INTRODUCTION\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n
Complete streets are designed to ensure mobility for all modes of transportation. A complete street design includes infrastructure for both vehicle and active transportation (AT) modes. Complete streets are a design tool in the safe systems approach to achieve Vision Zero, reducing the number of fatalities and serious injuries caused by road traffic to zero. Ideally, the design of complete streets takes into consideration vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists. The increased mobility of one road user group can reduce the mobility of another transportation mode, for example the relationship of vehicles to pedestrians. <\/span>The goal of the complete street design model is to help reverse the trend of increasing fatalities and serious injuries on Canada\u2019s roadways to reach the goal of zero deaths and to create a more equitable roadway system (1).\u00a0 <\/span>However, despite positive intentions, complete streets still result in safety issues needing to be addressed, as v<\/span>ulnerable road users are the most impacted by poor transportation planning (1). Individuals with a disability, seniors, and children are the pedestrian groups most commonly involved in collisions (2). <\/span>Currently, in Canada there are no prescriptive requirements for complete streets and no national design standard which creates inconsistencies in the applications of complete streets from municipality to municipality. The designs rely heavily on existing space of the surrounding area. This paper looks at the application of complete streets in Canada with a focus on vulnerable road users. It will address the active transportation zones, vehicular zones, roadside, and intersection components of a complete street corridor and the impacts on the accessibility for vulnerable road users from a road safety perspective.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Currently there are no Canadian guidelines that are specific to the design of complete streets. The standards are clear that the modifications of a street to prioritize active transportation and transit should not impact the overall flow of vehicular traffic. The Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) refers to the 2017 TAC Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads (GDG) for the design of complete streets and offers seminars on retrofitting existing corridors into complete streets. Municipalities in Canada reference the use of the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Complete Streets Guide (3). There are other guides to lead practitioners to a design solution such as the Manual Uniform Transportation Control Devices (MUTCD) by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), CSA B651 and the Urban Road Design Guide by NACTO (3-5). The application of individual design features to a road may not create an issue, but applying multiple, superimposed design features can lead vulnerable road users into dangerous situations. An example could be a mid-block crossing for pedestrians with the use of rectangular flashing beacons. At night the corridor is lit by streetlights and the lighting pattern casts the only crossing into a shadow.\u00a0 Shadows result in dangerous conditions due to the time it takes the human eye to adjust to the darkness, slowing reaction time and increasing the risk of a collision. A national standard detailing best practice procedures for complete street design in Canada would be helpful to eliminate such scenarios and protect already vulnerable road users.<\/span><\/p>\n Active transportation facilities in a complete street corridor include sidewalks, bike lanes and multi-use paths, travelling parallel with a corridor. Active transportation includes people walking, biking, skateboarding, and using a wheelchair.\u00a0 Active transportation crossings where users are crossing competing modes in one corridor, can be difficult for pedestrians with limitations. Pedestrians with disabilities include individuals who are older, have a harder time judging gaps, pedestrians with cognitive disabilities may have harder time understanding signage and pedestrians with mobility disabilities have harder times crossing long distances without breaks. This occurs especially in complete street corridors with multiple modes, travelling at higher speeds and perpendicular to the desired line of pedestrian traffic. This is a greater concern at unsignalized intersections. The severity of pedestrian injuries from collisions for individuals with a disability predating the collision, are greater than for able-bodied pedestrians (6). As an example, pedestrians with vision loss traversing multiple lanes of multiple modes at a complete street corridor are at risk because moving bikes have no audible cues that alert pedestrians that a bicycle is coming (7). Pedestrian versus bicycle collisions usually do not result in serious injury and rarely occur (7). Yet it is important to take into consideration given that users with low vision would be at a higher risk of conflict resulting in injury if a complete street design is installed. The risk factors for vehicle-pedestrian collisions are individualized by factors such as walking speed, challenges in deciding when to cross, and the making of more unsafe crossing decisions (6). Consulting accessibility advocates within the community to discuss the design of complete streets, allows viewpoints based on lived experience. There are codes such as CSA-B651 that detail best practices for design with users with disabilities in the built environment. The decision patterns of individuals with cognitive disabilities, seniors and children place them at greater risk for collisions, as pedestrians (8). Building up the surrounding environment with an intuitive complete street design creates a safer environment for all, no matter ability.