Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Ähnlich wie Pedestrian infrastructure audits for the City of Sydney’s Liveable Green Network
Ähnlich wie Pedestrian infrastructure audits for the City of Sydney’s Liveable Green Network (20)
Mehr von JumpingJaq
Mehr von JumpingJaq (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Pedestrian infrastructure audits for the City of Sydney’s Liveable Green Network
- 1. Pedestrian infrastructure audits for the City of Sydney’s Liveable Green Network Bryony Cooper and Larissa Miller
- 2. Sustainable Sydney 2030 The Liveable Green Network The pedestrian facility audit task Approach to auditing The audit criteria Collecting the data GIS tool On site Prioritising the works Reporting and maps Summary of data GIS outputs Maps Content
- 3. A ‘Green, Global and Connected’ City The ‘Five Big Moves’ to manage the City’s growth and to guide future strategic policies and infrastructure: A revitalised city centre at the heart of global Sydney An integrated Inner Sydney transport network A Liveable Green Network (LGN) Activity hubs as a focus for the City’s village communities and transport Transformative development and sustainable renewal Sustainable Sydney
- 4. The Liveable Green Network What it achieves?.....connections to a more liveable city City Centre Village to village Parks and leisure
- 5. The Liveable Green Network The Liveable Green Network is made up of LGN Priority Network Citywide Pedestrian Priority Network City Wide Pedestrian Cycle Priority and Primary Local Pedestrian Network Primary Local Pedestrian Network
- 6. Prepare a Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP) for the LGN Focus on infrastructure audits and recommendations Audit the four levels of network priority for: Facility locations and quality Amenity, access and compliance issues Missing facilities Intersection and crossing treatments Path condition and widths The auditing task The City of Sydney wanted to audit the Liveable Green Network to identify gaps, issues and areas for improvement of the walking experience.
- 7. Proposal-stage decisions Calculate kilometres of network Use hand held devices with GIS software Project commencement decisions Agree on audit criteria upfront Recommend improvements on site Trial and revise GIS data collection tool Real-time upload of data The approach to auditing
- 8. Three types of data collection 1. Identification and recording of pedestrian infrastructure. 2. Assessment of pedestrian infrastructure. 3. Footpath width measurements against existing GIS footpath segment layer. The audit criteria
- 9. The location of every non-footpath pedestrian facility was recorded by the site auditors, whether it had any associated issues or not. Provided Council with an up to date inventory of all pedestrian infrastructure. 1. Identification and recording of pedestrian infrastructure
- 10. Every issue associated with pedestrian facilities was recorded by the site auditors. Crossings: dimensions, alignment, condition, clear zones, signage, missing Path condition: Cracked, uneven (severity: slight, moderate or severe) Path obstructions: Street furniture, vegetation, bins, other (degree of impact on the Pedestrian Through Zone) Sight lines: Conflict at driveways Shared paths: signage, line-marking, pinch points Shared zones: signage, presence of kerbs, pavement markings Bus stops: clear space, tactile ground surface indicators Accessible parking: lack of kerb ramps, adjacent path width 2. Assessment of pedestrian infrastructure
- 11. Footpaths and shared paths Update Council’s footpath segment GIS layer with the measured width Different widths for paths on the priority networks Specific measurements were noted as: below minimum, compliant and preferred Also noted where paths were missing on the networks 3. Path width measurements
- 12. Collecting the data – GIS tool Collector for ArcGIS IPad application PAMP data was recorded for the LGN two ways: Placing a point or line to indicate the presence of a pedestrian facility, record the issue if there were any and to recommend an improvement and; Updating the footpath segments in the City of Sydney footpath layer to include a value for the measured width of each footpath segment.
- 13. Collecting the data – GIS tool
- 14. Collecting the data – GIS tool
- 15. Collecting the data – GIS tool
- 16. Collecting the data – GIS tool
- 17. Collecting the data – GIS tool
- 18. Collecting the data – GIS tool
- 19. Collecting the data The site audits were undertaken between December 2014 – February 2015. A team of up to five people a day audited the LGN, focusing on one area of the City at a time. Each team member had a measuring tape and used the tablet’s in built camera. Each auditor required two tablets each day due to battery drainage.
