You are reading a single comment by @TheBrick(Tommy) and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • There are some very old programmes around, largely looked after and updated by people like TRL.

    Does not surprise me.

    Walking and cycling are not mobility modes, which means that they are less modellable than motors. For instance, one cyclist may ride in the gutter in an intimidated and victimised way, whereas another may take the primary position and not be overtakeable. Pedestrians may step out into the street randomly and cause vehicular flow to stop. It's not programming this so that it occurs in a model that's the problem, but actually getting a handle on how to quantify it/what is likely to happen. It can seriously affect the accuracy of a model. It's one reason why cycling is often a mere afterthought in the design process and why we're generally not even getting cycle audits after schemes that didn't consider cycling had been designed.

    I understand. I have a few ideas of how it could be quantifiable but unfortunately not enough time to try them all out. Maybe I should try to get a job doing some urban traffic modeling.:)

About