<\/span><\/p>\n 2.1 Cyclists <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n Cyclists are a class of active transportation users whose needs should be included within a complete street corridor to ensure user safety. There are options for infrastructure which consider cyclists' needs based on the volumes of the corridor (9). Buffered bike lanes are an alternative to a raised cycle track or a protected bike lane (9). The buffered bike lanes are safer than conventional bike lanes for bike users creating a buffer distance between the vehicles and the cyclists (10). Due to the speed distribution, it is important to separate the motorized traffic from non-motorized traffic to reduce the risk of severe collisions (10). A study conducted by the University of British Columbia analyzed the impact of complete street design elements on bicyclist injuries along selected routes in Toronto, Ontario, and Vancouver, British Columbia (10). The results showed that protected bike lanes had collision rates two to eight times lower, compared to similar roads with no infrastructure for bicycles on the road (10).\u00a0 Although buffered bike lanes are safer than on road cycling there is still a risk to cyclists, for example, distracted drivers. The figure below (Figure 1) shows a buffered bicycle lane where there is vehicle traffic on one side of the lane and parked vehicles on the other. The possibility of a cyclist being hit by a motorized vehicle is lower due to the buffer but not zero. There is a risk of a parked vehicle door opening into the active transportation lane and striking an active transportation user. Although the force of a car door is less than a moving vehicle, it is important to remember cyclists when designing infrastructure.<\/span><\/p>\n Two-way bike lanes can create dangerous conditions for cyclists, an already vulnerable road user. At intersections, bicycle riders are riding against vehicle traffic and approach from a direction where there are diminished sight lines. The cyclists closest to the vehicle traffic would have opposing vehicle traffic on one side and opposing bicycle traffic on the other side, promoting head-on collisions with competing modes (10). Ensuring correct guides are followed when designing cycling infrastructure is crucial. The lack of standardization can create problems confusing unconfident cyclists. If two-way cycle lanes are installed on a one-way street, they should be separated on each side of the street on the left of motorists (10).\u00a0 There are still conflict points where a cycle track transitions to unprotected bike lanes at an intersection, like the example shown in the figure below (Figure 2) (12). The green painted area on the pavement in Figure 2 shows the conflict point of vehicles versus cyclists. In Figure 2, a pedestrian versus bicycle collision could occur due to poor sightline of the crosswalk.\u00a0 This type of collision could occur due to the right-turning vehicle impeding the cyclist view of a pedestrian.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It is important to ensure there is connectivity from surrounding areas to the complete street corridor. A network plan should be consulted, ensuring vulnerable road users are not abandoned at the end of a complete street segment (12). The location of complete street segments plays a role in the occurrence of collisions.\u00a0 A study conducted by Minikel found that bicycle boulevards reduce vehicle versus bicycle collisions with a collision modification factor (CMF) of 0.37, reducing collisions by 63% (13). The study area for the preceding CMF was an arterial road in Berkeley, California. The arterial road had high traffic volumes, with high speeds and heavy vehicles, three factors detrimental to the safety of cyclists. The study showed that moving cyclists to bike boulevards on side streets with lower traffic volumes reduced the points of conflict with motor vehicles (13). There is no significant difference found in the proportion of severe collisions, but results show that collision rates on bicycle boulevards are two to eight times lower than those on parallel, adjacent arterial roads (13). Ensuring Canada has reliable standards of practice can help Canadian cities implement corridor upgrades. Given that biking conditions in California are drastically different than those in New Brunswick, Canadian-specific research and standards are critical. Canadian studies can inform better CMFs which in turn can inform better designs. NACTO has published contextual Guidance for Selecting All Ages & Abilities Bikeways to help practitioners select the correct infrastructure for each specific site (9).