# Review on Soft Mobility Infrastructure Design Codes
## 2 Codes for Soft Mobility Infrastructure
### Design Features
#### 2.3.2 Vertical Geometrics  
Vertical slope has a strong impact on the comfort of pedestrians and non-motor vehicle riders when using the infrastructure. Of course, the slope is generally affected \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Code**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Target**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Required Cross-Slope (\%)**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & & **Maximum** & **Minimum** & **Requirement** \\ \hline AD & - & - & - & - \\ \hline AT & - & - & - & - \\ \hline BJ & - & - & - & - \\ \hline CN & - & - & - & - \\ \hline DK & Bicycle & - & - & 2.5 \\ \hline DL & - & - & - & - \\ \hline GR & - & - & - & - \\ \hline HK & - & - & - & - \\ \hline JP & - & - & - & - \\ \hline NJ & - & - & - & - \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{NZ} & Bicycle & 3 & 2.5 & - \\ \cline{2-5}  & Pedestrian & - & - & 2 \\ \hline RU & - & - & - & - \\ \hline SG & - & - & - & - \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{TW} & Bicycle & 2 & 0.5 & - \\ \cline{2-5}  & Pedestrian & 5 & 0.5 & - \\ \hline TZ & - & - & - & - \\ \hline WA & Pedestrian & 2 & - & - \\ \hline ZA & Pedestrian & - & - & 2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Cross-slope requirements for SMI across the world. Figure 4: Typical cross-section for cross-slope design of SMI. by terrain conditions. Areas with more undulating terrain generally have looser slope regulations, while plain areas are more stringent. For example, in Chongqing, a well-known mountainous municipality in mainland China, certain provisions requiring slopes in the Chinese road design standards that are generally applicable nationwide can be exempted from application there. SG (4%), GR (5%), HK (10%), and NJ (3%) only have maximum vertical slope regulations for bicycle lanes or paths. ZA (5%), NZ (3%), and AD (5%) only have maximum vertical slope regulations for pedestrian passages or paths. Meanwhile, WA (5% and 5%) and TW (8% and 12%) have vertical slope regulations for both bicycle and pedestrian lanes or paths. The requirements are shown in Table 7. The same as Table 6, Table 7 shows us that there are many countries and regions do not have requirements about vertical slope gradient. This may result in the SMI road in reality not being able to provide the most comfortable experience for SMI users. In severe cases, it may even lead to traffic accidents such as slipping. When the slope reaches a certain gradient, most countries and regions provide either \"rest platforms\" (NJ) or increase the lane or path width (WA) so that SMI users can take a break to recover after a long climb or wider space for climbing the hill at a low speed. As shown in Figure 5, a \"rest platform\" is a large horizontal open space, generally of the same width as the driveway, and the length meets basic needs. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Code**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Target**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Vertical Slope Requirement (\%)**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & & **Acceptable** & **Maximum** & **Treatment When Greater than the Maximum** \\ \hline AD & Pedestrian & - & 5 & Treat as a ramp \\ \hline AT & - & - & - & - \\ \hline BJ & - & - & - & - \\ \hline CN & - & - & - & - \\ \hline DK & - & - & - & - \\ \hline DL & - & - & - & - \\ \hline GR & Bicycle & 3 & 5 & - \\ \hline HK & Bicycle & 3 & 10 & - \\ \hline JP & - & - & & - \\ \hline NJ & Bicycle & - & 3 & Additional space \\ \hline NZ & Pedestrian & - & 3 & 5–8, provide wayfinding signage \\  & & & & \(>\)8, treat as a ramp \\ \hline RU & - & - & - & - \\ \hline SG & Bicycle & - & 4 & - \\ \hline TW & Bicycle & 5 & 8 & - \\ \cline{2-2}  & Pedestrian & 5 & 12 & - \\ \hline TZ & - & - & - & - \\ \hline WA & Bicycle & - & 5 & Additional width \\ \cline{2-2}  & Pedestrian & - & 5 & Provide rest platforms \\ \hline ZA & Pedestrian & - & 5 & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Maximum slope gradient required across the world.