Manual for Streets 2

www.ciht.org.uk

Manual for Streets 2

Wider Application of the PrinciplesM

an

ua

lforStre

ets

2

Published by the Chartered Institution ofHighways & Transportation

Published September 2010All rights reserved. No part of this publication shall be reproduced, copies stored in an electronic retrieval system ortransmitted without the written permission of the publishers.

© CIHT 2010

ISBN 978-0-902933-43-9

AcknowledgementsThe Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation would like to thank the following people without whom thedocument would not have been possible.

MMaannaaggiinngg EEddiittoorrss::Alan Young WSPPhil Jones Phil Jones Associates

SStteeeerriinngg GGrroouupp::Peter DickinsonLouise Duggan CABEWayne Duerden Department for TransportAndrew Pearson Homes and Communities AgencyDaniel Bridger Communities and Local GovernmentAnne Locke English HeritageEdward Chorlton ADEPTSam Wright Transport for LondonJohn Smart CIHTAmy Napthine CIHTScott Dyball CIHT

CCoonnttrriibbuuttoorrss::Steve Proctor TMSJohn Dales Urban InitiativesStuart Reid MVA ConsultancyBen Castell Scott WilsonPeter Jones UCLPaul Forman Emily Walsh Solihull MBCBob White Kent CCStephen Hardy Dorset CCTim PharaohGraham Paul SmithAnne Locke English HeritageTim Cuell WSPAndrew Cameron WSPNicola Cheetham Transport for LondonBen Hamilton-Baillie Hamilton-Baillie Assiciates


PPrrooooff RReeaaddeerr::John Cordwell

FFiinnaanncciiaall SSuuppppoorrtt::Department for Transport, Commission for Architecture and Built Environment, Homes and Communities Agency andAssociation of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and TransportPPhhoottooggrraapphhss ccoouurrtteessyy ooff::

CIHT and the members of the Steering Group who produced this document have endeavoured to ensure the accuracyof its contents. However, the guidance and recommendations given should always be received by the reader ‘in light ofthe facts’ of their specialist circumstances and specialist advice obtained as necessary. Any references to legislationdiscussed within this document should be considered in the light of current and any future legislation. No liability fornegligence or otherwise in relation to this document and its contents can be accepted by CIHT, the members of theSteering Group, its servants or agents, or the managing editors or contributors.

Published by the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation,119 Britannia Walk,London N1 7JERegistered Charity No. 1136896Published 2010. ISBN 978-0-902933-43-9

Phil Jones, Phil Jones AssociatesStephen Hardy, Dorset County CouncilTim Pheby, Transport InitiativesAndrew Cameron, WSPJohn Dales, Urban InitiativesAdrian Lord, ArupRob Marshall, Transport InitiativesJohn Smart, CIHTScott Dyball, CIHTDeborah Sims, Mott MacDonald, Brian Johnson, Keep Britain TidyBen Hamilton-Baillie, Hamilton-Baillie AssociatesTransport for LondonAlan Young, WSPGraham Paul SmithDavid Sprunt, Essex County CouncilSteve Proctor, TMS ConsultancyJoe Burns, Mouchel

P11 CABE/Jane SebireP15(1) CABE/Jane SebireP15(2) David John Urban InitiativesP17(1) GillespiesP18 CABEP49 CABE/Jane SebireP62(1) Nottingham City CouncilP62(2) Nottingham City CouncilP62(3) Nottingham City CouncilP66(3) Louise DugganP81(1) Louise DugganP81(2) CamlinsP81(3) Louise DugganP87(1) CABE/Stephen McLarenP88(3) CABE/Stephen McLarenP97(5) Southampton City Council

Ministerial Foreward 001Presidential Foreword 002Partnering Organisations Preface 003Status and Application 004

Section A – Context and Process 00511 PPrriinncciipplleess 0000771.1 Introduction 0071.2 MfS Principles 0071.3 Scope of MfS 0081.4 The Benefits of Better Streets 00922 NNeettwwoorrkkss,, CCoonntteexxttss aanndd SSttrreeeett TTyyppeess 0011222.1 Introduction 0122.2 Network 0142.3 Context: Town and City Centres 0152.4 Context: Urban and Suburban Areas 0172.5 Context: Urban Extensions 0212.6 Context: Interchanges 0232.7 Context: Village Centres 0242.8 Context: Rural Areas 0262.9 Context: Urban and rural settlements 02733 HHiigghhwwaayy DDeessiiggnn,, RRiisskk aanndd LLiiaabbiilliittyy 0022993.1 The Need for Additional Clarification 0293.2 Design Guidance and Professional Judgement 03044 DDeessiiggnn aanndd IImmpplleemmeennttaattiioonn PPrroocceessss 0033114.1 Introduction 0314.2 Community involvement 0314.3 Stages of Improvement 0324.4 Developing a Quality Audit Process 034

Kent Design Guide 035Quality Audit Process: St Mildred’s Tannery Canterbury, Kent 035

4.5 Road Safety Audit 0374.6 Maintenance Issues 038

Section B —Detailed Design Issues 04155 PPeeddeessttrriiaann NNeeeeddss aanndd FFoooottwwaayyss 0044335.1 Pedestrian Needs 0435.2 Footway Provision 04366 CCyyccllee FFaacciilliittiieess 0044556.1 Introduction 0456.2 Cycle Lanes, Cycle Tracks and Markings 0456.3 Cycle Parking 04777 BBuuss FFaacciilliittiieess 0044997.1 Introduction 0497.2 Bus Priority 0497.3 Bus Stops 0497.4 Bus Laybys and Boarders 05088 CCaarrrriiaaggeewwaayyss 0055118.1 Introduction 0518.2 Design Speed 0518.3 Horizontal Alignment 0528.4 Carriageway Gradients 0528.5 Vertical Curvature 0538.6 Carriageway and lane widths 053

Contents

8.7 Refuges, Medians and Central Reservations 0548.8 Kerbs 05599 JJuunnccttiioonnss,, CCrroossssiinnggss aanndd AAcccceesssseess 0055779.1 Introduction 0579.2 Spacing of Junctions 0589.3 Crossings 0589.4 Priority and Uncontrolled Junctions 0639.5 Squares 0659.6 Conventional Roundabouts 0659.7 Mini Roundabouts 0679.8 Traffic Signals 0689.9 Traffic Management and One Way Systems 0709.10 Direct Frontage Access 0711100 VViissiibbiilliittyy 00773310.1 Introduction 07310.2 Visibility Requirements 07510.3 Forward Visibility 07510.4 Visibility at Priority Junctions 07610.5 X and Y Distances 07810.6 Visibility Along the Street Edge 07910.7 Obstacles to Visibility 0801111 OOnn--SSttrreeeett PPaarrkkiinngg aanndd SSeerrvviicciinngg 0088111122 SSttrreeeett FFuurrnniittuurree aanndd TTrreeeess 00883312.1 Introduction 08312.2 Procedures for reducing street furniture 08412.3 Keeping footways clear 08512.4 Guardrail 08712.5 Street Trees and Planting 09112.6 Street Lighting 09312.7 Security Measures 0941133 TTrraaffffiicc SSiiggnnss aanndd MMaarrkkiinnggss 00995513.1 Introduction 09513.2 Size and mounting height of Signs 09513.3 Yellow Backing Boards 09613.4 Keep Left/Right Signs 09613.5 Centreline Markings 09713.6 Zig-Zag Markings 09813.7 Coloured Surfacing 09813.8 Signs and Markings at Junctions 09813.9 No-Waiting Markings 099

Section C —Case Studies 1011144 CCaassee SSttuuddiieess 11003314.1 Walworth Road, Southwark, London 10314.2 London Road, Southampton 10814.3 Sheaf Square & Howard Street, Sheffield 11314.4 High Row & West Row, Darlington, Part of the ‘Pedestrian Heart’ 11914.5 Maid Marian Way, Nottingham 124

Streets and roads make up around three-quarters of all public space – their design, appearance,and the way they function have a huge impact on the quality of people’s lives. The Department forTransport is committed to high quality design in the public realm and our technical advice isevidence of that commitment.

