YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

83 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

5.0 Intersection Treatments

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 84

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

85 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN & CYCLING PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

Intersection Treatments 5.0

5.1 PRINCIPLES
OF INTERSECTION
DESIGN
The design of intersections is a balancing act between the safety
and convenience of users of different modes with the desire
to provide a high quality public realm. Intersections present the
highest concentration of conflict points along a roadway. The design
of intersections must address the potential for conflict through
appropriate context-sensitive design choices.
As noted in York Region’s Designing Great Streets guidelines,
“intersections are shared spaces, and should be designed to ensure
that users are aware of one another and move predictably in order to
reduce the number and severity of collisions.”

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 86

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

The following principles underlie the intersection concepts presented in these guidelines:

MAXIMIZE VISIBILITY MINIMIZE EXPOSURE

Vulnerable road users are smaller, travel more Depending on the geometry of the intersection
slowly and react differently than those in and the type of intersection treatments,
motorized vehicles. As a result, intersection pedestrians may experience different levels of
design should seek to enhance the visibility exposure to conflicts with motor vehicles, and
between users to allow sufficient perception each other. Wherever possible, conflicts should be
& reaction time to avoid each other at conflict eliminated or consolidated through modifications
points. Several different approaches can be to intersection geometry, pavement markings,
used to maximize visibility, depending on signage or signals. This should be coupled with
the context. For example, simplifying the on-going work at the Region to separate cyclists
surrounding environment to such an extent and pedestrians from conflicts in time (through
that the vulnerable user becomes the focus, signal phasing) and in space (i.e. grade separation)
or applying enhanced pavement markings & as applicable. Increased exposure can be a major
signage to highlight the travel paths of cyclists & deterrent to walking and cycling where users
pedestrians. perceive that intersections create major risks.

87 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

PROMOTE CONSISTENCY ACHIEVE DESIRED TURNING SPEEDS

One of the key objectives of these guidelines is to Lower motor vehicle operating speeds can
standardize treatments and to provide guidance reduce the likelihood and severity of collisions,
as “one size does not fit all” across the Region. and can increase pedestrian and cyclist comfort.
This will help to make interactions between users This increased comfort can, in turn, help to
of different modes more predictable and less attract new cyclists and pedestrians. Speeds
stressful. Designs are intended to be intuitive and through intersections can be lowered through
easy to use. It should be noted that promoting careful selection of geometric elements such
consistency does not mean applying the identical as corner radii and turn lane width, or by adding
treatment at every intersection – rather, it is physical traffic calming measures such as
about creating clear expectation through similar raised crosswalks. While the Region has clear
treatments and clear design choices that reflect objectives to support efficient motor vehicle
the land use and roadway context, while creating travel, particularly for goods movements and
a high quality public realm experience. employment purposes, intersections with current
or future high pedestrian & cycling volumes are
primary locations for focusing efforts to reduce
speeds. A balanced approach based on the needs
of the corridor should be used when developing
project-specific design criteria.

In addition to these safety-focused principles, it is important to also

recognize the need to provide a high quality public realm, which is
attractive and comfortable for pedestrians and cyclists alike.

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 88

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

The hierarchy for improved pedestrian and cycling treatments through

intersections is clearly articulated in the Regional context-sensitive
design guidelines, Designing Great Streets (refer to Exhibit 5-1).
This hierarchy drives the development of these guidelines.

Exhibit 5-1. Hierarchy for users at Intersections

89 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

5.1.1 Overview
Similarly to the guidance on cross-sections, the intersection
treatments presented in these guidelines incorporate minimum and
preferred elements in an attempt to prioritize design choices, reflect
budgetary limitations, and provide flexibility for designers.
Note that all signage and pavement markings identified in the
following sections are referenced in more detail in Chapter 7 –
Pavement Markings & Signage, including standard dimensions of
pavement markings from various Ontario Traffic Manuals.

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 90

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

5.2 URBAN
INTERSECTIONS
Urban intersections are typified by higher volumes, the convergence
of many paths of travel, and multi-modal conflicting movements.
Demands for operational efficiency are often in conflict with right-of-
way constraints and surrounding development. These intersections
must address the needs of pedestrians and cyclists in a way that
invites safe and comfortable crossings, while clarifying right-of-way
and priority for vulnerable users. The desire to accommodate high
quality streetscaping and to create attractive places to be must also
be considered at the project outset.
There are several strategies for minimizing exposure of pedestrians
and cyclists at urban intersections where turning vehicles may have
conflicting paths of travels with vulnerable users. In particular, the
higher travel speeds of cyclists compared to pedestrians requires
specific interventions to enhance safety.
In the context of Regional roads, two categories of treatments are
generally applicable, as shown in Exhibit 5-2.

91 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Exhibit 5-2. Strategies for Minimizing Conflicts between Cyclists and Turning Motorists

Source: Adapted from FHWA’s Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide, MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide & CROW
Record 25: Design manual for bicycle traffic

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 92

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Exhibit 5-3. Bend-in Design

Exhibit 5-4. Bend-out Design

93 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

A third category of intervention – the application of mixing zones and

lateral shifts - is generally not appropriate along Regional roads in
urban settings due to the higher expected speeds and volumes of
motorized vehicles.
Whenever possible within the constraints of signal timing, designers
are encouraged to pursue signal phasing separation of pedestrian and
cyclists from crossing motorists (refer to Chapter 8) in combination
with bend-in or bend-out designs.
In instances where signal changes are not feasible (either due to
operational challenges or at unsignalized intersections), facilities
should be bent-in or bent-out at intersections as a minimum
treatment. Generally, the decision to bend a facility in or out as
presented in these intersection examples is based largely on
the approaching facility type of the standardized cross-sections
developed in Sections 4.9 & 4.10.
A summary of preferences for bend-in and bend-out designs is
provided in Exhibit 5-5.

Exhibit 5-5. Preferred Bend-in & Bend-out Design Strategies for Intersections

Note that where on-street parking is provided (as illustrated for some
of the sample cross sections along City Centre Streets and Rural
Hamlets in Section 4.10), parking must be setback sufficiently far
from the intersection to ensure visibility of pedestrians and cyclists,
approaching based on sight distance calculations, regardless of
whether a bend-in or bend-out design is selected.

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 94

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

As urban intersections often represent the most challenging

intersection in terms of competing right-of-way demands and land
use contexts, trade-offs must often be made.
Some strategies which can be employed to make trade-offs at
intersections include the following:
• Look for compromises on vehicular and median lane widths
in order to provide additional space for pedestrian and cycling
facilities. The difference between a lane width of 3.3 or 3.5 m
is generally imperceptible to the average motor vehicle, while a
sidewalk width of 1.5 compared to a width of 1.8 m can drastically
improve accessibility and pedestrian comfort.
• Where sufficient boulevard space is not available for a bend-out
design, consider a bend-in design. If there is insufficient space
to bend the facility out, it is important to avoid an ‘in-between’
intersection offset (i.e. 2-4 m from edge of intersecting roadway
to the crossing cycling facility) and instead provide a high quality
bend-in design.
• Reduce the width of walking and cycling facilities to minimum
widths approaching the intersection. This can be an acceptable
treatment as pedestrians and cyclists are intended to slow down
approaching controlled crossings. Where widths are reduced, they
must still accommodate those waiting at an intersection and not
compromise on accessibility.
• Where it is impossible to accommodate both high-quality walking
and cycling facilities, pedestrians must take priority in intersection
design. A transition to a shared space crossing can be employed
in low volume areas, even where the approaching facilities are
separated, although this is not a preferred design approach.
Photo Source: IBI Group
YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

5.2.1 Signalized Intersections

As noted in Section 5.2, the general assumption behind the urban
signalized intersection treatments presented in this chapter is that
the approaching facility & associated road classification will, for the
most part, govern the intersection treatment. The corresponding
intersection treatments are summarized in Exhibit 5-6.
Rural intersection treatments are discussed in Chapter 5.3.

Exhibit 5-6. Intersection Treatment Selection Tool

As shown in Exhibit 5-6 above, there are a few instances where the
facility can be upgraded at the intersection, if space allows.
In particular, consider opportunities to implement the following
intersection upgrades:
• Ramp a bike lane up into the boulevard to transition to a raised
cycle track or in-boulevard cycle track through the intersection
• Bend a raised cycle track out in advance of an intersection in order
to provide a protected intersection

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 96

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Major Urban Intersection with Multi-use Path

Historically, the design of multi-use paths has largely neglected intersection treatments, impacting
the overall quality and continuity of the facility. The intersection concept presented here integrates the
concept of bend-in/bend-out and appropriate conflict zone markings to the design of multi-use paths.

Minimum Preferred

1 AODA – compliant curb ramps and tactile A ’Cyclists Yield to Pedestrians’ signage (Rb-
plates per York Region Standard DS-400 73-OTM) can be applied where there are
series drawings (See section 7.2.4) challenges with interactions between users.

2 ‘Bicycle Trail Crossing Side Street Sign’ B Optional stop bar for cyclists located at the
signage and optional ‘Trail Crossing’ tab top of the curb ramp.
(WC-44 + WC-44T – TAC) alerting drivers
to the potential presence of cyclists C Multi-use path should be made of a
crossing the intersecting street. WC-44L different construction material than the
should be placed in the median to alert left sidewalk to mark the beginning of a shared
turners about a crossing to their left, and space and to emphasize pedestrian priority.
WC-44R should be placed on the right side
of the roadway to alert right turning traffic D Separate pedestrian pole with pushbutton
for cyclists approaching on the right side
3 ‘Shared Pathway’ signage (RB-93 – TAC) of the multi-use path preferred to reduce
should be applied 5-30 m downstream of conflicts with pedestrians and improve ease
the intersection. of crossing

4 Intersection crossing of the multi-use E Separate bicycle signals are preferred to

path should be designed as Combined provide consistency along the corridor and
Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossride (refer to allow for leading phases for path users.
to Sections 7.0 for details of pavement Where phasing is identical to parallel vehicle
markings). In some instances, cyclists may heads, only one head is needed. Otherwise,
be likely to cross the road to use the multi- two bicycle heads should be provided.
use path on the other side (for example, to
reach a major destination). Where this is F Pedestrian and bicycle markings following/
anticipated, a crossride may be added to approaching intersection
the perpendicular legs of the intersection in
addition to the parallel legs (refer to Section
5.2.3, Exhibit 5-29 for an illustration of an
intersection with crossrides on all legs)

5 A yellow dividing line should be applied

to the multi-use path approaching the
intersection to reduce conflicts.

