7M
VERTICAL
OPERATING
ENVELOPE
2.1M
1.5-1.8M
0.75M
PERSON WITHOUT
DISABILITY
0.6M
BLIND PERSON
WITH CANE
1 - 1.5M
PERSON WITH
CANE
0.6-0.75M
HORIZONTAL OPERATING
ENVELOPE WITH CHILD
1.2M
WHEELCHAIR WITH ASSISTANT
2.0-2.5M
PERSON IN WHEELCHAIR
0.85-1.1M
PERSON WITH ASSISTANT
1.5-2M
PERSON WITH BABY CARRIAGE
1.5-2.0M
5.5 PEDESTRIAN SPACE
| 123
Separated sidewalks represent the vast majority of dedicated
pedestrian infrastructure within the urban environment.
Separated sidewalks are typically located within, and parallel
to the right-of-way of the adjacent roadway. Sidewalks are
usually mandated by local roadway design standards and
cross-section requirements and are recommended on
all urban roadway types from local to arterial roadways.
On higher volume roadways, sidewalks are required on
both sides of the roadway, unless there is a distinct lack of
pedestrian demand. Additionally - in urban areas where
vehicle volumes are reduced and speeds are sufficiently slow -
sidewalks may be provided on only one side of the roadway.
PEDESTRIAN ZONE
The pedestrian zone is the space that must be clear for
pedestrian use, and therefore cannot include any permanent
or temporary obstructions. Zone widths are dictated by the
ability of the pedestrian traffic to navigate past other users of
the sidewalks. Therefore in lower volume environments with
basic roadway cross sections, widths tend to fall within the
lower limit ranges of the table presented in the tables below.
In commercial or high volume pedestrian environments, the
pedestrian zone can be defined as an Enhanced Pedestrian
Zone. In this specific circumstance, widths commonly fall
within the upper limits of the range. These higher volume
situations may include areas such as busy commercial areas,
cruise passenger accommodation and school zones where
widths should be determined based on crowd capacity and
required room to manoeuvrer.
1
PEDESTRIAN
ZONE
Practical
Lower
Limit
RECOMMENDED
Practical
Upper Limit
Lower
Limit
Upper
Limit
Width (m)
<400
ped/15mins
1.5
1.8
2.0
Roadside
Width
Width (m)
>400
ped/15mins
2.0
2.25
3.0+
Roadside
Width
2
1
3
1
5.6
SEPARATED SIDEWALKS
Table 5-11 Pedestrian Zone
124 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
FRONTAGE ZONE
The Frontage Zone provides clearance between the
pedestrian zone and adjacent land uses. This area can
include buildings and associated access, landscaping,
utilities, architectural features, commercial activities (such
as street front cafes), or outdoor display areas. This space
must also account for the location and physical conditions of
the property lines adjacent to the sidewalk.
FURNISHING ZONE
The furnishing zone is located between the pedestrian zone
and the roadway curb (or the bicycle through zone if present)
and typically includes signs, light poles, landscaping, trees,
transit stops, benches, and a variety of hardware or furniture
depending on the available space. As speeds and volumes
increase, it is recommended that the furnishing zone width
also increase accordingly within the available road ROW. This
space should also considered snow storage space.
AT DRIVEWAYS / ALLEYWAYS
Driveways, alleyways, and minor crossings represent conflict
areas between pedestrians and vehicles (See Figure 5.12). The
higher the vehicle volumes on the driveway, the more care needs to
be taken to ensure adequate sight distances, speed control, design
clarity and other factors to reduce risk of conflict. Apron style
driveways are frequently used at low volume facilities where the
sidewalk is continued through the driveway.
At higher volume driveways where curb radii are used and the
sidewalk terminates at the curb line, the driveway should be
treated as an intersection crossing with appropriate pavement
markings used.
2
FRONTAGE
ZONE
Practical
Lower
Limit
RECOMMENDED
Practical
Upper
Limit
Lower
Limit
Upper
Limit
Width (m)
0.2
0.5
3
Roadside
Width
3
FURNISHING
ZONE
Practical
Lower
Limit
RECOMMENDED
Practical
Upper
Limit
Lower
Limit
Upper
Limit
Width (m)
0.35
0.5
3
Roadside
Width
2
3
Grass should not be considered in the
furnishing zone unless the available
space is greater than 1.5 meters
Figure 5.12 Driveway Treatment for Separated Bike Lane
Table 5-13 Frontage Zone
Table 5-14 Frontage Zone
| 125
AT INTERSECTIONS
There are a wide variety of sidewalk and bikeway treatments at
intersections depending on the infrastructure that is present at
the intersection (signals, all-way or two-way stop control, right
turn channelizations, medians, left turn lanes, etc.). Appropriate
design guidelines should be consulted for appropriate treatments
at intersections.
LIGHTING
Adequate lighting is a critical part of pedestrian facilities design
along the sidewalk and at connecting intersections, crosswalks
and other special roadway features. Lighting design should follow
the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) Guide for the
design of Roadway Lighting.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Operating Space and Design Dimensions - refer to the TAC
Geometric Design Guide, Section 6.2.
SAFETY AND SECURITY
Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) is
an important feature of pedestrian infrastructure design and
includes the physical characteristics of the facility, lighting, public
visibility and other factors. The TAC Geometric Design Guide
provides some information in this regard and further recommends
reference to any available local guidelines or practices as well
as the RCMP's overview of the Canadian perspective on Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies.
Figure 5.15 Apron Driveway Treatment for Separated Bike Lane
126 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Pedestrian Zone
Non-Separated
Practical
Lower
Limit
RECOMMENDED
Practical
Upper
Limit
Lower
Limit
Upper
Limit
Width (m)
<400
ped/15mins
1.9
2.2
3.0
Roadside
Width
Width (m)
>400
ped/15mins
Not Recommended
5.7
NON-SEPARATED SIDEWALKS
Non-separated sidewalks should only be used where separated
sidewalks or off-road pathways are not feasible. Placing a
pedestrian sidewalk directly on the back of curb may have
the perceived advantage of saving money and reducing ROW
requirements. However, non-separated sidewalks can significantly
reduce safety performance and the comfort levels for both
pedestrians and vehicles on the adjacent roadway. With no direct
separation from the roadway, the outer portions of the sidewalk
need to be considered non-usable clear space, resulting in the
necessary widening of the sidewalk's paved portion.
Non-separated sidewalks require designers to consider alternate
arrangements to accommodate roadside furniture and potential
utility infrastructure without compromising the unobstructed
pedestrian clear zone.
PEDESTRIAN THROUGH ZONE
The majority of design parameters for separated sidewalks
also apply to non-separated sidewalks. This includes the clear
pedestrian through zone. However, non-separated sidewalks must
have a minimum of 0.5 meters of clear space from the face of curb
to the edge of the usable pedestrian zone. In the event the side
sidewalk extends directly to the back of curb, the recommended
lower limit for the sidewalk becomes 1.8 + 0.5 = 2.3 meters (for
example).
Alternatively, to improve clarity and sidewalk delineation, a
different surface type (i.e. pavers, asphalt, or other alternatives)
can be used in the additional 0.5 meters of clear space
AT DRIVEWAYS / ALLEYWAYS
Challenges arise in providing appropriate driveway and sidewalk
grades. Specifically, when driveways or alleyways cross, issues in
resolving grade changes between the sidewalk and the roadway
are likely to occur. There are several ways to solve this issue in the
event a non-separated bikeway is used. However, each application
has negative implications on safety and comfort in comparison to a
fully separated sidewalk.
Where the road right-of-way is limited,
consideration should be given to reducing
other roadway elements in order to provide
and adequate pedestrian thoroughfare.
Figure 5.16 Non-Separated Sidewalk
| 127
5.8
PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
Pedestrian crossing locations are critical as they represent an
inherent conflict zone between pedestrians and vehicles. To create
a safe and comfortable crossing location, safety and operational
risk factors must be mitigated to the greatest extent possible. The
TAC Pedestrian Crossing Control Guide provides detailed reference
material on crossings including guidance on human factors
considerations, various pedestrian populations, and safety effects.
It is recommended to adhere to the TAC guidelines for the evaluation
and implementation and evaluation of existing or new crossings
locations. This helps promote consistency of markings and crossing
types across Canada leading to improved safety performance and
more predictable operations. Planning activities should not focus on
increasing crossing locations, but rather take advantage of existing
crossings where applications with the goal to encourage pedestrians
towards the safest crossing locations. Where possible, intersection
crossing locations should be favoured over mid-block crossings, and
mid-block crossings should be professionally evaluated before they
are implemented.
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ENVIRONMENTS
The specific environment in which each crossing is located must
be considered. The following environments have specific design
requirements and guidelines to minimize risk to vulnerable road
users at the crossings:
1.
Intersection Crossings - The most common crossing location.
Most jurisdictions consider all legs of an intersection to be a
crosswalk, whether marked or not.
2.
Mid-Block Crossings - Provides pedestrian route connectivity
where intersections are spaced further apart. There are
defined desire lines between origins and destinations.
3.
Roundabout Crossings - Occurs on the approach and
departure legs of a roundabout; typically characterized by two
stage crossing movements and a limited number of conflict
locations.
4.
Channelized Right Turns - Right turn channelizations are
installed when warranted to increase intersection capacity.
Sight distances /sight lines and vehicle speed must be
carefully managed to minimize safety risk to pedestrians.
"Smart Channels" should be considered when designing
intersections with required right turn channelizations.
5.
School Areas / Zones - A higher percentage of children
and road users can be expected, therefore extra care must
be taken to increase visibility, reduce vehicle speeds, and
minimize pedestrian exposure to vehicles.
6.
Smaller Communities and Rural Environments - Typically
applied in environments that may experience higher vehicle
speeds, reduced lighting, lower expectation of pedestrian
activity, and less pedestrian related infrastructure.
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING CONTROL TREATMENTS
The TAC Pedestrian Crossing Control Guide defines the following 5
types of treatment systems and also provides treatment selection
methodology.
1.
Ground Mounted (GM) Systems - The most basic treatment
systems including basic passive signs and pavement
markings. This represents most side road crosswalks at a two-
way stop controlled intersection. As they are stop controlled,
signs are not required.
2.
Enhanced Ground Mounted (GM+) Systems - Similar to
GM systems, but enhanced by zebra pavement markings
and require the evaluation of other desirable components to
enhance the visibility of the crosswalk.
3.
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) - Pedestrian
activated systems consisting of two rapidly and alternately
flashing rectangular flashing beacons mounted above side
mounted pedestrian signs.
4.
Overhead Flashing (OF) Beacon System (Special Crosswalk)
- Pedestrian activated systems with internally illuminated
overhead mounted signs with round alternate flashing amber
beacons and down lighting.
5.
Traffic Signals (TS) (Pedestrian or Full) - Provides designated
crossing locations at signalized intersections or crossing
locations.
Detailed crossing guidance can be found in the
Transportation Association of Canada's "Pedestrian Control
Guide"
(latest edition, June 2018)
128 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
PEDESTRIAN SIGNAGE
Pedestrian signage is not required at signalized
intersections or intersection approaches
controlled by stop signs.
Pedestrian Crosswalk Sign (RA-4R and RA-4L) -
indicates location of crosswalks and is installed on
both sides of the roadway and mounted back-to-
back on two lane roads. Signs should be placed as
close as practical to the crossing location.
Pedestrian Crosswalk Ahead Sign (WC-2R and
WC-2L) provides advanced warning of a crosswalk
where there is limited visibility and is installed
between 50 and 150 meters in advance of the
crosswalk.
Special Crosswalk Overhead Sign (RA-5R and
RA-5L) indicates the location of a Special (OF)
Crosswalk and is installed over both sides of the
roadway so that drivers face two signs with each
facing the center of the street. The signs must
be internally illuminated and equipped with a
pedestrian activated flashing amber beacon. The
overhead fixtures are to include down-lighting on
the crosswalk area.
School Crosswalk Sign (RA-3R and RA-3L) are
used in locations where school-related crossings
take place. They are mounted in the same way as
the RA-4 signs. The RA-3 signs can also be used
in conjunction with the School Crosswalk ahead
sign (WC-16R and WC-16L)
EDGE OF
PAVEMENT
EDGE OF
PAVEMENT
2.5m MINIMUM
0.2m - 0.3m
TYP.
0.6m
TYP
0.6m
TYP
2.5m MINIMUM
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVATED CROSSWALKS
There are two types of pedestrian activated
crosswalk assemblies composed of signage and
lighting.
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) -
Consist of two rectangular rapid flashing beacons
and the appropriate RA-4 (pedestrian) or RA-3
(school) sign. A pedestrian-activated push button
and appropriate push button sign ID-21 must be
installed with the assemblies on each side of the
roadway.
Special Crosswalk (OF) assemblies are installed
over both sides of the roadway and include RA-5
signs equipped with one pedestrian activated
round flashing beacon (the addition of a second
flashing beacon on each sign is optional). The
signs must be internally illuminated and must
include down-lighting on the crosswalk area from
each overhead sign. A pedestrian-activated push
button and associated ID-21 sign is to be installed
as noted above in the RRFB description.
PAVEMENT MARKINGS
MUTCDC identifies two primary types of crosswalk markings
which is consistent with guidance provided by Nova Scotia Public
Works (NSPW).
1.
Twin Parallel Line Crosswalk - Typically used at
intersections and in some cases at higher volume driveways
and alleyways (see Figure 5.17).
2.
Zebra Crosswalks - Commonly used for mid block crossing
locations (see Figure 5.17).
Figure 5.17 Pavement Markings
| 129
BICYCLE FACILITIES
130 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
EYE LEVEL
1.5m
HANDLEBAR HEIGHT
1.5m
HORIZONTAL
OPERATING ENVELOPE
1.2M - 1.5M
1.8M
2.4M
1.2M
0.75M
PEDAL
HEIGHT
0.8M
VERTICAL
OPERATING
ENVELOPE
2.5M
CYCLIST DIMENSIONS
0.75M
| 131
| 131
5.9
BICYCLE FACILITIES
GENERAL BICYCLE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Cycling facilities differ from pedestrian facilities in many ways.
