Hostile vehicles and crowded places

Since the recent terrorist attacks where vehicles have been used to attack crowds many cities have been installing temporary concrete bollards around locations vulnerable to terrorist attack using a vehicle. Unfortunately these are generally rather ugly and in many cases they significantly impact on the pedestrian capacity through the area.

Sometimes the temporary barriers have been installed despite existing bollards being in place. This is probably because the existing bollards are not strong enough to stop a determined driver in a heavy hostile vehicle.

In mid-September I was in Melbourne for the AITPM conference and noticed this example in the Bourke Street Mall. The temporary bollards are completely ineffective since a vehicle can quite easily access the mall using the tram tracks.

The Australian Government recently launched their Strategy for Protecting Crowded Places from Terrorism. As well as the strategy, the website includes some valuable tools that active transport and public space planners and engineers need to make themselves aware of when planning and designing crowded places. Crowded places could include outdoor dining areas, commercial hubs and CBDs, shopping centres, hotels, stadiums or special events. Relevant tools include:

• a self-assessment tool that provides an indication of the need for intervention to improve safety
• Hostile Vehicle Guidelines for Crowded Places

The Hostile Vehicle Guideline for Crowded Places has some valuable guidance for planners and engineers. Some of the things that stand out for me are:

• Early intervention during planning provides the greatest opportunity for success and the cost of including security interventions increases as the project progresses through design to completed infrastructure
• Security should be proportionate to the threat and appropriate for the space
• Sculptures, bicycle parking, fountains and stairs can be effective security measures that add to the amenity of a crowded place. This blog post provides a nice discussion on some design ideas for beautiful bollards.
• To be effective, the maximum clearance between barriers cannot be wider than 1.2m
• The angle of the vehicle entry to the space can significantly impact on the cost of barriers
• Speed bumps and the like are ineffective in deterring or slowing down a hostile vehicle.

The guideline was prepared by the Designing Out Crime Research Centre who have done some interesting work in the use of design innovation to resolve complex crime issues and social problems.

So, does this mean the death of the 'naked streets' concept? I don't believe so, it just makes it an inappropriate design solution in areas where there are crowds that gather.

Raised priority crossings

Priority crossings of side streets are essential for off-road cycle tracks along arterial roads. Without the priority for cyclists the traffic on the minor side streets impact significantly on the safety and delay for cyclists using the cycle track. More confident cyclists will tend to ride on road and avoid using the cycle track, and all other cyclists risk their safety every time they have to cross the side streets.

The Cycle Track guideline (Technical Note TN128) issued by the Department of Transport and Main Roads gives good guidance on priority crossings for cycle tracks. Here are some examples I have seen delivered around the state.

 Brisbane Road on the Sunshine Coast

Entrance to theme parks and studios off Entertainment Drive, Gold Coast (photo from Google StreetView) - not the raised crossing on the slip lane.

Brassal Bikeway in Ipswich.

Brisbane has multiple locations where priority crossings are required on V1 Veloway. My pet hates are:

• along O'Keefe Street with the crossing of Carl Street (Council did a half hearted upgrade in 2016 that did not address the issue at all)
• along Bapaume Road and Birdwood Road

Stage E of the Veloway upgrade will hopefully provide a priority route for cyclists through this dangerous section of the V1. But unfortunately it may not address the issue for school kids cycling to Holland Park High which is just off the V1 along Bapaume Road. This is a personal issue for me as my daughter has just started high school there and our house is ideally located for her to use the V1 to cycle to school. However the multiple crossings of slip lanes, side roads and driveways make me very nervous for her safety.

Hopefully the upgrade to the V1 will also consider the needs of school kids needing to access Holland Park High. The upgrade does not appear to be funded yet so I dont know if it will get upgraded soon enough for my kids to use it to get to school. An interim intervention to improve this section would definately be welcome for commuters and school children using this dangerouse section of the V1. I have some ideas for improvements, if anyone would be interested.

Active cities

The Transportation Research Board (USA) recently issued a guide for city leaders on improving how cities support active lifestyles. I love the way the USA makes guidelines, statistics and research publicly available for free. They have some brilliant resources. Although they tend to be focused on the USA they are often more applicable in Australia than similar European research and guidance.

