Streetmix

[SkyPesos]

I got introduced to a street design site called "Streetmix" earlier this week, and played around with it a bit. There's a few things I noticed

1) A 3.6 m wide lane is too wide (default on Streetmix is 3.0 m)? I thought that's generally how wide lanes have to be in arterial roads and above (including freeways).


2) There's no capacity difference between two different widths of a sidewalks and bike lanes? I thought a wide bike lane would allow cyclists to pass each other.


And I attempted a whole cross section with various pieces in the menu put together. Something I still need to figure out are tram stations placement. Also, how wide would a tram/LRT "lane" generally be? The default on Streetmix is 3.6m, though I'm not sure if it should be narrower or wider.


Would be nice if traffic signals get added in, so I can customize the signaling at an intersection.

[7/8]

1) A 3.6 m wide lane is too wide (default on Streetmix is 3.0 m)? I thought that's generally how wide lanes have to be in arterial roads and above (including freeways).

3.0m is on the small side, though probably fitting in urban areas when you want to slow down traffic. Typical values I've seen on arterial road projects: 3.25m turn lanes, 3.35m inside through lane, and 3.65m outside through lane.

2) There's no capacity difference between two different widths of a sidewalks and bike lanes? I thought a wide bike lane would allow cyclists to pass each other.

Yeah I agree with you.

[mrsman]

Sorry for my American brain, I'll have to translate from metric to US units.

3.6 m = 11.8 ft.  12 ft is the US standard for a highway lane, but there is strong encouragement by the streetsblog types and many urbanists to reduce lane width to a lower amount on city streets to discourage speeding.  10 feet is generally that width, which is equal to 3.05 m so 3.0 m is a decent approximation.  Many cities will not tolerate a lane width less than 10.5 feet (3.2 m) or 11 feet (3.35 m) if there are buses that regularly drive on the street.

Streetmix is great.  Many use it as a tool to re-envision a street's layout, especially if they want to take away lanes of car traffic to put in transit or bike lanes.  For those purposes, it is used heavily by alternate transportation activists like streetsblog.

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

Maybe we should trust trained engineers to decide this stuff instead of whatever the planners decided was trendy last week.

[jeffandnicole]

Maybe we should trust trained engineers to decide this stuff instead of whatever the planners decided was trendy last week.

Engineers create what planners want. If a planner wants a sweeping curve over a mile, or a sharp curve over a few feet, engineers can design it based on applicable standards. 

Designing a 10 foot lane vs. a 12 foot lane is simple math.

[7/8]

Maybe we should trust trained engineers to decide this stuff instead of whatever the planners decided was trendy last week.

Assuming this comment is about narrow lane widths, more research is showing that 3.0m is an ideal lane width in urban areas since it strikes a good balance of having enough room to fit in your lane, but also encourages slower speeds which greatly reduces injuries and fatalities. To my surprise, this research paper even suggests that lane capacity is highest at 3.0m.

[hotdogPi]

Maybe we should trust trained engineers to decide this stuff instead of whatever the planners decided was trendy last week.

Assuming this comment is about narrow lane widths, more research is showing that 3.0m is an ideal lane width in urban areas since it strikes a good balance of having enough room to fit in your lane, but also encourages slower speeds which greatly reduces injuries and fatalities. To my surprise, this research paper even suggests that lane capacity is highest at 3.0m.

Maximum lane capacity is higher with light to moderate congestion than in free-flowing conditions simply because there are more cars on the road. This doesn't mean we should be intentionally slowing them down.

[SkyPesos]

Maybe we should trust trained engineers to decide this stuff instead of whatever the planners decided was trendy last week.

Assuming this comment is about narrow lane widths, more research is showing that 3.0m is an ideal lane width in urban areas since it strikes a good balance of having enough room to fit in your lane, but also encourages slower speeds which greatly reduces injuries and fatalities. To my surprise, this research paper even suggests that lane capacity is highest at 3.0m.

3.0-3.05 m (10 ft) lanes are nice on city streets with a bunch of pedestrian/bike traffic, where it's a pedestrian-centric design and you want cars to slow down, but I would definitely use wider lanes (3.35 m (11 ft) or 3.65 m (12 ft)) on arterial roads.

EDIT: Something that came to my mind, are cars in Europe narrower in width than ones in America? If so, that may have an influence on 3.0 m wide streets.

[7/8]

Maybe we should trust trained engineers to decide this stuff instead of whatever the planners decided was trendy last week.

Assuming this comment is about narrow lane widths, more research is showing that 3.0m is an ideal lane width in urban areas since it strikes a good balance of having enough room to fit in your lane, but also encourages slower speeds which greatly reduces injuries and fatalities. To my surprise, this research paper even suggests that lane capacity is highest at 3.0m.

Maximum lane capacity is higher with light to moderate congestion than in free-flowing conditions simply because there are more cars on the road. This doesn't mean we should be intentionally slowing them down.