Bicycles are considered vehicles from an operational and legal
perspective whereas pedestrians are not. Nonetheless, all cycling
facilities have the same two primary components as pedestrian
facilities:
1.
Facility - Referred to as the bicycle through zone and may
located on the roadway or immediately beside the roadway.
2.
Crossings - Locations where the cycling facility crosses other
transportation facilities including sidewalks, intersections, or
other special circumstances such as transit stops.
PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND SIGNAGE
Most bicycle facilities include required signage and pavement
markings to support their operation within the street cross-
section. The requirements for each type of facility are discussed in
their respective sections.
TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS
Similar to the pedestrian requirements, adequate space needs to
be provided for the integration of bicycle travel at, and past transit
stops. This becomes particularly important when transit stops are
located adjacent to a bike lane, as the cyclist's increases the risk of
pedestrian-cyclist conflicts associated with the transit stop.
Care should be taken to provide space for bicycle parking where a
transit generated demand is present. Areas where pedestrian and
cyclists activity cross must be marked appropriately using pavement
crosswalks and tactile strips where pedestrians cross a bike lane
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
There are a variety of alternate bicycle lane arrangements that may
be used within the transportation road network. However, each
are considered less desirable than the typologies discussed in the
following sections. It is recommended that the following facility
types be avoided or minimized to limit user confusion and promote
consistency between bicycle facilities. It is further recommended
that before any such options be considered, a detailed engineering
study is executed to evaluate alternatives, ultimately recommending
the appropriate safety and operational features as required. Such
facilities include:
Left Side Bike Lanes - Located on the left side of a one-way street.
These lanes are primarily used where there are high volumes of
left turning cyclists or where restrictions exist on the right side of
the road (i.e. transit, loading, etc.).
Contra-flow Bike Lanes - Located on one-way streets where
bicycles travel in opposite directions to vehicular traffic and
when other same-direction options are not available or feasible.
Contra-flow bike lanes are most effective in low volume/low speed
vehicle environments and where there are limited intersections or
driveways.
Advisory Bike Lane - Bicycle priority areas within a Bike Blvd
environment. Bicycles have priority within the dedicated bicycle
area, typically delineated by a dashed white line. However, vehicles
can legally enter the bicycle space to pass oncoming vehicles.
132 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Painted and buffered bike lanes share the road right-of way, but do not
provide physical separation between the dedicated bicycle lane and
vehicular traffic on the adjacent travel lane. Bicycle lanes are typically
oriented in the same direction as the adjacent vehicles. There are two
basic types of lanes:
»
Painted / Unbuffered - includes a single longitudinal white line
between the travel lane and bicycle lane.
»
Buffered - separation space is increased using an additional white
line and potentially hatching between the traveled lanes and or the
parking lane if one is present. Depending on the available ROW, the
buffered space can be used to adjust either the vehicle travel lane, or
the bicycle lane as required.
Size and spacing of lanes is generally dictated by the available right of
way, and the volume and speed of vehicles. Low volumes and speeds
suggest use of widths near the lower limits, while higher speeds warrant
the use of values closer to the upper limit. Where upper limit values are
being evvaluated, consideration should then be given to upgrading the
bicycle lane to a buffered or separated lane as conditions allow.
Practical
Lower
Limit
RECOMMENDED
Practical
Upper
Limit
Lower
Limit
Upper
Limit
Bike Lane
Width (m)
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.1
Practical
Lower
Limit
RECOMMENDED
Practical
Upper
Limit
Lower
Limit
Upper
Limit
Buffer
Width (m)
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.4
5.10 SEPARATED BIKEWAYS - BUFFERED / UNBUFFERED BIKE LANES
3
1
2
B
A
A
B
| 133
ADJACENT TO PARKING
An unbuffered bike lane is not recommended
adjacent to a parking lane. If on-street parking is
present, facility choices in order of priority are:
1.
If bike lanes are the highest priority, remove
on street parking.
2. Use a protected bike lane if parking is
essential to maintain.
3.
Used a buffered bike lane - where possible,
minimize parking lane width
4.
If there is inadequate space for protected or
buffered bike lanes, relocate the bike facility.
Bike lanes are NOT recommended adjacent to
angled parking spaces.
WHERE TO PUT BUFFER WIDTH
»
Can be on one or both sides of a bike lane
»
Can be between a parking lane and/or a
travel lane
»
High turn-over parking suggests increases
buffer space between bike lane and parking
lane
»
Higher volume roadways suggest increasing
buffer space between bike lane and travel
lanes.
PAVEMENT MARKINGS
Longitudinal Lines (white, 100 to 200 mm in width) - Where
space is available, provide a buffered bike lane. This may include
reducing the adjacent lane width. Where vehicles are permitted to
cross the bike lane, dashed lines are used.
Reserved Lane Diamond Symbol - Regular intervals and at start of
lane (i.e. near intersections). Options include coloured pavements.
Where buffers are 0.6 m wide or more- Hatching can be provided
between longitudinal lines.
SIGNAGE
»
MUTCDC RB-90 / RB-91 - Reserved Bicycle Lane - Continuously
along length of bicycle lane spaced no more than 200 meters in urban
areas and between 200 and 400 meters in rural environments. Signs
should also be placed at intersections and locates where new cyclists
may enter the bike lane.
»
MUTCDC RB-92 - Reserved Bike Lane Ends
»
Optional Supplement - MUTCD RB-51 - No Parking
»
Optional Supplement - MUTCD RB-55 - No Stopping
V1
V2
V3
134 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
ALL AGES AND ABILITIES CONSIDERATIONS
Conventional and buffered bike lanes on urban streets delineate
space for bicyclists but provide no physical separation between
people bicycling and driving. With on-street parking, they also
place the bicycle between parked vehicles and moving motor
vehicles. Since bicyclists must enter the motor vehicle lane to
avoid conflict with turning vehicles, parking maneuvers, double
parking or curbside loading, or open doors, it is important for
passing events to be minimized.
Risk Mitigation - Conventional / Buffered Bike Lanes
»
Set target speeds at or below 40 km/hr for unbuffered bike
lanes and 50 km/hr for buffered lanes to improve comfort
and allow drivers to more easily react when bicyclists need to
move into the motor vehicle lane. Use strategies such as lower
progression speeds, shorter signal cycle lengths, narrower
lanes, or enhanced roadside environment to encourage
drivers to reduce speed, and limit top-end speeding
incidents.
»
Discourage motor vehicle through-movement on priority
bike routes where possible to reduce volumes. Lower motor
vehicle volumes reduce the number of passing events.
Depending upon the presence and intensity of other
operational stressors, an All Ages & Abilities condition may
be reached below approximately 3,000 - 6,000 vehicles per
day, or approximately 300 to 400 vehicles per hour.
»
Reduce curbside conflicts, especially freight, loading, and
bus pull-outs. Carefully manage loading activity and parking
demand. On one-way streets with transit activity, move the
bike lane or buffered bike lane to the left side of the street to
alleviate intersection and curbside conflicts. On streets with
heavy curbside use but low motor vehicle volume, consider
moving truck traffic or curbside loading to other streets.
»
Address intersection conflicts through motor vehicle turn
prohibitions, access management, and signal phasing
strategies. Due to the likelihood of both left- and right-turning
conflicts from bi-directional motor vehicle traffic, use the
same motor vehicle volume threshold on two-way streets as
on one-way streets.
»
Increase buffer distance where traffic characteristics
adjacent to the bike lane decrease comfort, including large
vehicles or curbside parking. Where adjacent sources of
stress are present, a buffered bike lane can improve comfort
by increasing shy distance between bikes and motor vehicles.
Where multiple motor vehicle lanes, moderate truck and
large vehicle volumes, or frequent transit indicate that most
bicyclists will need more separation to be comfortable.
| 135
A
A
B
B
C
C
Protected bike lanes are facilities dedicated to bicycle traffic - and in
some cases - alternative travel modes such as scooters, in line skates,
skateboards, etc. Generally, protected bike lanes are located within
a road right-of-way. The defining characteristic of this typology is
the physical separation of the bicycle zone from the vehicular traffic.
These facilities share may similarities to buffered bike lanes and are
best suited for roadways with higher vehicle speeds and/or volumes,
and roadways with multiple lanes in each direction.
Protected bike lanes are defined by the:
»
Furnishing Zone - provides separation between the pedestrian
and bicycle through zones.
»
Bicycle Through Zone - the clear operational space for cyclists
»
Street Buffer Zone - physical separation between the bicycle
through zone and roadway operations.
Different design choices can be made for each of these zones
and may require decisions on trade offs between each zone. The
following general principles should be considered:
»
Vertical and horizontal changes should be minimized
»
Width selection depends on bicycle volumes and speeds
»
Street buffer should provide adequate horizontal separation
from vehicles, including loading activities
»
Furnishing zone should discourage pedestrians from walking
in the bicycle zone.
Maintenance and snow removal equipment for
separated facilities are important considerations.
Operational constraints often reside on each side
of the bicycle through lane
5.11 SEPARATED BIKEWAYS - PROTECTED BIKE LANES
A
B
CC
136 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Protected
Bike Lanes
Practical
Lower
Limit
RECOMMENDED
Practical
Upper
Limit
Lower
Limit
Upper
Limit
Uni
Directional
Bike Lane
1.5
1.8
2.5
3.0
Bi-Directional
Bike Lane
2.4
3.0
3.6
4.0
Delineator
Width (m)
0.3
0.6
1.0
2.0
Table 5-18 Table D-13 in the British Columbia Active
Transportation Design Guide provides a handy comparison chart
for the different types of separators in street buffer zones
Figure 5.19 BUFFER APPLICATIONS
DELINEATOR/ TYPES OF SEPARATORS
Generally the higher the speeds of adjacent vehicles,
more physical protection is recommended. At speeds less
than 50 km/h, flexible delineators and wheel stops can be
considered. Spacing can be intermittent but the defined
usable zone should remain consistent.
At 50 and 60 km/h, more significant visual and physical
separation are recommended such as stable planters and
raised / landscaped medians. Consideration should be given
to providing a continuous barrier
At speeds greater than 60 km/h, continuous separation such
as concrete barriers, curb and gutter sections with added
buffer or other substantial protection should be used. See
Figure 5.19 for buffer types and their applications.
ELEVATION CONSIDERATIONS
A separated bike lane may reside at different elevations
relative to the roadway. Options include:
»
Roadway Level - Same elevation as the roadway with
a separator in between
»
Sidewalk Level - Same level as the sidewalk, using
the curb or curb/gutter as a separator along with an
added buffer to separate bicycles and vehicles.
»
Intermediate Level - A level between the sidewalk
and roadway with a separator between the roadway
and a transition to the sidewalk elevation.
PAVEMENT MARKINGS
»
Protected bike lanes should use the bicycle symbol
and the reserved lane diamond symbol at regular
intervals and at the start of the cycle lane (i.e. near
intersections or route entry points).
»
A directional arrow may also be considered if there
are concerns about travel in the wrong direction.
»
If the lane is bidirectional, it should include a dividing
line that are dashed to indicated where passing is
permitted and solid.
»
In some cases, a longitudinal white line can be painted
parallel to the separator in order to provide a clear
space between the cyclist and the physical separation.
Concrete Barrier
> 0.9m
Raised or
Landscaped Median
> 0.8m
Planter Box
> 0.9m
Wheel Stop
0.5-0.9m
Flexible Delineator
0.5-0.9m
| 137
Figure 5.20 Buffer Appplications
Figure 5.21 Driveway application in an urban enviroment
SIGNAGE
MUTCDC RB-90 / RB-91 - Reserved Bicycle
Lane
Continuously placed along length of bicycle lane,
spaced no more than 200 meters in urban areas and
between 200-400 meters in rural environments.
Signs should also be placed at intersections and
located where new cyclists may enter the bike lane.
MUTCDC RB-92 - Reserve Bike Lane Ends
Must be installed at the end of a reserved bicycle
lane to mark its end point.
RB-22 - Wrong Way / RB-23 - Entry Prohibited
On unidirectional protected bike lanes, the Wrong
Way and/or Entry Prohibited signs can be used to
deter wrong way travel within the lane. Signs should
be facing in the opposite direction to intended travel.
AT
DRIVEWAYS
Protected bikeways frequently intersect driveways
and alleyways. As such, driveways represent points
of conflict between cyclists and pedestrians, it is
recommended that green conflict zone markings be
utilized across driveways and alleyways with higher
traffic volumes.
TRANSIT STOPS
Where vehicles are permitted to cross the bike lane
(i.e. at and intersection right turn lane), a dashed
longitudinal line should be used.
1200 SPACING
600 TYP.
150
TYP.
THERMOPLASTIC
WHITE AT EACH
END (TYP.)
BICYCLE DIRECTION
OF TRAVEL
THERMOPLASTIC
GREEN (TYP.)
138 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
ALL AGES AND ABILITIES CONSIDERATIONS
Protected bike lanes (including raised bikeways) create All Ages
& Abilities conditions by using physical separation to create a
consistently exclusive, designated bicycling space. The physical
protection offered by protected bike lanes means that they can
often meet the All Ages & Abilities criteria even in higher speed,
high volume, or unpredictable conditions. Protected bike lanes
improve the overall organization of the street, and increase safety
for people walking, bicycling, and in motor vehicles.
What to do:
»
Build protected bike lanes where motor vehicle speed
consistently exceeds 25 mph, where daily motor vehicle
volume is higher than approximately 6,000 vehicles per day,
where curbside conflicts are expected, or wherever there is
more than one motor vehicle lane per direction.
»
Manage intersection and curbside conflicts with transit
boarding islands, protected (bend-out or offset) intersection
designs, signal phasing, and other turn management
strategies.
»
Reduce speeds through operational strategies, such as signal
time, lower signal progression, and shorter signal cycles.
»
On streets with parking, reverse the position of the parking
and the bike lane to create physical separation between the
bike lane and moving motor vehicle traffic.
