Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Street space evaluation #370

Open
4 tasks
Robinlovelace opened this issue Jan 3, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #429
Open
4 tasks

Street space evaluation #370

Robinlovelace opened this issue Jan 3, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #429
Assignees

Comments

@Robinlovelace
Copy link
Contributor

Robinlovelace commented Jan 3, 2024

Evaluation of spatial deliverability of cycle
infrastructure based on building line to building
line street widths and use of space by other
modes of transport.

This aims to:

  • Assess the spatial deliverability based on comparing available B2B and/or carrriageway widths with total width required for recommended/proposed cycle infra & other modes (esp any dedicated infra)
  • Help identify requirement for road-space reallocation when overlaid with proposed cycle networks (either NPT generated coherent network or LA uploaded proposed networks)
  • Help identify best/least worst source of additional space available for reallocation
  • Support future strategic (or network level) approaches to road-space reallocation (potential future functionality)

Will cover:

  • All corridors potentially requiring dedicated infra (ie >20mph/2000pcu, not local access only/mixed streets)
  • Data types as table below

High level approach:

  • Categorise all links by width (e.g. Too Narrow, Maybe Wide Enough, Wide Enough)
  • Derived/categorised approach adopted as NPT relies on licensed OS data (not shareable/extractable)

This involves

  • Building to building (B2B) widths (critical)

  • Obtaining and processing data on carriageway widths

  • Incorporating estimates of road widths in segment level results

  • Making results available in attributes at the segment level:

    • Existing carriageway width without lane removal at the form of 'traffic light' setting e.g. green "Wide enough" (~11 m+), "Maybe wide enough" (~9-11 m), "Not wide enough" (less than around 9m), 3 m vs 3.25.
    • For each of:
      • 2 x UniDirectional Segregated (4 m minimum, 3 absolute minimum)
      • 1 x bidirectional (3 m minimum, 2.5 absolute?)
    • With/without on street parking on one side / 2 sides
    • Removing one lane space. Attributes TBC, could also be traffic lights. Feedback from Sustrans will help here cc @anguscalder
    • Layer of is it wide enough without affecting cycling?
    • B2B width: issue with this is that authorities don't know where services are
    • Stretch Another categories e.g. upgrading of existing offroad routes with reference to lighting existing surface etc
      • Any datasets on land ownership/categories to help here?
  • Example of open pavements data: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=783e530d92994246bcaeb7419437fd78

image

Currently ignores:

  • Parking
  • Loading
  • Dedicated bus lanes (that need to stay)

We may be unable to publish the results in the user facing web app if we use licenced data.

@Robinlovelace
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thinking about how to represent this, heads-up @mvl22, any thoughts let me know.

@Robinlovelace
Copy link
Contributor Author

Robinlovelace commented Feb 20, 2024

Width requirements:

  • Absolute minimum: check out cross

TBC...

@Robinlovelace
Copy link
Contributor Author

Red-amber-green for parking.

Robinlovelace added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 21, 2024
@Robinlovelace Robinlovelace linked a pull request Mar 21, 2024 that will close this issue
Robinlovelace added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 3, 2024
@Robinlovelace Robinlovelace reopened this Apr 4, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants