2Factors to be considered for assessing the use of kerbside road space: assessment process#
A number of categorised factors and risk ratings have been developed to assist authorities to consider systematically all the issues and effects associated with the decision-making process for the use of kerbside road space. The factors to be considered and associated outcomes are presented in Table 2.
| Factors to be considered for assessing the modification to on-road kerbside parking provision | Low | Med | High | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Traffic | Crash Risk | |||
| Traffic volumes (based on two-lane two direction flow). | <3,000 AADT | 3000–10,000 AADT | >10,000 AADT | Increases crash likelihood |
| Traffic speeds (higher of posted and 85th percentile speed). | <50 km/hr | 50–60 km/hr | >60 km/hr | Increases likelihood and consequences |
| Proportion of heavy vehicles (not including buses). | <5% | 5–10% | >10% | Increases likelihood and consequences |
| Proportion of buses | <2 buses/h | 2–10 buses/h | >10 buses/h | Increases likelihood and consequences, noting interaction with buses servicing bus stops |
| Kerbside parking turnover (during peak hour for bicycle and motor vehicle traffic) (observed turnover, not signed) | 30 min | 15 min | 5 min | Increases crash likelihood |
| History | Low | Med | High | |
| Parking-related crash history – severity | Property damage only | One or more seriously injured | One or more fatal | Indicator of crash severity and need to change |
| Parking-related crash history- frequency per year | No crash record at site | 1–5 crashes recorded | >5 crashes recorded | Indicator of crash frequency and need to change |
| Observed parking manoeuvre (reverse parking and so on) hazard for through traffic | Outside peak hour only | During peak hour only | All day | Indicator of an increase to crash likelihood |
| Road attributes | Low | Med | High | |
| Road is on the Principal Cycle Network. | n/a | n/a | Yes | Indicates the likely presence of people riding bikes and Transport and Main Roads intention to provide for people riding bikes in the next road upgrade |
| Lane width narrows (squeeze point) or termination of bicycle lane | > 3.9m wide | 3.5–3.9m wide | <3.5m wide | If combined with traffic med–high risks, increased likelihood of a crash |
| Steep uphill grades | <3% | 3–6% | >6% | If combined with traffic med–high risks, increased likelihood of a crash |
| Sightline restrictions | Meets CSD requirements | Meets ASD requirements | Does not meet ASD requirements | Indicates likelihood of crash. |
| CSD = Crossing Sight Distance ASD= Approach Sight Distance Ref: Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 4A | ||||
| Road user | Low | Med | High | |
| Proportion of child / novice people riding bikes | 10% | 20% | 30% | Increases both crash likelihood and consequences |
| Presence of vulnerable road users | People with a disability | Elderly or children | Both | Increases both crash likelihood and consequences |
| Number of mid-block pedestrian crossings/h | <10 | 10–20 | >20 | Increases both crash likelihood and consequences |
| Operational issues | Efficiency Risk | |||
| Observed kerbside parking impact on public transport operations (is there sufficient space for bus stops?) | None | Some (in one direction only) | Major (in both directions) | Would public transport operations be improved by removing kerbside parking? |
| Observed kerbside parking obstruction to through traffic (for example, kerbside parking and no dedicated right turn lane) | Outside peak hour only | During peak hour only | All day | Would the throughput of the road increase by removing kerbside parking? |
| Functionality of the route | Terminating traffic with vehicle access to kerbside land uses (local street) | Something in between (urban road or connector road) | Fast moving through traffic (major arterials or highway / motorway) | Is the use of kerbside road space in line with the intended function of the road? |
| Current motor vehicle level of service for the road (is service provision adequate?) | A or B | C or D | E or F | Is the benefit of supplying parking greater than the disbenefit to moving traffic? |
| Current bicycle level of service for the road (is service provision adequate)? | A or B | C or D | E or F | Takes account of cycle infrastructure provided and the effect of the use of kerbside road space |
Table in words
- For the factor Traffic volumes (based on two-lane two direction flow), the Low rating is <3,000 AADT, the Med rating is 3000–10,000 AADT, the High rating is >10,000 AADT, and the comment is Increases crash likelihood.
- For the factor Traffic speeds (higher of posted and 85th percentile speed), the Low rating is <50 km/hr, the Med rating is 50–60 km/hr, the High rating is >60 km/hr, and the comment is Increases likelihood and consequences.
- For the factor Proportion of heavy vehicles (not including buses), the Low rating is <5%, the Med rating is 5–10%, the High rating is >10%, and the comment is Increases likelihood and consequences.
- For the factor Proportion of buses, the Low rating is <2 buses/h, the Med rating is 2–10 buses/h, the High rating is >10 buses/h, and the comment is Increases likelihood and consequences, noting interaction with buses servicing bus stops.