I love this quote from the report:

'Cities that make physical activity a priority, convert existing spaces into active spaces, and design environments for people to be active will create a legacy of physical activity. These active cities will be better off by almost every possible measure.'

The report has some great statistics and info-graphics. Not all the research is from the USA as the guideline is aiming to show a broad base of evidence of the benefits of active cities. In fact Adelaide is mentioned as an example of a city that is doing well at supporting activity.

Source: Designed to Move - Active Cities

The guideline gives simple and practical advice on supporting the development of an active city related to:

• open spaces and parks
• urban design and land use
• transport
• schools
• building design and work spaces

It then gives policy interventions that will deliver positive outcomes - including 'quick wins'. And then it also provides links to a wealth of tools and resources. This guideline is a valuable resource that is aimed at the non-technical leader / decision makers in cities. It would be good to get more awareness of it amongst transport planning professionals and public figures.

Brisbane is doing many of these interventions and that is one of the reasons I love living here. Wouldn't it be great if these principles could be completely embraced by our cities.  

Economic benefits of active transport

The U.S. Department of Transportation recently published a white paper on evaluating the economic benefits of non-motorised transport. It provides a short review of available economic analysis tools, and recommendations on how they may be used. The comparison table of tools in Appendix A provides a useful comparison of what the tools can tell you, their data needs and usefulness.

Although it is a very brief paper, it provides an extensive list of reference works that provide some interesting data snippets from the USA and the UK.

Some interesting snippets of facts cited in the report:

Project specific economic benefits in New York:

• 49% increase in retail sales near the protected bike lanes on 8th and 9th Avenues in Manhattan (compared to a 3% increase borough-wide)
• 49% fewer commercial vacancies near the reconfigured pedestrian plaza at Union Square North (compared to 5% more borough-wide)
• 172% increase in retail sales at Pearl Street in Brooklyn, where an underused parking area was converted to a pedestrian plaza (compared to an 18% increase borough-wide).
• 58% decrease in injuries to all street users on 9th Avenue in Manhattan where a protected bike lane was installed

Macro-economic benefits: Vermont

• Vermont hosted over 40 running and cycling events in 2009, which attracted over 16,000 participants spending over $6 million in the state. The running- and cycling-related spending from these events supported an estimated 160 workers;
• A business survey found that bicycle- and pedestrian-oriented businesses in Vermont generated $37.8 million in output and directly employed 820 workers with $18.0 million in labor earnings

Desire lines

No, not the lines of people trying to pay for their shopping. Desire lines are lines drawn on a map that represent where people desire to go. When planning and designing infrastructure for active transport (especially pedestrians), desire lines are an essential indicator of how people will want to use the facility. This is because it may take extra effort to deviate off the route that gives you the shortest path to your destination. The less mechanical assistance you have, the more important the shortest path is to route choice.

It is important to realise that the shortest path is not necessarily the route that has the shortest distance. It tends to be the route that appears to be the most direct path to the destination from a point of decision. For the pedestrian this is usually the route that follows the 'line of sight' - a path that most closely matches a straight line route from where you stand to where you want to go.

When planning and designing active infrastructure you ignore desire lines at your peril. Here are two examples. 

The first is an old one that I see every day I ride to work. It is the link across Little Dock Street between the Kangaroo Point Bikeway and Vulture Street. This link is restricted as I bicycle-only connection. The planning intent was that pedestrians wanting to access Vulture Street would cross Little Dock Street at the Goodwill Bridge and use the bougainvillea pathway. Cyclists would use the Kangaroo Point Bikeway and exclusively use the link across Little Dock Street. sort of like the illustration below. The Kangaroo Point Bikeway and the pathway alongside it were designed with fences, kerbs and signs to ensure people stick to this arrangement.

All very nice and neat. However, this arrangement neglects to recognise that when walking people make their routing choices based primarily on desire lines in order to expend the least effort in reaching their destination. The infrastructure and regulation are only considered where they physically prevent a movement, or when the 'self-preservation' instinct overrides the 'least-effort' instinct.

