By Kyle Eltherington and Barbara Spyropoulos – CPTED Canada Board Members
CPTED – Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design – is not just about traditional crime prevention. The application of its principles to other design scenarios can only improve the final product. With CPTED practitioners coming from many diverse backgrounds, CPTED is used to breaking down silos which can be a problem when only one department is involved in a project.
Part 1 in this series of blogs discussed the use of CPTED in designing safe and practical bike lanes. In this Part 2, we will explore some questionable road designs.
Reserved road lanes that are springing up on traditional streets can be considered from a CPTED perspective. The users of the space include drivers of commercial and private vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians where every one of which has an equal right to access this public space. Removing a vehicle lane in a high-volume area unnecessarily puts the motorist at a disadvantage. The increase in population that has created the road congestion is the result of short-sighted policies of multiple levels of government. Removing freedom of choice of mobility for the average citizen who had no voice in these decisions is not appropriate.
Something has to be done to address congestion, no doubt, but more thought has to be put into the dedication of a single lane. If that lane is restricted to certain vehicles – say, buses, emergency vehicles and cyclists – then in a ten-minute span, one can expect perhaps five buses. Emergency vehicles? Perhaps another three. And a few cyclists. The rest of the time, the lane will be empty while vehicle traffic will be bumper to bumper. If the permitted users of the dedicated lane were to be expanded to include vehicles with three or more persons, that would be more equitable and would encourage car pooling which would get more vehicles off the road.
In an effort to cram in as many mixed uses as possible, some bizarre situations have evolved. One notable example from Kitchener involves a complicated series of double ring roads, major thoroughfares, commercial areas, community mixed use trails, and a ‘Better Tent City’ (Figure 1). Not surprisingly, the number of collisions in this area is well above average.
Commercial areas include strip malls with restaurants, box stores and the ubiquitous LCBO outlets. The Better Tent City is a small neighbourhood of tiny homes with communal support areas for those who previously were living rough. It is located adjacent to Highway 8 and tucked behind a school board property and a truck dealership. While multiple supports are provided in this community, these residents probably have considerable difficulty moving to other areas of the city as presumably not many have vehicles and access to public transit is quite a bit away.
The trail starts off in the traditional manner with lanes clearly marked for cyclists and pedestrians, although the pedestrian marking is reminiscent of chalk markings at a crime scene. (Figure 2)
Also in this mix, is a community use trail that runs along a roadway with three lanes in each direction. At the roundabout where this road meets another similarly structured road, the mixed-use trail goes through a dizzying number of configurations. The trail passes under the expressway north on Ottawa Street where it morphs into a sidewalk with slightly elevated concrete bike lanes. (Figure 3)
From there, this configuration becomes a wide sidewalk path, still keeping a bike lane. (Figure 4) And then – pooff! – the path crosses the train tracks, and the bike lane disappears leaving only a narrow sidewalk adjacent to the LRT track. This dizzying attempt to direct users of the roadway culminates in the road sign in Figure 3 that indicates – what? That seniors are to use the narrow boulevard? The sidewalk? The bike lane? Or simply shuffle across the road as quick as they can?
This whole road design brings up several issues that could potentially have been avoided if the design had been created through a CPTED lens.
First, the orphaned spaces created in this scenario could have been more efficiently used. For example, rather than squishing the Better Tent City into such a confined space distant from shopping and public transit access, it could have been located in one of these orphaned spaces.
Secondly, a study of the two ring roads should be undertaken to assess if it would be safer to convert them back to through streets controlled with traffic signals.
Third, when designing community trails, bike lanes, etc., it is critical to provide consistency so that the users do not suddenly find themselves at a dead end with little alternative to proceed.
As stated in Part 1, CPTED asks “How can we make this better?” which should be the aim of all design.