In 2007 the Department published the Manual for Streets, replacing guidance which had been inuse for 30 years. It completely changed the approach to the design and provision of residential andother streets. It enjoys an excellent standing and its success has generated a desire amongprofessionals for technical advice to cover other streets and roads along similar lines.

Manual for Streets 2 – Wider Application of the Principles is the result – a product of highlycollaborative working between the Department for Transport and industry. It is an excellentdemonstration of what can be achieved when Government works in partnership with others.

I congratulate the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation and the team which madepublication of Manual for Streets 2 possible and I commend the document to all those involved indesigning the public realm. The challenge now is for them to embrace the advice and extend theadvantages of good design to streets and roads outside residential areas.

NNOORRMMAANN BBAAKKEERRPPaarrlliiaammeennttaarryy UUnnddeerr SSeeccrreettaarryy ooff SSttaatteeffoorr TTrraannssppoorrtt

001

Ministerial Foreword

Ministerial Foreword


Presidential Foreword

By Geoff AllisterCIHT President 2010-2011

In 2007 the Department for Transport published the Manual for Streets, a landmark document thatis changing the face of our residential streets. The Manual for Streets (MfS1) did not set out newpolicy, it reinforced a philosophy that had been growing since the late 1990s to return ourresidential streets to the community by engineering them to create a greater sense of place,provide an environment that is accessible and safe for all, and one that improves the quality of life.

The Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation’s new guidelines builds on the advicecontained in MfS1, exploring in greater detail how and where its key principles can be applied tobusier streets and roads in both urban and rural locations up to, but not including, trunk roads.Manual for Streets 2 – Wider Application of the Principles will help to fill the perceived gap in designadvice between MfS and the design standards for trunk roads set out in the Design Manual forRoads and Bridges.

Manual for Streets 2 is the result of a partnership between practitioners and policy makers fromhighway engineers and urban designers to transport planners. The quality of the advice it containsis a true testament to the knowledge and expertise of all those who have contributed to itspreparation. I thank them all, particularly the members of the steering group and the editorial teamfor the considerable time and effort they have contributed to this project.

I would also like to thank the sponsors the Department for Transport, the Association of Directorsof Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport, the Commission for Architecture and the BuiltEnvironment and the Homes and the Homes and Communities Agency who have made theseguidelines possible.

On behalf of the Institution, I am pleased to commend Manual for Streets 2 – Wider Application ofthe Principles to all those who are involved in the planning, construction and improvement of ourstreets and roads. I am sure it will make a significant contribution to professional practice and, overtime, to our communities and the places where people live, work and play.

Geoff AllisterPresident 2010-2011

Streets play a fundamental part in community life which is why CABE has been a long termsupporter of the development of Manual for Streets. Our experience tells us that creative designcan deliver more vibrant and inclusive streets. Happily we’re not alone in this view. Policy makers,practitioners, and community members also identify well designed, civilising streets as critical toissues such as community cohesion, economic vitality, well-being and health. The key challenge indelivering these wider benefits is the ability to strike a more effective balance between themovement, meeting and exchange functions of our street network. Manual for Streets 2 will play animportant role in supporting this agenda.

Richard SimmonsChief Executive, CABE

ADEPT enthusiastically supports this important piece of work which will be an essential reference inthe future. Local authorities are increasingly aware of the fundamental nature of well designed andmaintained streets to the economic, social, educational and environmental well-being of localcitizens and communities; and the harmful consequences of neglecting the places where we liveand work.

George BattenPresident of ADEPT

003

Partnering Organisations Preface


Manual for Streets 2: Wider Application of the Principles (MfS2) forms a companion guide toManual for Streets (MfS1). Whilst MfS1 focuses on lightly-trafficked residential streets it also statesthat, ‘a street is defined as a highway that has important public realm functions beyond themovement of traffic…. Most highways in built up areas can therefore be considered as streets.’MfS1 also stated that, ‘many of its key principles may be applicable to other types of streets, forexample high streets and lightly trafficked lanes in rural areas’.

MfS2 builds on the guidance contained in MfS1, exploring in greater detail how and where its keyprinciples can be applied to busier streets and non-trunk roads, thus helping to fill the perceivedgap in design guidance between MfS1 and the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB).

DMRB is the design standard for Trunk Roads and Motorways in England, Scotland, Wales andNorthern Ireland. The strict application of DMRB to non-trunk routes is rarely appropriate forhighway design in built up areas, regardless of traffic volume.

MfS2 provides advice and does not set out any new policy or legal requirements.

The followingdefinitions applythroughout thisdocument:

MfS1 refers to Manualfor Streets (2007).

MfS2 refers to thisdocument.

MfS refers to bothdocuments.

Status and Application

Section A

Context and Process


1.1_ Introduction11..11..11 MfS2 has been prepared for the CharteredInstitution of Highways and Transportation (CIHT) by amultidisciplinary team of consultants. The document isendorsed by the Department for Transport (DfT), theHomes and Community Agency (HCA), the WelshAssembly Government (WAG), Commission forArchitecture and the Built Environment (CABE), theAssociation of Directors of Environment, Economy,Planning and Transport (ADEPT) and English Heritage. Allof these organisations contributed to its development.

11..11..22 This new document does not supersede MfS1;rather it explains how the principles of MfS1 can beapplied more widely. It draws on a number of sourcesincluding:

• The Department for Transport’s ‘Mixed Priority Route'research study1;

• Interim findings from the ongoing Department forTransport research into Shared Space2;

• Case Studies, including detailed research by CABE;and

• Further research into the relationship between junctionvisibility and collisions.

1.2_ MfS Principles11..22..11 MfS1 changed the way we approach the design,construction, adoption and maintenance of urban streets.The principal changes to practice, as set out below, alsoform the basis of this document which considers thewider highway network.

• AAppppllyyiinngg aa uusseerr hhiieerraarrcchhyy to the design process withpedestrians at the top. This means considering theneeds of pedestrians first when designing, building,retrofitting, maintaining and improving streets.

• EEmmpphhaassiissiinngg aa ccoollllaabboorraattiivvee aapppprrooaacchh to the delivery ofstreets. Many busy streets and rural highways require a‘non-standard’ approach to respond to context andthis can be achieved by working as a multidisciplinaryteam and by looking at and researching other similarplaces that work well. It is important to include all skillsets required to meet scheme objectives. Many ofthese are included in MfS1, paragraph 1.2.1.

• RReeccooggnniissiinngg tthhee iimmppoorrttaannccee ooff tthhee ccoommmmuunniittyy ffuunnccttiioonnof streets as spaces for social interaction. Streetsshould integrate not segregate communities andneighbourhoods.

• PPrroommoottiinngg aann iinncclluussiivvee eennvviirroonnmmeenntt that recognisesthe needs of people of all ages and abilities. Designsmust recognise the importance of way-finding andlegibility, especially with regards to the sensory andcognitive perceptions of children, older people anddisabled people.

• RReefflleeccttiinngg aanndd ssuuppppoorrttiinngg ppeeddeessttrriiaann aanndd ccyycclliisstt ddeessiirreelliinneess in networks and detailed designs.

Both of these streets have about the same amount ofcarriageway space and carry around the same volume ofvehicular traffic. The cross section and arrangement of buildingsmean that the one in the upper photo segregates twocommunities whilst the one in the lower photo is at the centre ofthe community and offers retail and commercial opportunities.

007

1_ Principles

1_ Principles

• DDeevveellooppiinngg mmaasstteerrppllaannss aanndd pprreeppaarriinngg ddeessiiggnn ccooddeessfor larger scale developments, and using design andaccess statements for all scales of development.

• EEssttaabblliisshhiinngg aa cclleeaarr vviissiioonn aanndd sseettttiinngg oobbjjeeccttiivveess ffoorrsscchheemmeess, which respond to the more complex andcompeting requirements in mixed use contexts.

