3Field checklist for asset managers (observation sheet)#
Table 3 illustrates a field checklist for asset managers.
Table 3 – Field checklist for asset managers (observation sheet)
| Factors to be considered for assessing the modification to on-road kerbside parking provision | |
|---|---|
| Traffic | |
| Traffic volumes (based on two-lane two direction flow) | Increases crash likelihood |
| Traffic speeds (higher of posted and 85th percentile speed) | Increases likelihood and consequences |
| Proportion of heavy vehicles (not including buses) | Increases likelihood and consequences |
| Proportion of buses | Increases likelihood and consequences, noting interaction with buses servicing bus stops |
| Kerbside parking turnover (during peak hour for cycling activity) | Increases crash likelihood (observed, not signed) |
| History | |
| Parking related crash history – severity | Indicator of a genuine need to change |
| Parking related crash history – frequency per year | Indicator of a genuine need to change |
| Observed parking manoeuvre (reverse parking and so on) – hazard for through traffic? | Indicator of a genuine need to change |
| Road attributes | |
| Road is on the Principal Cycle Network (PCN) | Road segments that are on the PCN are likely to be high risk where there is on-road parking provision |
| Lane width narrows (squeeze point), or termination of bicycle lane | If combined with traffic, med–high risks |
| Steep uphill grades | If combined with traffic, med–high risks |
| Sightline restrictions | |
| CSD = Crossing Sight Distance ASD= Approach Sight Distance Ref: Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 4A | |
| Road user | |
| Proportion of child / novice people riding bikes | Increases both likelihood and consequences |
| Presence of vulnerable road users | Increases both likelihood and consequences |
| Number of mid-block pedestrian crossings (per hour). | Increases both likelihood and consequences |
| Operational issues | |
| Observed kerbside parking effect on public transport operations (is there sufficient space for bus stops?) | 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) | Would the throughput of the road increase by removing kerbside parking? |
| Functionality of the route | Is kerbside parking in line with the intended function of the road? |
| Current motor vehicle level of service for the road (is service provision adequate)? | 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)? | Takes account of cycle infrastructure provided. |
| Parking needs | |
| Is there off-street (or side street) parking provided / available? (also consider onsite car parking for residential properties) | 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. |
| Is 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)? | |
| Is there a need to provide kerbside parking as a 'traffic calming' technique? | 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? | What will be the financial effect on the authority? |
| Can the site be accessed conveniently by public transport? | 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? |