Check out the design options that were considered for each of the study corridors.

With contributions from residents and key stakeholders, our design team has reviewed key destinations, connections, constraints, and “pinch-points” along the study area corridors. A range of design options were developed for each of the three study areas, including:

Do Nothing: Keep things as they are.

Cycle track: One-way, located behind the curbs of the roadway, often next to the sidewalk, physically separating people on bikes from motor vehicle traffic.

Multi-use path: Two-way shared pedestrian and cycling facility, physically separated from motor vehicle traffic, often located similarly to a sidewalk, but larger to accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists.

Protected bike lane: One-way, on the same level as the roadway, with physical separation between people riding bikes and motor vehicle traffic with materials such as curbs, bollards, or planter boxes.

Hybrid approach: A hybrid of the design options described above is appropriate for the corridor.

Note: The above graphic representations are being used as examples only, to show what AAA facilities can look like. This is not a proposal of how any of the roads under our study will look.

The criteria used to evaluate the design options can be found here.

View a summary of the pre-screening that was completed to eliminate design options that do not meet AAA cycling facility design requirements.

The design options were pre-screened to evaluate their alignment with AAA design requirements. For all three study corridors, the “do nothing” option was screened out. Options 1 and 3 scored the highest in terms of meeting the goals of AAA facilities as they provide separate spaces for riders and pedestrians and riders travel in the same direction as vehicles, improving safety at intersections.

A summary of the AAA pre-screening is provided below. Letter grades of A, B, C, D, and F are provided to indicate the level of preference for each of the alternatives, with A being most preferred and F being least preferred.

AAA Pre-screening of options for all corridors

*Steep sections of Eramosa Road do not meet AAA cycling facility requirements

Following the AAA pre-screening, Design Options 1, 2.1, 2.2, and 3 were evaluated by comparing the level of preference for each option across all of the evaluation criteria. Details on the evaluation for each corridor are provided in separate posts at haveyoursay.guelph.ca/cycling-network-study.

See the results of the evaluation of design options for College Avenue, including the preliminary preferred conceptual design, and provide comments or questions.

A hybrid approach has been identified as preferred for College Avenue, with Cycle Tracks from Janefield Road to Edinburgh Road, and Protected Bike Lanes from Edinburgh Road to Dundas Lane. This hybrid option optimizes cyclist comfort in the western portion of the corridor, where several elementary schools are located, while limiting construction complexity in the more constrained eastern portion of the corridor which includes the University of Guelph and numerous mature trees.

If you are not able to use the GIS map, please feel free to contact 519-822-1260 Extension 2357 or TTY 519-826-9771, or email Benita.VanMiltenburg@guelph.ca ; or proceed below.

View the conceptual design for College Avenue and provide your comments here.

A summary of the evaluation is provided below. Letter grades of A, B, C, D, and F are provided to indicate the level of preference for each of the alternatives, with A being most preferred and F being least preferred. The full evaluation table can be viewed here.

Evaluation Summary – College Avenue

See the results of the evaluation of design options for Gordon Street, including the preliminary preferred conceptual design, and provide comments or questions.

Cycle Tracks have been identified as the preferred design option for Gordon Street throughout the study limits. While the anticipated cost of this design option is higher than the other options, the cost is considered acceptable given the benefits of this option, particularly in terms of AAA design requirements and the significant role that Gordon Street plays in overall transportation connectivity in the City.

If you are not able to use the GIS map, please feel free to contact 519-822-1260 Extension 2357 or TTY 519-826-9771, or email Benita.VanMiltenburg@guelph.ca ; or proceed below.

View the conceptual design for Gordon Street and provide your comments here.

A summary of the evaluation is provided below. Letter grades of A, B, C, D, and F are provided to indicate the level of preference for each of the alternatives, with A being most preferred and F being least preferred. The full evaluation table can be viewed here.

Evaluation Summary – Gordon Street

See the results of the evaluation of design options for Eramosa Road.

A preferred design option has not been identified for Eramosa Road, north/east of Arthur Street at this point. While Option 1 (Protected Bike Lane) and Option 3 (Cycle Track) score highest in this evaluation, the ideal design for these facilities requires that Eramosa Road is reduced to two lanes in several sections. Emergency Services has indicated a minimum three lane cross-section on Eramosa Road is required to facilitate timely access to the Guelph General Hospital.

Accommodating sidewalks, a three lane cross-section, and either cycle tracks or protected bike lanes on Eramosa will require several compromises - particularly between Arthur Street and Stevenson Road. The study team is still exploring the technical feasibility of this option. The only initial option that contemplated keeping a three lane cross-section throughout the corridor is Option 2.1 (Multi-Use Pathway, One Side). However, Option 2.1 does not provide equal cycling access to both sides of the roadway and the multi-use pathway options result in pedestrians using a shared facility where cyclists can reach high speeds along steep downhill segments.

The section of Eramosa from Woolwich Street to Arthur Street will move forward for further study, with the Option 1 (Protected Bike Lane).

A summary of the evaluation is provided below. Letter grades of A, B, C, D, and F are provided to indicate the level of preference for each of the alternatives, with A being most preferred and F being least preferred. The full evaluation table can be viewed here.

Evaluation Summary – Eramosa Road