• AA llooccaallllyy aapppprroopprriiaattee bbaallaannccee sshhoouulldd bbee ssttrruucckkbbeettwweeeenn tthhee nneeeeddss ooff ddiiffffeerreenntt uusseerr ggrroouuppss.. Trafficcapacity will not always be the primary consideration indesigning streets and networks.

• CCrreeaattiinngg nneettwwoorrkkss ooff ssttrreeeettss tthhaatt pprroovviiddee ppeerrmmeeaabbiilliittyyaanndd ccoonnnneeccttiivviittyy to main destinations and choice ofroutes.

• MMoovviinngg aawwaayy ffrroomm hhiieerraarrcchhiieess ooff ssttaannddaarrdd rrooaadd ttyyppeessbased on traffic flows and/or the number of buildingsserved.

• DDeevveellooppiinngg ssttrreeeett cchhaarraacctteerr ttyyppeess on a location-specific basis requiring a balance to be struck betweenplace and movement in many of the busier streets.

• EEnnccoouurraaggiinngg iinnnnoovvaattiioonn with a flexible approach tostreet layouts and the use of locally distinctive, durableand maintainable materials.

• UUssiinngg qquuaalliittyy aauuddiitt pprroocceesssseess that demonstrate howdesigns will meet objectives for the locality.

• DDeessiiggnniinngg ttoo kkeeeepp vveehhiiccllee ssppeeeedd aatt oorr bbeellooww 2200mmpphh instreets and places with significant pedestrian

TTaabbllee 11..11 Application of key areas of MfS advice NNoottee:: • yes • subject to local context


movement unless there are overriding reasons foraccepting higher speeds.

• UUssiinngg tthhee mmiinniimmuumm ooff hhiigghhwwaayy ddeessiiggnn ffeeaattuurreessnecessary to make the streets work properly. Thestarting point for any well designed street is to beginwith nothing and then add only what is necessary inpractice.

1.3_ Scope of MfS11..33..11 The following key areas of advice, derived fromprinciples contained in MfS, can be applied based onspeed limits, subject to a more detailed assessment oflocal context, as shown below in TTaabbllee 11..11..

11..33..22 It is clear from TTaabbllee 11..11 that most MfS advice can beapplied to a highway regardless of speed limit. IItt iiss tthheerreeffoorree

SSppeeeedd LLiimmiitt

User Hierarchy

Team Working

Community Function

Inclusive Design

Ped/Cycle Support

Master Plans/Design Codes

Stopping Sight Distance

Frontage Access

Minimise Signs and Street Furniture

Quality Audits

Connectivity/Permeability

3300mmpphh

•••••••••••

4400mmpphh

•••••••••••

5500++mmpphh

•••••••••••

2200mmpphh

•••••••••••

rreeccoommmmeennddeedd tthhaatt aass aa ssttaarrttiinngg ppooiinntt ffoorr aannyy sscchheemmeeaaffffeeccttiinngg nnoonn--ttrruunnkk rrooaaddss,, ddeessiiggnneerrss sshhoouulldd ssttaarrtt wwiitthh MMffSS..

11..33..33 Where designers do refer to DMRB for detailedtechnical guidance on specific aspects, for example onstrategic inter-urban non-trunk roads, it is recommendedthat they bear in mind the key principles of MfS, and applyDMRB in a way that respects local context. It is furtherrecommended that DMRB or other standards and guidanceis only used where the guidance contained in MfS is notsufficient or where particular evidence leads a designer toconclude that MfS is not applicable.

11..33..44 The application of MfS advice to all 30mph speedlimits as a starting point is in keeping with MfS1.

11..33..55 Much of the research behind MfS1 for stopping sightdistance (SSD) is limited to locations with traffic speeds ofless than 40mph and there is some concern that driverbehaviour may change above this level as the character ofthe highway changes. However, 40mph speed limits in built-up areas cover a wide range of contexts, from simple urban

streets with on-street parking and direct frontage access to2/3 lane dual carriageways. Furthermore, local contextvaries not only from street to street but also along the lengthof a street.((SSeeee FFiigguurree 11..11..))

11..33..66 Where a single carriageway street with on-streetparking and direct frontage access is subject to a 40mphspeed limit, its place characteristics are more of a residentialstreet or high street, with higher traffic flows, and may resultin actual speeds below the limit. It is only where actualspeeds are above 40mph for significant periods of the daythat DMRB parameters for SSD are recommended. Wherespeeds are lower, MfS parameters are recommended.Where there may be some doubt as to which guidance toadopt, actual speed measurements should be undertaken

to determine which is most appropriate. (See CChhaapptteerr 1100 forSSD guidance.)

11..33..77 Similarly, in rural areas many parts of the highwaynetwork are subject to the national speed limit but havetraffic speeds significantly below 60mph. (See FFiigguurree 11..22)Again in these situations where speeds are lower than40mph, MfS SSD parameters are recommended.

11..33..88 Direct frontage access is common in all urban areas,including where 40mph speed limits apply, without evidenceto suggest that this practice is unsafe. This is confirmed inTD41/953 (Annex 2 paragraph A2.10) which states that ‘inthe urban situation there is no direct relationship betweenaccess provision and collision occurrence’. However, this isnot true of rural roads (A2.5) where the research identified a‘statistically significant relationship for collisions on ruralsingle carriageways with traffic flow, link length and farmaccesses. On rural dual carriageways, the significantrelationship extended to laybys, residential accesses andother types of access including petrol filling stations’ (SeeCChhaapptteerr 99 for further advice on direct frontage access.)

009

1_ Principles

11..33..99 This approach demonstrates that the key MfSprinciples can be applied widely to improve the quality ofhighways and their application is not limited to low speed orlightly trafficked routes.

11..33..1100 Any new design has to take account of local context,however adopting speed limits as a proxy to identify whichelements of MfS apply provides a reasonable way forward.It is clear from TTaabbllee 11..11 that for a particular context, eventhough some aspects of MfS may not apply, there are stillmany principles which affect design quality that do.

FFiigguurree 11..11 Typical Range of Urban 40mph Speed Limits

FFiigguurree 11..22 National speed limits apply in rural lanes but actualspeeds can be much lower

Single Lane,Frontage Access,On-Street Parking

Wide Single Lane,Frontage Access,On-Street Parking

2/3 Lane Dual Carriageway. Nofrontage access.

No stopping.

1.4_ The Benefits of Better Sreets11..44.1 It is important to take into account multiple objectiveswhen developing transport strategies and schemes, andnot simply congestion reduction. These other prioritiesinclude economic regeneration, climate change, casualtyreduction, reducing air and noise pollution, minimising theimpact of transport on the natural environment, heritage andlandscaping, and encouraging more sustainable andhealthy patterns of travel behaviour.

11..44..22 Making appropriate provision for road-based publictransport, cycling and walking can help to encourage modalshift from the private car, and so contribute to thesustainability and health agendas. Enhancing streetenvironments through a high quality public realmincorporating local materials and historic street features,removal of clutter and pedestrian barriers, use of sharedspace where appropriate and enhanced street lighting canhelp to stimulate local economic activity, reduce street crimeand encourage a sense of local community; this in turnencourages more local, shorter distance travel on foot or bycycle. This will be particularly important in conservationareas, national parks, World Heritage sites and otherenvironmentally sensitive areas.

11..44..33 Local Transport Note 3/08, ‘Mixed Priority Routes:Practitioners’ Guide’1, refers to ten schemes which wereamong the least safe of urban roads which weretransformed into safer, friendlier, more attractive andinclusive streets as discussed in the box out below.

MMiixxeedd PPrriioorriittyy RRoouutteess ((MMPPRR)) ddeemmoonnssttrraattiioonn pprroojjeecctt

Mixed Priority Routes are streets that carry high levels of traffic and also have:

• A mix of residential use and commercial frontages;• A mix of road users, i.e. shoppers, cyclists, bus

passengers, schoolchildren;• A mix of parking and deliveries.

They are not just transport routes. Although dealingwith transport and safety is a key element, other concerns associated with the local economy and local communities may also generate an interest in improving the area with economic regeneration and environmental improvements.