- For the factor Kerbside parking turnover (during peak hour for bicycle and motor vehicle traffic) (observed turnover, not signed), the Low rating is 30 min, the Med rating is 15 min, the High rating is 5 min, and the comment is Increases crash likelihood.
- For the factor Parking-related crash history – severity, the Low rating is Property damage only, the Med rating is One or more seriously injured, the High rating is One or more fatal, and the comment is Indicator of crash severity and need to change.
- For the factor Parking-related crash history- frequency per year, the Low rating is No crash record at site, the Med rating is 1–5 crashes recorded, the High rating is >5 crashes recorded, and the comment is Indicator of crash frequency and need to change.
- For the factor Observed parking manoeuvre (reverse parking and so on) hazard for through traffic, the Low rating is Outside peak hour only, the Med rating is During peak hour only, the High rating is All day, and the comment is Indicator of an increase to crash likelihood.
- For the factor Road is on the Principal Cycle Network, the Low rating is n/a, the Med rating is n/a, the High rating is Yes, and the comment is Indicates the likely presence of people riding bikes and Transport and Main Roads intention to provide for people riding bikes in the next road upgrade.
- For the factor Lane width narrows (squeeze point) or termination of bicycle lane, the Low rating is > 3.9m wide, the Med rating is 3.5–3.9m wide, the High rating is <3.5m wide, and the comment is If combined with traffic med–high risks, increased likelihood of a crash.
- For the factor Steep uphill grades, the Low rating is <3%, the Med rating is 3–6%, the High rating is >6%, and the comment is If combined with traffic med–high risks, increased likelihood of a crash.
- For the factor Sightline restrictions, the Low rating is Meets CSD requirements, the Med rating is Meets ASD requirements, the High rating is Does not meet ASD requirements, and the comment is Indicates likelihood of crash.
- CSD = Crossing Sight Distance ASD= Approach Sight Distance Ref: Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 4A.
- For the factor Proportion of child / novice people riding bikes, the Low rating is 10%, the Med rating is 20%, the High rating is 30%, and the comment is Increases both crash likelihood and consequences.
- For the factor Presence of vulnerable road users, the Low rating is People with a disability, the Med rating is Elderly or children, the High rating is Both, and the comment is Increases both crash likelihood and consequences.
- For the factor Number of mid-block pedestrian crossings/h, the Low rating is <10, the Med rating is 10–20, the High rating is >20, and the comment is Increases both crash likelihood and consequences.
- For the factor Observed kerbside parking impact on public transport operations (is there sufficient space for bus stops?), the Low rating is None, the Med rating is Some (in one direction only), the High rating is Major (in both directions), and the comment is Would public transport operations be improved by removing kerbside parking?
- For the factor Observed kerbside parking obstruction to through traffic (for example, kerbside parking and no dedicated right turn lane), the Low rating is Outside peak hour only, the Med rating is During peak hour only, the High rating is All day, and the comment is Would the throughput of the road increase by removing kerbside parking?
- For the factor Functionality of the route, the Low rating is Terminating traffic with vehicle access to kerbside land uses (local street), the Med rating is Something in between (urban road or connector road), the High rating is Fast moving through traffic (major arterials or highway / motorway), and the comment is Is the use of kerbside road space in line with the intended function of the road?
- For the factor Current motor vehicle level of service for the road (is service provision adequate?), the Low rating is A or B, the Med rating is C or D, the High rating is E or F, and the comment is Is the benefit of supplying parking greater than the disbenefit to moving traffic?
- For the factor Current bicycle level of service for the road (is service provision adequate)?, the Low rating is A or B, the Med rating is C or D, the High rating is E or F, and the comment is Takes account of cycle infrastructure provided and the effect of the use of kerbside road space.
| Factors to be considered for assessing the modification to on-road kerbside parking provision | Comments | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parking needs | Effect on adjacent land uses / revenue | |||
| Low | Med | High | ||
| Is there off-street (or side street) parking provided / available? (also consider onsite car parking for residential properties) | Yes, direct | Yes, indirect or shared | None within 100m | What is the proximity of off-street alternatives? Are they reasonable? Would there be a significant effect on business? This is a key factor as to why kerbside parking may not be removed. |
| Does the adjoining land use 'front' the kerb and is it dependent upon 'passing trade', 'impulse purchases' or 'pick-ups / drop-offs' (for example, ATM, takeaway, newsagent, and so on)? | Deliveries only | <50% of business | Majority of business | |
| Is there a need to provide kerbside parking as a 'traffic calming' technique? | Other options are available | Yes | Yes, critical | When comparing identical residential streets, those with kerbside parking usually have lower speeds and traffic volumes. |
| Will there be a significant loss in metered parking revenue? | None | Marginal | Significant | What will be the financial effect on the authority? |
Table in words
- For the factor 'Parking needs' with a rating of Low, the comment is 'Effect on adjacent land uses / revenue'.