- 21. Eight weeks of audits
- 22. Works were prioritised based on their location within high, medium or low priority areas throughout the CBD New works were prioritised higher than upgrade works Prioritisation
- 23. Results Facility Total instances of the pedestrian facility Accessible parking 120 Bus stop 538 Footpath 4,729 Footpath segment widths 4,997 Kerb extensions 515 Kerb ramp 6,906 Laneway 7 Mid-block/pelican crossing 40 No crossing facility at this location 0 No footpath facility 0 Pedestrian bridge 9 Raised threshold at T-intersection 17 Other - subway 15 Pedestrian mall 37 Pedestrian refuge 229 Shared path segment widths 199 Shared zone 54 Signalised intersection 354
- 24. The complete data collection was presented in a geodatabase for the City of Sydney. The geodatabase includes: Unique point or line ID. Location of pedestrian facilities. Type and severity of pedestrian facility issues (if any). Photo. Recommended improvement (if required). Cost estimate. Priority. Updated widths for the City of Sydney footpath segment layer GIS outputs
- 25. Issues Report
- 26. Mapping Proportion of issues by suburb
- 27. Mapping Proportion of footpath widths by suburb
- 28. Mapping Proportion of footpath quality by suburb
- 29. Mapping Number of path condition issues per footpath segment
- 31. Thank you
Hinweis der Redaktion
- As part of the City of Sydney’s Sustainable Sydney 2030 vision of becoming a more ‘Green, Global and Connected’ city, a series of milestones, referred to as the ‘Five Big Moves’ were drafted to assist with managing the City’s growth and to guide the development of future strategic policies and infrastructure projects. The ‘Five Big Moves’ are: A revitalised city centre at the heart of global Sydney An integrated Inner Sydney transport network A Liveable Green Network Activity hubs as a focus for the City’s village communities and transport Transformative development and sustainable renewal As one of the ‘Five Big Moves’, the Liveable Green Network (LGN) supports active transport modes as attractive and viable alternatives to private vehicles as means for moving around the LGA, with particular attention given to short trips. The implementation of the LGN will assist with fulfilling three of the City of Sydney’s 10 Targets for 2030. Target 7: By 2030, at least 10 per cent of city trips will be made by bicycle and 50 per cent by pedestrian movement. Target 8: By 2030, every resident will be within a 10 minute (800 m) walk to fresh food markets, childcare, health services and leisure, social, learning and cultural infrastructure. Target 9: By 2030, every resident in the City of Sydney will be within a three minute walk (250 m) of continuous green links that connect to the Harbour Foreshore, Harbour Parklands, Moore or Centennial or Sydney Parks.
- Objectives of the Liveable Green Network Strategy and Masterplan are to: Provide a comprehensive and legible pedestrian and cycle network that responds to Sustainable Sydney 2030 targets by connecting the City Centre, Village Centres, public transport, major parks and recreation facilities Increase the proportion of pedestrian and cycling trips in the city to minimise greenhouse gas emissions Provide inclusive access to meet the needs of people with disabilities Co-ordinate with adjacent Councils to develop an integrated Inner City Network; Improve community health, safety and well being Ensure provision of amenities that invite and promotion pedestrian and cycle travel Ensure integration with transport planning The four priority levels identified for the audit were: LGN Priority Network (Pedestrian and Cycle) – shown as yellow routes Citywide Pedestrian Priority Network – shown as blue routes Citywide Pedestrian Cycle Priority and Primary Local Pedestrian Network – shown as orange routes Primary Local Pedestrian Network – shown as pink routes These networks don’t cover every street in the LGA but they come very close to it. The selection of routes as part of each network was undertaken with guidance from specific assessment criteria that considered elements including the alignment of key routes, quality of the public domain (specifically the location of trees, public spaces, activity centres and the condition of existing infrastructure), pedestrian and vehicular traffic movements and pedestrian waiting times, key trip generators and attractors (such as schools, retail, commercial and community uses) and population statistics.
- When Cardno decided to bid for the project we knew it was a very big task that would require a number of decisions to be made and committed to. At the proposal stage when calculating our fee we had to attempt to calculate the number of kilometres on the network and how much one person could cover in a day. We also had to decide how we would collect the data. We decided to go with a GIS software ipads which would geolocate data that we collected and input it directly into a data and mapping software. This was by far the biggest pedestrian audit we had ever attempted, it was going to be comprehensive, cover a lot of ground and generate a huge amount of data that needed to be accessible and useful for the City. Once we won the project, we spent a short amount of time panicking, and then got down to some very comprehensive project planning. Because of the time it would take to audit the entire LGN we needed to make sure that we audited it accurately the first time around. There would be no time for redoing it. One important decision we needed was for the City to agree on the audit criteria upfront. We proposed and the city confirmed the exact facilities we would audit, what standards or guidelines we would measure them against, and what would be the recommended improvement if an issue was identified. We also decided to make the large majority of infrastructure recommendations on site, while standing in front of the facility we had just measured, rather than coming back to the office and doing it days or weeks later. We set up our GIS data collection tool with the audit criteria, tested it on site and revised it so it worked better. We decided to use real-time upload of data to so that an auditors could see on their screen whether a particular facility had already been audited by someone else that day.
- There were three main types of data collection activities undertaken. Identification and recording of pedestrian infrastructure. Assessment of pedestrian infrastructure. Footpath width measurements against existing GIS footpath segment layer. I will give you an overview of each.
- This was pretty straight forward: These pedestrian facilities included kerb ramps, pedestrian refuges, zebra crossings, signalised intersections, kerb extensions, shared zones and pedestrian malls as well as bus stops and accessible parking locations.