»
On streets without parking, add vertical separation elements
(e.g. delineators, barriers, raised curbs) in an existing buffer,
or raise existing curbside bike lanes.
»
On streets with multiple motor vehicle lanes in each travel
direction, convert one travel lane to a protected bike lane,
better organizing the street and improving safety for people
biking, walking and driving.
»
Convert conventional or buffered lanes to protected lanes
if motor vehicle speeds and volumes cannot be otherwise
reduced and where there is high curbside activity or peaks
of intensive demand such as retail-heavy streets, or around
schools, large employers, institutions, and entertainment
districts.
| 139
5.12 BIKEWAY CROSSINGS
AT INTERSECTIONS
Accommodating bike lanes approaching and through
intersections can be challenging and care must be taken
not to provide conflicting or unclear information to
drivers or cyclists. At an intersection, a variety of lane
markings can be used for buffered or unbuffered bike
lanes through an intersection. However, lines always
indicate the continuation of the bike path through the
intersection. Lines' marking application can take a few
different forms depending on the lane configuration
approaching the intersection.
1.
Bike lane beside a shared through and right
turn lane (no dedicated right turn lane) - The
bike lane remains continuous and linear through
the intersection with dashed lines indicating
the locations of potential bicycle / vehicle
conflict. Coloured pavements across part or
all of the intersection may be used to increase
conspicuousness in conflict areas.
2.
Bike Lane beside a dedicated right turn lane - A
dashed line is used to indicate where vehicles can
cross the bike lane. This situation could include
a full dedicated parallel lane, or a right turn
channelization.
Figure 5.22 Bike Lane Crossing at Driveway
Figure 5.23 Bike Lane at Channelized Right Turn
140 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
5.13 AT TRANSIT STOPS
Special accommodation is require when bike lanes are
located along transit routes and transit stop locations are
present. Frequently, bus stop are located near intersection
where additional crossing infrastructure may be in place.
Wherever possible, transit hold periods should not be
implemented at shared locations to minimize
potential conflict.
Key considerations at the intersection of transit stops with
bike lanes include:
»
Dashed lines should be used when a transit stop
shares space with a bicycle lane with the dashed
length being about 30 meters in length starting
upstream of the stop.
»
If space allows, the preferred solution is to
construct a transit "by-pass" zone which shifts
the bike lane from the roadway space to a
location behind the bus stop. Additional signage
a markings are important in such areas for clear
guidance of all users.
»
In constrained situations, bicycle lanes can be
transitioned to a raised bicycle lane at the bus stop
allowing transit users to cross the bike lane on
grade.
»
Where transit vehicles are equipped with front-
loading bicycle racks, adequate space must be
provided to allow loading and unloading activities
to take place.
»
If pedestrians are required to cross a bike path to
get to a "floating transit stop" crosswalk markings
should be provided across the bike lane.
| 141
Figure 5.24 Raised Bike Lane at Transit Stop
Figure 5.25 Raised Bike Lane at Transit Stop
Figure 5.26 Raised Bike Lane at Transit Stop
142 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
MULTI-USE FACILITIES
| 143
5.14 MIXED FACILITIES
Multi-use facilities are designed for use by more than one group of
active transportation users. The previous sections discussed facilities
that were specifically design for pedestrians, and then for cyclists.
MULTI-USE PATHS
The most common application of mixed use pathways are those
located off-street. Figure 5.27 demonstrates fully separated pathways;
Figure 5.28 demonstrates a multi-use pathway parallel to a roadway
corridor.
Multi-use pathways are typically designed to accommodate a wide
variety of users,such as pedestrians and bicycles. Additional alternate
uses - such as skateboarding, in-line skating, kick scooters, and
other similar mode - can be accommodated on multi-use pathways.
More recently, multi-use pathways have become increasingly used
by electronic modes of travel, such as: electric scooters, hover
boards, electric and gas powered bicycles. Looking further, various
municipalities permit the use of Off-Highway Vehicles (OHVs) / All-
Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) on multi-use trails.
The most common locations for multi-use pathways are along
corridors that have limited interaction with vehicles at intersections
or driveways and may include:
»
Parallel to roads and highways
»
Parallel to or within railway corridors, including rails-to-trails
initiatives
»
Within utility corridors
»
Within greenway corridors
»
Other situations, such as: through parks, adjacent to water
features, or cross country connections to multiple adjacent AT
facilities.
Bike Paths
Practical
Lower
Limit
RECOMMENDED
Practical
Upper
Limit
Lower
Limit
Upper
Limit
Width (m)
Uni-directional
1.5
1.8
2.5
3.0
Width (m)
Bi-directional
2.4
3.0
3.6
4.0
Multi-use Path
Practical
Lower
Limit
RECOMMENDED
Practical
Upper
Limit
Lower
Limit
Upper
Limit
Width (m)
2.7
3.0
6.0
6.0
In built-up land use and higher density development
areas, separating pedestrians from cyclists becomes
more important. Where development is located on both
sides of the road, consideration should be given to uni-
directional bikeways (protected bike lanes)
Figure 5.27 Rural Multi-Use Pathway
Figure 5.28 Multi-Use Pathway Next to Roadway
144 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
SEPARATING BIKES AND PEDESTRIANS
Multi-use paths can mix pedestrians and cyclists, or
separate pedestrians and cyclists. The TAC Geometric
Design Guide provides the following guidance for when to
separate transportation modes:
»
> 20% pedestrians and total user volumes > 33
persons per hour per meter of path width (i.e. 1.8
meter width requires total volume of 60 pph)
»
< 20% pedestrians and total user volumes > 50
persons/hr/meter width.
LIGHTING
As with all AT facilities, adequate lighting is critical for the
safe and comfortable use of multi-use facilities. Lighting
should, at a minimum, be provided at intersections
(typically 25 meters in advance) and crossing points or
other areas where potential conflicts or user confusion
may be likely (hills, corners, high volume driveways,
bridge crossings, etc.).
Many multi-use trails can be of significant length and
may be well separated from an adjacent roadway. In
these situations, street light may help in illuminating the
pathway. It may be cost prohibitive to provide lighting
along its entire length. Practical lighting level is a critical
planning item and depends on the location of the facility,
expected time of use, need for AAA conformity, alternate
lighting sources, and more.
AT DRIVEWAYS
As previously noted, multi-use pathways are best used
when there is limited side road interference from
driveways and intersections. Where crossings are
required, appropriate signage and pavement marking s
are critical for guidance. Wherever possible, the multi-use
trail should be given the priority; driveways or low-volume
minor roads should be required to stop or yield to bicycle
and pedestrian traffic. Figure 5.33 to 36 demonstrate how
guidance can be offered to both pedestrians and cyclists
in this situation.
Figure 5.29 Basic Shared
Multi-Use Pathway
Figure 5.30 Separated Multi-
Use Pathway - Paint Line or
Curb Separation
Figure 5.31 Separated Multi-
Use Pathway - Boulevard
Separation
Figure 5.32 Separated Multi-
Use Pathway - Median and
Furniture Separation
| 145
Figure 5.33 Multi-use Path Crossing - Setback from Pedestrian
Figure 5.35 Multi-use Path Crossing - Shared Space
Figure 5.34 Separated Multi-Use Path Crossing
146 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
5.15 SHARED ROADWAYS
Shared roadways are low vehicle volume and low speed facilities
located in areas where the living environment is prioritized over
vehicular movements. Recommended volumes are typically
less than 1000 vehicles per day or up to 2500 vph with careful
consideration of operating conditions and intersections between
user and vehicular traffic. Recommended speeds are 30 km/h and
up to 40 km/hr. Shared roadways are oftentimes found in local
residential neighbourhoods, but can also be effective in small-
scale commercial corridors with prioritized active transportation
movements. Cyclists and vehicles share the same space on the
travelled roadway; therefore the nature of the facilities means that
parking is often permitted on one or both sides of the roadway.
Though cars are permitted, bikes - and potentially pedestrians
- are given priority in the same shared space. Ideally, the road
should not serve as a vehicle thoroughfare (i.e. local traffic only),
have low volumes, limited width (1 or 2 lanes) and should generally
form part of a larger bike network. The roadways can take various
forms with the extremes being:
1.
Bike and Pedestrian Oriented - The space feels like a park or
walking space with typical roadway features being replaced
with bike and pedestrian features, landscaping and furniture.
2.
Vehicle Oriented - The space feels like a roadway, but signage,
pavements markings and other features clearly designate the
space as a fully shared space.
Shared roadways are often used to fill in gaps in bicycle or active
transportation networks; in appropriate situations, they can be a
cost effective means of doing so. Further, shared roadways may
form part of larger Bicycle Boulevard or Neighbourhood Bikeway
networks, where series of Bike Blvd sections are married together
form a longer Bike Blvd corridor. Critical considerations include:
»
Design features to must promote slow speeds and awareness
of surroundings.
»
The road should not generate any significant vehicle demand,
particularly during peak hour traffic.
»
Distance between cross streets should be in the range of 200
meters. and should not exceed 400 meters.
»
Shared roadways should have gateway features that clear
identifies they are entering a shared road environment to
drivers and cyclists.
»
A variety of features can be used to identify entry into a
shared environment, including: material changes, roadway
narrowing, grade changes, signage, and more.
»
Particular attention must be paid to transition areas for those
with physical or visual impairments.
»
Shared environments may consider using a variety of traffic
calming measure to help support operations.
| 147
DIMENSIONS
Figure 5.36 offers recommended lanes widths for "side-by-
side" and "single file" operations. The choice of the appropriate
option is based on the available lane width and whether parking
is permitted on the curb side of the lane.
SIDE-BY SIDE OPERATIONS
Typically implemented on roadways within the range
of 4.3 to 4.9 meters wide which allows motorists to pass
a cyclist without encroaching into the opposing lane.
Painted bicycle symbols are located closer to the curb
line to represent the cycling location and provides
guidance to drivers to minimize risk of conflict with
cyclists. A white edge line is not used in these situations
unless a full and adequate dedicated bike lane can be
accommodated (unbuffered bike lane).
SINGLE FILE OPERATIONS
Implemented on narrower roadways less than 4.3 m
in width. Bicycle symbols are painted near the middle
of the laneway to clearly indicated that both vehicles
and bicycles can share the roadway space. Vehicles are
required to cross into opposing traffic space if they are
going to pass a cyclist.
Width of
Shared Lanes
Practical
Lower
Limit
RECOMMENDED
Practical
Upper
Limit
Lower
Limit
Upper
Limit
For Side-
By-Side
Operation
4.3
4.3
4.9
4.9
For Single
File
Operation
Lane
Width
Lane
Width
4.0
4.3
Figure 5.36 Recommended Lane Widths
148 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
PAVEMENT MARKINGS
Both side-by-side and single-file shared use lanes are marked
with a shared lane marking ("sharrow"). For side-by-side facilities
the sharrow is placed toward the right side of the pavement (see
Figure 5.37), while single-file facilities place the sharrow in the
middle of the traveled lane (Figure 5.37). In both options, the
marking's location suggest to the cyclist where to travel.
SIGNAGE
Side-by-side facilities include WC-19 signage in accordance with
Section 8.1.2 of the TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines while
single file operations and the WC-20 signage in accordance with
Section 8.1.3 of the TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines.
At locations where a shared environment ends, Shared Space
Ends signage should be considered to alert all users of their need
to transition to alternate facilities.
The Bicycle Route sign (MUTCDC IB-23) can also be used.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Could be extended as part of a:
»
"Neighbourhood Bike way" initiatives can be considered
where multiple interconnected streets could serve as
shared roadways. This is a signification planning exercise
and requires the coordination of shared road section with
intersection crossing strategies and facility connectivity.
»
"Bike way Corridor" where multiple consecutive shared
roadways connect to form a longer linear corridor. This
corridor could also include other types of AT connections.
AT INTERSECTIONS
It is important that shared spaces are initiated, terminated, or
continued across intersecting roadways. In residential areas with
low volume cross-streets, shared spaces can generally continue
through the intersection. Specific attention must be paid to the
placement of signage and pavement markings on either side
of the intersection, thereby ensuring drivers and cyclists are
aware of the continued shared space. Additionally, the signage
and pavement ensures a vehicle entering the corridor from side
roads becomes aware they are entering a shared space. Wherever
possible, designers should minimize stops for vehicles and
cyclists in the shared use environment.
The connection of a shared roadway at major intersections
should allow cyclists and pedestrians to easily merge to and from
existing connecting infrastructure on the higher order cross
Figure 5.37 Sharrow Travel Lane Markings (left and
single lane travel marks (right)
| 149
street. Similar intuitive transitions should be provided on any
other minor side roads that have connecting AT infrastructure.
If the shared facility is to cross a major intersection, there are a
variety of treatments and signage that can provide clear guidance
of route continuation on the opposite site of the roadway and how
users are intended to cross major roadways.
Where the shared use facility transitions to alternate
connected facilities, way finding signs should be used to offer
pedestrians and cyclists appropriate guidance on successfully
navigating between facilities.
DRIVEWAYS
As the shared space environment operate within the roadway,
there is no specific accommodated for driveway access. That said,
it is important that all locations of potential conflict (i.e. higher
volume driveways, underground parking access, alleyways, etc.) be
highly visible and clearly delineated. The placement of markings
and signage should be coordinated with driveway locations to
provide all users with clear guidance.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND FACILITIES
Unmarked Wide Curb Lanes - Facilities where wide lane width
are available (typically 4 - 4.8 meters wide) to accommodate
cyclists. These facilities provide benefit to cyclists that may be
uncomfortable traveling alongside vehicles. Such widths promote
higher vehicle speeds and increased variation in driver travel
paths. Bicycle route signage, shared space markings, or signs
should not be used in these situations. If lane widths are closer to
4.8 meters, then options to construct a properly designated share
space or curbside bike lane should be further investigated.
150 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
RURAL ROADWAYS
| 151
5.16 RURAL ROADWAYS
There are a wide variety of rural and suburban road corridors that
are required to accommodate active transportation users. Since
AT volumes along rural routes are often lower and distances are
significantly longer, facilities are often considered a lower priority
in terms of investment for active transportation infrastructure.