\u00a0 However, having a Canadian standard on best practices can help practitioners ensure that Canadian specific problems, such as weather, don\u2019t impede the safety of road users with prescriptive measures.<\/span><\/p>\n 2.2 Pedestrians<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n A driving force of complete streets is to allow mobility for non-vehicle users (14). From a road safety perspective, all pedestrians are vulnerable road users. Within the pedestrian section of vulnerable road users, pedestrians with disabilities are especially vulnerable. Guidelines with recommendations specific to protecting people with disabilities within complete street corridors should be created in collaboration with the disability community and practitioners. Guidelines can communicate best practices keeping people with disabilities safe when interacting with multiple modes of transportation. Some pedestrians with disabilities may have a slower walking speed or may have a visual impairment. Similarly, children have a higher chance of being the victim of transportation collisions (15). There are road users with mobility aids that move more slowly and may have a hard time moving around the grade changes between concrete sidewalks and asphalt travel lanes.\u00a0 Additionally, there are individuals with hearing loss who cannot hear vehicles accelerating around them or sirens in the distance.\u00a0 They rely on visual and tactile cues. Individuals with vision loss use tactile warning surface indicators (TWSI) and long canes at intersections, and also rely on tactile and auditory signals (16). These individuals can find it hard to judge gaps and struggle to find a way across unsignalized intersections where pedestrians are not given priority. Children who are smaller and more unpredictable are more often involved in collisions as pedestrians than adults (16). Ensuring pedestrians are within the field of view of drivers improves their safety. The field of view can be increased at slower speeds, which is why speed reduction is important to road safety.<\/span><\/p>\n 3.1 Speed Reduction<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n Speed is among the primary factors of traffic collision severity (17). A speed reduction in an urban setting can reduce the number of fatalities for vulnerable road users (17). When reducing speeds is not possible, separating varying modes is a good alternative. When separating the different modes, it means also separating different speeds which shrinks the speed distribution. This allows for more people sharing the facility at similar speed, reducing risk from user to user. Speed reduction is an important benchmark in road safety, and it is important to collect accurate data before and after changes to infrastructure. In studies citing a reduction in speeds on segments of streets developed into complete streets, it is important to validate the data, at a secondary site with the same characteristics to understand if the changes made are because of the street upgrades or traffic pattern changes in general (17). This level of information is often omitted in available studies, limiting specific evidence to promote complete street policies.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a03.2 Road Diets<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n A road diet typically involves converting a 4-lane road to a 3-lane road, shown below in Figure 3 (18). Road diets can be part of a complete street upgrade due to the confined space of an existing corridor; lane reduction is often required to make space for active transportation infrastructure. The FHWA states that the implementation of road diets reduces collisions by 19% - 47%, deeming they are a safe countermeasure on undivided highways experiencing high crash frequencies and high traffic volumes with turning movements (18). Road diets are a solution to collisions with varying severities at non intersection locations (18). The installation of two-way left-turn lanes on urban roads during a road diet at a non-intersection location is shown to reduce collisions by 39% (18). A road diet approach can convert a four-lane undivided road to two lanes plus a turning lane.\u00a0 Many four-lane corridors can be reduced to two lanes with a center turning lane and a bike lane on each side of the street. A road diet is recommended for corridors with traffic volumes under 20,000 vehicles per day; it also can work on corridors with volumes of 25,000, depending on turning movements specific to the area (3). The configuration has been shown to reduce many types of motor vehicle crashes by promoting slower speeds (3). It also creates safer conditions for pedestrians at intersections by reducing the number of travel lanes to be crossed (1). Figure 4 shows the comparison from a 4-lane street before and after the road diet upgrade.