6 Multi-use paths should be bent-in (0.5-2 m)

or bent-out (4-7 m) from parallel edge of
roadway, depending on roadway context &
right-of-way availability – refer to Exhibit 5-8
and Exhibit 5-9.

97 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Exhibit 5-7. Major Urban Intersection with Multi-use Path

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 98

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

As the multi-use path approaches the intersection, it is important that

the facility be positioned appropriately for safe crossings. In cases
where the approaching multi-use path is located between
2-4 m offset from the face of curb, it should be bent-in or bent-out as
illustrated in Exhibit 5-8 and Exhibit 5-9 below.
Exhibit 5-8. Multi-use Path Bend-in Approaching Intersection

Exhibit 5-9. Multi-use Path Bend-out Approaching Intersection

99 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Photo Source: IBI Group

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 100

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Urban Intersection with Sidewalks and Conventional Bike Lanes (Retrofit)

The application of conventional bike lanes will generally occur as a retrofit of an existing roadway only
along Regional roads. For on-road cycling facilities, it is important to maximize the visibility of the cyclist
to drivers and provide guidance on right of way at the intersection.
Where boulevard width and property allow, the bike lane should be ramped up into the boulevard to
sidewalk level, and the bend in or bend out concepts applied (refer to Exhibit 5-14 or Exhibit 5-15).

Minimum Preferred

1 AODA – compliant curb ramps and tactile A Sharrow markings to be applied with
plates per York Region Standard DS-400 spacing of 3-5 m
series drawings (See section 7.2.4)

2 Customized ‘Turning Vehicles Yield To

Bicycles’ (RB-37 – TAC) signage to alert
turning drivers that they must yield to
through cyclists

3 Advance cyclist stop bar provided 2 m

ahead of vehicular stop bar to improve
visibility of cyclists

4 Green conflict zone marking through

intersection

5 Bicycle lane marking and ‘Reserved Bicycle

Lane’ signage (RB-91 - TAC) to re-confirm
the designation of the cycling facility after
the intersection

101 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Exhibit 5-10. Urban Intersection with Sidewalks & Conventional Bike Lane (retrofit)

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 102

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Where a right turn lane is provided at an intersection, a preferred

approach to accommodating the turn lane is to ramp the
cycling facility up into the boulevard (refer to Exhibit 5-11) and
to transition to a raised or in-boulevard cycle track through
the intersection. This can be coupled with separation in time
(through signal phasing) or space (bend-out design). For
additional details on the ramping, refer to Section 5.8.
Exhibit 5-11. Bike Lane Ramping up into Boulevard

Where right-of-way or cost constraints do not allow for these

alternatives, the following concepts may be considered.

Provide Advance Stop Bar & Buffered Bike Lane with Signal
Separation (Retrofit)
This is a proposed treatment in which the bike lane is widened to
accommodate a 0.5 m painted buffer with optional bollards. The
vehicular stop bar is set back 2 m behind the cyclist stop bar to
enhance visibility. This treatment should be implemented in concert
with a separate bicycle signal which can be used to separate the
vehicular right turn from the through cyclist movement (where a
dedicated right turn lane is provided).
Exhibit 5-12. Bike Lane Right Turn Treatment with Advance Stop Bar

Conflict Zone Treatment (Retrofit)

This intersection treatment represents current practice. However, it is
not preferred as many cyclists are likely to feel uncomfortable through
conflict zones.
Exhibit 5-13. Dedicated Bikeway Right Turn Treatment with Conflict Zone

103 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

A conventional conflict zone with right turn lane can be intimidating for riders.

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 104

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Major Urban Intersection with Sidewalks and Raised Cycle Tracks

This design illustrates an intersection treatment for cycle tracks which can be applied in constrained urban
environments, to create a bend-in design.
Where additional boulevard width is available, the cycle track should be bent-out to provide a protected
intersection (refer to Exhibit 5-144).

Minimum Preferred

1 AODA – compliant curb ramps and tactile A Green conflict zone marking through
plates per York Region Standard DS-400 intersection
series drawings (See section 7.2.4)
B Two stage left turn queue boxes should be
2 Customized ‘Turning Vehicles Yield To considered in accordance with the warrants
Bicycles’ (RB-37 – TAC) signage to alert presented in Exhibit 5-16.
turning drivers that they must yield to
through cyclists C Optional bollard can be added to mark the
beginning of the full height cycle track and
3 Cycle track and splash strip ramp down to to deter vehicles
road level (@ 5%) 3 m in advance of cyclist
stop bar, and ramp back up following the D Optional transition from in-boulevard cycle
intersection (refer to sample detail shown in tracks (bend-in)
Exhibit 5-15)

4 Advance cyclist stop bar provided 2 m

ahead of vehicular stop bar to improve
visibility of cyclists

5 Sharrow markings through intersection to

be applied with spacing of 3-5 m

6 Green pavement markings illustrating the

desired right turn path for vehicles should
be added to assist motorists in avoiding the
flush median

7 Bicycle symbol and arrow following

intersection to confirm cycling facility

Where a dedicated right turn lane for motor vehicles is provided adjacent a raised cycle track,
consideration should be given to separating pedestrian and cyclists movements from the conflicting
right turning vehicles through signal phasing. This would require the addition of separate bicycle
signals. For further discussion, refer to Chapter 8.

105 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Exhibit 5-14. Major Urban Intersection with Sidewalks & Raised Cycle Tracks (Bend-in)

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 106

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Exhibit 5-15. Sample Detail for Raised Cycle Track at Intersection

107 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Two-stage Left Turn Queue Boxes

It is recommended that two-stage left turn queue boxes be applied
along Regional roads where they will provide a benefit to cyclists,
based on the approaching facility type, roadway and intersections
context and the characteristics of the intersection roadway.
Exhibit 5-16. Two-Stage Left Turn Queue Box Warrant

In general, two stage left turn queue boxes should be

considered where the following conditions are met:
• Should only be provided at signalized intersections along
Regional corridors with cycling facilities appropriate for the
street context
• Should be provided at signalized intersections in urban
areas where any of the following conditions are met:
- Where the intersecting street (municipal or regional)
includes existing or planned cycling facilities
appropriate for the street context
- Where a two stage queue box could facilitate access
to a major destination located within 500 m of an
intersection regardless of whether cycling facilities
are available on the intersecting roadway. A “major”
destination may include a transit hub, school,
community facility such as recreation centre or large
commercial centre, or other destinations as determined
by Regional staff. Note that where no receiving
cycling facilities are provided, signage or other design
interventions may be needed to ensure cyclists can
safely merge into the intersecting roadway.
- Where the Regional Road to be crossed is six lanes or
wider, as a means of accommodating cyclists wishing
to exit the Regional road. Note that where no receiving
cycling facilities are provided, signage or other design
interventions may be needed to ensure cyclists can
safely merge into the intersecting roadway.

The Region has an existing standard two-stage left turn queue box
design. Refer to York Region standard drawing D-10.04 in Exhibit
5-18.

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 108

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Exhibit 5-17. Typical Bike Box D-10.04

109 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Major Urban Protected Intersection

The protected intersection is emerging in North America as a
preferred higher-order intersection treatment with the potential to
provide high quality crossings for both pedestrians and cyclists.
Key elements of the protected intersection include the following: a
corner refuge island which can be design to accommodate truck with
use of a semi-mountable aprons, use of the bend-out design and
appropriate crossing set back (4-7 m), and a bicycle queuing area of
sufficient depth.

Several examples of protected intersections that have been

implemented in North America are shown below in Exhibit 5-18.
Exhibit 5-18. Protected Intersections in Chicago, Salt Lake City and Vancouver

Source: IBI Group Source: Google Streetview

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 110

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

The following are the minimum and preferred elements of a protected intersection.

Minimum Preferred

1 AODA – compliant curb ramps and tactile A ’Cyclists Yield to Pedestrians’ signage (Rb-
plates per York Region Standard DS-400 73-OTM) can be applied where there are
series drawings (See section 7.2.4) challenges with interactions between users.

2 Customized ‘Turning Vehicles Yield To B Optional stop bar for cyclists located at the
Bicycles’ (RB-37 – TAC) signage to alert top of the curb ramp.
turning drivers that they must yield to
through cyclists C Sidewalk should be carried across the cycle
track crossing to emphasize pedestrian
3 Yield markings alerting approaching cyclists priority. Consideration maybe given to
of pedestrian priority should be applied to additional higher-order treatments (i.e.
separated cycling facilities tactile plates or crosswalk markings).

