Hello Pete,
I will be able to point directly at some draft design standards in a couple of weeks hopefully on part b but in the meantime I will let the following slip: We are basing segregation choice on more than speed and volume as segregation can help entice new people to take up cycling, which is good.
Following on from the work if the Roads Task Force and manual for streets 1/2 we have suggested that movement and place functions are critical to segregation choice so volume and speed become flow (movement) and when referenced against place function it gives a better indication on whether segregation is appropriate. For example a city place has a high place function and low movement function so pedestrians should be allowed to dominate. Full segregation would be more of a barrier than an enabler in this context. At the other end of the scale an arterial road has a high movement function but low place function so segregation would be entirely appropriate.
I will leave it to your imagination as to how the other typologies are treated for the time being and hope this teaser is helpful. It will not be established as a standard until next year (hopefully).
Regards,
Brian Deegan
Principal Technical Planner - Cycling (Contract)
Surface Planning
Transport for London, 11th Floor Palestra, 197 Blackfriars Road, Southwark, London SE1 8NJ
E: [log in to unmask] T: 020 3054 5474 M: 07599381503
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
-----Original Message-----
From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Wood
Sent: 14 November 2013 17:40
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Vehicle flow, community severance and segregation
Hello!
Would anyone be able to point me towards any research or design standards suggesting either:
a) the relationship between vehicular flow and community severance or
b) vehicular flow and design standards for when various types of segregation may or may not be necessary.
For example,
DfT Shared Space Project Stage 1: Appraisal of Shared Space, P21
"3.7.3 There is some evidence that pedestrian freedom of movement is restricted by traffic flow and speed. York identifies a series of thresholds with combinations of vehicle flow and speed above which pedestrians tended to walk along what would have been the footway area rather than walking along the central street space:
n traffic (other than bus) flow exceeds 50 vehicles per hour with speeds not exceeding 30mph n traffic (other than bus) flow exceeds 100 vehicles per hour with speeds not exceeding 25mph, or n traffic (other than bus) flow exceeds 200 vehicles per hour with speeds not exceeding 20mph."
Does the UK DfT or any other international comparison (probably CROW) have a set of standards for when different types of segregation becomes suggested, or how community impacts might be formally considered in an impact assessment?
For clarity, I am not implying a relationship (positive or negative) between segregation and severance. I'm just looking for indicative examples of how people have quantitatively defined a road as busy or not, and various important graduations or regulations within that.
Pete
Open University Geography Dept
***********************************************************************************
The contents of this e-mail and any attached files are confidential. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately at [log in to unmask] and remove it from your system. If received in error, please do not use, disseminate, forward, print or copy this email or its content. Transport for London excludes any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached files.
Transport for London is a statutory corporation whose principal office is at Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0TL. Further information about Transport for London’s subsidiary companies can be found on the following link: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/4510.aspx
Although TfL have scanned this email (including attachments) for viruses, recipients are advised to carry out their own virus check before opening any attachments, as TfL accepts no liability for any loss, or damage which may be caused by viruses.
***********************************************************************************
|