<\/span> Road diets can be a part of complete street upgrades. The reduction of lanes on a street to improve other modes<\/span> of transportation<\/span> is a great design decision, only when vehicle volumes are low enough.<\/span> Road diets are not applicable to every road section, and it is the role of engineers to determine if there are patterns in the collision data that should prompt a road diet as a corrective measure.<\/span><\/p>\n Road diets occur when complete streets are placed in a built environment that is spatially constrained prompting lane reduction and or narrowing. Narrow lane widths promote slower speeds, typically in urban centers (19). The narrowing of lanes can be used as a traffic calming measure (5).\u00a0 Street widths have increased throughout the years from 9 to 11 meters; wide enough for 3 full size lanes (18). Wider lanes prompt higher speeds, an 11-meter-wide street experiences four times as many collisions as a narrow 7-meter street (21). The effectiveness of lane narrowing for expected collision reduction is up to 10% of all crashes (22). In the past, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 edition stated that a lane reduction in signalized intersections lowered the capacity 3% for each foot a lane width narrower than 3.7 meters, but in the newer HCM 2010 edition there is no difference in capacity shown for lanes that are both 3.1 meters and 3.9 meters wide (23, 24). Overall, wider and straighter roads have repeatedly shown an increase in speeds (22).When relating lane narrowing to speed and road safety it is important to question what the speeds in these locations were and how many collisions occurred in the section of road before implementation of speed reduction measures. The use of before and after assessments can be flawed due to the assumption that observed changes are only the result of the corrective measures (22). Rates of collisions will change over time, and this is why a control site is important when measuring the effectiveness of corrective measures (22). This can be difficult for road sections that have low collision rates. It is important to have a control section of a similar road before stating that lane narrowing is statistically significant for a section of street, to account for travel behaviour changes (22). This is why having statistically significant data on collision reduction of complete streets is important to inform future design practices.<\/span><\/p>\n 3.3 Level of Service<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n The mode shift after the implementation of a complete street corridor hopes to lower the vehicle congestion on a corridor. Left turning movements that are sharing lanes with through movements can contribute to rear-end collisions, left-turning collisions, and higher speeds, causing safety concerns (24). The vehicular level of service (LOS) in a complete street corridor should be supplemented with a multimodal level of service (MMLOS), pedestrian (PLOS), and bicycle (BLOS) levels of service. Aiming for only a high vehicular LOS frequently results in over-designed vehicle facilities (3). LOS level D is the appropriate target for design of most multimodal corridors (1). A LOS D represents the lowest corridor volume before the capacity is reached. Road diets rarely lead to increased congestion (25). Often capacity benchmarks fail to consider how traffic volume would reroute to underutilized corridors. Vehicle queuing on segments of road that have closely spaced intersections can result in irrational drivers\u2019, making rushed maneuvers (24). This effect can decrease the overall safety of the corridor.\u00a0 The pedestrian level of service is likely to increase after a complete street upgrade or road diet due to the reduced number of lanes, easing their movements (24). The capacity of intersections is important to road safety due to the link between driver frustration and rushed movements at signalized intersections (26). The impact on capacity should be studied in the future to establish guidelines for practitioners on the level of service requirements for complete street corridors specifically. <\/span><\/p>\n 4.Roadside<\/b><\/p>\n 4.1 Lighting<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n Lighting plays a crucial role in road safety. A pedestrian was struck and killed by a driver at a pedestrian crossing at a newly updated complete street in Hyattsville, Maryland. Solar flashing beacons (RFBs) were at the location of the fatality (27). At the time of the collision, they were set back behind the sidewalk and in one case behind another sign (27). Following the crash, it was discovered through police reports that the individual did not activate the RFBs and there was insignificant lighting at the crossing (27). Pedestrians can be unpredictable to vehicle users, therefore ensuring that drivers are aware there is a pedestrian crossing makes it safer to all users. Increasing awareness includes ensuring adequate lighting, to allow for a safe stopping distance from the crosswalk, especially for the safety of vulnerable road users. Adequate lighting is required so as not to cast designated crossings into darkness, including the side of the road at designated crossing points. In some cases, this may require higher mast lighting for proper light distribution. With an increase in light poles, moving them out of the way for vulnerable road users so poles are not within the path of travel can reduce barriers, while benefiting pedestrian safety.