From a planning perspective, it is critical to define the highest
priority areas where the highest number of active transportation
users will be accommodated.
An off-road path or trail is the oft-preferred treatment in rural
areas. Wherever ROW is available or there are feasible off road
routes, (e.g. an abandoned rail corridor or existing off-road trails),
the off-road options should be pursued. However, in most situations
this is not possible. In the situations off-road trails are unavailable,
the space immediately adjacent to the roadway needs to be activated.
This may take the form of a dedicated AT space, and could be
separated, buffered, or unbuffered similarly to the urban context.
The major difference in rural settings is that the dedicated space
directly adjacent to the roadway can legally be used by vehicles for
operational, maintenance, or safety needs on an as-need basis.
Shoulders are a standard requirement on roadways with rural
cross-sections. The Nova Scotia Department of Transportation and
Public Works provides standard details for a variety of roadway cross
sections from major arterial to local roadways. These details can be
found at: https://novascotia.ca/tran/highways/standarddrawings.asp.
This page also includes specific guidance for Paved Shoulder Widths
for Active Transportation.
Table 5-38 summarizes the lane and usable shoulder widths
identified in these cross sections, as well as references to the
recommended paved shoulder widths for active transportation use. It
is important to note the following:
»
Many rural cross-section roadways do not meet the current
guidelines for shoulder width, due to either their original
construction or lack of maintenance. As a result, the available
shoulder space to grow in or deteriorated
»
There is no differentiation between pedestrian and cycling
facilities. That said, in many cases where pedestrians may be
present, then cyclists are also likely to use the space.
»
Many highways have very narrow asphalt shoulders outside of
the white painted edgeline as seen in fig.26. The consequent
narrow shoulder space is not accessible to bicycles and often
challenging for pedestrians.
»
In many rural situations, coordination is required between
CBRM and the province to ensure the consistent application
of AT facility design across jurisdictional limits.
152 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
The remainder of this section provides guidance and best practices
for rural active transportation to guide the development of
facilities in the future.
Rural roadways present different challenges for pedestrians
and cyclist as compared to urban areas. In urban areas, active
transportation traffic is expected, and therefore most typically
has dedicated features to indicate the likely presence of AT traffic.
Drivers tend to be more aware of potential conflict points, and AT
users are usually conscious of the traffic that surrounds them.
On the other hand, rural areas typically provide less delineation
between roadway and AT traffic and there is more frequently
reduced driver expectations that AT traffic may be present.
Designed urban environments tend to keep drivers alert and aware
of their surrounding while rural environments often includes long
stretches where there is little change in the roadside environment
and AT users are seldom present. Night time lighting is usually
poor or absent; many rural roadways (including shoulders)
throughout Nova Scotia are in poor condition.
Many rural areas do not formally separate AT traffic from vehicular
traffic and these areas are generally considered as shared use or
mixed use facilities. This situation is common on lower volume
local roadways, but can also be found on some higher volume,
higher speed facilities. For experienced and confident cyclists this
may be less of an issue, as bicycles are legally entitled to roadway
space. However, such facilities are not considered AAA compliant.
Further, many rural areas include facilities that may be considered
pedestrian accessible, but are not accessible for cyclists due to the
nature or conditions of the usable shoulder space. As a cost saving
measure, many rural shoulders were traditionally constructed
of gravel, which can deteriorate quickly in the absence of regular
maintenance. Many jurisdictions now suggest - or have written into
policy - that all new and upgraded highways include provisions for
bicycle traffic and that any exceptions to this require justification.
Given the rapidly increasing use of bicycles, both in a general sense
and as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, it appears prudent to
adopt a similar approach to the implementation of AT facilities in
rural environments.Generally, any roadway that has vehicle speeds
over 30 km/hr, and is reasonably expected to have some pedestrian
traffic present should be designed or retrofitted to include usable
AT shoulders or an off-road pathway. The general hierarchy of
preferred rural pedestrian facilities are:
1.
Off-Street Pathway (dedicated or mixed use) - See Section on
Multi-Use Trails and Paths for Design Guidance
2.
Dedicated On-Road Facility with Physical Separation
3.
Dedicated On-Road Facility with No Separation
4.
No Dedicated Facility or Mixed Use Conditions
Higher volumes and higher speed require that designers move up
this hierarchy in order to minimize safety risks to all users.
FACILITY TYPE
LANE
WIDTH
USABLE
SHOULDER
WIDTH
PAVED
SHOULDERS
FOR AT
Freeway (Type A)
3.7
2.5
N/A
Major Arterial (Type B)
3.7
2.5
1.5 - 2.0
Arterial (Type C)
3.7
2.2
1.2 - 2.0
Arterial (Type D)
3.5
2.0
1.2 - 2.0
Major Collector (Type E)
3.5
2.0
1.2 - 2.0
Minor Collector (Type F)
3.3
1.5
1.2 - 18
Local (Type G)
3.0
1.2
1.2 - 1.5
Local (Type H)
4.0
N/A
N/A
Local (Type I)
3.3
N/A
N/A
Local (Type J)
3.0
1.6
MIXED OR SHARED
SPACE
SEPARATED AT
SPACE
OFF-ROAD
FACILITY
30 km / hr
70 km /hr
Table 5-38 Usable Lane Widths
| 153
5.17 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBLE SHOULDER
»
The pedestrian through zone should meet all longitudinal and
cross slope grading requirements, as noted under the urban
conditions sections.
»
Width requirements are similar to urban conditions. Where
higher volumes of pedestrians and vehicles exist, movement
toward the upper limit ranges is recommended.
BICYCLE ACCESSIBLE SHOULDER
»
Defined by a solid white longitudinal line along the edge of the
road that separates the bicycle through zone from vehicular
traffic
»
Shoulder surface needs to be a smooth paved surface that is
clear of vegetation (ground or overhanging), gravels or other
debris, and snow / ice.
»
Bicycle travel should be one-way only in the same direction as
the adjacent vehicle lane.
»
Bike accessible shoulders may be shared by pedestrian traffic.
It is important to consider the volumes of both pedestrians
and cyclists and the frequency of potential conflicts. Frequent
conflict suggests wider usable space, but more appropriately
an off-road or separated facility.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
»
On rural roadways where rumble strips are used, the clear
pedestrian or bicycle space does not include the rumble strip
area. The rumble strip area can be considered a buffer area in
the context of a buffered facility.
»
Buffered AT shoulders may be used in some locations where
volumes and speeds suggest additional separation and where
ROW allows. Desirable buffer width is 1.2 meters with a
constrained lower limit of 0.9 m.
»
In rural applications, and particularly in higher speed
environments, the implementation of a separated through
zone must be accompanied by an explicit evaluation of safety
which addresses the type of physical separation that is being
used and its impact on vehicular safety performance.
Pedestrian
Accessible
Shoulders
Practical
Lower
Limit
RECOMMENDED
Practical
Upper
Limit
Lower
Limit
Upper
Limit
Width (m)
<70 km/hr
1.2
1.5
2.0
3.0
Width (m)
>70 km/hr
Not Recommended - If provided,
they should be subject to an explicit
evaluation of safety
Bike
Accessible
Shoulders
Practical
Lower
Limit
RECOMMENDED
Practical Upper
Limit
Lower
Limit
Upper
Limit
Width (m)
<50 km/h
1.5
1.8
3.0
3.0
Width (m)
<70 km/h
1.5
2.5
3.0
3.0
Width (m)
>70 km/h
Not Recommended - If provided, they should be
subject to an explicit evaluation of safety
Figure 5.39 Rural Routes - Shared Bike Lanes
Figure 5.40 Rural Routes - Buffered Bike Lanes
154 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING
Regulatory signage is not required for bicycle or pedestrian
accessible shoulders. The reserved bike lane signage (RB90 and
RB91) should not be used in rural areas as the shoulder spaces is
legally accessible by all users including vehicles.
In some areas, opportunities exist to use guide signs or
informational signage to raise awareness of the potential for
bicycle traffic to be present. Specific version of such signage can be
found along many of provinces designated "Blue Route" facilities.
Additional guidance can also be found in the Bicycle Nova Scotia,
Bicycle Wayfinding Guide (2019).
PAVEMENT MARKINGS
-
Longitudinal Lines - white, 100 to 200 mm in width to delineate
separation between the accessible shoulder and vehicle lanes.
-
Where space is available, providing a buffered bike lane in
more urban or suburban areas is an effective way to identify
the potential for higher volumes of cyclist traffic. Where buffers
are 0.6 m wide or more, hatching can be provided between
longitudinal lines. Often these areas also introduce dedicated
off road pedestrian facilities or multi-use off road trails.
-
Where the roadway is a designated cycling route, the standard
TAC bicycle pavement marking can be used and is typically
installed in conjunction with appropriate bicycle signage as
noted above. The road markings are typically placed within 10
meters upstream of the associated signage. Symbols should
also be installed following each major intersection and in rural
areas, supplementary symbols can be place d every 15. to 2
kilometers
BRIDGE CROSSINGS
Bridge crossings may present challenges in many areas due to
the reduced width of the structure and therefore the inability to
maintain full width facilities for bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities.
In such cases, it is important to provide appropriate signage and
transitional pavement markings to ensure all users are aware of the
narrowed cross section and there is a need to share the roadway.
| 155
5.18 NOVA SCOTIA BLUE
ROUTE
The origins of the Provincial Blue Route date back to 2007
and envisioned a province wide network of bike ways. This
includes potential connections transit or shuttle services,
ferries and airports. Implementation of the route has been
slow but steady with some projects following some but not
necessarily all of the recommended guidelines.
Development of the route has typically been incorporated
into repaving plans on highway sections, though
specific project have been carried out in some cases. It is
recommended that CBRM work closely with the province to
develop connections between the proposed Blue Routes and
AT networks.
The Blue Route homepage (blueroute.ca) identifies 4 basic
types of facilities that constitute Blue Route infrastructure:
»
Shared Lanes - for rural roads and local low volume,
low speed streets. Does not require any specific
provisions other than signage identifying the route as
a Blue Route segment.
»
Paved Shoulders - generally 1 - 1.75 meters wide on
busier roads and secondary highways. [ This point
should be read in consideration of accessible shoulder
guidelines contained in this section ]
»
Bike Lanes and Local Street Bikeways - Bike lanes,
typically 1.5 - 1.8m wide, are designated exclusively
for bicycles and can be effective on streets with
higher traffic volumes and higher travel speeds. Local
street bikeways use quiet neighbourhood streets as
shared routes and incorporate special design features
to make sharing the road safer and more comfortable
for all road users.
»
Trails - Multi-use trails are typically 2 - 4m wide
and are ideal places to ride a bicycle away from road
traffic. Bicycle-friendly trails have a crushed stone or
paved travel way and provide connection points with
communities and access to amenities.
156 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
Wayfinding is a set of strategies to help point visitors in the right direction. People who return to the
same places day after day, month after month, don't need much help finding their way. But visitors
and newcomers who are looking for a destination in an unfamiliar place will need some cues to
get to their intended destination. Wayfinding isn't just signs, though signs are often a big part of
wayfinding projects. The trail, the location of an exit, the perceived direction of a road, the location of
building entrances, the presence of landmarks, and other environmental cues are all very important
to wayfinding.
C H A P T E R 6
WAYFINDING STANDARDS
6.1
WHAT IS WAYFINDING
The art of wayfinding is reading the landscape and
anticipating the decision points: the places where a visitor
may be required to make a decision of which way to go.
At or near the decision points, we may need to intervene
and guide the visitor on the right path. Decision points
occur at road intersections, forks in a trail, or at some
change of transportation mode, like in a parking lot where
people are getting out of their cars to walk.
Wayfinding is also about destinations: what name to
use, when, and whether to use names or symbols or both.
Including every possible destination would be impossible,
so wayfinding is about prioritizing what destinations to
include, at what point in the process, and when, where, and
what elements of the system they may appear on.
| 157
The Appalachian Trail has one of the most
recognized trail logos in North America.
The periodic appearance of the simple logo above--
to remind people they're going the right way--is far
more emotionally gratifying than looking at a GPS
or smartphone.
158 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
SIGN TYPES
We typically divide sign designs into six
categories:
1.
Guidance signs point the way to a
destination (or to several). Destinations
may be large and nebulous (e.g.
a downtown area) and small (e.g.
a public washroom). Typically
directional signs lead the way with
the name of a destination--a name or
symbol or both--and an arrow, but may
include trailblazing signs and distance
markers.
2.
Identification (ID) signs identify a
place, district, destination, building,
etc. Identification signs tell you the
name of the place, and if it's the place
you were looking for, confirm that
you've arrived.
3.
Information signs provide additional
information not easily delivered with
simple messaging and directional
information. Information signs may
include maps, and content intended to
inform, describe, or draw attention to.
4.
Traffic control signs are typically
governed by provincial legislation
or regulation. Using universally
understood colour and shape (think
of a STOP sign), these signs signal the
driver to changes in driving conditions
by providing warning and guidance
information. We distinguish between
these standardized engineered
roadway signs and regulatory signs
below, whose function and design is
not defined in engineering standards
or legislation. Regulatory signs point
out things that visitors may, must
or may not do in a place. Such signs
include site specific information, for
example what activities are allowed in
a park or on a trail. Some regulatory
information is purely legalistic--where
messages are required by legislation,
or recommended by legal counsel, but
with no expectation that the messages
will be read or acted on by users. Other
regulatory information is behaviour
changing--where a specific behaviour
needs to be clearly communicated
by the sign owner, and needs to be
acted on by the sign reader. Legalistic
information should be avoided as
message pollution, and a waste of
valuable signage "real-estate".
5.
Interpretive signs provide context for
the visitor, and inform on interesting
or unique aspect of a place's nature,
culture, or history.
6.
Interpretive signs provide context for
the visitor, and inform on interesting
or unique aspect of a place's nature,
culture, or history.
