Should we code additional attributes to capture the risk of a bus stop on a cycling lane?
Example:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/tA96v9N7MgwN1ybq7
There is a difference in high, but the design is comfortable to cycle on.
Advantages are a good view between the cyclist and pedestrians.
Maybe code the following to capture the additional risk:
Hi Roxy,
I agree with all your suggestions, except for the width restrictions. I believe the pedestrian flow already captures the effect you’re aiming for. If the number of pedestrians waiting for the bus blocks the facility, we can code the facility access as inadequate. In such cases, cyclists will prefer to ride in the traffic lane, and the model will assume cyclists are in mixed traffic for that section. Additionally, the presence of heavy vehicles and parking are attributes that need to be considered.
Hi Shanna,
All right. Ok we can add parking as well.
And yes off course we won’t forget the heavy vehicle flow along the whole on-road lane.
What would be the best practice to code the risk of bus stops that are on/interrupting an on-road bike lane?
Facility type: mixed traffic lane
OR
Facility type: on-road lane + facility access inadequate ??
Plus:
(HVF medium/high)
The manual states that we should code a non-fixed obstacle.
So it’s both a non-fixed obstacle and vehicle parking?
Hi Roxy, I suggest code as a vehicle parking, because the associated treatment will be remove/reconfigure parking, what seems to be a possibility. While the non-fixed obstacles will trigger the recommendation of removing the obstacle, what will not solve the issue.
I recommend code as on-road bicycle lane with inadequate access because the model will assume for this session that bicyclists will ride along with cars. The model will generate a slightly grater risk if coded as a mixed-traffic road lane, but the effect is minor.