There are many benefits to be gained from enhancingthe high street environment with an integrated approach. The investment is likely to contribute towards assisting the delivery of a range of local authority corporate objectives and targets including:

• Accessibility planning;• Casualty reduction;• Economic regeneration;• Public service agreement;• Quality of life; and• Sustainability.

TThhee tteenn MMPPRR sscchheemmeess::

1 Walworth Road, London

2 Wandsworth Road, London

3 Prince of Wales Road, Norwich

4 Newland Avenue, Hull

5 Nantwich Road, Crewe

6 Renshaw Street/ Berry Street, Liverpool

7 Wilmslow Road, Rusholme, Manchester

8 St Peter’s Street/ Chequer Street, St Albans

9 The Parade/Victoria Terrace, Leamington Spa

10 Cowley Road, Oxford

Prince of Wales Road, Norwich Newland Avenue, Hull

OOuuttccoommeess

Early results across a number of different indicatorsshow that all of the MPR demonstration schemes havebeen successful in meeting their stated objectives:

• Safety: all schemes have achieved a substantial casualty reduction of between 24% and 60%;

• Environment: noise and air quality measurements have shown improvements;

• Accessibility: pedestrian and cycling activity has increased, and children and mobility impaired users generally feel more confident; and

• Economy: improvements in the quality of streetscape have led to a reduction in vacant premises and a more vibrant local economy.


11..44..44 These schemes have clearly demonstrated a rangeof benefits beyond just road safety. These includeincreased economic vitality due to additional visitors tolocal shops and services and increased investment inregeneration, through improvements in facilities and theenvironment.

11..44..55 Research into mixed-use high streets carried out byUniversity of Westminster4 has shown that they are wellused and well liked by local people and encouragesustainable and inclusive patterns of living. Resolving thechallenges of balancing the movement and placefunctions will result in these streets becoming thecornerstone of sustainable communities.

11..44..66 Both sets of research complement the studiescarried out by CABE which found a clear link betweenstreet quality and property values - see Example below.

11..44..77 Green infrastructure, which provides a network ofliving green spaces, is important to the design of urbancommunities. Trees are one of the most visiblecomponents of green infrastructure and highwayengineers and transport planners are well placed to helpdeliver this element of the natural environment. In the lastfew years a growing body of research has made it clearthat trees bring a wide range of benefits both to the urbanenvironment, individual people and to society as a whole.Further guidance on how to plan and design for streettrees is given in CChhaapptteerr 1122..

11..44..88 A number of case studies that demonstrate thevalue of improving the public realm can be found inSection C.

011

1_ Principles

CCAABBEE:: PPaavveedd wwiitthh GGoolldd:: tthhee RReeaall VVaalluuee ooff GGoooodd SSttrreeeett DDeessiiggnn ((22000077))5

Streets are public assets and, in common with otherpublic realm features, assessing their value is a difficultundertaking. Broadly speaking streets are too oftenviewed in purely technical terms by the peopledesigning and managing them on the one hand andtheir more aesthetic qualities by people fundingeconomic redevelopment work on the other.

The truth lies somewhere in between - that streetswhich resolve competing demands and create placesthat people enjoy using can deliver in transporteconomic and social terms. CABE’s research, 'Pavedwith Gold: the Real Value of Good Street Design'(2007), was designed as a demonstration project toshow how to measure the impact of street designimprovements on market prices as revealed throughretail rents and residential prices.

London High Street case studies, outside the centre toavoid tourist effects, were identified in order to makethem as comparable as possible. Streets with largeshopping centres were excluded as their presencewould skew results. A range of types of area and qualityof streets was identified.

This work identified for the first time a direct causal linkbetween street quality and market prices, whichdiscounted all other factors. It established that pricesare not totally explained by factors such as prosperityof the neighbourhood or public transport accessibilityalone; a significant proportion of these prices areexplained solely by the quality of the street.


2.1_ Introduction22..11..11 This section examines some common street typesin different contexts to demonstrate how context and userneeds inform a balanced approach to design, see FFiigguurree 22..11.. It provides general advice on theapplication of the key MfS principles in SSeeccttiioonn 11..22.. Whilethe examples are not meant to be exhaustive, they willserve as a guide to other situations.

2_ Networks, Contexts and Street Types

FFiigguurree 22..11:: Changing Street Context

22..11..22 In FFiigguurree 22..11,, the Movement function remains largelythe same along the route, but the Place function variesaccording to the importance of that part of the street as aplace and the predominant type of land use. As the Placefunction becomes more important, the relative weightgiven to the Movement function will be reduced whendeciding on priorities and an appropriate street design.

22..11..33 The balance between Place and Movement at anyparticular location can be expressed using the hierarchydiagram shown in FFiigguurree 22..22.. A high street, for example,has both a relatively high Movement and Place statuslevel.

22..11..55 A matrix similar to this has been used by theLondon Borough of Hounslow7 to classify its entire streetnetwork into segments corresponding to the 25 cells inthe matrix, while Transport for London has used a 2x6matrix (i.e. two levels of Link and six levels of Place) for itscategorisation of the 580km Transport for London RoadNetwork.

22..11..66 The application of the movement/place diagramFFiigguurree 22..22 does not depend on the detailed analytical

22..11..44 A more formal approach to the determination ofstatus level is given in the ‘Link and Place’ methodology6,which provides definitions for different status levels,resulting in a ‘matrix’ of street types varying in theirbalance of Link and Place status, as shown in FFiigguurree 22..33..(In MfS, the term ‘movement’ is used rather than ‘link’,but the principle is the same.)

013


FFiigguurree 22..22


approach as indicated in FFiigguurree 22..33. It can simply be usedas a design philosophy that ensures a balanced approachis taken. Further advice on understanding the character ofa place is given in Understanding Place: An Introductionand Associated Guidance on Historic Area Assessments8 9.

2.2_ Network22..22..11 Highway networks interlace and connect residential,commercial, urban and suburban areas of cities, townsand villages. They fulfil many functions along their routescatering for many types of journey by different modes.Their interrelated nature means that changes to one partof the network can have implications for adjacent routesand therefore must be understood and taken into accountwhen designing and implementing highwayimprovements.

22..22..22 Major routes in the highway network are mostcommonly classified by the volume of traffic they carryand are often known as Principal Routes, DistributorRoads, Ring Roads, or similar. These standardclassifications remain constant for the whole route andthis has often been used to inform the design andmanagement criteria that are applied to different parts ofthe network. However, by failing to take account of thechanging context along the route this classificationsystem limits understanding of how improvements ormaintenance should reflect the wider functions suchroutes serve.

FFiigguurree 22..33:: The Hierarchy Matrix from 'Link and Place'

2.3_ Context – Town and City Centres22..33..11 Town and city centres are often the most importanturban environments, forming a focus for economic vitality,public life and image of the town/city as a whole. They arewhere most exchange takes place, be it commercial,social, cultural or political. They are also likely to be thepublic places where people spend more time outdoorsthan anywhere else in the town/city, including parks andother green spaces.

22..33..22 Centres are the places that most people in a townor city are travelling to and from: they are at the heart ofthe local highway, bus and cycle networks; they willcontain, or usually be close to, the main railway stationand main bus station/hub; and they will experience fargreater footfall than any other part of the urban area. Theyare, in themselves, transport interchanges.

22..33..33 A town or city’s public image is shaped by thequality of its public realm. The beauty, safety and state ofrepair of its streets and spaces are very important to itssuccess.

015


Common Street Types: MultifunctionalStreets and Spaces

Typical Characteristics22..33..44 Town and city centres are made up of a network ofconnected multifunctional streets and spaces, which inlarger centres may historically have made up a series ofdistinct ‘quarters’ with different character and functions.Over the latter part of the 20th century, many centresbecame more uniformly focussed on retail. While centresmay thrive during shopping hours, many are ‘dead’ oncethe shops shut.

Movement and Place Functions22..33..55 Town and city centres should be, pre-eminently,places. However, many have been harmed either byattempts to protect their place status through eliminatingsome of the movement activity that made them theplaces they were, or by an emphasis on enabling traffic toget across them as easily as possible.