For ease of comprehension of message, it is
best to avoid combining any of the above in
a single sign panel, though some kiosk-like
signs may do so.
MODALITY
People move through the environment
using different means, often using more
than one mode in a journey. Taking the
bus means walking to the bus stop. Getting
out for a trail-ride may mean putting your
bike in a rack and driving to the trailhead.
Wayfinding signs may be geared to one
mode or another, and often wayfinding
systems require different sign families to
address different modes.
Expectations differ depending on how the
user is travelling:
»
People in motor vehicles receive
information while they are in motion.
They need to see, process, and react
long before a turn or lane-change is
required. Vehicles may be travelling
at high speed, and as such, highway
wayfinding needs very large type, brief
messaging, and very little graphics.
Motor vehicle signs are always single-
sided and installed with the sign
perpendicular to the path of travel.
»
People on bicycles may be travelling
Figure 6.41 Identification Sign
Figure 6.42 Guidance Sign
Figure 6.43 Information Sign
| 159
between 10-35 km/h depending on fitness level. Cycling
wayfinding signs may look similar to road signs, as riders
prefer to receive information while in motion. Unlike people
in motor vehicles, cyclists may stop to read more detailed
information if presented infrequently. Like signs for motor
vehicles, cycling signs are generally installed perpendicular
to the path of travel. Cyclists' viewplanes are oriented
downwards, and as such, cycling-specific signs should be
mounted as low as practical.
»
Pedestrian wayfinding generally assumes that people are able
to stop and read, or process information on a map. Speeds
of pedestrians are low (generally less than 5 km/h on flat
terrain), but vary significantly by age, fitness, and mobility
needs. Pedestrian signs are often
»
installed parallel to the path of travel, so that people must turn
to read the signs as they pass.
Please keep in mind that, when developing an AT wayfinding
system for CBRM, not all of the sign types will be geared towards
cyclists in motion.
Figure 6.44 "Behaviour change"
regulatory. The required behaviour is
communicated clearly and concisely.
Figure 6.45 Interpretive sign
Figure 6.46 Pedestrian Signage
Pedestrian signage can communicate
far more information than signs for
people in motion.
160 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
1000 mm
1700 mm
zone
Northville
Northville
×
×
×
FOLLOW ACCESSIBILITY DESIGN STANDARDS
»
Signs for the human-scale follow accessible design principles.
»
Information must be at the right height, with easy-to-read high-
contrast text, and simple messaging. Signs should be functional
for everyone.
»
We follow several standards appropriate to the jurisdiction and
context: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Design of Public
Spaces Standard (DPSS in Ontario), Accessibility for Ontarians
with Disabilities Act (AODA, Ontario), Parks Canada, and
Canadian Standards Association (CSA).
FOLLOW MUTCD-C GUIDELINES
»
For highway signs we follow the guidelines in the Manual of
Uniform Traffic Devices for Canada (MUTCD-C).
»
Road signs always use sans serif typefaces, as they are more
legible at a distance.
»
Text size is determined by speed-limit to ensure that the
messages can be read in the brief time before the driver passes a
sign, without distracting the driver from the road.
»
We generally specify text size by cap-height in millimetres,
standard for road sign specifications in Canada.
TIMELINESS
»
Heavily stylized sign shapes, and branded elements can quickly
become dated.
»
The lifetime of most signs is about 10 years--a typical warranty
period--but many signs are in the ground for 20 years or more.
»
More generic sign designs are likely to remain timely for much
longer.
BREVITY IS ESSENTIAL
»
People spend very little time reading and processing information
on signs.
»
People moving at speed (in vehicles, on bicycles) have just
seconds to read, process and react to sign messages.
»
Directional signs ideally carry 1-3 destinations per sign.
»
Pedestrian signs (e.g. map kiosks) may carry more information,
but keep in mind the audience: how long are people likely to
linger and read?
6.2
BEST PRACTICES
| 161
COLOUR IS PART OF THE LANGUAGE
»
White text on a blue background is standard for tourism
wayfinding signs throughout much of Canada and the USA.
»
Non-tourism wayfinding is generally white text on a green
background.
»
Many other colours have commonly accepted meanings on signs
which make them hard to use, e.g. red meaning danger.
USE COLOUR TO REINFORCE
»
Current wayfinding practice discourages colour-coding as a
primary strategy-- it is difficult to teach users about new colour-
codes.
»
Colour is useful where it confirms and strengthens a message, or
your brand.
»
Colour-blind users may not be able to differentiate between
certain combinations.
»
Colour-codes are used for specific purposes within several
common signage domains (e.g. highway cautionary signs are
always black text on yellow).road sign specifications in Canada.
HIGH COLOUR CONTRAST
»
Text on signs should have a colour contrast greater than 70%
against its background.
»
Subtle background and text colour combinations are
unacceptable on most signs.
USE SYMBOLS TO REINFORCE ONLY
»
Pictograms are useful only where they are universally recognized--
consider standard washroom icons, or the use of "?" for an
information booth.
»
Most symbols are not well-known enough on their own: they must
be accompanied by text.
»
Each province uses its own set of tourism pictograms, but
fortunately, there are several which are consistent across the
country and in the USA.
»
Use pictograms ONLY where they speed comprehension or
clarify the message.
A
A
BUSINESS
PARK
BUSINESS DISTRICT
BUSINESS
DISTRICT
RIVER
DISTRICT
RIVER DISTRICT
RIVER
DISTRICT
A
A
×
162 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
6.3 SIGNS IN A MOBILE AGE
ARE SIGNS STILL NECESSARY?
Digital wayfinding tools are a supplement to conventional
media such as signage. Smart-phone adoption continues
to grow, and the availability of data connections and
databases of points of interest continues to improve.
But allowing people to navigate by observing their
surroundings, instead of relying on devices, fosters
appreciation and knowledge of the environment in a way
that digital wayfinding does not.
Despite the availability of GPS to travellers, there's nothing
like wayfinding signage to assure you of your destination, or
that you're headed in the right direction. It provides a sense
of place and a welcoming environment--enabling visitors
to arrive at their destination safely, find the services they
need or want, and leave with a positive perception of the
community. And for residents, signage can instill a sense of
community pride and even raise awareness of less-known
amenities nearby.
Unlike device-based wayfinding, which is dominated by
technology giants Google and Amazon, signage can be
designed by municipalities for citizens, reflecting values
of inclusion and civic orientation rather than the more
commercially-driven approach of the tech giants.
We see digital mapping as serving a different role than
sign-based wayfinding we present in this project. Mapping
apps are generally best at searching, while carefully curated
physical maps are better at providing context and heads-
up guidance as people move through your place. People
moving through a space may have many different goals
and destinations. To understand the breadth of wayfinding
objectives, we can look at some common scenarios
Compass Points Media
| 163
WILL PEOPLE USE SIGNS?
Yes, and no. Many people use signs when they are properly
designed and sited. Signage is ubiquitous in urban and rural
settings, and is universally understood to provide useful
information. That said, there is a segment of the population
that will not look at signs. Some may not understand the
language, others may have poor sight. Some prefer to ask
questions, while others choose a heads down approach,
using technology instead. Signage will benefit many, but will
not serve all.
| 163
EFFICIENT NAVIGATION TO KNOWN DESTINATION
The first wayfinding scenario that springs to mind is when
someone knows where they want to go -- a specific amenity, a
community or a street address -- but don't know the best route. In
this case, their goal is to find a quick and reasonably pleasant route
that gets them to their destination. A new resident for example, or a
resident unfamiliar with other areas of the region.
LOCATING A TYPE OF SERVICE WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW THE
LOCATION
A different case might be when someone knows what they want to
do but don't know where it is located. For example, someone might
want to visit a library, relax in a park, or find a meal, but they do not
know exactly where to go
LOOKING TO EXPLORE
Some journeys are less task-driven, and are more of an exploration.
Someone may want to explore a part of the
city/town/place they don't know well, take a walk to relax, or
just see the sights. In this case they may know they are looking
for a varied, stimulating environment that is rewarding to walk
through, without seeking out a particular amenity or destination.
EVALUATING DIFFERENT MODES OF TRANSPORT
Another scenario is evaluating what mode of transport to take.
Does one walk or drive? Can you park and proceed on foot? Is the
path to get there steep or possibly inaccessible? Will multiple car
trips be necessary? Which is quicker -- walking to a transit terminal
serving many routes, or waiting at a bus stop serving a few.
Wayfinding is not just choosing a route -- it also can guide people to
choose one mode or another.
WHAT WAYFINDING DOES
When done well, wayfinding makes moving through a place seem
effortless and welcoming. When poorly done or nonexistent,
people leave feeling confused and frustrated. By making people
more comfortable in public spaces, wayfinding may encourage
more people to choose sustainable transportation modes (cycling,
wheeling, walking, busing) more frequently.
BUILDING A SENSE OF PLACE
Wayfinding can contribute to a sense of place. Unlike the uniform
world of online mapping, wayfinding is part of the urban and regional
experience; the distinctive street signs of Paris, the hallmark
look of the London Underground are powerful indicators of place.
Wayfinding tools like signs and maps are a powerful, long-lasting
part of a place's image. Unlike a logo or visual identity which is
merely applied to objects in the environment, wayfinding is part of
the urban fabric, just like roads, street-fronts and public spaces
164 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
Function is paramount
»
Your wayfinding users (your residents, new residents, and
visitors) deserve great signage. Branding, legal communication,
and marketing are all important sign elements, but good
wayfinding requires simple signs. Functionality for your sign
users must come first.
2.
Signs shouldn't add clutter
Your environment is important, and signs shouldn't take away
from it. We recommend that the sign locations recommended in
this project do not duplicate other signs already in place. When
new signs go in the ground, any redundant signage should come
out.
STANDARDS
Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) produces a standard
for regulatory on-road cycling signs, but TAC does not provide
much guidance for wayfinding, nor for cycling off-road. Bicycle
Nova Scotia (BNS) has produced a wayfinding signage toolkit for
municipalities which is very comprehensive, and provided a useful
starting point for the sign concepts provided in this project.
BRAND
3.
Light branding
We designed a custom brand for this project, and the signs
conceptualized here employ a "light" version of that brand,
using the project's typography and colour treatment. Heavy
branding quickly falls out of fashion as brands and visual
identities change over time. With a light touch, the signs match
this project's brand and provide a functional, legible design that
will still be fresh years in the future.
PLANNING
4.
Work with the provincial road authority
Many rural roads in Nova Scotia are owned by the province,
who will need to be consulted with when planning an on-road
cycling signage system.
5.
The AT network should be seamless, signage should be
seamless too
Signs for on-road and off-road routes may not be the same,
but they should have consistency of branding to give users the
sense of a seamless network of AT routes.
6.
Some sign types may be geared towards pedestrians or
people in vehicles.
When developing an AT wayfinding system for CBRM, not all of
the sign types will be geared towards cyclists in motion. Some
signs will guide people in vehicles to staging areas / trailheads.
Other signs, such as trailhead signs, are designed for people
who are not in motion, standing near the sign.
7.
Digital mapping should complement real-world signage
Digital and sign-based wayfinding work very well together,
but their integration requires some work on the part of
municipalities. Most importantly CBRM must ensure that
the information provided on major digital mapping systems
match the information provided on signs, to avoid user
confusion. Most important are matching place names and route
alignments--what people see on their smart-phone should not
conflict with what the sign is communicating.
| 165
bl
8.
Naming concerns
For simplicity, on-road routes should retain the vehicular
name. Off-road routes however, need names or numbers for
wayfinding purposes, and must be named with the same care
and consideration as vehicular routes. Special routes can be
named and branded uniquely within the system if justified--
think of the way the Cabot Trail (actually Highway 33) has a
special identity within the provincial highway system in Cape
Breton.
9.
Design development
The designs given in this document are concepts only. They
should not be implemented without engaging a sign consultant
to do schematic design and design development, location
planning and message scheduling, as well as implementation
planning including a phased budget.
10. Sign heights and placement
These conceptual signs do not include recommendations for
ideal hanging height, clearance or placement in the target
environments.
Most AT signs are hung to be out of reach, but this provides
poor eyeline visibility for pedestrians, and very poor visibility
for cyclists, whose eyes are often cast downwards. Also, AT
signs are often installed in locations too close or too far from
the trail or road. The design development should recommend
specific height guidelines, and horizontal placement
guidelines to ensure signs are visible, but don't create
obstructions for users.
11. Operations and maintenance
While signs are durable and generally take care of
themselves, they have annual maintenance requirements,
and they have a natural lifespan. CBRM should not make
significant investments in new signage without also assigning
responsibility for its upkeep. Consider the following ongoing
responsibilities:
»
Sign panels should be checked annually for damage and wear,
and cleaned, repaired or replaced as needed.
»
Trees and shrubs around signs must be cut so that they
doesn't obscure visibility for drivers or pedestrians.
»
Wayfinding signs may need adjustment over time--
destinations come and go, routes change, destinations are
renamed. Ensure those changes are always reflected in your
signage.
»
Signs are typically guaranteed for 5-10 years. Maintain a
schedule to check signs' lifespan.
»
Consider a reserve to deal with needed sign maintenance--
knowing that signs may need repair or replacement on a
regular basis.
If visitors see useful, well kept wayfinding signage, they will feel
welcomed. Broken, obscured, or unusable wayfinding signage will
reflect poorly on your administration.
Unusable signs present
an unwelcoming image.
166 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
6.5
CBRM AT BRAND SYSTEM
TYPOGRAPHY SPECIFICATIONS
Knockout: Due to its clear legibility, this typeface works
well as a signage font. Even from a distance, its clear-
differentiated letterforms remain legible.
Note
If the sign fabricator does not have the fonts specified,
it is their responsibility to purchase them. While
font substitutions may be acceptable for some brand
applications (e.g. Arial in corporate documents), they are
not acceptable on signs.
PICTOGRAMS
We recommend using the Society for Experiential Graphic
Design (SEGD) Universal Recreation Set to identify generic
destinations.