The desire-lines for pedestrians between the Goodwill Bridge and Vulture Street can be shown as below. In addition to this major desire line there is also a minor pedestrian desire line between Vulture Street and the pathway going east along Little Dock Street.

The resulting pedestrian movements result in significant conflict between pedestrians and cyclists along a very narrow section of separated pathway (only 2m wide cycleway).

For the most part pedestrians recognise that they are crossing the bikeway and they are careful to not get in the way. They check before they cross and keep their eye out to avoid conflict, as can be seen in the picture below. Note the pedestrian in the background is also keeping an eye out to avoid conflicts on the narrow path.

In fact it is such a well-worn route that you can see the path through the vegetation that pedestrians take to avoid being in the way of cyclists.

But often this does not happen and conflict erupts. I almost witnessed a fist fight recently where a rather muscular pedestrian who had been walking in the middle of the bikeway shoved a cyclist when he tried to get past after ringing his bell. Usually this sort of conflict just results in some rude words being exchanged as the cyclist and pedestrian exchange their feelings of mutual dislike for each other. That time (and I am sure there have been many others) it could have ended tragically.

The solution to this is relatively simple, but will cost some money. What is needed is to provide sufficient space for both pedestrians and cyclists to make the link between the Kangaroo Point Bikeway and Vulture Street. More fences and signs will not solve the problem, it will just make it more frustrating for all users.

The next example is a more recent one - the landing of the Kurilpa Bridge on Tank Street. When designing this landing the engineers had great difficulty fitting in all the pedestrian, cyclist and vehicle movements. The complicating factor was the driveway off Tank Street for access to a parking garage. This wide driveway was adjacent to where the bridge landed and spills its load of pedestrians and cyclists. The designers came to the conclusion that the driveway entry and exit meant it was not possible to provide sufficient space to store pedestrians wanting to cross Tank Street. The large number of vehicles using Tank Street to access parking garages would have been too severely delayed by creating a shared zone for pedestrians and vehicles.

So the solution delivered was to prevent pedestrians and cyclists from crossing Tank Street where the bridge landed. A wall was constructed to prevent this movement and gardens planted to make it clear that pedestrians should not cross here. Fortunately as a compromise a speed hump was included on Tank Street to slow drivers down as they approached the parking lot driveway.

Unfortunately the pesky pedestrians had not studied engineering and they refused to comply.

 They just didn't seem to realise that this was not an approved maneuver.

 Within no time they had worn a path through the landscaping that was intended to prevent them from crossing.

Unfortunately the designers ignored the very obvious desire lines. The approved place to cross Tank Street was determined to be at North Quay and George Street (as below). That would ensure that any conflicts that would occur could be controlled.

What this design ignored was the very strong pedestrian desire lines between the coffee shops (and parking garage) on the north of Tank Street, and the offices and bridge on the south. It also ignored the fact that the proposed path between North Quay and the Kurilpa Bridge or south Tank Street was not at all obvious and was not on the pedestrian (and cyclist) desire line.

 So of course this resulted in pedestrians (and some cyclists) making 'unsafe' maneuvers.

 Thankfully a solution was retrofitted that better provides for pedestrian and cyclist desire lines.

It is unfortunate that desire lines were ignored in the initial design, as I am sure that a more elegant solution could have been found to this problem.

Innovation in Queensland

On a recently completed project we consulted with a number of municipalities on the factors that prevent them from delivering cost effective improvements to cycle facilities. One of the biggest barriers cited was the reticence of municipal engineers to sign off on non-standard or 'innovative' designs for active transport facilities. I include the inverted commas as the treatments are often quite commonly used internationally or in Australian cities. They just have not been used in that specific municipality.

Major stumbling blocks to getting approval of designs include:

• not aligning with the engineers interpretation of recommended standards set out in Austroads guidelines
• lack of clear (or any) guidance in Austroads on the treatment proposed
• lack of willingness to be the first to try something that may be commonly used elsewhere

There is fundamentally a philosophical conflict that occurs where one side argues that:

• No cycle facility should be provided unless it is of the highest standard

while the other side argues that:

• some form of cycle provision is better than none, so long as it is safe

I would like the world to aspire to the former sentiment. However, I am a realist and I recognize that limited budgets often wont stretch far enough to deliver the best facility. So instead, I support providing a safe facility now (even if not the best solution), with aspirations for allowing for a better solution in the future.