22..33..66 Centres should be the most walkable part of thenetwork; they should accommodate public transportservices, cycle routes and cycle parking, while remainingaccessible by private car. As centres of public life, theymust actively enable access by all in society, and theymust also support efficient access by delivery, service andemergency vehicles. At the same time, they should beattractive places to shop, eat, drink, work, play, dobusiness, meet, study, hang around in and look at.

22..33..77 There is barely a single movement or place functionthat a town/city centre may not need to accommodate, allof which represents a very considerable challenge todesigners of streets, spaces and the broader publicrealm. But it is a challenge that must be met if urban life isto flourish.

Key Issues22..33..88 Centres that have successfully balanced movementand place functions have done so by prioritisingpedestrian and cycle movement within the core, whilemaking it straightforward to get to the edge of the centreby other modes. This means that busier routes aroundthe town centre must be easily crossed by pedestriansand cyclists and should not form a barrier.

Walworth Road, London

Darlington


In Birmingham the Inner Ring Road was long seen as a constraint to extending the City’s inner retail core andwas a major barrier to pedestrians. This has now been broken with at-grade crossings provided for pedestrianswho previously had to contend with detours via unpleasant subways. Elsewhere in Birmingham the Inner RingRoad has been lowered with a ground level pedestrian route provided in place of subways between the CityCentre and Broad Street, helping to regenerate this area of the City.

Breaking the Concrete Collar In Birmingham

22..33..99 Access restrictions by day and/or time of day maybe appropriate in core areas. This means that the physicallayout should cater for a number of patterns of use, ratherthan just one: for example, streets having a conventionalcarriageway and footway layout with a substantial kerbupstand between may be well suited for typicallongitudinal movements by vehicles and pedestrians, butcause problems where many crossing movements takeplace or the space is being used for events, such as astreet market.

22..33..1100 Long-term adaptability should be a designprinciple for town and city streets. This can be achievedby adopting an area-wide public realm strategy and astreetscape manual to ensure that an harmonious publicrealm is achieved through consistent design choices,which the local authority is able to maintain to a highstandard.

22..33..1111 Where there are proposals to introduce vehiclerestricted or pedestrianised areas, the starting positionshould be that cyclists are allowed to continue to use thestreets concerned. If there are concerns about conflictbetween cyclists and pedestrians, the preferred approachis to allow cycling from the outset on the basis of anexperimental traffic regulation order and only restrictaccess when and if the need has been demonstrated. Ifrestrictions on cycling are shown to be necessary, theymay only be required at certain times of day. Therestriction periods can always be extended later if theneed arises.

22..33..1122 Advice on this issue is set out in TAL 9/93 'Cyclingin Pedestrian Areas'10. This emphasises that, on the basisof research, there are no real factors to justify excludingcyclists from pedestrianised areas and that cycling can bewidely permitted without detriment to pedestrians. Thiswas confirmed by TRL report 583 'Cycling in VehicleRestricted Areas' (2003)11 which established that cyclistsalter their behaviour according to the density ofpedestrian traffic by modifying their speed or dismounting.Case studies contained within the report demonstratethat very few collisions actually occur between cyclistsand pedestrians. It also showed that as pedestrian flowsrise, the incidence of cyclists choosing to push their cyclealso rises and those cyclists who continue to ride tend todo so at a lower speed.

22..33..1133 The TRL research found that within pedestrianisedareas most cyclists and pedestrians favour a markedcycle route. However, such a solution should beapproached with caution as it can lead to higher cyclespeeds and possibly more serious conflicts. Cyclists arealso more likely to be obstructed by straying pedestriansusing the defined cycle route and this can itself causeconflict.

2.4_ Context – Urban and Suburban Areas22..44..11 Town and city centres are surrounded by urban andsuburban areas, the former being a mix of residential,employment and retail and the latter predominantlyresidential. Urban areas tend to be higher density andolder development.

2.4.2 Suburban areas can be considered the urbanextensions of yesterday and tend to be either fullyinterconnected with the surrounding area, a characteristicof pre World War II development, or less integrated, cul-de-sac development of the post WWII era. Interconnectedsuburbs are linked together by a network of residentialand arterial routes which double as local high streets atcertain points. Cul-de-sac suburbs are connected to theoutside world by movement-focused distributor roads,relief roads and the arterial network. As noted in MfS1 thistype of layout encourages movement to and from an areaby car rather than other modes. English Heritageguidance on managing change and conserving thecharacter of historic suburbs is set out in ‘Suburbs andthe Historic Environment’12.

017


Common Street Types: Arterial Routesand High Streets

Typical Characteristics22..44..33 Arterial routes form essential parts of the widerhighway network acting as key links between towns,cities and local centres. They are usually a part of the corenetwork for the town or city where it is not easy orappropriate to remove or redirect traffic, including HGVsand buses. The level of activity along these links variesdepending on location. Along some sections of arterialroutes the movement function will be most important;arterial routes are key to the functioning and economy ofurban areas. However, along other sections of the routesthe place function should be given greater weight.

22..44..44 Local high streets in interconnected urban andsuburban locations often occur along arterial routeswhere they benefit from through traffic and proximity toadjacent neighbourhoods. In smaller towns and largervillages, high streets may also form the core of thesettlement with little scope for removing through traffic.High streets will have a significant element of retail andcommercial uses, often mixed with residential use thatgenerates regular, high volume short-stay visits.

22..44..55 There are significant levels of pedestrian and cycleactivity associated with the movement of people along thestreet and to local destinations. There are also high levelsof kerbside activity generated by parking, loading andpublic transport. Provision for passing trade should takeaccount of the needs of people travelling by all modes.

22..44..66 Essentially these streets are ‘living’ streets that actas both a significant local destination and as a corridor formovement through urban and suburban areas or into city,town or large village centres.

Darlington

Birmingham

A207 Welling, Kent


Movement and Place Functions22..44..77 High streets (and high street sections of arterial routes)are complex. They often cater for local retail, leisure andsocial needs as well as passing trade. High Streets can becentres of civic pride where important civic buildings,monuments and spaces are located. These functions needto be understood and incorporated in any redesign

Key Issues 22..44..88 In the main, designers will be tackling problems inhigh streets that already exist. These streets will thereforefrequently have significant and widespread physicalconstraints:

• fixed building lines;• extensive statutory undertakers’ equipment;• shallow services;• established balance of priority to motor vehicles

creating difficulties for the reallocation of space due towider area impacts;

• high cost of remodelling the street;• demand for parking not in keeping with the physical

space available;• public aspiration in terms of the quality of the finish;

and• maintaining service access.

22..44..99 With these complex and competing demands,balancing the place and movement function is challengingand can only by resolved by taking a comprehensive andmultidisciplinary approach to solutions that respect localcontext and user needs.

22..44..1100 On larger new-build schemes it will often beappropriate to build new mixed-use high streets formingan active core to new communities and connecting themto the wider area. In the recent past distributor routeshave taken traffic around the edge of a development.Taking this traffic through the centre will make the newhigh street an accessible, inclusive and active place.

Common Street Types: ReliefRoad/Ring Road

Typical Characteristics22..44..1111 The terms ‘Relief Road’ and ‘Ring Road’ aregenerally used to describe major roads whose primaryfunction is to carry traffic around an urban centre. While‘Ring Road’ implies the existence of a complete loop, theterm is also applied to partial loops. ‘Relief Roads’ tend tobe more linear in form.

22..44..1122 Segregation of different user groups is the designphilosophy which most clearly characterises Relief/RingRoads. Another key characteristic is that many were built,all or in part, as new highways. While some may havebeen based on the alignment of existing highways, asignificant amount of new construction was involved inturning them into the higher capacity traffic routes.Typically Relief/Ring Roads involved the loss of asignificant amount of the existing urban fabric, and thealignment of the new highways were and remain at oddswith the historic street structure of the area.