We also recommend the use of gender neutral restroom
symbols where such facilities exist.
BRAND
The CBRM In Motion logo represents the forward, bold
new motion of the AT plan. This logo could be part of
all future AT work in the municipality including
People cycling throughout CBRM may pass hundreds
of signs in their travels. It is unnecessary--and more
likely counterproductive--to have each and every sign
heavily branded.
abcdefghijklm
nopqrstuvwxyz
1234567890
Knockout Junior Wlt Weight
Some recommended washroom pictograms
A sampling of pictograms from the SEGD recreation symbols set
RGB 26 31 86
HEX 1A1F57
RGB 106 184 121
HEX 2E9592
RGB 252 204 92
HEX FCCC5C
| 167
6.6
CBRM AT SIGN TYPES
The following pages presents concepts for a set of sign designs. These are provided for discussion only, and require a large degree of
refinement before implementation: schematic design, design development, location planning and message scheduling, are all required.
These should be done by a wayfinding consultant, in a separate project.
DECISION
Decision signs point the direction
to destinations ahead of a turn or
decision making point.
CONFIRMATION
Confirmation signs reassure
cyclists of their intended direction
and communicate distances to
upcoming destinations.
168 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
WAYMARKERS
Waymarkers are used to guide
cyclist to or along a designated
bike route.
MULTI-USE TRAIL - SMALL
Although the wayfinding
systems typically rely on
text messages, there may be
situations when symbols can
be used to inform AT users
of permitted.
| 169
PARK SYSTEM
Park systems help orient
users throughout the park
and understand access and
surrounding context.
MULTI-USE TRAIL - LARGE
Although the wayfinding systems
typically rely on text messages,
there may be situations when
symbols can be used to inform AT
users of permitted.
170 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
TRAILHEAD
Trail Head signs can be used to
combine many of the previous
signs and elements into one
sign type. The addition of a
wayfinding map is common
practice for trailhead signs.
TURN FINGERBOARDS
Turn fingerboards can be used
to highlight unusual turns or
to provide directions to local
destinations.
| 171
RESERVED BICYCLE LANE
Reserved bicycle lane sign--this
is a custom-branded version
of the MUTCD-C's RB-90 sign.
While a custom-branded sign
would improve the connection
between various types of on-
and off-road facilities, further
research would be required to
determine if a customized sign
of this type is allowed on-road in
Nova Scotia
APPENDIX A - 2008
AT PLAN BUILT
PROJECTS
174 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
EDUCATION
Educational outreach helps individuals
begin using AT networks at an early age.
School-based programming can promote the
early adoption of AT while teaching children
to cycling safety - encouraging them to
become a confident AT user later on. When
an adult considers their daily routine and
incorporating a new transportation method,
they are unlikely to do so because of the
assumed inconvenience. Studies suggest
adults are only likely to adopt AT methods
when they are experiencing periods of
change - presenting limited opportunities1.
Therefore, it becomes important for children
to adopt healthy behaviours and travel
methods related to AT earlier, so they are
more likely to continue these patterns
throughout their life.
However, due to safety perceptions regarding
children walking and cycling to school
alone, many parents choose to drive their
children or let them take the bus. To promote
youth cycling and walking, the municipality
should partner with educational boards
and outreach programs that assist children
cycle and walk for their school commutes.
Examples include peer-buddy programs,
incentivizing parents use AT methods with
their children, and creating leadership
programs focusing on youth AT-involvement.
SAFETY LITERATURE
Considering the feedback received from the
survey results, safety is one of the major
challenges in attracting future AT users. To
promote visibility and ensure current and
future users of the network feel safe, signage
features and community measures can be
implemented prior to and post-installation.
The use of signage can help drivers and
AT users understand new infrastructure,
changes from the previously existing
1 Kraus, S., Koch, N. (2021). Provisional covid-19 infrastructure induces large, rapid increases in cycling.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(15). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2024399118
infrastructure, and how users are expected
to share the road.
Canadian municipalities and cities have also
created websites and distributed educational
pamphlets prior to the opening of newly
constructed infrastructure. Doing so serves
the dual purpose of creating awareness
about new AT networks in the area and help
persuade curious residents to try the AT
network by easing potential doubts.
BICYCLE AMBASSADORS
Several cities across Canada have
implemented the use of bicycle ambassadors
to help raise awareness around recently
opened AT facilities. To promote cohesion
and awareness, ambassadors wear brightly
coloured clothing featuring with the AT
Plan's logo, and should be welcoming in
nature.
The primary role of ambassadors is to
answer questions, provide outreach to
businesses, and offer safety advice by
educating others and leading by example.
Bicycle ambassadors also use the network,
offering examples of proper AT usage and
safety protocol. Having regular cycling
presence on the road promotes the use of the
AT network, and allows individuals to have
their questions answered directly. This is
an effective strategy in allowing people to
understand how the AT network can be used,
demonstrating safety, and offers individuals
the opportunity to talk to someone who is
familiar with cycling culture.
BIKE TO SCHOOL WEEK
1
126 Metro Vancouver Schools Celebrated Bike to School Week. HUB
Cycling: Bike Events, Education, Action in Metro Vancouver. (2021, August 23).
Retrieved February 18, 2022, from https://bikehub.ca/about-us/news/126-
LOCATION AND DATE
Vancouver, BC; 2016 - Current
GOAL
Bike to School Week is an annual organized
event involving schools across the Metro
Vancouver area. In 2019, 123 schools
participated with almost 11,000 riders taking
part.
The program aims to educate teachers and
students about the mental and physical health
and sustainability benefits related to cycling.
Additional, the program aims to teach students
about cycling from a young age.
In addition to promoting students and staff to
cycle to work, the week also asks schools to
incorporate cycling education into their lesson
plans. These include - but not limited to - school
announcements, poster displays, promoting and
encouraging all forms of active transportation,
providing incenvization for students to cycle
to school. The week is organized by HUB, and
offers awards and prizes to schools scoring the
highest in ridership, trips, and the best first-
time school.
Ultimately, the program hopes to develop
the school's green initiatives, build a sense
of community, and teach students about the
importance and benefits related to active
transportation1.
| 175
POP-UPS
Former traffic studies have demonstrated
that adding additional traffic lanes to
existing roads does not reduce traffic levels.
Instead, widened roads tend to attract more
drivers due to the perceived additional road
space2.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, cities
across the world implemented pop-up cycle
lanes. Similar to the previously discussed
studies, research demonstrated more cycle
lanes encouraged more cyclists. A study
in conducted across 106 cities in Europe
tracked the use of pop-up cycle lanes over
four months. Research suggests individuals
are more likely to change their habits
(such as commuting using AT methods)
when they are presented with a major
life change. In this situation, COVID-19
significantly disrupted the majority of the
world population's daily routine - especially
those relying on transit and car-share
options. Despite its downfalls, the pandemic
allowed policymakers to quickly implement
cycle lanes during this period of significant
change. To determine whether cycling would
become a newly-adopted transportation
method, researchers tracked the use to see
if there was an increase in cyclists using the
pop-up and existing infrastructure.
Ultimately, the study found cycling increased
by 11-48% within four months on average,
accounting for potentially $1 to $7 billion
in health benefits per year if ridership
continued at the same rate2. While this
study was conducted under a very specific
set of circumstances, it demonstrates the
potential for individuals to form and take-on
new habits. Though society hopefully will
never experience change on the same scale
brought forth by the COVID-19 pandemic,
there will always be individuals experiencing
small-to-large scale changes in their lives.
As the study suggests, each one of these
changes offers the potential for an increase
in AT ridership.
COMMUNITY EVENTS
Organizing community events around the
opening of new AT infrastructure increases
awareness and potential ridership within the
community. Festivals and open street events
generate excitement about the AT network,
create awareness, and allow people to try
the AT network. Additionally, many towns
and cities across Canada have organized
community cycling groups. Cycling as a part
of a large group can make an individual feel
safer while allowing them to explore the AT
network. Though the chances of them only
cycling within a large group is considerably
low, once they have used the AT network and
had a positive experience, they are likely to
do so again.
Other community events might include
peer-ridership programs where adults can
pair with an experienced AT-user. Doing so
allows people to become comfortable with
cycling, meet new people, and foster a sense
of community.
CAN-BIKE PROGRAM:
INTRODUCTION TO
CYCLING SKILLS
LOCATION AND DATE
Sydney, Cape Breton; Current
GOAL
Velo Cape Breton's Can-Bike Program is targeted
to members and non-members. The program
helps participants develop defensive biking
techniques and learn bicycle maintenance skills
for short and long distance cycling trips.
Sessions can be offered to small groups of 3-5
five people. During the spring and autumn
off-seasons, 3 hour lessons are available for a
maximum of six people.
MARYANN CORBETT TRAIL (GRAND LAKE ROAD MULTI-USE TRAIL)
The Maryann Corbett Trail is generally a 3 metre wide
paved path, but is reduced to a 2.5 metre wide paved path
in limited sections where it would be too costly to relocate
infrastructure. The trail is located on the south side of
Highway #4 (Sydney-Glace Bay Highway) which is a very
busy four-lane highway. The trail length is approximately
10.4 kms and runs from Cow Bay Road and terminates near
civic address 2054 on Highway #4 in Reserve Mines. The
trail is a multi-use path suitable for walkers, cyclists and
wheelchair users and provides a connection between the
Reserve Mines and Sydney communities. The construction
of the trail was completed over several years as capital cost
and the size of the Project were two factors that resulted in
a multi-year phased construction approach.
The first section of the trail was completed in 2014 and
consisted of the construction of approximately 750 metres
of new trail at its current termination point in Reserve
Mines. This section required widening of the shoulder area
in some sections to accommodate the construction of the
trail. A full 3 metre wide paved path was constructed in this
section and also saw the installation of RA-5 Pedestrian
Crossing signal lights near Civic #2054 on Highway #4
(Sydney-Glace Bay Highway) and the installation of new
roadway signage.
The second section of trail construction performed in 2015
saw the continuation of the trail to the east starting from
where the trail construction ended in 2014 and continued
past the entrance to the J.A. Douglas McCurdy Sydney
Airport and terminated near the entrance to the property
where once a drive-in theater existed. Culvert extensions
and widening of the roadway shoulder were performed.
The construction of a rest area was also performed to give
users of the trail a place where they could enjoy a moment
of relaxation. This section was approximately 2,050 metres
in length and consisted of a 3 metre wide paved path.
A-1 CBRM'S ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN IN 2022
In 2008, the CRBM's launched and implemented its first active transportation plan. As discussed earlier in the report, the plan was
successful in creating awareness about the benefits and possibility of active transportation in the municipality. However, the majority of
the plan was never realized. This section will offer an overview of the successes of the 2008 Plan, but also lessons learnt to ensure the 2022
Plan improves upon the current challenges faced by existing infrastructure.
Figure 1.
Original tram line corridor
Figure 2.
CBU Rest Area
Figure 3.
Trail looking east from Kytes Drive
176 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
The next portions of the Maryann Corbett Trail
were constructed in 2016 was performed in
three separate sections. One section having
an approximate length of 820 metres and ran
from the Mayflower Mall, behind the Grand
Lake Road fire station, and ended prior to the
current CARSTAR building. Construction
stopped prior to the CARSTAR building as a new
road access off of Highway #4 was anticipated
at this location in the near future to access a
potential new commercial development. This
section consisted of a 3 metre wide paved
path, extensions to existing culverts, ditching
improvements, reshaping of embankment
and plantings along the side of the trail. The
second section had an approximate length
of 2,700 metres and started at Yolanda Drive,
continuing west adjacent to Highway #4 until
the old tram line corridor was encountered at
which point the trail veered off to follow the
tram line and terminated prior to entering the
Cape Breton University property. This section
required some power pole relocations, property
acquisitions, retaining wall construction, culvert
extensions and resulted in the construction of a
3 metre wide paved path, with a reduction of the
path to 2.5 meters in one area, along this route.
The third section had an approximate length
of 730 metres and commenced at the entrance
to the property where once a drive-in theater
existed and terminated at the entrance to Forrest
Haven Cemetery. A gabion wall was constructed
along a section of this trail, culvert extensions
and widening of the shoulder were performed
to facilitate the construction of the 3 metre wide
paved path.
In 2017 construction of the trail continued
to install the remaining sections to complete
the full length of the trail. A section having an
approximate length of 1,770 metres that extended
from the entrance of Forrest Haven Cemetery and
continued east to tie into the old tram line corridor
(east of Cape Breton University) was constructed
having mainly a 3 metre wide paved path but was
reduced for a portion of its run to a 2.5 metre wide
paved path to avoid existing infrastructure. This
section had areas where power pole relocations
were required. Culvert extensions, widening of
the shoulders and installation of signage was
also performed. In 2018 a rest area in a wooded
area just off the trail, located west of the Cape
Breton University, was constructed in a tranquil
area that provides viewing of an adjacent brook.
In 2018 approximately 640 metres of trail was
constructed which started at Youlanda Drive
and continued east to connect with the trail
located just east of the Polaris building. This
section saw the construction of a 3 metre wide
paved path. The final section of the trail was
completed in 2018, having an approximate
length of 910 metres, that connected the east
side of the Mayflower Mall with Cow Bay Road,
was performed. This section required tree
clearing and the construction of a wooden
bridge to facilitate the construction of the 3
metre pave path along this section.
MARYANN CORBETT
TRAIL (GRAND LAKE
ROAD MULTI-USE
TRAIL)
YEAR CONSTRUCTED
2018
NUMBER OF PEOPLE USING
THE INFRASTRUCTURE
Although exact numbers of trail users
are not available, this trail sees a fair
amount a traffic throughout the week.
