Abstract Manager

To achieve the City of Burnaby (the City) Transportation Plan targets, the City engaged with ISL Engineering and Land Services (ISL) to develop an ongoing citywide Active Transportation (AT) Spot Improvement program intended to bridge the physical or functional gaps at specific locations within the City’s active transportation network. The review incorporated information from several sources including service requests related to active transportation, priority locations for active transportation improvements as informed by the City’s Town Centre plans and the City’s Priority Cycling Network, and ICBC’s historic crash data filtered by those involving vulnerable road users. A comprehensive tour of the City’s Priority Cycling Network was also undertaken to confirm and identify any additional gaps in the City’s active transportation network.  A GIS database was developed showing potential spot improvement locations, including information on the identified issues, opportunities, and types of improvements recommended. In total, approximately 350 locations for improvements were identified.  The database also included a mapping of existing and future active transportation facilities, civic places and town centers, pedestrian and cyclist collision locations and hot spots, and all active transportation related service requests from the City. This GIS database allowed for a systematic review of potential improvement locations, which was supplemented by available mapping information on active transportation demand and equity considerations based on median household income.   

Preliminary cost estimates were used to provide an understanding of the overall cost of the potential improvements identified, as well as to help identify packages of improvements for consideration for individual years of the program. An evaluation and prioritization framework was developed and helped to identify priority spot improvement packages for the next 5-year capital program.  The prioritization framework considered a broad spectrum of factors such as location priority, which includes network importance, recognized need, facility demand, key destination proximity, and equitable provision; improvement potential, which includes safety and security, network cohesion and directness, and facility comfort and attractiveness; and ease of implementation, which includes cost and complexity. Based on these criteria, a systematic evaluation exercise was undertaken to score and rank each improvement packages, generally grouped by location proximity or along a corridor.