4 Corner refuge island to provide physical D Separate bicycle signals are preferred to
protection to waiting pedestrians and provide consistency through the transition.
cyclists (refer to details in Exhibit 5-22 & Where phasing is identical to parallel vehicle
Exhibit 5-23) heads, only one head is needed. Otherwise,
two bicycle heads should be provided.
5 Bicycle queuing area must be provide
sufficient storage so that a waiting E Optional transition from raised cycle tracks
bicycle does not block or impede through (bend-out)
pedestrian traffic

6 Motorist yield zone (minimum 4 m) which

allows turning drivers to yield to crossing
pedestrians and cyclists without risk of
being rear-ended by through cyclists

7 Intersection crossing of the cycle track

should be designed as a crossride for
cyclists with elephant’s feet markings and
sharrows to indicate direction of travel

8 Bicycle marking should be applied following

the intersection to re-confirm separated
facilities

111 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Exhibit 5-19. Major Urban Protected Intersection (Bend-out)

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 112

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Exhibit 5-21. Approach Clear Space

The design of the corner refuge for the protected intersection is
particularly important to the overall operations of the intersection.
Corner radii need to be reduced in order to slow turning vehicles
and encourage yielding behaviour. The area must also be kept free
of obstructions which may reduce the visibility of approaching
pedestrians and cyclists (clear space - refer to Exhibit 5-18).
Sample approach clear space and corner radii for various typologies
are suggested in Exhibit 5-20 below. In all cases, these design criteria
should be determined for each intersection based on site specific
conditions.
Exhibit 5-20. Suggested design criteria for protected intersections

While tighter corner radii are critical to the implementation of

protected intersections, Regional roads must also accommodate
transit vehicles and heavy vehicles. For this reason, the corner refuge
island can be implemented with a semi-mountable truck apron. The
recommended maximum radius for the inner edge of the apron is
about 9-12 m. When facilities are designed, the path of the control
vehicle must be traced to ensure that the vehicle clears the refuge
island with sufficient setback to waiting pedestrians and cyclists.
Details of a sample corner island are illustrated in Exhibit 5-22 &
Exhibit 5-23.
Where a dedicated right turn lane for motor vehicles is provided
adjacent a protected intersection, consideration should be given
to separating pedestrian and cyclists movements from the right
turning vehicles through signal phasing. This would require the use of
separate bicycle signals. Refer to Chapter 8 for additional discussion
on signal operations.

113 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Exhibit 5-22. Corner Refuge Island Detail

Note: Determine truck apron corner radius (R9-12m or two-centred curve) to suit the frequent
user, control (heavy) vehicle, ensure control vehicle at “crawl speed” does not track beyond the
drop curb of the cycle track / sidewalk ramp on the departure leg of the intersection.

Exhibit 5-23. Concrete Truck Apron Detail

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 114

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

5.2.2 Unsignalized Intersections

Pavement markings highlight cyclist path across an unsignalized Crossings at unsignalized intersections must include curb ramps or
intersection depressions with tactile walking surface indicators

Along Regional roads, unsignalized intersections are most likely to

occur where a local or collector road intersects a Regional Road.
In these cases, drivers on the intersecting street must stop and
identify a gap in traffic on the Regional road in order to complete
their movement through the intersection. As a result, enhancing the
visibility of conflicting movements from cyclists and pedestrians is
critical to ensuring the safety of these users. This is perhaps most
important where cyclists and pedestrians will be travelling in the
opposite direction of opposing traffic, since drivers will focus on
selecting a gap in cross-traffic.
The following types of active transportation facilities at unsignalized
intersections are illustrated in these guidelines:
• Conventional bike lanes with sidewalk
• On-road separated bikeway (i.e. raised cycle track or protected bike
lanes) with sidewalk
• In-boulevard separated bikeway (i.e. in-boulevard cycle track) with
sidewalk
• Multi-use facility

115 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Conventional Bike Lanes with Sidewalk

Unsignalized Intersection

Minimum Preferred

1 Accessible curb ramps per York Region A Optional ladder crosswalk markings for
Standard DS-100 series drawings improved visibility

2 Transverse crosswalk markings B Sharrows spaced at 3 - 5 m (urban areas)

or 8-10 m (rural areas) to alert drivers to
3 Bike and diamond pavement marking cyclist’s path of travel. In special instances,
following intersection in addition to bike lane a green conflict zone marking may also
signage (RB-91 - TAC) be considered in addition to the sharrow
markings.
4 Corner radii will vary depending on control
vehicles. Wherever possible, a reduced
radii of 7.5 m can be used to slow turning
vehicles.

5 Customized RB-37 signage to alert turning

drivers that they must yield to thru cyclists -
refer to Section 7

Exhibit 5-24. Conventional Bike Lane with Sidewalk at Unsignalized Intersection

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 116

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Separated Bikeway with Sidewalk

Unsignalized Intersection

Minimum Preferred

1 Accessible curb ramps per York Region Optional ladder crosswalk markings for
A
Standard DS-100 series drawings improved visibility
2 Transverse crosswalk markings Sharrows spaced at 3-5 m (urban areas)
B
or 8-10 m (rural areas) to alert drivers to
3 Bike and diamond pavement marking
cyclist’s path of travel
following intersection in addition to bike lane
signage (RB-91 - TAC) Green conflict zone marking through
C
intersection
4 Corner radii will vary depending on control
vehicles. Wherever possible, a reduced
radii of 7.5 m can be used to slow turning
vehicles

5 Customized RB-37 signage to alert turning

drivers that they must yield to thru cyclists -
refer to Section 7

Exhibit 5-25. Separated Bikeway with Sidewalk at Unsignalized Intersection

117 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

In-Boulevard Separated Bikeway with Sidewalk

Unsignalized Intersection
The ‘bend-out’ design depicted in Exhibit 5-26 can be applied to
cycling facilities located anywhere within the boulevard, including
raised cycle tracks located adjacent the curb by beginning the
‘bend-out’ far enough in advance of the intersection. Where space
constraints preclude the use of this treatment, the cycling facilities
should be ‘bent in’ to between 0-2 m from the face of curb.

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 118

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

In-Boulevard Separated Bikeway with Sidewalk

Minimum Preferred

1 Accessible curb ramps per York Region A Optional ladder crosswalk markings for
Standard DS-400 series drawings (See improved visibility
section 7.2.4)
B Green conflict zone marking through
2 Transverse crosswalk marking
intersection
3 Crossride marking for cyclists must incorporate
elephant’s feet markings and bike symbol
with arrow to indicate direction of travel
4 Corner radii will vary depending on control
vehicles, but 7.5 m is preferred to reduce
the speed of right turning vehicles
5 Crossride must be set back from the
Regional road 4-7 m to allow a turning
vehicle space to yield to crossing cyclists
without risk of being rear-ended
6 To improve cycling comfort, cycle track radii
should be ≥ 5 m
7 Delineation of cycling and pedestrian space
where the two facilities approach each
other through the application of paving
stones or other high contrast treatment
8 Customized RB-37 signage to alert turning
drivers that they must yield to thru cyclists -
refer to Section 7

Exhibit 5-26. In-boulevard Separated Bikeway with Sidewalk at Unsignalized Intersection

119 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Multi-use Path
Unsignalized Intersection
This treatment should be applied where a boulevard multi-use path within Regional ROW crosses a minor
stop-leg controlled street. For cases where a boulevard multi-use path crosses a driveway, please refer to
Section 6.1.2.

Minimum Preferred

1 Accessible curb ramps per York Region A ‘Shared Pathway’ signage (RB-93 - TAC)
Standard DS-400 series drawings (See can be applied following the intersection for
section 7.2.4) path users

2 Crossride marking for cyclists must B Gentle curve in multi-use path may be used
incorporate elephant’s feet markings to slow cyclists approaching the intersection

3 Marking through crossride include C ‘Bicycle Trail Crossing Side Street’ signage
pedestrian and cyclist with an arrow. and tab (WC-44 - TAC & WC-44T - TAC) in
Markings should be placed to align with the advance of intersection along Regional road
centre of the vehicular curb lane
D Pedestrian – cyclist crossing ahead tab and
4 Corner radii will vary depending on control signage (Wc-15 - OTM & Wc-32t - OTM)
vehicles, but 7.5 m is preferred to reduce 15m in advance of path crossing along
the speed of right turning vehicles intersecting road

5 A yellow dividing line should be used E Green conflict zone marking through
approaching the intersection to reduce intersection
conflicts.

Exhibit 5-27. Multi-use Path at unsignalized intersection

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 120

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

5.2.3. Facility Transitions

Facility transitions occur where one facility meets or intersects
another. These transitions are likely to occur where a roadway
transitions from one classification to another, or where Regional
roads intersect municipal roads. These transitions can present
a challenge to users, particularly where uni-directional facilities
meet bi-directional facilities. Designers should aim to reduce the
inconvenience of these transitions wherever possible while ensuring
that movements are controlled and predictable. Whenever possible,
facility transitions should occur at signalized intersections in order to
provide adequate opportunities for pedestrians and cyclists to safely
cross roads, as needed.
Each facility transition will require detailed consideration of the
context, however some generalized examples that are likely to have
applications in York Region have been developed to assist designers
in these instances.
The following types of facility transitions are illustrated in these
guidelines:
• Separated bikeway on one side of an intersection transitioning to a
multi-use path on the other side of the intersection
• Separated bikeway on major road intersecting a multi-use path on
a cross road
• Multi-use facility on major road intersecting a multi-use path on
cross road

121 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Separated Bikeway on one side of an Intersection transitioning to a

Multi-use Path on the other side of the Intersection
The scenario where a cycle track must transition to a multi-use path is likely to occur where a Regional
road transitions from a highly urbanized area (i.e. Avenue or City Centre Street), to a or lower density
area (i.e. Connector). The same treatment shown here can also be applied where an on-road (dedicated)
facility meets a multi-use path by ramping the bike lane up into the boulevard and applying this treatment
(refer to Exhibit 5-29).
For further details of the width of facilities, refer to Section 4.10, or for details of intersection geometry
refer to Section 5.2.1.