I know my opinion will probably be unpopular on this forum, but I'd argue yes, we should be slowing cars down on most urban streets. Roads with residences and commercial entrances should have slow speeds for safety, to reduce noise pollution, and make a more walkable/cyclist-friendly street. Not to mention, most delays when driving in urban areas are from sitting at traffic lights. The delays from slower speeds will be small in comparison. Though really, the crux of this issue is that most of our cities are designed where the car is the only practical option, which is what's causing all this traffic in the first place.

Maybe we should trust trained engineers to decide this stuff instead of whatever the planners decided was trendy last week.

Assuming this comment is about narrow lane widths, more research is showing that 3.0m is an ideal lane width in urban areas since it strikes a good balance of having enough room to fit in your lane, but also encourages slower speeds which greatly reduces injuries and fatalities. To my surprise, this research paper even suggests that lane capacity is highest at 3.0m.

3.0-3.05 m (10 ft) lanes are nice on city streets with a bunch of pedestrian/bike traffic, where it's a pedestrian-centric design and you want cars to slow down, but I would definitely use wider lanes (3.35 m (11 ft) or 3.65 m (12 ft)) on arterial roads.

EDIT: Something that came to my mind, are cars in Europe narrower in width than ones in America? If so, that may have an influence on 3.0 m wide streets.

I personally would lean on the 3.0-3.35m range for arterials. Your question on cars is another interesting topic. The increasing size and proportion of SUVs and trucks is troubling since they're more dangerous in pedestrian crashes (and are less fuel-efficient). Still, they should be fine to fit on 3.0m lanes, and again, the 3.0m width would push these vehicles to slower speeds.

[jamess]

Maybe we should trust trained engineers to decide this stuff instead of whatever the planners decided was trendy last week.

What an odd post. Do you not realize that trained planners also went to college, likely grad school, and have been certified through the AICP and need to maintain their professional title with annual courses?

Streetmix is an excellent tool to assist with public engagement and also as a first draft to a project because it is so quick/low-cost to use.

And as the name suggests, the target are streets, not highways. 

[Amtrakprod]

I got introduced to a street design site called "Streetmix" earlier this week, and played around with it a bit. There's a few things I noticed

1) A 3.6 m wide lane is too wide (default on Streetmix is 3.0 m)? I thought that's generally how wide lanes have to be in arterial roads and above (including freeways).


2) There's no capacity difference between two different widths of a sidewalks and bike lanes? I thought a wide bike lane would allow cyclists to pass each other.


And I attempted a whole cross section with various pieces in the menu put together. Something I still need to figure out are tram stations placement. Also, how wide would a tram/LRT "lane" generally be? The default on Streetmix is 3.6m, though I'm not sure if it should be narrower or wider.


Would be nice if traffic signals get added in, so I can customize the signaling at an intersection.

Street mix is made for streets, not roads, so it's more people oriented.


iPhone

[Amtrakprod]

Maybe we should trust trained engineers to decide this stuff instead of whatever the planners decided was trendy last week.

That's pretty rude, I know a lot of engineers who are pro bike lane and bus lane


iPhone

[Rothman]

Maybe we should trust trained engineers to decide this stuff instead of whatever the planners decided was trendy last week.

What an odd post. Do you not realize that trained planners also went to college, likely grad school, and have been certified through the AICP and need to maintain their professional title with annual courses?

Streetmix is an excellent tool to assist with public engagement and also as a first draft to a project because it is so quick/low-cost to use.

And as the name suggests, the target are streets, not highways.

Planners are not engineers, so there needs to be a divide between their duties.

As someone whose graduate education's electives were all in my school's regional planning program, what planners do with just a little information outside of their field is terrifying.  They can facilitate all the planning studies their hearts desire, but definitely need to leave the engineering to the engineers.

[jamess]

Maybe we should trust trained engineers to decide this stuff instead of whatever the planners decided was trendy last week.

What an odd post. Do you not realize that trained planners also went to college, likely grad school, and have been certified through the AICP and need to maintain their professional title with annual courses?

Streetmix is an excellent tool to assist with public engagement and also as a first draft to a project because it is so quick/low-cost to use.

And as the name suggests, the target are streets, not highways.

Planners are not engineers, so there needs to be a divide between their duties.

And no one is trying to pretend that Streetmix produces engineering documents.

Here is what they say about themselves:

"Design, remix, and share your street. Add bike paths, widen sidewalks or traffic lanes, learn how all of this can impact your community."

It's a planning tool. And it does a good job at it. Much better than spending hours in AutoCAD and then Adobe Illustrator to produce the same result.

Let me rephrase the previous post to see if you agree with it:

"Maybe we should trust trained planners to model this stuff instead of whatever the engineers decided was trendy in 1948."

Personally, I find this statement rude, condescending, and unproductive to the topic at hand.

[Henry]

I got to play around a bit with it, and it's quite an intriguing application.

EDIT: On the same page where I Googled streetmix.net, there was a similar but more detailed website, called streetplan.net. You might like that a bit better with its countless options and possibilities galore!