Nottingham

Kinver High Street, Staffordshire

Birmingham Middle Ring Road

22..44..1133 Relief/Ring Roads are typically multi-lane dualcarriageways, often with speed limits of 40 or 50mph,with very little frontage development. Typical adjacent landuses are those that welcome excellent highwayaccessibility yet are not sensitive to the built environmentquality (e.g. retail warehousing and other industrial uses)and/or to the backs of buildings whose fronts faceinwards to the central streets from which traffic wasdiverted onto the Ring Road.

019


Movement and Place Functions22..44..1144 Relief/Ring Roads are predominantly about motortraffic movement and hardly at all about place, despite thefact that they are often on the edge of very active towncentres. Many new routes were built without footways orprovision for cycling despite their urban environment.They are likely to sever communities and disruptpedestrian and cycle movement to town centres. Wherethey have been formed from existing streets, the previousplace qualities have usually been given little thought andconsequently have been considerably damaged.

SSttoouurrbbrriiddggee RRiinngg RRooaadd

Constructed in the 1960s, Stourbridge Ring Road creates a tight collar around the town’s compact centre. Formedpartly from existing roads and partly on new alignments, it is one-way and encourages high traffic speeds.

The Ring Road did not respect the existing urban form and exposes the rear of a number of historic buildingsalong the town’s High Street. Many sections of the road are not well overlooked by buildings. It forms a barrier topedestrians, with few at-grade crossings and is very intimidating for cyclists.


Key Issues22..44..1155 Where the roads are adversely constraining thedevelopment, growth and prosperity of the town/city, thenconsideration should be given to redressing the balanceof movement and place. The scale of change required totransform Relief/Ring Roads from corridors for generaltraffic to balanced streets has major cost implications.Nevertheless, there are a small but growing number ofexamples where all or part of the ring road has beenremodelled, e.g. Ashford, Nottingham, and Birmingham.

22..44..1166 Some authorities have recognised that apiecemeal approach is all that can be achieved, and havetherefore focused on improvements such as thereplacement of poor quality subways by at-gradepedestrian crossings, introducing ‘friction’ features suchas kerbside parking and loading bays, moving from one-way to two-way operation, reducing speed limits (with orwithout the addition of speed-limiting engineeringelements), or measures to ‘humanise’ the roads such assimple decluttering or the widening and planting onmedian strips.

SSkkyy BBlluuee WWaayy//FFaarr GGoossffoorrdd SSttrreeeett,, CCoovveennttrryy

Sky Blue Way is a major urban relief road, constructed in the 1980s, which relieved traffic from Far Gosford Street, amedieval street on the edge of the city centre. The road carved a broad swathe through the urban fabric, revealingthe rear of buildings. There are few buildings overlooking the new route and it is a hostile environment for pedestriansand cyclists.

A scheme has now been developed by the City Council, working with developer partners, to heal the damage doneby the road scheme. It introduces new buildings to front onto Sky Blue Way, making best use of the awkward plotsof land. Changes to one of the terminal junctions are also proposed, simplifying the layout and removing extensivelengths of guardrailing.

Common Street Type: Boulevards

Typical Characteristics22..44..1177 Boulevards typically carry large volumes of traffic.'The Boulevard Book'13 describes three types of boulevarddesign: (a) streets with a wide central landscaped median,flanked on both sides by carriageways and footways; (b) awider-than-usual street of conventional layout, with acentral carriageway and broad, tree-lined footways (oftenalso referred to as an ‘avenue’); and (c) ‘multiwayboulevards’ with a central carriageway for through traffic,tree-lined medians to each side, one-way accesscarriageways, beyond these medians, and then footways.

22..44..1188 Boulevards are important in many countries. InBritain boulevards have not had such a large part to playin our towns and cities, but there are some UK streetsthat genuinely justify being defined in this way. London’sPark Lane and Cheltenham’s Promenade could qualify ascould some interwar suburban development whichadapted the boulevard typology to facilitate strategic andlocal traffic movements.

22..44..1199 The boulevard typology can be highly appropriatefor application to the conversion of some of the nation’swidest urban roads from traffic-dominated corridorshaving no grandeur and a very poor public realm to muchmore multifunctional urban streets.

Park Lane, London

021


Movement and Place Functions22..44..2200 Multiple movement functions mixed with a verystrong sense of place are at the heart of the boulevardtypology.

22..44..2211 Adjacent uses may be of almost any variety: retail,residential, civic, commercial, or a mix. However thegrand sense of scale created by the wide street is also avital place element in its own right. Wide, tree-linedfootways are there for the convenience of pedestrians,and there may also be additional leisure space on themedians.

2.5_ Context - Urban Extensions22..55..11 An urban extension is the significant growth of anexisting town or city with development that ideally is wellconnected to, and adjacent to, the urban edge of theexisting settlement. Urban extensions can provideimportant ‘green infrastructure’ links that connect urbanopen spaces with rural areas.

22..55..22 They should allow for the growth of our existingtowns and cities to take place in a more sustainable wayso that new residents and workers in the urban extensioncan benefit from the existing facilities in the town or city aswell as those provided in the extension area. Practice thatrelies on limited access via distributor and relief roadslimits the level of connectivity that can be delivered and isnot recommended.

Common Street Types: High Streets,Residential Streets

Typical Characteristics22..55..33 Many existing suburban areas are edged with culs-de-sac and low density development, which makes it verydifficult to continue the growth of the settlement in a well-connected way particularly by public transport.

22..55..44 In order to achieve connected growth, urbanextensions should link in to the surrounding network oflocal and strategic routes. Developments with only one ortwo means of access should be avoided as theysegregate existing and new development, and do notprovide for good walking and cycling connections.

22..55..55 The form of the urban extension should be made upof connected streets and urban blocks. The streetsshould be generally low speed and all, be well overlooked.There should also be a high quality, high frequency publictransport system at the heart of the development. Thewalkable neighbourhood principle should be used to helpstructure the urban extension.

Promenade, Cheltenham


22..55..88 FFiigguurree 22..44 illustrates development that ignores, andoften backs onto existing highways, and provides fewdirect connections. The alternative on the right, illustrateshow new development which embraces and connectswith these routes, changing the form of them to reducespeed and make them more humane can help to deliverintegrated growth.

22..55..99 Masterplans for urban extensions should alsoconsider future growth and how the plan could developfurther, over say a 50 or 100 year vision. Planning andhighway authorities should require developers to providefuture connections when further expansion is a possibility.

The Sherford New Community featured in MfS1. This urban extension, which will link well to the surroundingnetwork, has now received planning consent and is moving towards implementation.

The Sherford New Community is structured around the walkable neighbourhood (a series of 5 minute walks) and anew high street that carries both strategic and development generated traffic which will aid the vitality of the placeand viability of retail and commercial uses.

FFiigguurree 22..44 - Urban Extensions; Suburban Sprawl vs Connected Development

Movement and place functions 22..55..66 These will vary within an urban extension due to thevariation in contexts from high streets to residential streetsand squares to mews and courts. However, with all ofthese street types the consideration of place and the needto integrate communities must underpin design decisions.

Key Issues22..55..77 Unfortunately many urban extensions have leftunchanged strategic highway routes that run adjacent toor through the development rather than making it a focusfor the development, possibly in the form of a high street.

22..55..1100 Taking this approach will mean that planning andhighway authorities will have to accept that the characterof rural routes will have to change fundamentally in theselocations as they become part of the urban fabric. LocalDevelopment Frameworks or in Wales, LocalDevelopment Plans can stipulate that developers requiresufficient land for adequate connections from newdevelopment to potential further expansion.

22..55..1111 Existing routes that pass or run through urbanextensions will change in character as development takesplace bringing new place function as well as an increasein movement along and across the highway. Both need tobe considered in the redesign of the route.

2.6_ Context - Interchanges22..66..11 Whilst at one level interchange facilities cancomprise major bus, tram and rail stations, at anotherthey could simply refer to a high street or crossroadswhere two bus routes meet. Both extremes need to becarefully designed to cater for ease of pedestrianmovement.