- For the factor 'Parking needs' with a rating of Med, the comment is 'Effect on adjacent land uses / revenue'.
- For the factor 'Parking needs' with a rating of High, the comment is 'Effect on adjacent land uses / revenue'.
- For the factor 'Is there off-street (or side street) parking provided / available? (also consider onsite car parking for residential properties)' with a rating of Low, the comment is 'Yes, direct'.
- For the factor 'Is there off-street (or side street) parking provided / available? (also consider onsite car parking for residential properties)' with a rating of Med, the comment is 'Yes, indirect or shared'.
- For the factor 'Is there off-street (or side street) parking provided / available? (also consider onsite car parking for residential properties)' with a rating of High, the comment is 'None within 100m'.
- For the factor 'Is there off-street (or side street) parking provided / available? (also consider onsite car parking for residential properties)', the comment is 'What is the proximity of off-street alternatives? Are they reasonable? Would there be a significant effect on business? This is a key factor as to why kerbside parking may not be removed.'.
- For the factor 'Does the adjoining land use 'front' the kerb and is it dependent upon 'passing trade', 'impulse purchases' or 'pick-ups / drop-offs' (for example, ATM, takeaway, newsagent, and so on)?' with a rating of Low, the comment is 'Deliveries only'.
- For the factor 'Does the adjoining land use 'front' the kerb and is it dependent upon 'passing trade', 'impulse purchases' or 'pick-ups / drop-offs' (for example, ATM, takeaway, newsagent, and so on)?' with a rating of Med, the comment is '<50% of business'.
- For the factor 'Does the adjoining land use 'front' the kerb and is it dependent upon 'passing trade', 'impulse purchases' or 'pick-ups / drop-offs' (for example, ATM, takeaway, newsagent, and so on)?' with a rating of High, the comment is 'Majority of business'.
- For the factor 'Is there a need to provide kerbside parking as a 'traffic calming' technique?' with a rating of Low, the comment is 'Other options are available'.
- For the factor 'Is there a need to provide kerbside parking as a 'traffic calming' technique?' with a rating of Med, the comment is 'Yes'.
- For the factor 'Is there a need to provide kerbside parking as a 'traffic calming' technique?' with a rating of High, the comment is 'Yes, critical'.
- For the factor 'Is there a need to provide kerbside parking as a 'traffic calming' technique?', the comment is 'When comparing identical residential streets, those with kerbside parking usually have lower speeds and traffic volumes.'.
- For the factor 'Will there be a significant loss in metered parking revenue?' with a rating of Low, the comment is 'None'.
- For the factor 'Will there be a significant loss in metered parking revenue?' with a rating of Med, the comment is 'Marginal'.
- For the factor 'Will there be a significant loss in metered parking revenue?' with a rating of High, the comment is 'Significant'.
- For the factor 'Will there be a significant loss in metered parking revenue?', the comment is 'What will be the financial effect on the authority?'.
| Factors to be considered for assessing the modification to on-road kerbside parking provision | Comments | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Can the site be accessed conveniently by public transport? (measure of public transport service frequency) | A service at least every 30 mins and full taxi service | A service at least every hour and some taxi service | A service less than every hour or does not exist and no taxi service | Indicator that there are other means of accessing the site, as well as by car, meaning it is an accessible and convenient place by all modes of transport resulting in potentially less demand for car parking supply |
| Can the site be accessed conveniently by riding bikes? (measure of current state of adjoining cycle network) | Connected cycle network exists | Partially connected cycle network exists | No cycle network exists |
Table in words
- For the factor 'Can the site be accessed conveniently by public transport? (measure of public transport service frequency)' with a rating of Low, the comment is 'A service at least every 30 mins and full taxi service'.
- For the factor 'Can the site be accessed conveniently by public transport? (measure of public transport service frequency)' with a rating of Med, the comment is 'A service at least every hour and some taxi service'.
- For the factor 'Can the site be accessed conveniently by public transport? (measure of public transport service frequency)' with a rating of High, the comment is 'A service less than every hour or does not exist and no taxi service'.
- For the factor 'Can the site be accessed conveniently by public transport? (measure of public transport service frequency)', the comment is 'Indicator that there are other means of accessing the site, as well as by car, meaning it is an accessible and convenient place by all modes of transport resulting in potentially less demand for car parking supply'.
- For the factor 'Can the site be accessed conveniently by riding bikes? (measure of current state of adjoining cycle network)' with a rating of Low, the comment is 'Connected cycle network exists'.
- For the factor 'Can the site be accessed conveniently by riding bikes? (measure of current state of adjoining cycle network)' with a rating of Med, the comment is 'Partially connected cycle network exists'.
- For the factor 'Can the site be accessed conveniently by riding bikes? (measure of current state of adjoining cycle network)' with a rating of High, the comment is 'No cycle network exists'.