Minimum Preferred

1 AODA – compliant curb ramps and tactile A ’Cyclists Yield to Pedestrians’ signage (Rb-
plates per York Region Standard DS-400 73-OTM) can be applied where there are
series drawings (See section 7.2.4) challenges with interactions between users.

2 Customized ‘Turning Vehicles Yield To B ‘Bicycle Route’ marker signage (IB-23 -

Bicycles’ (RB-37 – TAC) signage to alert TAC) combined with right turn signage (IS-
turning drivers that they must yield to 8R-TAC) and custom street signage (C-1)
through cyclists indicating that cyclists wishing to continue
to along the Regional Road must turn right
3 ‘Bicycle Route’ marker signage (IB-23 - to reinforce the previous signage where
TAC) combined with right turn signage wrong way riding is expected or has been
(IS-5R) and custom street signage (C-1) observed
indicating that cyclists wishing to continue
to along the Regional Road must turn right C Shared use path and cyclist right turn
slip lane should be made of a different
4 ‘Shared Pathway’ signage (RB-93 – TAC) construction material than the sidewalk to
should be applied 5-30 m downstream mark the beginning of a shared space and
of the intersection where the multi-use to emphasize pedestrian priority.
pathway begins.
D Separate bicycle signals are preferred to
5 Intersection crossing of the cycle track provide consistency through the transition.
should be designed as a crossride for Where phasing is identical to parallel vehicle
cyclists with elephant’s feet markings and heads, only one head is needed. Otherwise,
chevrons to indicate direction of travel two bicycle heads should be provided.

Yield markings alerting approaching cyclists

6 of pedestrian priority should be applied to
separated cycling facilities

A yellow dividing line should be applied

7 to the multi-use path approaching the
intersection to reduce conflicts.

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 122

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Exhibit 5-28. Separated Bikeway transitioning to a Multi-use Path

Exhibit 5-29. Optional transition from Bike Lanes into Boulevard

123 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Separated Bikeway on Major Road intersecting a Multi-use Path on a Cross Road

For cases where a sidewalk and cycle track intersects a multi-use path, it is important to clarify pedestrian
priority through a combination of material changes, signage and pavement markings. The same treatment
shown here can also be applied where an on-road (dedicated) facility meets a multi-use path by ramping
the bike lane up into the boulevard and applying this treatment. For further details of the width of facilities,
refer to Section 4.10, or for details of intersection geometry refer to Section 5.2.1.

Minimum Preferred

1 AODA – compliant curb ramps and tactile A ’Cyclists Yield to Pedestrians’ signage (Rb-
plates per York Region Standard DS-400 73-OTM) can be applied where there are
series drawings (See section 7.2.4) challenges with interactions between users.

2 Customized ‘Turning Vehicles Yield To B Optional stop bar for cyclists located at the
Bicycles’ (RB-37 – TAC) signage to alert top of the curb ramp.
turning drivers that they must yield to
through cyclists C Shared use path should be made of a
different construction material than the
3 ‘Bicycle Trail Crossing Side Street Sign’
sidewalk to mark the beginning of a shared
signage and optional ‘Trail Crossing’ tab
space and to emphasize pedestrian priority.
(WC-44 + WC-44T – TAC) alerting drivers
to the potential presence of cyclists Separate pedestrian pole with pushbutton
crossing the intersecting street. WC-44L D
for cyclists approaching on the right side
should be placed in the median to alert left of the multi-use path preferred to reduce
turners about a crossing to their left, and conflicts with pedestrians and improve ease
WC-44R should be placed on the right side of crossing
of the roadway to alert right turning traffic

‘Shared Pathway’ signage (RB-93 – TAC) E Separate bicycle signals are preferred to
4
should be applied 5-30 m downstream of provide consistency through the transition.
the intersection. Where phasing is identical to parallel vehicle
heads, only one head is needed. Otherwise,
5 Intersection crossing of the cycle track two bicycle heads should be provided.
should be designed as a crossride for
cyclists with elephant’s feet markings and F Pedestrian and bicycle markings following
chevrons to indicate direction of travel (refer intersection to re-confirm separated facilities
to Section 5.2.1. for details)

6 Intersection crossing of the multi-use

path should be designed as Combined
Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossride (refer to
Section 5.2.1. for details)
7 Yield markings alerting approaching cyclists
of pedestrian priority should be applied to
separated cycling facilities

8 A yellow dividing line should be applied

to the multi-use path approaching the
intersection to reduce conflicts.

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 124

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Exhibit 5-30. Separated Bikeway Intersecting a Multi-use Path

125 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Multi-use Path on Major Road intersecting a Multi-use Path on a Cross Road

In the cases where two multi-use paths intersect, it is important to reiterate pedestrian priority within the
shared space at the intersection.
For further details of the width of facilities, refer to Section 4.10, or for details of intersection geometry
refer to Section 5.2.1.

Minimum Preferred

1 AODA – compliant curb ramps and tactile A ’Cyclists Yield to Pedestrians’ signage (Rb-
plates per York Region Standard DS-400 73-OTM) can be applied where there are
series drawings (See section 7.2.4) challenges with interactions between users.

2 ‘Bicycle Trail Crossing Side Street Sign’ B Optional stop bar for cyclists located at the
signage and optional ‘Trail Crossing’ tab top of the curb ramp.
(WC-44 + WC-44T – TAC) alerting drivers
to the potential presence of cyclists C Shared use path should be made of a
crossing the intersecting street. WC-44L different construction material than the
should be placed in the median to alert left sidewalk to mark the beginning of a shared
turners about a crossing to their left, and space and to emphasize pedestrian priority.
WC-44R should be placed on the right side
of the roadway to alert right turning traffic D Separate pedestrian pole with push button
for cyclists approaching on the right side
3 ‘Shared Pathway’ signage (RB-93 – TAC) of the multi-use path preferred to reduce
should be applied 5-30 m downstream of conflicts with pedestrians and improve ease
the intersection. of crossing
4 Intersection crossing of the multi-use
path should be designed as Combined E Separate bicycle signals are preferred to
Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossride (refer to provide consistency through the transition.
Sections 5.2.1. & 7 for details) Where phasing is identical to parallel vehicle
5) A yellow dividing line should be applied heads, only one head is needed. Otherwise,
to the multi-use path approaching the two bicycle heads should be provided.
intersection to reduce conflicts.
F Optional pedestrian and cyclist markings
following/approaching intersection.

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 126

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Exhibit 5-31. Multi-use Path Intersecting a Multi-use Path

127 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

5.3 RURAL INTERSECTIONS

Rural intersections present a unique set of challenges for vulnerable users. Although pedestrian and
cycling volumes are expected to be lower than in urban areas, rural intersections must still provide a
basic level of accommodation, including meeting AODA requirements for signalized intersections. In
some cases, transit stops are provided at rural intersections, and the pedestrian environment should be
enhanced beyond the minimum treatments in these instances.
A typical rural intersection is illustrated in Exhibit 5-32.

Minimum Preferred

1 AODA – compliant curb ramps and tactile A Bicycle symbol can be applied on the near
plates per York Region Standard DS-100 side of the intersection to reinforce the
series drawings cyclist waiting area

2 Customized ‘Turning Vehicles Yield To B Lower volumes of cyclists require minimal

Bicycles’ (RB-37 – TAC) signage to alert conflict zone treatments. Where desired,
turning drivers that they must yield to sharrows spaced at 8-10 m can be used to
through cyclists clarify the cyclists travel path through the
intersection
3 Ladder crosswalk markings

4 Inside of painted buffer on paved shoulder

dropped as cross-section urbanizes

5 Rural cross-section urbanizes approaches

the signalized intersection to accommodate
signal equipment and provide space for
transit passengers

In the rural context illustrated here, it is generally assumed cyclists will make vehicular left turns. However,
in unique instances where there is a need to accommodate a specific heavy cyclist left movement, or
where there is an anticipation of less experienced or confident cyclists, a two-stage left turn queue box
could be considered as an additional feature.

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 128

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Exhibit 5-32. Typical Rural Intersection

129 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

In the rural environment, a ‘conflict-zone’ style treatment is suggested

for cyclists where dedicated vehicular right turn lanes are provided, as a
review of York Region rural facilities found that most riders in the rural
environment prefer to position themselves to the left of right turning
vehicles.
A sample treatment is shown in Exhibit 5-33.

Rural Intersection with Dedicated RIght Turn lane

Minimum Preferred

1 Sharrows spaced at 8-10 m through conflict A Bicycle symbol can be applied on the near
zone side of the intersection to reinforce the
cyclist waiting area
2 Customized ‘Turning Vehicles Yield To
Bicycles’ (RB-37 – TAC) signage to alert B Green pavement marking through conflict
turning drivers that they must yield to zone
through cyclists

Exhibit 5-33. Treatment for Dedicated Right Turn Lane at Rural Intersection

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 130

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

5.4 FREEWAY
CROSSINGS
Freeways and highways often act as major barriers to active
transportation networks. Where active transportation facilities must
cross these barriers, the following strategies should be considered
to avoid or mitigate potential conflicts (in decreasing order of
preference):

1. Provide grade separation of the active transportation facility

(refer to Exhibit 5-34 for an example and Chapter 5.7 for details on
grade separated crossings). A separate bridge for vulnerable users
located up or downstream of the interchange will help to eliminate
potential conflicts with motorists as users remain within their own
dedicated path or trail.
Exhibit 5-34. Proposed McKenzie Interchange Project with Multi-use Path Overpass

“McKenzie Interchange project – detail of Galloping Goose Trail” by Province of British

Columbia (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

131 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

2. Where facilities cannot be grade separated and facilities must cross

interchanges, interchanges which restrict free flow vehicular
movements by providing signal or stop controlled entry and exit
legs meeting an arterial perpendicularly are preferred.
3. Where high-speed merge and diverge ramps must be provided,
jughandle designs can provide safer crossings. In a recent survey of
the Highway 7 corridor in York Region, many cyclists noted their lack of
comfort using conventional conflict zone treatments across these ramps,
therefore jughandle treatments are generally preferred for applications in
York Region.
In the case of high speed merge and diverge ramps, this chapter illustrates
two jughandle design concepts (shown in Exhibit 5-35 to Exhibit 5-36).
Interchange ramps provide high stress environments for pedestrians,
cyclists and drivers alike. Mixing relatively high speed, high volume motor
vehicle traffic making frequent turning movements with vulnerable users
is a challenge. To facilitate safe movements for cyclists and pedestrians,
its critical provide ample time to select a gap when crossing merging and
diverging traffic.
The jughandle designs provides clearly delineated space for cyclists,
allowing ample time to choose when to cross merging and diverging traffic.
Tactile plates are applied to the pedestrian ramps to improve accessibility.
Although not shown in these concepts, there may be a possibility of
introducing PXOS at ramps to provide controlled crossings.
Note these jughandle designs are conceptual only and any design of
ramp crossings under MTO jurisdiction require consultation.