<\/span><\/p>\n 4.2 Wayfinding<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n Increasing awareness can mean increasing wayfinding for all corridor users. Signage is especially important when two or more modes of traffic are mixing such as cars, pedestrians, and cyclists (28). From an accessibility point of view, it is important to inform pedestrians that there are cyclists travelling at high speeds in a cycle track or vice versa. In urban centers where there are multiple conflict points such as intersections with multi-use trails, encouraging cyclists to dismount their bikes when crossing the street for the safety of pedestrians should be considered (28). Determining the right of way for cyclists and pedestrians should be communicated at conflict points. When both modes are mixed at intersection, determining who is required to yield at a marked crosswalk is important. When there is a cycle track at sidewalk level in an urban center, it is important to delineate the difference between the modes of travel especially for visually impaired users.\u00a0 This can include wayfinding signs using braille and tactile walking surface indicators (TWSI). The TWSIs are detectable to individuals with limited vision using a white cane. TWSIs are also helpful for distracted pedestrians and can be felt by users unaware of their surroundings, through the soles of their shoes. Signage for both vehicle and active transportation users can help set their expectations for the complete street corridor. Having a national standard indicating how to communicate to users who has right of way when modes mix at conflict points, could be helpful for user sign recognition across jurisdictions.<\/span><\/p>\n 4.3 Protected Intersections<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n Intersections with multiple modes of transportation can create stress for vulnerable users (29). Road diets create an intersection with lower risk to vulnerable road users. This is directly reflected in the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (HSM) series of collision prediction models for intersections.\u00a0 Road diets create an intersection with lower risk to vulnerable road users because they have less lanes of live traffic to cross. This is directly reflected in the HSM Safety Performance Function (SPF) for the expected number of vehicles versus pedestrian collisions (20). The longer the crossing the more pedestrians are exposed to potential conflicts (30). From 2018 to 2020, approximately 21% of pedestrian fatalities that occurred in Canada occurred at intersections, where the deceased person was crossing an intersection of at least two public roadways or in a roundabout (15). The history of pedestrian conflicts at intersections should be analyzed prior to recommending the implementation of a complete street to understand the pedestrian volumes and if other countermeasures should be implemented instead. With that in mind, protected intersections not only shorten the travel distance for pedestrians but also protect cyclists by putting them in front of the driver, so they are within their field of view. This is important because the most frequent collisions between cyclists and cars are at bicycle crossings where a vehicle driver is turning right, and a bicycle is coming from the driver\u2019s right along a cycle track (31).\u00a0 An example from the Hamilton Complete Streets Manual is shown below in Figure 4.<\/span><\/p>\n In this example, cyclists and pedestrians cross shorter distances thus reducing the possibility of collisions. In this design, pedestrians cross a bike lane and then a lane of vehicle traffic. A concern about this type of design is specifically with pedestrians who have low vision. Bicycles have low to no noise. If not equipped with a bell, they have no warning system. This can increase the risk of pedestrian to cyclist collisions. With more modes travelling within a single infrastructure facility, there are more chances of conflicts with people travelling perpendicular to the flow of traffic, if they are not crossing at a signalized intersection. Crossing distance of pedestrians at complete street intersections were surveyed to be longer on average in a California study, because pedestrians must cross transit lanes, vehicle lanes, and bicycle lanes (30). Figure 5 shows a protected intersection where bike movements are separated from vehicle movements. Figure 5 also shows that even if there is a bicycle signal, it does not govern the flow after they cross vehicular traffic. This is putting vulnerable pedestrians in the way of cyclists, who are gaining speed after crossing in front of vehicles at the intersection. Unless there is a signal for the short pedestrian crosswalk crossing the bike lanes, it creates conflicts especially for users within low vision.