2.1Assessment process#
The intent of the process is to assist road authorities in their decision making regarding the use of kerbside road space. The need for changes to the existing use of kerbside road space could be identified through a number of means such as awareness of crash history, community feedback or officer awareness of risks / issues, inappropriate kerbside use related to the adjacent land use, effects on efficient traffic operation, or the need to create a safer environment for people riding bikes.
The process undertaken to assess the current situation should include:
- 1.visit site to observe and record issues
- 2.collect relevant data such as crash statistics, traffic volumes, and on-street carparking performance data (for example, parking turnover data)
- 3.apply the factors and risk ratings (refer Table 2) using engineering judgement and applying weighting as necessary to take into account specific characteristics of the road segment under study
- 4.document and report the findings of the process and make recommendations, and
- 5.undertake stakeholder and community consultation, if any changes are to take place.
The checklist, shown in Table 2, is suitable for application to segments of road with similar characteristics; for example, this could be limited to a single block or retail strip. The road segment could be longer if characteristics such as adjoining land use, speed, road cross-section, road speed, traffic composition and kerbside parking provision remain consistent.
2.2Areas of impact when assessing the use of kerbside road space#
There are three, main (high-level) ‘areas of impact’ that need to be considered and balanced when assessing the current use of kerbside road space. These areas are:
| 1. | Impact on safety | Influence crash risks |
| 2. | Impact on congestion | Influence road capacity for vehicle throughput (road efficiency) |
| 3. | Impact on adjacent land uses | Influence on shops and residents |
These are the trade-offs to be balanced when making decisions about the use of kerbside road space. Generally, giving too much emphasis to one will have detrimental effects on the others.
2.2.1Crash risk factors#
2.2.1.1Traffic#
The consideration of this factor is to review and assess the characteristics of the traffic on the relevant street segment, such as traffic speeds, traffic volumes, proportion of buses / heavy vehicles and parking turnover. The potential crash risk increases as traffic volumes, traffic speeds and proportions of buses / heavy vehicles increase. Higher car parking turnover also increases the potential crash risk.
2.2.1.2Parking history#
These risks are based on assessing the parking-related crash history and the potential for parking manoeuvres to create hazards to through moving traffic. If these risks exist, it could increase crash risk and, therefore, provide one indication of the need to change the area’s operation.
2.2.1.3Road attributes#
The road attributes examine the specific geometric characteristics of the road such as lane widths, steep grades and sightline issues. Depending on the results, these characteristics have the potential to increase crash risk and, therefore, reduce safety within a particular street segment. It also takes into consideration the role of the street on the Principal Cycle Network.
2.2.1.4Road user#
This criterion looks at the existing and potential road users on the street segment, particularly identifying the presence of vulnerable road users, people walking, children or inexperienced people riding bikes which can increase the likelihood and consequences of a crash.
2.2.2Road efficiency risk factors#
2.2.2.1Operational issues#
The operational issues assess the effect the current use of kerbside road space may have on public transport operations, movement of through traffic, capacity of through traffic, the road function and level of service. Depending on how these items score, they can affect the efficiency of the road segment, and reassessment of the current use of kerbside road space may improve the operation of the street.
2.2.3Effect on shops and residents#
2.2.3.1Parking needs#
This criterion considers the effect of parking as a kerbside road space use on the adjacent and surrounding land uses. It considers the availability of alternative parking in proximate locations, type of adjacent land use and its dependence on the parking, whether the kerbside parking is used as a traffic calming technique and the effect on revenue associated with parking meters. Consideration of access to the site by other transport modes such as public transport and riding bikes is also incorporated, as this may indicate that the site is an accessible place with safe and convenient travel options, and potentially has less demand for parking supply.
2.2.4Relationship of factors to outcomes#
Consideration of these factors will provide a ‘risk based’ assessment on the potential:
- crash
- efficiency, and
- impact risk
of a particular segment of road.
The outcome will be a low, medium or high-risk rating. Engineering judgement is needed in the application of the factors and risk ratings with weightings applied as necessary, taking into account specific characteristics of the road segment under study. The factors in Table 2 provide the context to assist in making a decision about managing kerbside road space and the results are to inform the decision-making process only (that is, it is not mandatory).
Low risk – this factor is not likely to influence the ‘area of impact’. Modifications are not likely to be required, based on this factor.
Medium risk – this factor is likely to influence on the ‘area of impact’. Modification is likely to be required and could be related to amending the road layout and amending kerbside road space use (such as limited parking restriction). The site should be monitored.
High risk – this factor is highly likely to influence the ‘area of impact’, especially when combined with other ‘high risk’ factors in the same category. Modification is urgently required and could be related to amending the road layout and amending kerbside use (such as limited parking restriction or complete removal / relocation). The site should be treated, monitored and evaluated (to determine effectiveness of the treatment).