The majority of the traffic on the trail
system is observed to be bicycle users,
however, pedestrian traffic utilizes the
trail system
MAINTENANCE PRACTICES
During the winter, the trail is
cleared of snow following snowfall
events and is also salted to prevent
ice buildup. Maintenance during the
summer months includes general
landscaping and pruning and
trimming vegetation.
| 177
GREENLINK TRAIL
The Greenlink Trail is a 3 metre wide fine
gravelled trail located in Sydney between
Membertou and Hardwood Hill. This trail
has several different trail heads including at
Shipyard Elementary, Shandwick Street, Rotary
Drive, Maillard Street, Churchill Drive and the
Cape Breton Regional Hospital, and serves as
a connector for each of these areas. The total
length of the trail system is approximately 3.22
kms and was constructed utilizing crusher
fines as the surface finish which is user friendly
for the intended users of the trail. The trail is a
multi-use path suitable for walkers, cyclists and
wheelchair users (except between Rotary Park
and Shandwick Drive where the section of trail is
not wheelchair accessible due to steep passages
at each end of this section).
The Greenlink Trail was constructed in different
phases beginning in 2010, with the final work
being completed in 2012. Work during the 2012
construction season included the construction of
new trail sections running from Maillard Street to
the Shipyard ballfield and a section running from
Rotary Park to Shandwick Street, installation of
new HDPE culvert sections in areas of the trail
which were subject to flooding, installation of
new ditching, installation of gravels to construct
the desired alignment and profile of the trail,
installation of a new gabion basket retaining wall
at the Shandwick Street entrance, installation of
way finding signage, installation of story boards
that provides information on local Mi'kmaq
heritage, installation of new decorative metal
archway entrances at the Maillard Street and
Rotary Park entrances, installation of benches
to provide rest areas in selected locations
and the installation of new parking lots at the
Churchill Drive and Rotary Park trailheads. The
parking lot at the Churchill Drive trailhead is
approximately 700 m2 and has a capacity of 14
parking spaces while the Rotary Park parking lot
is approximately 540 m2 and has a capacity of 12
parking spaces. Both parking lots are complete
with a gravel surface and have armour stone
and architectural masonry walls bordering
the parking areas. Work for this phase of the
construction also included the installation
of a new crosswalk at the Churchill Street
intersection of the trail, complete with new RA-5
Pedestrian Crossing signals. Various plantings
were also performed along selected sections of
the trail.
Since the substantial completion of the trail
system, there has been some additional work
completed on the trail, including repairs to the
embankment along the stretch of trail running
from Rotary Park to Shandwick Drive where the
adjacent brook was beginning to erode the trail.
This work also involved the installation of new
erosion control measures along this stretch of
trail including reshaping of the embankments,
placement of geotextile anchored into the
embankment and placement of large armour
stone material.
The trail is regularly utilized by the community
as seen by the fact that there are normally
vehicles present in the parking lots at any time
during the day. There is one regular visitor that
travels daily from the north side to walk the trail.
GREENLINK TRAIL
YEAR CONSTRUCTED
2012
NUMBER OF USERS
Exact numbers of trail users are not
available; trail is regularly utilized by
the community evidenced by vehicles
regularly present in the parking lots
throughout the day. The trail generally
sees more traffic during the spring,
summer and fall seasons. However,
the trail system remains utilized
by the public during winter months
for snowshoeing - albeit in smaller
numbers.
LESSONS LEARNED
During the construction of the trail
section between Rotary Park and
Shandwick Drive, bedrock was
encountered along the eastern end
of the trail extension. This created
difficulty in cutting the trail and
ditching profiles through this section,
leading to increased construction costs.
As previously mentioned, the trail
section between Shandwick Drive and
Rotary Park was impacted by erosion
from the adjacent brook. Consideration
for the impacts of watercourses near
trail systems should be incorporated
during the design phases going
forward.
MAINTENANCE PRACTICES
During the winter, the trail is cleared
of snow following snowfall events and
is also salted to prevent ice buildup.
Maintenance during the summer
months includes general landscaping
and pruning and trimming vegetation.
Figure 4.
Greenlink rest area
Figure 5.
Greenlink rip rap
178 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
WHITNEY PIER COMMUNITY HERITAGE TRAIL
The Whitney Pier Community Heritage Trail is a 3
metre wide fine gravelled trail located in Whitney
Pier and runs from Railroad Street to Dominion
Street. This trail has several different trail heads
including at SPAR Road, Railroad Street, Henry
Street, Ferris Street, Bryan Street, Church Street,
James Street, Matilda Street and Dominion
Street. The trail serves as a connector for each
of these areas while also providing areas for rest
and interactive heritage signage for the area. The
total length of the trail system is approximately
1.5 kms. The trail is a multi-use path suitable for
walkers, cyclists and wheelchair users.
The Whitney Pier Community Heritage Trail
was constructed in different phases beginning
in 2011, with the final work being completed in
2012. Work on this trail included installation of
new fine trail gravels, ditching improvements,
culvert installations, installation of new overhead
lighting along the trail, architectural bollards
at all trail entrances, concrete landings at trail
intersections at roadways (to mitigate gravels
spilling onto adjacent roadways), installation of
rest areas, installation of new trail signage and
installation of new interactive local heritage
signage.
Figure 6.
Whitney Pier Trail at Matilda Street
Figure 7.
Whitney Pier Trail at Henry Street
Figure 8.
Bollard and Lighting
WHITNEY PIER
COMMUNITY
HERITAGE TRAIL
YEAR CONSTRUCTED
2011
NUMBER OF USERS
Exact numbers of trail users are not
available; trail is regularly utilized by
the community. The trail generally sees
more traffic during the spring, summer
and fall seasons. During the winter,
the trail system remains utilized by
the public during winter months for
snowshoeing, albeit in smaller numbers.
LESSONS LEARNED
Initially bollards were installed at all of
the trail entrances to prohibit motorized
traffic from entering the trail system.
However, these bollards were pulled
from the ground by ATV and truck users
along the trail. Currently, motorized
traffic can be encountered on the trail.
More creative ways of keeping motorized
traffic from entering the trail system is
required while maintaining access for
maintenance vehicles.
MAINTENANCE PRACTICES
Typical maintenance of the trail
includes regrading of the fine gravel
surface twice a year. During the
winter, the trail is not groomed
| 179
COAL TOWN TRAIL
The Coal Town Trail is primarily a 3 metre
wide fine gravelled trail with a localized paved
section in Glace Bay. The trail runs along
the former DEVCO railway corridor from
Birch Grove Road to Gardiner Road. Bicycle
Nova Scotia had a "Best Practice Review and
Recommendation Report" performed in
2019 that looked into the upgrades required
to transform this abandoned railway
corridor into a multi-use trail. Bicycle Nova
Scotia shared this report with the Cape
Breton Regional Municipality (CBRM). In
subsequent years the CBRM had some of the
recommendations performed such as: tree
clearing, replacement of ballast material with
finer gravels, resurface areas to eliminate
water ponding, resurfacing where required,
improved drainage in areas, replaced high
back curb where trail meet roads with low
back curb, sloped area from low back curb
to sidewalk or trail and installed concrete or
asphalt surface, installed asphalt surface at
trail intersections at roadways (to mitigate
gravels spilling onto adjacent roadways) and
installed bollards at all locations a trails meet
roads to prevent access from motorized cars
and trucks from accessing the trail.
As noted above there was a section of the
trail in Glace Bay that ran from King Edward
Street to Main Street which CBRM paved due
to nuisance dust issues that was regularly
occurring as a result of ATV traffic on the
previously gravelled surfaces. This trail has
numerous access points along its length and
serves as an active transportation connector
for the communities of Gardner Mines,
Dominion and Glace Bay. The total length of
the trail system is approximately 13.4 kms.
The trail is a multi-use path suitable for
walkers, cyclists and wheelchair users. The
trail was used regularly by ATV traffic before
the railway corridor was made more user
friendly to the general public and continues to
be used regularly by ATV traffic.
Work on this trail has been completed from 2020
until the present. As a part of the agreement to
purchase this large parcel of land from DEVCO,
DEVCO has committed to paying the CBRM an
annual maintenance allowance. CBRM also
contributes more funding to complete upgrades
to the trail. Trail upkeep and maintenance are
provided by a society, compromised of Bay it
Forward, Marconi Trail Blazers, Velo Cape Breton,
and Cape Breton Road Runners. The society
receives annual payments from PWGSC as part of
their stewardship agreement.
Since 2021, Bicycle Nova Scotia and other
interested stakeholders have applied for funding
through the CBRM and provincial governments to
complete trail upgrades and have been successful
in funding the installation of trail signage and
interpretive signage installation at the Gardiner
Road trailhead as well as other trail upgrades.
Figure 9.
Gardner Road - existing entrance
Figure 10. Typical upgraded gravel trail
COAL TOWN TRAIL
YEAR CONSTRUCTED
2020
NUMBER OF USERS
Although exact numbers of trail
users are not available, this trail sees
a fair amount a traffic throughout
the week. The majority of the active
transportation traffic on the trail
system is observed to be bicycle users;
however, pedestrians also use the trail
system. All-terrain vehicles have been
noticed using the system as well.
MAINTENANCE PRACTICES
During the winter, the trail is cleared
of snow following snowfall events and
is also salted to prevent ice buildup.
Maintenance during the summer
months includes general landscaping,
pruning, and trimming vegetation.
180 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
NOVA SCOTIA BLUE
ROUTE 4 WIDENED
SHOULDER
YEAR CONSTRUCTED
2012
NUMBER OF USERS
Although exact numbers of users are
not available, this widened shoulder is
utilized by the cycling community quite
regularly.
MAINTENANCE PRACTICES
Typical maintenance of the widened
shoulder includes snow clearing
during the winter and repainting of the
demarcation lines on a yearly basis.
GEORGE STREET BIKE LANES
George Street is a main thoroughfare in Sydney that runs from Ortona Drive to approximately 1 km
beyond the Highway 125 overpass. The section of George Street running from Ortona Drive to Townsend
Street is four-lanes and can accommodate parking on both sides of the roadway. In recent years, CBRM
has rebuilt or resurfaced the roadway through this section of George Street and have installed new
roadway signage and line paintings for a dedicated bicycle lane. This stretch of dedicated bicycle lanes
runs for a total approximate length of 1,700 metres.
NOVA SCOTIA ROUTE 4 WIDENED SHOULDER
Nova Scotia Route 4 is a two-lane roadway that runs west from Glace Bay and goes beyond the Canso
causeway where it eventually becomes a four-lane highway terminating in Thomson Station. The section
of Route 4 beginning in Sydney River at the off-ramp from Highway #125 and terminates at Blacketts
Lake Road had its shoulder of the roadway widened in 2012 to accommodate room for pedestrian
traffic and bicyclers. This work also included the installation of a painted line demarking the shoulder.
Currently there is no signage or specific line markings to indicate this shoulder is a dedicated bicycle
lane. This stretch of widened shoulder runs for a total approximate length of 5.6 kms.
Figure 11. George Street bicycle lane
Figure 12. Route 4 towards Blackett Road
GEORGE STREET
BIKE LANES
YEAR CONSTRUCTED
2020
NUMBER OF USERS
Although exact numbers of bike lane
users are not available, this bike lane is
regularly utilized by the community.
MAINTENANCE PRACTICES
Typical maintenance of the bike lanes
includes street sweeping debris and
refuse in the spring and snow clearing
during the winter. The bicycle lane
markings are repainted on a yearly
basis.
MAINTENANCE COSTS
TLine paintings - Approx. $7,500.00/
year
| 181
SOUTH BAR WIDENED SHOULDER
The New Waterford Highway is a two-lane
roadway that runs from Whitney Pier and
terminates in New Waterford. In 2021, beginning
with the section of the New Waterford Highway
running through South Bar from Grant Street in
Whitney Pier to Victoria Mines was resurfaced
by NSTIR. While this work was being completed,
the CBRM paid to have the western shoulder of
the roadway widened to accommodate room for
pedestrian traffic and bicyclers. This additional
work also included the installation of a painted
line demarking the shoulder, extension of the
existing culverts and ditching improvements.
Currently there is no signage or specific line
markings to indicate this shoulder is a dedicated
bicycle lane. This stretch of widened shoulder
runs for a total approximate length of 7.8 kms.
SPAR ROAD WIDENED SHOULDER AND SHOULDER
ADJUSTMENTS
SPAR Road is a two-lane roadway that runs
from Sydney's north end beginning at the
international coal pier and terminates at the
intersection of Grand Lake Road and Highway
#125. This roadway serves as a collector road
for travelers to bypass traffic along Prince
Street, Welton Street and Grand Lake Road while
commuting to Sydney's north end, Whitney Pier,
the Mayflower Mall or beyond to Glace Bay. In
2010, the section of SPAR Road running from
the Lingan Road intersection to the intersection
of Kevin Quinlan Avenue was widened to
accommodate bicycle traffic and included
shoulder line painting.
Through this section of SPAR Road, there was
a section of rail line that crossed the roadway
on an angle and created an issue with bicycle
travelers getting caught in the tracks. CBRM
engaged EXP to redesign the bicycle path
to cross the railway line at a right angle to
correct this issue. Work for this alteration was
completed in 2013 and included installation
of new base gravels, installation of 100 mm of
asphalt pavement, installation of rubber rails at
crossings, ditching improvements, extension of
an existing concrete culverts and line paintings.
Currently there is no signage or specific line
markings to indicate this shoulder is a dedicated
bicycle lane. This stretch of widened shoulder
runs for a total approximate length of 2.5 kms.
Figure 13. Widened shoulder for bicycle traffic along SPAR Road
SOUTH BAR
WIDENED SHOULDER
YEAR CONSTRUCTED
2021
NUMBER OF USERS
Although exact numbers of users are
not available, this widened shoulder is
utilized by the cycling community quite
regularly.
MAINTENANCE PRACTICES
Typical maintenance of the widened
shoulder includes snow clearing
during the winter and repainting of the
demarcation lines on a yearly basis.
SPAR ROAD
WIDENED SHOULDER
AND SHOULDER
ADJUSTMENTS
YEAR CONSTRUCTED
2013
NUMBER OF USERS
Although exact numbers of users are
not available, this widened shoulder is
utilized by the cycling community quite
regularly.
LESSONS LEARNED
The impact of railway track crossings
on roadways with regards to bicycle
traffic and the methods of which this
can be overcome when faced with non-
right angle crossings.