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 132

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

One of the major conflict areas between motorists and

cyclists on Highway 7 is the interchange at Highway 404 where
Highway 7 passes under Highway 404.
The conflict between cyclists and motorists entering the on-ramps or exiting
the off-ramps poses one of the more common barriers to safe and comfortable
cycling. Just 14% of respondents indicated that they feel safe with the
conventional conflict zone design, while 45% indicated that they do not feel safe,
and 40% indicated that the new facility has improved their sense of safety but
that they are still concerned at this location.

133 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Bike Lanes & Sidewalk with Diverging Ramp Crossing

Minimum Preferred

1 Jughandle design with reserved bike lane A Optional bollards in gore area to discourage
symbol slows cyclists and allows them to late lane changes. Late lane changes can be
come closer to a perpendicular crossing to particularly risky for vulnerable users who
better evaluate gaps in vehicular traffic may be deciding to cross.
2 Pedestrian crossing with tactile plates and
AODA – compliant curb ramps B At present, there are no opportunities to
formalize or control pedestrian crossings of
3 ‘Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing Ahead’ ramps, so no pavement markings should be
signage and ‘Crossing’ tab (WC-46R + WC- applied. However, as the use of pedestrian
7s – TAC) alerting drivers to the potential crossovers grows in Ontario, opportunities
presence of cyclists and pedestrians crossing to introduce crossovers at ramps locations
the ramp as appropriate should be considered.
4 ‘Yield’ signage (Ra-2 – OTM) indicating to
cyclists that they are required to yield right
of way to drivers merging onto the ramp
5 ‘Wait for Gap’ signage (Wc-28 – OTM) facing
both directions indicating to pedestrians
that they are required to yield right of way to
drivers merging onto the ramp
6 ‘No Pedestrians or bicycles’ signage (Rb-68
– OTM) to indicate to cyclists and pedestrians
that entry onto the freeway is prohibited.
7 ‘Reserved Bicycle Lane’ (RB-91 - TAC) to
re-confirm the designation of the cycling
facility after the merge ramp.

Exhibit 5-35. Jughandle Design at a High-Speed Diverging Ramp with Bike Lanes & Sidewalk

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 134

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Bike Lanes & Sidewalk with Merging Ramp Crossing

Minimum Preferred

1 Jughandle design with reserved bike lane A Optional bollards in gore area to discourage
symbol slows cyclists and allows them to cyclists from continuing straight through the
come closer to a perpendicular crossing to crossing
better evaluate gaps in vehicular traffic
Pedestrian crossing with tactile plates and B At present, there are no opportunities to
2
AODA – compliant curb ramps formalize or control pedestrian crossings of
ramps, so no pavement markings should be
3 ‘Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing Ahead’ applied. However, as the use of pedestrian
signage and ‘Crossing’ tab (WC-46L + WC- crossovers grows in Ontario, opportunities
7s – TAC) alerting drivers to the potential to introduce crossovers at ramps locations
presence of cyclists and pedestrians crossing as appropriate should be considered.
the ramp
4 ‘Yield’ signage (Ra-2 – OTM) indicating to
cyclists that they are required to yield right
of way to drivers merging onto the ramp
5 ’Wait for Gap’ signage (Wc-28 – OTM)
facing both directions indicating to
pedestrians that they are required to yield
right of way to drivers merging onto the
ramp
6 ‘Reserved Bicycle Lane’ (RB-91) to re-confirm
the designation of the cycling facility after the
merge ramp.

Exhibit 5-36. Jughandle Design at a High-Speed Merging Ramp with Dedicated Bikeway and Sidewalk

135 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

5.5 RAILWAY
CROSSINGS
Railway crossings present risks for pedestrians and cyclists.
Therefore, extra caution should be applied to assure their safe
operation. In addition to standard pavement markings, rubber track
guards are also recommended to improve friction between bike
and wheelchair tires and the pavement, and also to narrow the rail
gaps. Pavement crossing surfaces should be paved, and inspected
regularly during road inspections for signs of deterioration around
the tracks. Pavement deterioration adjacent to railway tracks can be
a potential hazard, especially to those using mobility aids or devices,
pushing strollers, or on bike, since wheels could get caught in the
rails.
Details of requirements for barriers and gates for at-grade crossings
can be found in Transport Canada’s Grade Crossings Regulations and
Grade Crossings Standards.
Crossings of railways should be designed close to right angles, both
to enhance visibility and to prevent wheels getting caught in rails.
In many situations, achieving this design may require widening in
advance of the crossing, thereby allowing cyclists and pedestrians
to reduce their speed and position themselves for crossing at
right angles. Note that for extremely skewed rail crossings, it may
be impractical to achieve a 90o crossing, and doing so may have
unintended consequences as the reversing curves may be too sharp.
In these instances, widening to 60o is sufficient.
The following series of exhibits illustrate jughandle design concepts for
a widening to permit crossing at right angles for the following facilities:
• Dedicated Bikeway with Sidewalk
• Separated Bikeway with Sidewalk
• Multi-use Facility
Where the crossing is oriented such that a jughandle is not needed,
similar pavement markings as shown in these examples will apply,
save for markings and signage that are specific to the jughandle
itself.

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 136

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Jughandle Design at Rail Crossing – Dedicated Bikeway with Sidewalk

Minimum Preferred

1 ‘Railway Crossing Ahead’ signage (Wc-4 A AODA – compliant ramps and tactile plates
– OTM) should be applied upstream of the can be placed in advance of the crossings
crossing in accordance with OTM Book 6 (1.8 m – light rail; 3.9 m – freight rail;
requirements measured to centerline of nearest rail).
Although the use of tactile warning plates at
2 ‘Automobiles and Motorcycles Prohibited rail crossings is not specifically referenced
Sign’ (RB-89 - TAC) should be applied at the in current AODA standards, best practices
beginning of the jughandle. in pedestrian safety for at-grade rail crossing
suggest that they are an important element
3 ‘X’ Crossing pavement marking for cyclists, for accessibility. It is preferred to include
with its centre 9 m downstream of the a 1200 mm level area adjacent the tactile
railway crossing sign plate.

Double stop bar for cyclists set back 4.5 m B Railing for channelizing pedestrians to
4
from the centerline of the nearest rail prevent unauthorized crossing, as needed

5 Gore area should be marked per OTM Book

11, with 45-60 cm white chevrons spaced
at 3-6 m (p. 129)

6 Rail crossing sign or warning device as

required by Transport Canada regulations.
A sidewalk, path or trail with a centre
line more than 3.6 m from the centre
of a vehicular warning device must
have separate warning devices for each
direction of travel for new crossings (refer
to Transport Canada Grade Crossings
Standards for details.)

7 Rubber (or similar) crossing pad to improve

crossing surface extended 0.5 m or more
beyond facility

137 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Exhibit 5-37. Jughandle Design for a Dedicated Bikeway with Sidewalk

Exhibit 5-38. Jughandle Design for a Dedicated Bikeway with Sidewalk

Source: Cape Breton Regional Municipality

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 138

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Jughandle Design at Rail Crossing – Separated Bikeway with Sidewalk

Minimum Preferred

1 ‘Railway Crossing Ahead’ signage (Wc-4 A AODA – compliant ramps and tactile plates
– OTM) should be applied upstream of the can be placed in advance of the crossings
crossing in accordance with OTM Book 6 (1.8 m – light rail; 3.9 m – freight rail;
requirements measured to centerline of nearest rail).
Although the use of tactile warning plates at
2 ‘X’ Crossing pavement marking for cyclists, rail crossings is not specifically referenced
with its centre 9 m downstream of the in current AODA standards, best practices
railway crossing sign in pedestrian safety for at-grade rail crossing
suggest that they are an important element
3 Double stop bar for cyclists set back 4.5 m for accessibility. It is preferred to include
from the centerline of the nearest rail a 1200 mm level area adjacent the tactile
plate.
4 Rail crossing sign or warning device as
required by Transport Canada regulations. B Railing for channelizing pedestrians to
A sidewalk, path or trail with a centre prevent unauthorized crossing, as needed
line more than 3.6 m from the centre
of a vehicular warning device must
have separate warning devices for each
direction of travel for new crossings (refer
to Transport Canada Grade Crossings
Standards for details.)

