Pedestrians not keen on using asset-defined pedestrian routes

[originalfoo]

In vanilla game, pedestrians would generally prefer to use ped bridge or tunnel where available. This was great way from stopping them crossing roads at busy junctions.

However, with TM:PE it seems that they'd much prefer to cross a road at a busy junction, even if there's junction restrictions discouraging them from crossing there, despite there being ped bridges or tunnels very close by.

This issue also seems to affect things like multi-track train stations with inbuilt pedestrian overpass/underpass features, such as the 4-line station in the save I posted to #140. The pedestrians are crossing the station train tracks rather than using the overpass or underpass within the station (that station asset provides both). I only became cognisant of this after Park Life update, although it might have been happening long before.

Would it be possible to add some buffs to ped bridges/tunnels to make pedestrians more likely to use them, even if it adds a small about of time to their route? (Same happens IRL, I'll use a bridge to cross a motorway or dual carriageway any day of the week rather than take my chances dodging traffic, even if it adds a few minutes —I might have to walk some distance to bridge— to my journey).

[DaEgi01]

VictorPhilipp already implemented a transition cost for public transport transitions to fix this issue: https://github.com/VictorPhilipp/Cities-Skylines-Traffic-Manager-President-Edition/issues/88 Maybe it would be a good idea to increase the scope of the feature to include basically everything where wait time could occur. for pedestrians that means at every traffic light, at every public transport station etc. for cars that means at every intersection. for trains at intersections and stations etc. not sure if there is something like that already in game code, or if that would kill performance. when tuned well, this cost would ensure that cims prefer pedestrian bridges over traffic lights etc.

[originalfoo]

Penalising wait time for changing transport type, etc., is still necessary - but not sufficient.

IMO if there's a dedicated ped tunnel or bridge within 10u of where the pedestrian would normally just cross the road, they should do the extra leg work (ie. time and distance) and use the tunnel or bridge instead of dancing with traffic. Same applies to cyclists.

I don't know what CPU time costs would be like, but maybe it could factor in how busy the road is? So if there's lots of traffic the pedestrians and cyclists are more likely to seek out a bridge or tunnel for extra safety? The "seek safe crossing" range could vary depending on current traffic level.

[originalfoo]

An alternative would be to more strongly enforce ped crossing junction restriction, but that's unpleasant user experience IMO (eg. if I destroy the bridge, but the restriction still remains...)

Hence my desire that nearby ped bridge/tunnel should be seen as a more attractive way to cross a road, like a bonus rather than penalty, even if it adds some time/distance to the journey, more so if the road in question has lots of traffic.

It would feel much more natural that if I place a ped bridge/tunnel, pedestrians/cyclists start using it automatically without me having to do extra steps (like junction restrictions). Likewise, if I destroy ped bridge/tunnel, they go back to dancing with traffic.

Maybe ped bridges/tunnels could be given negative distance/time effect during pathfinding, and the amount of that effect essentially defines the 'catchment area' of the bridge/tunnel?

[originalfoo]

Or, looking at it from other angle... Add weighted (by amount of traffic) penalty to pedestrian crossing road - I guess that's what you were referring to above @DaEgi01 ? But what if traffic on road changes by time pedestrian reaches the crossing? That's what leads me back to desire for having a "bonus" for using ped bridge/tunnel.

[carsonip]

I simply disable the crossing to make things easy. I don't want a few cims who use the crossing block the traffic. But here's a related feature request about disabled crossing and traffic lights: #156

[originalfoo]

I have disabled the crossing, but they are still using them, even on 2 way roads (there was a related 1-way road bug that was fixed recently which I'll test tonight).

[originalfoo]

Just done some more testing on this and it seems a recent update has fixed the issue with cims ignoring junction crossing restrictions. They are now accurately obeying the restrictions and as a result are using nearby bridges, etc.

It would still be nice if they would automatically prefer nearby ped bridges/tunnels even if the junction crossing is enabled as that would be more intuitive for players, but at least there is now a robust workaround (disable junction crossings near the bridge/tunnel).

[originalfoo]

After some more testing:

• Cims do prefer ped bridges and tunnels if made out of pedestrian networks (those found on the paths tab in landscaping tools)
• However, they treat bridges or tunnels that are part of park or building assets as "meh"

Seems that the issue is whatever lane type is used in park assets, such as this bridge, is not getting the same pedestrian bonus as vanilla paths.

As such, I think this issue can be closed, but will leave open for your review in case you have any additional comment.

[originalfoo]

Did additional testing recently and the ped paths (deployed via park sub-buildings) in the Tomashavn Train Station are being mostly ignored by pedestrians - instead they prefer walking over the train tracks. Station manager was mumbling something about insurance premiums as he left the building.

Assuming something in the path finder would consider those ped paths, is it possible to add a positive buff to them for pedestrian traffic, and also adda severe negative buff to any ped routes that cross station tracks?

[VictorPhilipp]

moved