MAINTENANCE PRACTICES
Typical maintenance of the widened
shoulder includes snow clearing
during the winter and repainting of the
demarcation lines every year.
182 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
| 183
APPENDIX B -
SYDNEY RIVER
MULTI USE TRAIL
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
0.00
0.00
KELTIC DRIVE
R A I L L I N E
HARBOURVIEW DRIVE
0+000
0+020
0+040
0+060
0+080
0+100
0+120
0+140
0+160
0+180
0+200
0+220
0+240
0+260
0+280
0+300
0+320
0+34
0+100.00
0+200.00
0+300.00
-3.54%
5.73%
-5.28%
0.00%
4.05%
-3.46%
GRADE BREAK STA = 0+000.00
ELEV = 5.000
LOW PT STA: 1+09.80
LOW PT ELEV: 12.86
PVI STA:0+035.28
PVI ELEV:3.75
K:1.66
LVC:15.37
BVCS: 0+027.60
BVCE: 4.02
EVCS: 0+042.97
EVCE: 4.19
LOW PT STA: 3+77.30
LOW PT ELEV: 9.84
PVI STA:0+100.00
PVI ELEV:3.00
K:5.69
LVC:30.00
BVCS: 0+085.00
BVCE: 3.79
EVCS: 0+115.00
EVCE: 3.00
LOW PT STA: 8+94.90
LOW PT ELEV: 9.84
PVI STA:0+280.00
PVI ELEV:3.00
K:3.57
LVC:14.47
BVCS: 0+272.76
BVCE: 3.00
EVCS: 0+287.24
EVCE: 3.29
LOW
LOW
PV
P
BVCS: 0+329.28
BVCE: 3.52
HIGH PT STA: 0+59.70
HIGH PT ELEV: 4.99
PVI STA:0+059.49
PVI ELEV:5.14
K:0.97
LVC:10.66
BVCS: 0+054.16
BVCE: 4.83
EVCS: 0+064.82
EVCE: 4.86
HIGH PT STA: 3+09.97
HIGH PT ELEV: 4.11
PVI STA:0+309.59
PVI ELEV:4.20
K:1.28
LVC:9.58
BVCS: 0+304.80
BVCE: 4.01
EVCS: 0+314.38
EVCE: 4.03
186 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
0.00
LEWIS DRIVE
KINGS ROAD
40
0+360
0+380
0+400
0+420
0+440
0+460
0+480
0+500
0+520
0+540
0+560
0+580
0+600
0+620
0+640
0+400.00
0+500.00
0+600.00
0.00%
11.77%
-3.09%
-0.05
W PT STA: 11+78.74
W PT ELEV: 9.84
VI STA:0+344.28
PVI ELEV:3.00
K:8.68
LVC:30.00
EVCS: 0+359.28
EVCE: 3.00
LOW PT STA: 15+04.88
LOW PT ELEV: 9.84
PVI STA:0+470.00
PVI ELEV:3.00
K:1.92
LVC:22.62
BVCS: 0+458.69
BVCE: 3.00
EVCS: 0+481.31
EVCE: 4.33
LOW PT STA: 19+66.04
LOW PT ELEV: 13.42
PVI STA:0+584.25
PVI ELEV:4.10
K:9.87
LVC:30.00
BVCS: 0+569.25
BVCE: 4.56
EVCS: 0+599.25
EVCE: 4.09
HIGH PT STA: 5+07.29
HIGH PT ELEV: 6.41
PVI STA:0+501.14
PVI ELEV:6.66
K:1.42
LVC:21.07
BVCS: 0+490.60
BVCE: 5.42
EVCS: 0+511.67
EVCE: 6.34
Drawing Name
Scale
Project number
Drawn By
Checked
Approved
Drawing Number
Consultants
Key Plan
Client
Seal
Revisions
Project
.
SCALE: N.T.S.
fathomstudio.ca
1 Starr Lane
Dartmouth, NS
B2Y 4V7
RTL
RTL
DJH
1:1000
0
20
40
1:1000
Area 1
Plan, Profile & Sections
L101
| 187
0.00
0.00
R A I L L I N E
ROSE STREET
ROSE COURT
ROSE STREET
OD DRIVE
LYNC
DRIV
0+520
0+540
0+560
0+580
0+600
0+620
0+640
0+660
0+680
0+700
0+720
0+734
0+000
0+020
0+040
0+060
0+080
0+100
0+120
0+140
0+160
0+180
0+200
0+220
0+240
0+260
500.0
0+600.00
0+700.00
0+100.00 (2)
0+200.00 (2)
-0.05%
6.90%
0.00%
GRADE BREAK STA = 0+734.04
ELEV = 7.000
66.04
3.42
25
0
EVCS: 0+599.25
EVCE: 4.09
LOW PT STA: 21+01.60
LOW PT ELEV: 13.36
PVI STA:0+655.36
PVI ELEV:4.06
K:4.32
LVC:30.00
BVCS: 0+640.36
BVCE: 4.07
EVCS: 0+670.36
EVCE: 5.10
HIGH PT STA: 7+04.91
HIGH PT ELEV: 7.00
PVI STA:0+697.88
PVI ELEV:7.00
K:2.04
LVC:14.07
BVCS: 0+690.84
BVCE: 6.51
EVCS: 0+704.91
EVCE: 7.00
1.37%
6.69%
-1.36%
GRADE BREAK STA = 0+000.00
ELEV = 7.696
LOW PT STA: 0+01.67
LOW PT ELEV: 25.27
PVI STA:0+010.20
PVI ELEV:7.84
K:3.65
LVC:19.37
BVCS: 0+000.51
BVCE: 7.70
EVCS: 0+019.88
EVCE: 8.48
BVCS: 0+239 10
HIGH PT STA: 1+24.11
HIGH PT ELEV: 14.62
PVI STA:0+114.17
PVI ELEV:14.79
K:3.73
LVC:30.00
BVCS: 0+099.17
BVCE: 13.79
EVCS: 0+129.17
EVCE: 14.58
(2)
(2)
188 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
KINGS ROAD
CH
VE
DUNCAN
DRIVE
WEIDNER
DRIVE
0+280
0+300
0+320
0+340
0+360
0+380
0+400
0+420
0+440
0+460
0+480
0+500
0+520
0+540
0+552
0+000
0+020
0+300.00 (2)
0+400.00 (2)
0+500.00 (2)
0.04%
-0.62%
-7.90%
LOW PT STA: 8+80.23
LOW PT ELEV: 42.30
PVI STA:0+254.10
PVI ELEV:12.89
K:21.50
LVC:30.00
BVCS: 0+239.10
BVCE: 13.09
EVCS: 0+269.10
EVCE: 12.89
HIGH PT STA: 3+59.69
HIGH PT ELEV: 12.93
PVI STA:0+372.96
PVI ELEV:12.93
K:45.77
LVC:30.00
BVCS: 0+357.96
BVCE: 12.93
EVCS: 0+387.96
EVCE: 12.84
HIGH PT STA: 4+61.60
HIGH PT ELEV: 12.39
PVI STA:0+476.60
PVI ELEV:12.29
K:4.12
LVC:30.00
BVCS: 0+461.60
BVCE: 12.39
EVCS: 0+491.60
EVCE: 11.11
(2)
(2)
(2)
Drawing Name
Scale
Project number
Drawn By
Checked
Approved
Drawing Number
Consultants
Key Plan
Client
Seal
Revisions
Project
.
SCALE: N.T.S.
fathomstudio.ca
1 Starr Lane
Dartmouth, NS
B2Y 4V7
RTL
RTL
DJH
1:1000
Area 2
Plan, Profile & Sections
L102
0
20
40
1:1000
| 189
0.00
0.00
0.00
R A I L L I N E
0+540
0+552
0+000
0+020
0+040
0+060
0+080
0+100
0+120
0+140
0+160
0+180
0+200
0+220
0+240
0+260
0+280
0+300
0+320
0+340
0+360
0+380
0
0+100.00 (3)
0+200.00 (3)
0+300.00 (3)
-6.17%
-0.84%
-0.78%
-2.31%
2.89%
-1.72%
GRADE BREAK STA = 0+000.00
ELEV = 6.242
LOW PT STA: 1+15.28
LOW PT ELEV: 15.99
PVI STA:0+020.14
PVI ELEV:5.00
K:5.63
LVC:30.00
BVCS: 0+005.14
BVCE: 5.93
EVCS: 0+035.14
EVCE: 4.87
LOW PT STA: 3+25.33
LOW PT ELEV: 14.27
PVI STA:0+084.16
PVI ELEV:4.46
K:495.50
LVC:30.00
BVCS: 0+069.16
BVCE: 4.59
EVCS: 0+099.16
EVCE: 4.35
LOW PT STA: 6+08.85
LOW PT ELEV: 10.47
PVI STA:0+187.23
PVI ELEV:3.00
K:5.77
LVC:30.00
BVCS: 0+172.23
BVCE: 3.35
EVCS: 0+202.23
EVCE: 3.43
LOW PT STA: 9+67.85
LOW PT ELEV: 9.84
PVI STA:0+280.00
PVI ELEV:3.00
K:17.43
LVC:30.00
BVCS: 0+265.00
BVCE: 3.26
EVCS: 0+295.00
EVCE: 3.00
HIGH PT STA: 1+29.01
HIGH PT ELEV: 4.12
PVI STA:0+144.01
PVI ELEV:4.00
K:19.51
LVC:30.00
BVCS: 0+129.01
BVCE: 4.12
EVCS: 0+159.01
EVCE: 3.65
HIGH PT STA: 2+25.68
HIGH PT ELEV: 3.84
PVI STA:0+221.89
PVI ELEV:4.00
K:6.51
LVC:30.00
BVCS: 0+206.89
BVCE: 3.57
EVCS: 0+236.89
EVCE: 3.74
(3)
(3)
(3)
(
190 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
0.00
0+400
0+420
0+440
0+460
0+480
0+500
0+520
0+540
0+560
0+580
0+600
0+620
0+640
0+660
0+680
0+700
0+400.00 (3)
0+500.00 (3)
0+600.00 (3)
0+700.00 (3
3)
(3)
(3)
Drawing Name
Scale
Project number
Drawn By
Checked
Approved
Drawing Number
Consultants
Key Plan
Client
Seal
Revisions
Project
.
SCALE: N.T.S.
fathomstudio.ca
1 Starr Lane
Dartmouth, NS
B2Y 4V7
RTL
RTL
DJH
1:1000
Area 3
Plan, Profile & Sections
L103
0
20
40
1:1000
| 191
0.00
0.00
0.00
R A I L L I N E
KINSMEN DRIVE
0+620
0+640
0+660
0+680
0+700
0+720
0+740
0+760
0+780
0+800
0+820
0+840
0+860
0+880
0+900
0+920
0+940
0+960
0+980
1+000
1+020
1+040
1+060
0+700.00 (3)
0+800.00
0+900.00
1+000.00
(3)
192 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
0.00
1+080
1+100
1+120
1+140
1+160
1+180
1+200
1+220
1+240
1+260
1+280
1+300
1+320
1+340
1+360
1+100.00
1+200.00
1+300.00
0.00%
Drawing Name
Scale
Project number
Drawn By
Checked
Approved
Drawing Number
Consultants
Key Plan
Client
Seal
Revisions
Project
.
SCALE: N.T.S.
fathomstudio.ca
1 Starr Lane
Dartmouth, NS
B2Y 4V7
RTL
RTL
DJH
1:1000
Area 4
Plan, Profile & Sections
L104
0
20
40
1:1000
| 193
0.00
0.00
R A I L L I N E
EDWARD STREET
+300
1+320
1+340
1+360
1+380
1+400
1+420
1+440
1+460
1+480
1+500
1+520
1+540
1+560
1+580
1+600
1+620
1+640
1+660
1+680
1+700
1+720
1+740
1+300.00
1+400.00
1+500.00
1+600.00
1+700.00
0.00%
194 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
0.00
BAYVIEW STREET
NEWTON COURT
R A I L
1+760
1+780
1+800
1+820
1+840
1+860
1+880
1+900
1+920
1+940
1+960
1+980
2+000
2+020
2+040
1+800.00
1+900.00
2+000.00
Drawing Name
Scale
Project number
Drawn By
Checked
Approved
Drawing Number
Consultants
Key Plan
Client
Seal
Revisions
Project
.
SCALE: N.T.S.
fathomstudio.ca
1 Starr Lane
Dartmouth, NS
B2Y 4V7
RTL
RTL
DJH
1:1000
Area 5
Plan, Profile & Sections
L105
0
20
40
1:1000
| 195
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NEWTON COURT
R A I L L
R A I L L I N E
CRESCENT STREET
1+900
1+920
1+940
1+960
1+980
2+000
2+020
2+040
2+060
2+080
2+100
2+120
2+140
2+160
2+180
2+200
2+220
2+240
2+260
2+280
2+300
2+320
2+340
2+343
1+900.00
2+000.00
2+100.00
2+200.00
2+300.00
H
BVCS: 2+318 38
196 | C B R M A T P L A N 2 0 2 2
KINGS ROAD
TOWNSEND STREET
S Y D N E Y W A T E R F R O N T B O A R D W A L K
BYNG
AVENUE
-4.35%
GRADE BREAK STA = 2+343.07
ELEV = 2.449
IGH PT STA: 23+18.38
HIGH PT ELEV: 3.00
PVI STA:2+330.41
PVI ELEV:3.00
K:5.53
LVC:24.06
BVCS: 2+318.38
BVCE: 3.00
EVCS: 2+342.44
EVCE: 2.48
Drawing Name
Scale
Project number
Drawn By
Checked
Approved
Drawing Number
Consultants
Key Plan
Client
Seal
Revisions
Project
.
SCALE: N.T.S.
fathomstudio.ca
1 Starr Lane
Dartmouth, NS
B2Y 4V7
RTL
RTL
DJH
1:1000
Area 6
Plan, Profile & Sections
L106
0
20
40
1:1000
| 197