22..66..22 The need to provide integrated transport to enabledifferent modes of transport to be used in a seamlessmanner to enable door-to-door travel is crucial. Inparticular the provision of adequate cycle parking atstations and bus stops can make a public transportjourney a convenient and speedy choice.

22..66..33 Often an interchange is a traveller’s first experienceof a place, the gateway to a country or city. It will need toencapsulate a sense of arrival appropriate to its scale andlocation.

22..66..44 Transport integration covers not just the interchangefacility but ticketing and the provision of passengerinformation. Ultimately, maximising passenger satisfaction,or user experience, is crucial to making public transportmore attractive. The aim is to achieve:

• Seamless and efficient movement of pedestrians,cyclists and public transport;

• Increased pedestrian and cyclist satisfaction by makinginterchanges and their urban context more integratedand attractive to use;

• Improved good quality of information, cycle parkingand wayfinding;

• Places that feel and are safe and secure.

Typical characteristics 22..66..55 An independent review on how to improvestations14 recommended that, in the context of streetdesign, improvements to station access should focus onproviding a minimum level of provision dependent on thecategory of the interchange. Features should include:

Louth, Lincolnshire. A bus station that complements the town centre.

023


• Level access, particularly given the expectedconcentration of encumbered users in and aroundtransport facilities;

• Clear and concise identification of transport facilities;• Street direction signs, including cycle/pedestrian

routes;• The provision of cycle access, including secure storage

and cycle hub facilities at the station with thedevelopment of convenient cycle routes;

• Improved bus access through closer partnerships withtrain operating companies, local authorities and busoperators; and

• Provision for taxis.

Movement and Place Functions22..66..66 Any strategy to harmonise and integrate the designand function of streets and interchanges will have to workin conjunction with the physical layout of each place andunder a range of operating environments.

22..66..77 Above all, any strategy aimed at enhancingtransport integration will have to ensure that pedestriansand cyclists can be catered for and directed in aconvenient manner. Success will be dependent upon co-ordination across a range of transport planning,management and operation disciplines.

22..66..88 The Pedestrian Environment Review Software(PERS)15 is a well-established approach for auditingpedestrian networks and is recommended in severalpublications, including Transport for London’s (TfL’s)guidance 'Walking Good Practice' published in 201016.

22..66..99 One of the street audit frameworks developed in thePERS system is specifically concerned with InterchangeSpaces. This was developed at the instigation of TfL andparticularly recognises the specific requirements andchallenges of designing public spaces in which interchangeis the primary, or most significant, function. This promptsassessment of key elements of an interchange space suchas the ability of people to orientate and navigate in thespace or to move freely and safely.


2.7_ Context - Village Centres

22..77..11 Villages are smaller isolated settlements in rurallocations, and can vary from a scattering of dwellings towhat could also be described as a small town.

22..77..22 Villages are the most numerous type of settlementin the UK. In 2001 there were over 4,200 settlements inEngland with more than 100 residents, and of these some3,100 had fewer than 5,000 residents. While the majorityof people reside in larger settlements, a total of 9.8 millionpeople lived in rural England in November 200917.

22..77..33 The quality of the built environment in thesesettlements is obviously important to those who live there,but villages are also an essential part of the make-up ofthe UK and are vital to its image. Tourism is a majorcontributor to the rural economy and preserving theattractiveness of village centres is essential if this is to bemaintained.

Common Street Type: Village Streets

Typical Characteristics22..77..44 Many villages have existed for centuries and arelikely to have an historic centre with a street pattern that isunlikely to conform to a standardised highway layout butwhich it is desirable to conserve in the interests inmaintaining the character of the area. Carriageways areoften narrow, and footways may be narrow or non-existent and as a result speeds can be low. Street lightingmay be below normal standards and may be entirelyabsent as a conscious decision of the local authorities.

Movement and Place Functions22..77..55 Many historic buildings do not have off-streetparking leading to significant demand for on-streetparking in many village centres. This can be in conflictwith movement functions, particularly where villages areon major routes. As in other situations, an appropriatebalance needs to be struck between demand for on-street parking, road safety and visual amenity.

22..77..66 Village centres have all of the place functions of thecentres of larger settlements, albeit on a smaller scale.Most centres will have some shops and one or morepubs, churches and community halls, and so the mostimportant buildings will be located there. Village greens,ponds and other areas of open space will often form akey element within the centre, contributing to the sense ofplace. The relationship between these buildings, greenspaces and the routes through a village is often a majorpart of its character.

Troutbeck, Cumbria

Abbotsbury, Dorset

Hallow Village Green, Worcestershire

22..77..77 Public transport is often limited in rural areas, butservices will almost always stop in the village centre. Withmany villages being compact in size, the centre will beaccessible to local residents on foot, and so the numberof people on foot will be higher in the centre than in otherparts of the settlement.

22..77..88 In movement terms, many village centres are thefocus for street networks that carry low volumes of traffic,but there are also many that are on the route of one ormore heavily trafficked highways, including trunk roads. Inthese cases there are often significant tensions betweenthe movement function of these principal routes and theplace function of the settlement.

22..77..99 Providing a bypass has long been the favouredmeans of reconciling this conflict, but such schemes arecostly and take many years to deliver. Where this is notpossible, the reduction in traffic speed through thesensitive redesign of the principal streets offers analternative, as illustrated in the Clifton example below.

Key Issues22..77..1100 There are often concerns over the urbanisingeffect and visual intrusion of unsympathetic highwayfeatures such as traffic signs, road markings, streetfurniture and excessive carriageway width. These can bein conflict with local place functions. The opportunity fordesigners to employ ‘natural’ features should beconsidered, for example grass or grassy banks,appropriate trees and shrubs and also seating.

22..77..1111 In the past highway authorities may have chosento apply national road standards through rural villages onthe basis that the streets are on a classified route. Unlessthe streets are part of the trunk road network, there is norequirement to apply DMRB standards, and a moreplace-sensitive approach should be used.

22..77..1122 As with larger settlements, experience shows thata more sensitive approach can bring significant benefits.

025


At regular intervals the footway was widened and theroad narrowed to 6 metres, wide enough for two heavyvehicles to pass. These narrowings are spaced withinsight of each other, to continually reinforce to drivers themessage that they need to keep their speed down.Each of the locations where the footway was built outrelates to an important building in the village, such asthe school, the church and the pub. These areemphasised by specially designed plaques on planters.Centreline markings have been removed throughout thelength of the village.

Following implementation of the scheme the all-vehicletraffic speed has reduced to 27mph (average) and 34mph (85th percentile).

CClliiffttoonn VViillllaaggee TTrraaffffiicc CCaallmmiinngg

The main street through Clifton village, Cumbria, is theA6, a former trunk road. Heavy traffic now uses thenearby M6. This left a wide road, with many signs andlines, carrying relatively light local traffic, although it isstill used by some heavy vehicles.

Instead of a conventional traffic calming scheme withyet more signs and lines, a scheme was designed tointroduce measures that protected and enhanced theappearance of the village, as well as reducing speed.The design concept was to show to drivers that theyare not just driving down a road, but through a villagewhere people live.

George and Dragon Pub before; and after, showingcarriageway narrowing and planters


2.8_ Context - Rural Areas

Common Street Type: Rural Roadsand Lanes22..88..11 Rural roads are an integral part of the landscape,often reflecting and preserving historic landscape featuressuch as ancient routes or field boundaries and set withinoutstanding countryside. Elements such as hedges,verges, banks and fingerposts may contribute strongly tolocal character and historic significance.

Typical Characteristics22..88..22 There is a considerable variation in the highwaynetwork running through rural areas from motorways toGreen Lanes. The majority of other rural roads follow oldpathways and boundaries and do not conform to presentguidance on highway standards. Indeed to attempt to doso could be to the detriment of local character and lead tointrusion into some of our most outstanding landscapes.

22..88..33 A number of local authorities have developedpolicies sensitive to local context. Dorset CountyCouncil’s18 approach to the design and management ofrural highways is given in the Example below.