5 Rubber (or similar) crossing pad to improve

crossing surface extended 0.5 m or more
beyond facility

139 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Exhibit 5-39. Jughandle Design for a Dedicated Bikeway with Sidewalk

Exhibit 5-40. Jughandle Design with Separated Bikeway in London

Source: Google

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 140

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Jughandle Design at Rail Crossing – Multi-use Facility

Minimum Preferred

1 ‘Railway Crossing Ahead’ signage (Wc-4 A AODA – compliant ramps and tactile plates
– OTM) should be applied upstream of the can be placed in advance of the crossings
crossing in accordance with OTM Book 6 (1.8 m – light rail; 3.9 m – freight rail;
requirements. measured to centerline of nearest rail).
Although the use of tactile warning plates at
2 Rail crossing sign or warning device as rail crossings is not specifically referenced
required by Transport Canada regulations. in current AODA standards, best practices
A sidewalk, path or trail with a centre in pedestrian safety for at-grade rail crossing
line more than 3.6 m from the centre of suggest that they are an important element
the vehicular warning device must have for accessibility. It is preferred to include a
separate light units for each direction of 1200 mm level area adjacent to the tactile
travel for new crossings (refer to Transport plate.
Canada Grade Crossings Standards for
details.) B Railing for channelizing pedestrians can be
used to prevent unauthorized crossing, as
3 A yellow dividing line should be applied needed
to the multi-use path approaching the
intersection to slow users C Optional ‘RAIL X-ING’ pavement marking
can be applied to the path
4 Rubber (or similar) crossing pad to improve
crossing surface extended 0.5 m or more
beyond facility

Exhibit 5-41. Jughandle Design for a Multi-use Facility

141 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

5.6 MIDBLOCK
CROSSINGS
Midblock crossings allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross Regional
roads at locations other than signalized intersections to access
destinations, or make connections to facilities or paths. Pedestrians
and cyclists are more sensitive to out-of-the-way travel than
motorists. If midblock crossings are not formally designed were
needed, they may choose to cross at random or informal locations.
Such behaviour may compromise safety of everyone at the crossing.
Thus, accommodating pedestrians and cyclists where there is
demand with well-designed crossings is preferable to overlooking
their needs and assuming they will divert to an out-of-the-way
signalized intersection.
In the context of Regional roads, mid-block crossings may be
considered under the following conditions:
• In cases where a major attraction (such as major transit hub,
commercial development or community/recreational facility) create
high midblock demand at roadway level
• In cases where a major trail, or other pedestrian or cycling
facility crosses a Regional road midblock and grade separated
options (i.e. tunnel, overpass) are not feasible due to cost or design
constraints
Mid-block crossings are recommended to be located 200 m from
signalized intersections. This distance is a guideline based on the
length required to develop left-turn lanes at adjacent intersections,
and is usually considered sufficient to allow motorists to recognize
and react to each signal (but this distance does not consider optimal
coordination). Consider the out-of-the-way travel for pedestrians
when adhering to this minimum. For example, a typical pedestrian
trip that is 1.5 km long “as the crow flies” that must divert 200 m to
cross at a signal will result in an increase in the distance walked by
400 m or around 30%. Thus a stretch of Regional road with signals
spaced as little as 400 m may be a good candidate for a mid-block
crossing if there are major destinations located mid-block.

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 142

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

A signalized midblock trail crossing

Photo Source: IBI Group

14 3 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

The recommended designs of mid-block crossings of Regional

roads are based on the Ontario Traffic Manual Book 15: Pedestrian
Crossing Treatments. This guidelines aligns with the Ontario Highway
Traffic Act with respect to the rights and responsibilities of drivers
and pedestrians at such crossings.
Generally, the type of pedestrian crossings applicable to Regional
roads based on this guideline include:
• Intersection and Mid-block traffic control signals (MPS)
applicable to all Regional roads regardless of the number of lanes
or posted speed. The warrant for traffic control signals for mid-
block crossings is based on York Region’s Pedestrian Crossing
Warrant Criteria (Edocs No. 1818446). The warrant criteria takes
into account a minimum pedestrian demand and pedestrian
crossing opportunities for 2 or 4 hour periods. Refer to the
approved York Region Policy for the full warrant.
• Pedestrian cross-overs (PXO) could apply to Regional roads 2 to
4 lanes wide with posted speeds of 60 km/h or less. The warrant
for pedestrian cross-overs for mid-block pedestrian crossings
could be based on Ontario Traffic Manual Book 15: Pedestrian
Crossing Treatments, consisting of a minimum pedestrian volume
and a vehicular volume; or pedestrian system connectivity or
desire lines. Refer to OTM Book 15 for the full warrant. At this
time, the Region is not pursuing the application of PXOs,
however the guidance included in this chapter may guide
the Region in implementation, should they be pursued in the
future.

On Regional roads that are 2 to 4 lanes wide with posted speed

limits of 60 km/h or less, if the warrant for a mid-block traffic control
signal is not met, then the warrant for a pedestrian cross-over is
considered. On Regional roads that are 6 lanes wide, or with speeds
over 60 km/h, only mid-block traffic control signals are applicable.
Median refuge islands can be incorporated into the design of mid-
block crossings to provide a refuge for pedestrians and cyclists
on wide streets. They also allow only one direction of traffic to be
interrupted at a time with the delay shortened to the time it takes to
cross the width of the traffic lanes in that direction only.
The mid-block crossing designs presented in this guideline are based
primarily on the OTM Book 15: Pedestrian Crossing Treatments with
additional signage and pavement markings incorporated from the
OTM Book 18 Cycling Facilities. This recognizes that were there is
a need for pedestrians to cross Regional roads, there is also likely a
need for cyclists in the same location.

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 14 4

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Mid-block Pedestrian Signal (MPS)

A midblock pedestrian signal can be applied on any Regional Road where warrants are met (refer to York
Region’s Pedestrian Crossing Warrant Criteria).

Minimum Preferred

1 AODA – compliant curb ramps and tactile A Consider adding a median refuge island,
plates per York Region Standard DS-100 particularly for 4 and 6-lane wide Regional
series drawings roads

2 Pedestrian Control Indications with AODA B Stopping prohibition for a minimum of 30 m

compliant Pedestrian Signal Pushbuttons on each approach to the crossing, and 15
and ‘Pedestrian Pushbutton Symbol’ m following the crossing, and parking and
signage with directional arrow (Ra-12-OTM) other sight obstructions prohibition within at
least 30 m of crossings
3 Advanced Stop Bar at crosswalk with
mandatory ‘Stop Here on Red Signal’ C Pedestrian countdown signals and bicycle
signage (Rb-78 – OTM) signals

4 Crossing should be designed as Combined D Optional stop bar for cyclist and yellow
Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossride or a dividing line
Separate Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossride
(refer to Section 7 for pavement marking
details)

5 Approach Markings (Stop Line, No-Passing

zone, and Turn Lanes markings, as required
by OTM Book 15)

6 Required illumination of pedestrian crosswalk

and waiting area to be provided (refer to OTM
Book 15

7 For layouts of traffic signals, location of

pedestrian heads and poles, and relevant
dimensions, refer to OTM Book 12

8 See Exhibit 5-48 to Exhibit 5-49 for crossing

connections based on the type of approaching
pedestrian and cycling facilities

145 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Exhibit 5-42. Midblock Pedestrian Signal

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 146

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Pedestrian Cross-over (PXO) without Median

This PXO could be applied to Regional roads with 2 to 4 lanes wide with posted speeds of 60 km/h
or less, if the warrant for Mid-block Pedestrian Signal is not met. See Ontario Traffic Manual Book 15
- Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for warrants for the PXO. Note that York Region currently is not
pursuing PXOs on Regional roads.

Minimum Preferred

1 AODA – compliant curb ramps and tactile ‘Pedestrian Pushbutton’ signage (Ra-11-
A
plates per York Region Standard DS-100 series OTM)
drawings
2 One over-head mounted pedestrian crossover
signage showing a symbol of a person crossing
on a road to the right (Ra-5R-OTM), for each
direction of travel
3 Pedestrian actuated Double-sided Rectangle
Rapid Flashing Beacon with Tell Tale and
Pedestrian Pushbutton for pedestrians mounted
above each set of side-mounted pedestrian
crossover signs
4 Side-mounted ‘Pedestrian Crossover’ signage
(Ra-5R and Ra-5L – OTM), together with a ‘Stop
for Pedestrians’ tab (Ra-4t-OTM), on both sides
of the road mounted back to back
5 ‘No Passing Here to Crossing’ signage (Ra-10-
OTM), installed 30 m upstream of the crossride
6 Advanced ‘Pedestrian Crossover Ahead’ signage
(Wc-27R/Wc-27L - OTM) installed 50.0 m
upstream of the crossride
7 Crossing should be marked with a ladder
crosswalk. Providing a wider crossing could
accommodate a future crossride if changes to
the HTA allow cyclists to ride through crossovers
in the future
8 Yield to Pedestrians pavement markings located
6.0 m from crossride
9 Stopping prohibition for a minimum of 15 to 30 m
on each approach to the crossing, and 10 to 15 m
following the crossing
10 Passing restrictions for motor vehicles on single
lane approaches should be implemented along
2-lane Regional roads approaching the PXO. For
multi-lane Regional roads, lane changes should
be prohibited using solid white lines.
11 Required illumination of pedestrian crossride
and waiting areas to be provided (refer to
Book 15)
12 See Exhibit 5-48 to Exhibit 5-49 for crossing
connections based on the type of approaching
pedestrian and cycling facilities

147 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Exhibit 5-43. Pedestrian Cross-over (PXO) without Median

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 14 8

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Pedestrian Cross-over (PXO) with Median

This PXO could be applied to Regional roads with 2 to 4 lanes wide with posted speeds of 60 km/h
or less, if the warrant for Mid-block Pedestrian Signal is not met. See Ontario Traffic Manual Book 15
- Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for warrants for the PXO. Note that York Region currently is not
pursuing PXOs on Regional roads.