<\/span><\/p>\n 4.4 Traffic Control Devices<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n Communicating to drivers what is happening can allow for them to be prepared and respond adequately to the road features. In the application of complete streets, it is important to communicate at the start and end of the complete street segment. In some cases, it can be helpful to have pedestrian and bicycle signals to warn drivers of the presence of vulnerable road users (8). Additionally, it is important to ensure periodic evaluation of signal timing to ascertain that the timings are reasonable, and can still efficiently serve the present traffic volume, ensuring that wait time during the red phase is not too long for both vulnerable road users, and other drivers (8). Bicycle signals can reduce stress for bicyclists and make it easier to cross an intersection by clarifying and separating movements (32). Bicycle signals can be activated either actively or passively (32). Balancing the level of service of the intersection with the safety of vulnerable road users is critical. The longer the delay a user experiences, the more rushed they will be to make a movement, putting already vulnerable road users at more risk.<\/span><\/p>\n CONCLUSIONS<\/b><\/p>\n Complete streets can replace vehicle-centered corridors with mixed modal corridors. There are multiple cities around the country that have complete street policies and are integrating them into capital projects, however, there is a lack of conformity from region to region. Looking at past collision history, speeds, and active transportation user volumes will reveal high priority areas for complete street upgrades. The outdated design guidelines and best practices may be referenced out of context, and more recent design principles may be overshadowed by competing transportation modes, which is why a complete street design standard and best practice guidelines would be helpful to practitioners. Building up the surrounding road environment with intuitive\/self-explaining complete streets design, can allow for slower vehicle speeds, and better wayfinding for pedestrians. The overall goal of a complete street design is to provide a safer and more comfortable corridor for vulnerable road users. Providing a safer corridor increases comfort. Unfortunately, there will never be a world with zero collisions, but ensuring practitioners have the access to best practice guidelines and standards, would reduce the percentage of collisions that are attributed to the roadway infrastructure.<\/span><\/p>\n BIO<\/b><\/p>\n Abigail Cartwright, BScE, MscE student, Department of Civil Engineering, University of New Brunswick<\/span><\/p>\n Abby is a Master of Science in Engineering student at the University of New Brunswick, currently researching the optimization of paratransit in rural areas for her thesis. She is passionate about reducing built environment barriers for persons with disabilities and exploring how these issues intersect with road safety practices.<\/span><\/p>\n REFERENCES<\/b><\/p>\n By: Abigail Cartwright, BScE, MscE student, Department of Civil Engineering, University of New Brunswick Abstract Complete streets are designed to cater to all road users, promoting safety through road design elements. Complete streets seek to reduce collisions and promote multimodal…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2944,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_kad_post_transparent":"default","_kad_post_title":"default","_kad_post_layout":"default","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"default","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"default","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[6,451],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39058","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-carsp-news","category-safety-network-newsletter-news"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39058","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2944"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39058"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39058\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":39066,"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39058\/revisions\/39066"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39058"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39058"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39058"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/aaaaaa-300x216.png\")
\nFigure 1. Example of buffer bike lanes (11)<\/b><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/bbbbb-300x174.png\")
\nFigure 2. Cycle Track to Bike Lane Conflict Points (5)<\/b><\/p>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/cccccc-300x135.png\")
\nFigure 3. Road Diet Comparison (4)<\/b><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/ddddd-300x148.png\")
\nFigure 4. Protected Intersection (16)<\/b><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/eeeee-300x268.png\")
\nFigure 5. Separated Cycling Crossing Protected Intersection (4)<\/b><\/p>\n\n