Can shared space by applied in Maribor? MITJA KLEMENI HARIS II, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

MITJA KLEMENČIČ HARIS ŠIŠIČ, student ALEKSANDER PAGON, student UNIVERSITY OF MARIBOR, FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Can shared space by applied in Maribor?

Content

Experience from Europe Shared space and modal split Selecting the location – methodology Results of modal split counting SUMP objectives and measures Shared space variants Assessments of variants Conclusions – further reasearsh needed

Shared space – EU experience

Road design philosophy – since 1990 (Monderman) Increase number of conflicts – decrese number of

accidents, reduce demarcation

Implementation argumanted by goals: better quality

• f life, better accessibility

Selection of the location: No mode dominant,

10000 – 25000 veh/day, low speed limits 40 % speed reduction – the Netherlands 43 % reduction of casualties – London 40 % reduction of car volume – Ashford

Shared space and modal split

• Modal split in Maribor:
• 2002: 62 % car, 12 % PT, 5% bike, 11 % walk
• vision (Agenda 21): 25 % per mode,
• 2020 goal (SUMP): 48 % car, 20 % PT, 10 % bike, 15 % walk

The question – What would be the modal split, if we implement shared space at chosen location? We do not know , how the drivers will react , due to shared space:

• Choose another road,
• Choose another destination
• Choose another mode
• Choose another time

The answer is to be provided by Transport models ? – too optimistic Shared space should be threaded as goal , while modal split serves for monitoring the effects. Changed question: What would be the appropriate location for shared space and which variant would be the most suitable for all modes?

Methodology

Selection of location Observe and count modal split at chosen location to

fit the condition of no mode dominant

Assessment of proposed shared space variants

Selection of location

Number of Bicycle Accidents on Slovenian Squares (2001 – 2011)

• Source:MKM – Cycling Association

Selection of location

Criteria REVOLUTION SQUARE SMETANOVA STREET SLOMŠEK SQUARE Part of environmental zone Extended (0.5) Yes (1) Yes (1) Public transport line/stop Yes (1) No (0) No (o) Cycling network Yes (1) Yes (1) No (o) Pedestrian volume High (1) Medium (0.5) High (1) Car volume Medium (0.5) Low (1) Low (1) Level of noise High (1) Medium (0.5) High (1) 5 years accident rate 102 (1) 34 (0) 71 (0.5) Vicinity Hospital, school, post

• ffice, pharmacy,
• shops. (2.5)

Multiple schools, kindergarten, student dormitory. (2.5) University headquarters, Church, bank, shops. (2) Points summary 8.5 6.5 6,5

Criteria was set in order to achive SUMP goals – higher quality

• f life and better accessability
• No mode dominant

Different peak hours per link Personal car - dominant

MORNING PEAK HOUR

AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR

AVERAGE MODAL SPLIT SOV 2+ persons Bus Walking Cycling

• thers

13020 12021 13272 9649 2494 683 25% 24% 26% 19% 5% 1%

Shared space design

Considering SUMP measures (Zone 30) No changes in traffic flows (no direction changes) Analysing the perceptions of pedestrians and drivers to shared

space - I. Kaparias , M. Bell, A. Miri, C. Chan, B. Mount 2012 “The results suggest that pedestrians feel most comfortable in shared space under conditions which ensure their presence is clear to other road users - these conditions include; low vehicular traffic, high pedestrian traffic, good lighting and pedestrian-only facilities. Conversely, the presence of many pedestrians and, in particular, children and elderly, makes drivers feel uneasy and, therefore, enhances their alertness”

Variant 1

Zone 30 No kerbs Bike –car – sharow Gained surface:

bike lanes

Variant 2

Zone 30 No kerbs Bike –car – sharow 2 road lane transfered

to 1 road lane Gained surface: 500 m2

Variant 3

Zone 30 No kerbs Bike –car – sharow No island Gained surface:

1700 m2

Variant 4

Zone 30 No kerbs Bike –car – sharow No island 2 road lane transfered

to 1 road lane Gained surface: 2000 m2

Variant 5

Zone 30 No kerbs Bike –car – sharow No island 2 road lane transfered

to 1 road lane

Closed Ruška Street Gained surface:

2200 m2

Assessment of variant 4

Criteria Pedestrian Cyclists PT Driver Safe zone size ++ ++ / / Direct way ++ ++ ++ ++ Street furniture ++ ++ / / Lighting ++ ++ ++ ++ Visibility + + + + Eye contact + + + + Cyclists – Pedestrian conflict

• /

/ / Car speed ++ ++

• Car volumes
• Parking for delivery

+ + / +

Conclusion

Can shared space be applied in Maribor on

Revolution square?

As an individual mesure (obstacles: car traffic

volume, speed limits, perception) - Variant 1.

Within package of SUMP measures (zone 30, new

parking policy, closing Lent for vehicles) – other Variants

Thank you for your attention Mitja Klemenčič Haris Šišiš Aleksander Pagon