Minimum Preferred

1 AODA – compliant curb ramps and tactile plates A ’Pedestrian Pushbutton’ signage (Ra-11-OTM)
per York Region Standard DS-100 series drawings

2 Pedestrian actuated Double-sided Rectangle

Rapid Flashing Beacon with Tell Tale and
Pedestrian Pushbutton for pedestrians mounted
above each set of side-mounted pedestrian
crossover signs

3 Side-mounted pedestrian crossover signage

Ra-5R and Ra-5L on the right side and on
the median, together with their Stop for
Pedestrians tab signage Ra-4t on the right side
of the road only

4 ‘No Passing Here to Crossing’ signage (Ra-10-

OTM), installed 30m upstream of the crossride

5 Advanced ‘Pedestrian Crossover Ahead’

signage (Wc-27R/Wc-27L – OTM) installed 50m
upstream of the crossride

6 Crossing should be marked with a ladder

crosswalk. Providing a wider crossing could
accommodate a future crossride if changes to
the HTA allow cyclists to ride through crossovers
in the future

7 Yield to Pedestrians pavement markings at 6.0 m

from crossride

8 Required illumination of pedestrian crossrides

and waiting areas to be provided

9 Stopping prohibition for a minimum of 15 to 30 m

on each approach to the crossing, and 10 to 15 m
following the crossing

10 Passing restriction for motor vehicles should be

implemented approaching the PXO

11 See median refuge design details (refer to Exhibit

5-46)

12 See Exhibit 5-48 to Exhibit 5-49 crossing

connections based on the type of approaching
pedestrian and cycling facilities

149 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Exhibit 5-44. Pedestrian Cross-over (PXO) with Median

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 150

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Median Refuge
Median refuges should preferably incorporate an offset to encourage pedestrians and cyclists to orient
themselves towards approaching vehicular lanes.

Minimum Preferred

1 Tactile walking surface indicator as per York A Typical raised landscaped median 4 to 5 m
Region Standard DS-100 series drawings wide, or raised concrete median island 3 to
5 m wide and minimum 5 m long. A sample
2 For raised concrete median island (B): detail is shown in Exhibit 5-47
• Pavement markings on approaches to
obstructions
- ‘Keep Right’ signage (Rb-25, Rb-
125 - OTM)
- ‘Object Marker’ signage (Wa-33L -
OTM
3 Barrier curb to guide pedestrians and cyclist
in lieu of railings which can be hazards in
vehicle collisions

Exhibit 5-45. Use of detectable curbs to guide pedestrians through median refuge island

Photo Source: IBI Group

151 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Exhibit 5-46. Raised Median Detail

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 152

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Exhibit 5-47. Sample Detail for Median Refuge Island

153 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Connection to Crossings
These exhibits illustrate the approach to midblock crossings for the following facilities:
• In-boulevard Cycle Track (Exhibit 5-48)
• Multi-use Path (Exhibit 5-49)
• Raised Cycle Track (Exhibit 5-50)

Minimum Preferred

1 A yellow dividing line used on approach to A Width of connection to crossing to match

reduce conflicts at crossing width of adjacent facilities (width of multi-
use path, or width of pedestrian clearway
2 To improve cyclists’ comfort but slow them plus cycle track) but not to exceed 5.0 m
approaching the crossing, the intersection
of the mid-block crossing connection to B Optional stop bar and yellow dividing line on
the cycling facility should accommodate a connection
turning radius of 5 m

3 Yield to Pedestrian pavement markings

(refer to Section 7 for details). Cyclists
must yield to pedestrians when facilities
are separate (pedestrian clearway with
in-boulevard cycle track, or with raised
cycle track)

4 For cycle track, bike and diamond pavement

marking following crossing

5 3:1 lateral taper applied where facility widens

approach the crossing to facilitate right and
left turns

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 154

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Exhibit 5-48. Pedestrian Clearway and In-boulevard Cycle Exhibit 5-50. Pedestrian Clearway and Raised
Track Connection to Midblock Cycle Track Connection to Midblock Crossing

Exhibit 5-49. Multi-use Path Connection to

Midblock Crossing

155 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

5.7 GRADE-SEPARATED
CROSSINGS
Bridges, overpasses, and underpasses make it possible for active
transportation facilities to cross major barriers such as waterways,
limited-access highways, and railways. These grade-separated crossings
are required for the sake of continuity and directness. In their absence,
users may be forced to make long detours to cross a barrier.
There are cases where a grade-separated crossing is not essential but
may be preferable to a level crossing for the safety and convenience
of users. This can be the case for crossing a high volume roadway
where motorists are not likely to yield to crossing pedestrians and
cyclists, where gaps in traffic are infrequent, and where the provision
of a signalized crossing is not viable. In such a case, a grade-separated
crossing is likely to be safer and can help pedestrians and cyclists avoid
long delays.
Grade-separated crossings have some notable disadvantages. For users,
the primary disadvantage is that they tend to require more physical effort
to cross than a level crossing because they entail a change in elevation.
For municipalities, they are more expensive to construct and maintain,
particularly if the crossing is to be kept open through the winter. For
this reason, locations for grade-separated crossings must be chosen
strategically and the crossings must be designed carefully to meet the
needs of pedestrians and cyclists.

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 156

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Exhibit 5-51. Examples of Grade Separated Crossings in Ontario

QEW/Red Hill Valley

Active Transportation Bridge
Hamilton
• 220 m long
• $7.6 M construction cost (2010 dollars)

Trans Canada Trail over Highway 401

Kitchener/Cambridge
• 102 m long
• $1.7 M (2007 dollars)

Radial Line/Chedoke Trail crossing Highway

403,
Hamilton
• 80 m long

157 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

5.7.1 Bridges and Overpasses

For road and rail crossings, overpasses are generally preferable to
underpasses from a user comfort and safety perspective. They benefit
from natural lighting and allow users to see and be seen. However,
they tend to require a greater change in elevation than underpasses.
An overpass must rise enough to provide a clearance of 5.3 m above
a roadway or 7 m above a railway. In contrast, an underpass for
pedestrians and cyclists requires a vertical clearance of only 3 m (refer
to Exhibit 5-52). As a result, underpasses are typically more common
than overpasses in York Region (refer to Section 5.7.2).

Design
Bridges and overpasses for pedestrians and cyclists can be stand-
alone structures or can be connected to larger bridges or viaducts.
In either case, the preferred width for an elevated, mixed pedestrian
and cyclist crossing is at least 4 m. A minimum width of 3 m is
acceptable in cases where pedestrian traffic is limited.
If necessary, pedestrians and cyclists can be separated using a barrier
curb, flexible posts, or a railing (refer to Section 9.2). This is only
warranted when user volumes are high. In these cases, it is necessary
that both sections have the minimum required widths—i.e., 1.8 m for
pedestrians and 3 m for cyclists (for bidirectional use). It is important
to avoid crossing the pedestrian and cycling paths at either end of the
bridge or overpass, particularly at the foot of steep slopes.
Grades on access ramps should be limited to 5% to meet AODA
requirements. To provide 5.3 m of clearance above a roadway with
0.7 m thick structure, a 120 m ramp would be required to meet the
5% maximum slope requirement. Ramps can be straight, curved or
spiral in shape. Spiral or U-shaped ramps take up less space and have
the advantage of forcing cyclists to slow down when descending.
However, the continuous curve of a spiral ramp demands an extra
effort on the part of wheelchair users.
If the road ROW that is being crossed includes active transportation
facilities, a link between those facilities and the overpass is required
to ensure that pedestrians and cyclists travelling along the roadway
can access the overpass to cross the road.
Exhibit 5-52. Vertical clearances for road and railway overpasses

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 158

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Construction
The common types of overpasses and bridges include:
• Single spans: These are the most common design for waterway
crossings. Abutments on either side of the barrier to be crossed
support single-span bridges.
• Multiple spans: These require several piles to support the
spans. They are fairly easy to integrate into a road crossing but
expensive for waterway crossings. When installed above a river,
piles can impede water flow and catch debris. The use of precast
concrete beams can help reduce cost but sometimes yield visually
unappealing results.
• Suspension bridges: These are visually appealing and make it
possible to span greater distances. They are most often used for
river crossings but can be used over roadways as well.
• Cantilever decks: These are structures added onto an existing a
bridge or viaduct or integrated into the structure by design. They
benefit from the main structures carrying capacity while offering
pedestrians and cyclists a separate space.

The deck surfacing can be concrete, asphalt or wood. In the case of

wood, the planks must be placed crosswise, at a 45° or greater angle
to the path of travel, to ensure bicycle and wheelchair wheels cannot
get caught in the gaps in between. Metal surfacing such as plates or
grating are not recommended because they are too slippery when
wet. Expansion joints should be covered to prevent small wheels
from being caught in the openings and provide a smoother ride.

Exhibit 5-53. Sample Cross-section of a Multi-use Path along a Bridge

159 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

5.7.2 Underpasses Exhibit 5-54. Typical Underpass

Cross-sections

Underpasses are rectangular or vaulted structures that make it

possible to cross a man-made barrier such as a roadway or a railway.
They particularly useful for crossing roadways and railways that atop
an high embankments.

Design
An underpass must be wide and tall enough for pedestrians
and cyclists travelling in both directions to pass through safely.
Regardless of the shape, the recommended width is 5 m (refer to
Exhibit 5-54). A narrower tunnel increases the risk of accidents due
to a combination of descent speed, low light, and the presence of
sidewalls. A vertical clearance of at least 3 m throughout the tunnel
will help ensure user comfort and optimal natural light.
Vaulted or elliptical cross-sections are preferable to rectangular cross-
sections for maximizing natural lighting. Artificial lighting is usually
required at the centre of a tunnel to ensure visibility. If lighting fixtures
are not recessed, their dimensions should be taken into consideration
in the calculation of the overhead clearance. They should also be
protected from vandalism, which is common in tunnels, by a metal
cage or other device.
As with ramps for bridges and overpasses, the grade on the
approaches to an underpass should be no greater than 5% to meet
AODA requirements (refer to Exhibit 5-57). Ideally, the approaches
to the tunnel entrance should not include tight curves. They must
allow users to see the entrance before entering and perceive the end
of the tunnel as soon as they are inside. However, when the tunnel
is perpendicular to the route of a path or trail, an S-curve-shaped
approach is useful for reducing speed before users enter the tunnel.