- Crossings: dimensions, alignment, condition, clear zones, signage Path condition: Cracked, uneven (severity: slight, moderate or severe) Path obstructions: Street furniture, vegetation, bins, other (degree of impact on the Pedestrian Through Zone) Sight lines: Conflict at driveways Shared paths: signage, line-marking, pinch points Shared zones: signage, presence of kerbs, pavement markings Bus stops: clear space, tactile ground surface indicators Accessible parking: lack of kerb ramps, adjacent path width Some facilities might have more than one issue. We were able to record up to four issues for every facility that we audited.
- We measured the width of every path segment on the LGN. The City of Sydney has a very good footpath segment layer and we were able to import that into our GIS software and provide a width measurement for every segment. Segment lengths varied. Different widths were audited for the four different priority networks and each network had a minimum width and a preferred.
- We used the Collector for ArcGIS ipad application when auditing. Each facility that was assessed and recorded on the GIS map interface, either as a point symbol or line, carrying GPS coordinates and information inputted by the auditor through a series of drop-down and text entry boxes. An example of the Collector for ArcGIS interface is shown in Figure 4. The drop-down boxes comprised of a list of the pedestrian facilities, and within each pedestrian facility common issues pertaining to that specific facility were listed as options for selection. The severity of the issue (where applicable), and recommended improvement could also be selected. On occasions where further explanation was required to complement an observed issue, free text-entry boxes were also available for providing comments. Where issues were observed, a photograph was taken and attached to the GIS point or line identifying the facility. A visual example of the data collection process using Collector for ArcGIS is provided in Appendix A.
- Each facility that was assessed and recorded on the GIS map interface, either as a point symbol or line, carrying GPS coordinates and information inputted by the auditor through a series of drop-down and text entry boxes. Here are some screen shots of the interface. This one shows how auditors were able to improve on the GIS location manually by focusing the point the are putting down for the facility to the most accurate spot. The drop-down boxes comprised of a list of the pedestrian facilities, and within each pedestrian facility’s common issues listed as options for selection. The severity of the issue (where applicable), and recommended improvement could also be selected. Here we are noting a kerb ramp.
- Noting the issue out of this list of potential issues. And if there was nothing wrong with it, we simply recorded that the facility existed in that location.
- Selecting the improvement to address the issue
- Where issues were observed, a photograph was taken and attached to the GIS point or line identifying the facility.
- These images show how we entered the width and indicating whether it met the minimum width for that priority network. If it didn’t, we took a photo and recommended a footpath replacement. And where further explanation was required to complement an observed issue, free text-entry boxes were also available for providing comments.
- These images show how we entered the width and indicating whether it met the minimum width for that priority network. If it didn’t, we took a photo and recommended a footpath replacement. And where further explanation was required to complement an observed issue, free text-entry boxes were also available for providing comments.
- Tracking our progress was an important and motivating part of collecting the data. We printed out a giant map of the LGA and every few days when the auditors came back into the office they could mark off the streets that they had recently completed.
- This is how the audit progressed in real-time over the eight week period. For me, back in the office most of the time it was great to see the team move through the city and get to know how much was being covered. Some areas were much faster than others. The CBD was difficult because of high volumes of pedestrians so it took longer than other areas. Desktop quality checking: And after the audits we came back to the office and underwent some comprehensive data review to find and address gaps in the audit. This resulted in
- Once the data was collected, checked and downloaded from the GIS tool, we worked with the City of Sydney to prioritise the works. Works were prioritised based on their location within high, medium or low priority areas throughout the CBD. New works were also prioritised higher than upgrade or replacement works.
- Overall we recorded the location of, and audited, thousands of pedestrian facilities including: 4,997 path segment widths 6,900 kerb ramps 515 kerb extensions 229 pedestrian refuges 538 bus stops And 254 zebra crossings
- The complete data collection was presented in a geodatabase for the City of Sydney. The geodatabase included: Unique point or line ID. Location of pedestrian facilities – including suburb, street, coordinates, footpath segment (where relevant). Type and severity of pedestrian facility issues. Photo. Recommended improvement. Cost estimate. Priority for implementation. Updated widths for the City of Sydney footpath segment layer –Where the footpath segment width was found to be below the minimum width for the relevant LGN priority network, a recommended footpath width. This was also provided as a shedule of works in Excel.
- We provided a report with a page dedicated to each facility with one or more identified issues.
- And now to finish I have some examples of the mapping produced to present the data at an LGA level, a very different style of presenting to the detailed issues report and schedule of works. This map shows the proportion of issues by suburb.
- This one shows the proportion of below minimum footpath widths by suburb.
- Proportion of poor quality footpaths by suburb
- Green is above preferred width Yellow is above minimum width and red is below minimum. You can see there are very few sections of below minimum width in this part of the CBD.