Four resources are available to provide ammunition in the fight to get 'innovative' or non-standard designs approved in the face of risk averse approval authorities:

• Separated Cycleways Guideline (Department of Transport and Main Roads) - I posted on this previously
• Guidelines for Road Design in Brownfield Sites is a TMR guideline and includes standards for minimum provision for cyclists as part of road upgrades in constrained environments
• The TMR policy on engineering innovation  sets out how to go about getting approvals for non-standard or innovative treatments
• The team of technical officers for pedestrian and cycling facilities in TMR's Engineering and Technology Branch can be a strong ally that could lend the required support to allow an engineer to approve an innovation or non-standard solution.

Sight distance

Recently an apartment complex Did a refurbishment. They are adjacent to the V1 Bikeway close to O'Keefe Street, Buranda. As part of their refurbishment they installed a new fence on their property.Due to its height and proximity to the bikeway the fence restricts sight distances for out-bound cyclists and persons entering the bikeway. 

 These photos don't really show how severe the impact is. On the first day after the fence was installed I almost ran over a pedestrian who was trying to cross the bikeway. Neither of us could see each other till the last moment. Luckily he managed to quickly step back in time. If it was a mother with a pram I think I would most likely have crashed into the pram.

Council cannot do anything about this as the fence is perfectly legal. It is within the property and there are no restrictions on the property that would prevent them from installing this fence.

Austroads Guidelines (Part 6A: Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths) recommends against locating paths adjacent to property boundaries for exactly this reason, and Section 7.8 has recommended clearances for curves to get safe sight distances. This bit of bikeway is squeezed between the property boundary and a retaining wall, so not much opportunity to get adequate separation. It would have been good though to get some sort of restriction placed on the height of boundary fences for the property to avoid this type of hazard.

When planning new shared paths that are adjacent to property boundaries it would be good for planners and designers to keep this example in mind, and put in place appropriate measures to prevent this from happening.

Separated Cycleways

Separated Cycleways are very effective in providing a riding environment in the road corridor where most people feel comfortable to cycle in. They have often been called 'Copenhagen Bike Lines' as they are relatively popular in that city. They are gaining popularity worldwide and also in Australia.

Here is Brisbane's first separated cycleway along George Street.

I have previously written about them in Sydney, Victoria, Copenhagen and New York.

Here is a less than successful treatment for cyclists in New York.

Up till now there has been very little local guidance on appropriate design treatments. That has now changed here in Queensland. The Department of Transport and Main Roads (QLD) have published their Separated Cycleways guideline on their Traffic and Road Use Management (TRUM) web page. Here are some words on it from Jonathan Giles' publicity email:


The Department of Transport and Main Roads aims to provide a direct, safe and comfortable cycle network for people of all ages and abilities to achieve a doubling of bicycle trips for transport.
The Separated Cycleways Guideline presents design guidance supporting the Austroads guides with supplementary advice for bicycle infrastructure including intersections where bicycles are physically separated from vehicles. Facilities like these have been shown to improve safety and increase the ridership of a wide cross section of the community.
This guideline is intended to assist designers, engineers and planners with options on appropriate bicycle facility type for principal cycle network or local routes. Construction and whole of life maintenance considerations are also included. It is acknowledged that in many situations optimal solutions may not be practicable.

The Separated Cycleways Guideline has been prepared to support TMR’s Cycling Infrastructure Policy and Queensland Cycle Strategy 2011-2021 and to provide additional guidance to local and state government and industry. The new guideline is an 'approved notice' of the TORUM Act. It is listed under interim notes until the next formal amendment.
Join us for our 2 May 2014 seminar and webinar to hear more about the guideline and provide feed back.  PedBikeTrans in conjunction with Bicycle Queensland will be hosting the seminar (and webinar) introducing the new guidance and discussing the new intersection design guidance in detail. Please RSVP at: http://2may2014pbt.eventbrite.com