Exhibit 5-57. Underpass elevation profile

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 160

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

When the sightlines are not ideal—for example, when space

constraints require an approach with a tight curve at the tunnel
entrance—several measures can be used to improve the situation
(refer to Exhibit 5-58):
• Vandal-proof convex mirrors
• Markings that clearly separate traffic in each direction and
discourage passing, such as a yellow centreline or a double line
with a hatched buffer zone
• No passing signs at critical locations
To meet AODA requirements, handrails must be installed on both
sides of ramps providing access to underpasses. These are essential
for mobility-impaired individuals, helping them manoeuvre and remain
stable on slopes. They are also useful for in-line skaters, helping them
to control their speed when descending.

Exhibit 5-58. Perpendicular underpass approach showing mitigation strategies

161 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Lighting is particularly important through underpasses, which typically

are not served by street lighting. Exhibit 5-59 illustrates recommended
lighting guidelines for cycling facilities, which should be maintained
through underpasses.
Exhibit 5-59. Recommended illumination of Active Transportation Facilities

In some cases, the addition of CCTV cameras or emergency help

stations to underpasses may be considered.

Construction
An underpass can be constructed either as a covered trench or a channel
bored under the barrier being crossed. The inner structure is either a
concrete box or a concrete or galvanized steel tube forming a circular or
elliptical vault.
It is best to build a tunnel at the same time as the road or railway it crosses
or during major roadwork. In addition to reducing construction costs, this
can create the opportunity to slightly raise the road or railway in order to
minimize the necessary change in grade along the active transportation path.
Under an existing road, when traffic can be rerouted, tunnel
construction is facilitated by completely closing the road above. If
road closure is not an option, creating temporary lanes and taking
the necessary precautions to divert traffic around the work site will
significantly increase project costs.

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 162

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

5.7.3 Road Underpasses

Pedestrians and cyclists can travel through road tunnels provided
adequate facilities are in place: lightly coloured walls, ideally covered
with ceramic tiles; adequate lighting; a sidewalk separated from the
roadway by a railing or protective barrier; and appropriate cycling
facilities for the road context.

When new road bridges, underpasses or overpasses

are designed, the provision of high quality pedestrian and
cycling facilities should be included in the design and
costing of the structure, even where the route may not be
identified on an existing network plan. This is to ensure
the structure accommodates all users, during the full
lifespan of the structure.

163 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

5.8 ROUNDABOUTS
Roundabouts are gaining increased acceptance as a form of
intersection control in North America, and their use in York Region is
growing. As a result, it is important to ensure that pedestrians and
cyclists can be accommodated in roundabouts.

General Guidance
In an urban context, with respect to pedestrians, sidewalks are
recommended along the outer edge of the entire roundabout.
Crosswalks with AODA compliant approaches should be provided
at all entry/exit legs of the roundabout. Deflector islands can be
utilized used as spaces for pedestrian refuge. Refuge islands make
crossing the entry/exit legs easier for pedestrians as they only have
to concentrate on traffic moving in one direction at a time.
The design of the inner island of the roundabout should be
discourage pedestrians from crossing through the centre of
the roundabout. This may be accomplished through the use of
landscaping or a knee wall.

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 164

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

5.8.1 Single Lane Roundabouts

While there are limited applications of single lane roundabouts along
Regional roads in York Region, they may be considered in rural hamlets or
through residential neighbourhoods where volumes are lower. Single lane
roundabouts can have operational benefits for both cyclists and pedestrians -
they tend to slow vehicular speeds, can reduce delays for all users and have
fewer conflict points than conventional intersections. Despite these benefits,
roundabouts can present crossing challenges for the visually impaired, and
may not be appropriate in all situations. Per OTM Book 18 recommendations,
cyclists can share the lane in single lane roundabouts as vehicular speeds are
generally reduced to 30-40 km/hr through the roundabout. Sharrow markings
are used in single lane roundabouts to help improve the positioning of cyclists.
They should be placed at least 30 m in advance of a roundabout within the
centre of the lane on the approach, and immediately on the exit leg within the
centre of the lane (per the Canadian Roundabout Design Guide). For locations
where speeds may be higher, a transition to a boulevard multi-use path may
be provided (see section 5.8.2)
York Region currently has two single lane roundabouts located at York-
Durham Line & Durham Road 5, and Keele/Lloydtown & Aurora Road.
However, these roundabouts are provided in a rural context.

Exhibit 5-60. Example of a single lane roundabout with shared boulevard facilities through the roundabout

Source: PBIC – Carl Sundstrom

165 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

5.8.2 Multi-Lane Roundabouts

Multi-lane roundabouts are less desirable from the perspective of pedestrian
and cyclists. The increased potential for conflicts for pedestrians must
be considered in the application of roundabouts, particularly those with
visual impairments. The audible and tactile cues provided by signalized
intersections are not available with roundabouts, and multiple entry and exit
lanes increases the level of difficulty and exposure time while navigating the
crossing. For these reasons, multi-lane roundabouts are not recommended in
areas of high expected pedestrian and cycling volumes.
In situations where other factors results in the implementation of multi-
lane roundabouts, treatments at the roundabout should attempt to mitigate
these challenges. Per OTM Book 18 recommendations, cyclists should
be given the alternative to share a vehicular lane or to use an in-boulevard
bypass facility (shared with pedestrians) for multi-lane roundabouts. The
priority of the pedestrian over cyclists should be clarified in these shared
areas through the application of signage and pavement markings. Some
change in material should clearly delineate the beginning of the shared
pedestrian and cyclist space.
A sample application of these treatments for a dedicated bikeway and
sidewalk are shown in Exhibit 5-62.
Exhibit 5-61. Example of a multi-lane roundabout with shared boulevard facilities through the roundabout

Source: PBIC – Dan Burden

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 166

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Multi-lane Roundabout Dedicated Bikeway with Sidewalk

At a multi-lane roundabout, cyclists should be provided with the opportunity to ramp-up into the boulevard.
Pedestrian priority on the shared path must be emphasized through signage and pavement markings.

Minimum Preferred

1 As no cycling facilities should be provided within A ’Cyclists Yield to Pedestrians’ signage (RB-
the circulatory lanes of the roundabout, the 73-OTM) can be applied where there are
bicycle lane should be marked and signed as challenges with interactions between users
ending 30 m in advance of the roundabout The crossing may be designed as a pedestrian
B
2 A ramp (<5%) should be provided between crossover Type C per OTM Book 15, with
the on-road facility and the shared path to yield markings in advance of each crossings,
accommodate cyclists. A tactile warning plate ‘Pedestrian Crossing’ signage (Ra-5r –OTM
must be applied at the bottom of this ramp to mounted back to back with Ra-5L – OTM and
prevent pedestrians from mistakenly entering Ra-4t –OTM tabs), RRFBs and ladder crosswalk
the travel way via this ramp. Bicycle lane markings. Refer to OTM Book 15 for full details
markings must be dashed. A sample detail for of pavement markings & signage. Note that if
this ramp is shown in Exhibit 5-63 the crossing is designated as a PXO, crosswalk
Shared use path should be made of a different markings should be used in lieu of crossrides
3
construction material than the cycling facility
and sidewalk to mark the beginning of a shared
space. The path should be minimum 3 m, with
4 m preferred. ‘Shared Pathway’ signage (RB-93
– TAC) should be applied
4 A combined crossride is shown through the
roundabout legs to allow for use by both
pedestrians and cyclists
5
4 Pedestrian crossing with tactile plates and
AODA – compliant curb ramps must be
provided at both entry and exit legs, and tactile
plates must be provided at the refuge island
6 ‘A 100 mm 1-1 dash yellow line should be used
to provide directional guidance to cyclists and
pedestrians as they navigate the shared path
7 ‘Reserved Bicycle Lane’ (RB-91 – TAC) should
be applied after the roundabout to re-confirm
the designation of the cycling facility

167 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Exhibit 5-62. Multi-lane Roundabout Concept - Dedicated Bikeway with Sidewalk

Exhibit 5-63. Example ramp treatment at a roundabout

Source: Steve Jorgenson

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 168

 YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

Although the geometry Exhibit 5-64. Sample Ramp Detail from Bike Lane onto Boulevard

of the ramping will vary,

a typical detail is shown
in Exhibit 5-64.

Treatments for different types of approaching cycling facilities can be the same through the roundabout as
depicted in the example of the dedicated bikeway. In all cases, as volumes of pedestrians and cyclists are
expected to be low where multi-lane roundabouts are applied, a shared pathway can be provided along the
outside of the roundabout. Transitions to the shared pathway from other types of facilities are shown below.

Exhibit 5-65. Multi-use Path approaching Roundabout

Exhibit 5-66. Raised Cycle Track approaching Roundabout

Exhibit 5-67. In-boulevard Cycle Track approaching Roundabout

169 5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS

YORK REGION PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES

In exceptional cases where high volumes of both cyclists and pedestrians are anticipated and a roundabout
is selected as the preferred intersection treatment, consideration should be given to physically separating
the cyclists and pedestrian streams through the intersection. An example application with fully separated
streams from the MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide (2015) is shown below.

Exhibit 5-68. Sample application of roundabout with separated cycling facilities maintained through the roundabout

Source: MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide

5.0 INTERSECTION TRE ATMENTS 170