Movement and Place Function22..88..44 Outside villages most rural roads connect smallsettlements and farms to local centres and the widerhighway network. Their predominant function ismovement, although there is often a leisure aspect to this;walking, cycling and equestrian. Some routes also attractcar drivers on leisure routes such as in the National Parks.

22..88..55 Whilst these routes are largely subject to thenational speed limit, their curvilinear nature can encouragespeeds well below 60mph, the clear exception being thebusier and more direct ‘A’ roads. However most of theseroutes are single carriageways where the speed of HGVsis limited to 40mph, and as a result they often act as aconstraint on car speed.

22..88..66 On the more lightly trafficked rural lanes DevonCounty Council19 offers the good practice advice in theExample overleaf.

In April 2008, Dorset County Council formallyadopted a rural roads protocol setting out their newapproach on how to manage the roads in Dorset’scountryside. The protocol’s main principle is to usethe local setting and distinctiveness of the ruralenvironment to guide their management decisions. Allfuture work on rural roads and streets will:

• Balance the safety and access needs of userswith care for the environment and the quality ofour landscape and settlements

• Use local materials and design schemes to besympathetic to the character of our ruralsettlements

• Consider the landscape adjacent to the road andaddress ecological and historical needs andinterests

• Address sustainability and consider the potentialimpacts of climate change, ensuring that ourmanagement of rural roads and streets does notcreate or contribute to foreseeable environmentalproblems in the future

• Keep signs, lines and street furniture to theminimum needed for safety and remove intrusiveroadside clutter

• Where signs and markings are needed, we willadapt standard designs wherever possible tomake them the best possible fit with localsurroundings

• Encourage and test innovative approaches andmake full use of the flexibility in nationalregulations, standards and codes of practice

027


2.9_ Context: Urban and Rural Settlements

Street Types: Shared Space

Typical Characteristics22..99..11 Shared Space is predominantly an approach tohighway design and is introduced for a range of purposesincluding:

• improving the built environment;• giving people freedom of movement rather than

instruction and control;• improving the ambience of places;• enhancing social capital;• enhancing the economic vitality of places; and• safety.

22..99..22 Many local authorities’ objectives can be addressedthrough pedestrianisation. However, for practicalpurposes and in some settings, Shared Space may bemore desirable for a number of reasons.

22..99..33 A characteristic of many Shared Space schemes isthe minimal use of traffic signs, road markings and othertraffic management features. With less or no trafficmanagement, or clear indication of priority, motorists areencouraged to recognise the space as being differentfrom a typical road and to react by driving more slowlyand responding directly to the behaviour of other users(including other motorists) rather than predominantly tothe traffic management features. This approach takesplace against a backdrop of concern at the proliferation offeatures such as pedestrian guardrailing, traffic signs andhighway regulation which, it is argued, reduce users’understanding of the complexity of the street environmentand their personal responsibility for safe and appropriatebehaviour.

There is a large network of minor roads in Devon. Mostjunctions are T-junctions or crossroads and onoccasions, a road has a split junction, leaving a smallgrass area between the carriageways. Junctionimprovements are sometimes necessary on safetygrounds or as a result of development in an area.Whilst legislation sometimes requires specificstandards to be met, some regulations do allowflexibility. The design of any new scheme should usethe existing topography, vegetation, buildings andother structures, so that they appear an integral part ofthe landscape and historic road pattern. Solutionsshould reinforce local identity by careful choice ofdetailing, materials and street furniture.

Roundabouts are normally associated with urbanareas or major roads, where the volume of trafficmeans they are considered to be essential. Regulationrequires lighting, mandatory signs and lines to asatisfactory standard at roundabouts and this can beinappropriate in rural areas. In view of this, otherjunction treatments are preferable.

Junction improvements will only be considered wherethere is a proven safety need and the introduction of aroundabout should only be considered as a last resort.

Wherever possible, the area of carriageway should bereduced and the road realigned rather than use largeareas of hatching.

There should be a presumption of retaining trees,hedges and verges including any central grass areas.

If a traditional Devon hedge needs to be removed forthe realignment of a road, the practicality oftranslocation/moving the hedgebank should beconsidered in the first instance. Where this is notfeasible, the next option should be to carefullydismantle and reconstruct the hedge. Archaeologicalrecording and supervision may be required.

Lighting will not be installed on roads outsidesettlement boundaries unless there is a proven andoverriding safety reason which cannot be addressedby other means. Where considered necessary, thehighway authority will consult with landscapemanagers during the design stage. The preferredoption is to install high-reflective non-illuminated signs.

Signing will be kept to a minimum and will be locatedwith a view to minimising the impact on the landscapeand the rural character of the area, as well as with aview to safety and utility.

Detailing and choice of materials will respect the localenvironment and standard solutions or componentswill not always be appropriate. Kerbing of central grassareas should be avoided. Chevron blocks around theedge of the roundabout are not appropriate andshould not be used.

New Road, Brighton


22..99..44 Some Shared Space schemes also feature a levelsurface. In these cases, kerbs are omitted and there is nolevel difference between pedestrians and vehicular traffic.The aim of reducing the definition of areas for pedestriansand vehicles is to indicate that the street is meant to beshared equally by all users of the highway. Indication ofimplied priority for motor vehicles is removed, as is aphysical and psychological barrier to pedestrians whichmight discourage their using the full width of the highway.Ideally, people should be able to not only cross the streetwherever they want to, but occupy the full width of thestreet too.

Movement and Place Functions22..99..55 Shared Space can maintain access for publictransport, cyclists, disabled people reliant on cars,passing trade, and delivery vehicles that might otherwisebe excluded. It can also reduce the network impacts ofentirely closing a link to traffic. Shared Space alsoaddresses a particular problem which can affect somepedestrianisation schemes, where the absence ofvehicular traffic can lead to them becoming lifeless placesat night. This can give rise to personal security issues.

22..99..66 Several terms are currently in use aimed atdescribing Shared Space. At the time of publication thefollowing definitions are used:

• SShhaarreedd SSppaaccee:: a street or place accessible to bothpedestrians and vehicles that is designed to enablepedestrians to move more freely by reducing trafficmanagement features that tend to encourage users ofvehicles to assume priority.

• LLeevveell ssuurrffaaccee:: a particular type of Shared Space wherethe street surface is not physically segregated by kerbsinto areas for particular uses. Not all parts of a levelsurface are necessarily shared as other features, suchas street furniture, may physically prevent vehicles fromoccupying certain parts of the space (see next).

• CCoommffoorrtt ssppaaccee:: space(s) within the scheme designedto discourage or prevent vehicular access so thatpedestrians can choose whether to mix with vehiclesor not.

22..99..77 In historically sensitive environments, creating a levelsurface may result in the loss of significant features suchas historic kerb lines, and creating surfaces withcontrasting tones may be visually intrusive. EnglishHeritage’s ‘Streets for All: Practical Case Study 6: TactilePaving’20 illustrates how natural materials can be used toachieve contrast in sensitive areas.

Key Issues22..99..88 A number of emerging design issues have beenidentified in the ongoing DfT research project on SharedSpace2. These are summarised below:

• there is a need to take a comprehensive approach tothe design of Shared Space schemes, with clearobjectives as to what the scheme is meant to achieve;

• establishing a multidisciplinary team at an early stage inscheme development is important;

• there is a need for close and continued engagementwith interested parties, including groups representingvulnerable users;

• achieving vehicle speeds of under 20mph is likely to beimportant to achieving the full potential benefit ofschemes;

• it may be necessary to consider traffic network designto manage the flow of vehicles such that pedestriansare willing to use the space as intended;

• schemes need to be designed in three dimensions, asvertical features and cross sections can influence driverspeed;

• Shared Space schemes seem likely to be mosteffective when they provide a comprehensive redesignof the space - just adding or removing specific design features without regard to context or integration ofother design elements is unlikely to be satisfactory;

• transition zones or gateway treatments can be usefulfor indicating to motorists that they are entering a placewhere they need to drive at low speed and with caution, and for encouraging them to adjust theirbehaviour prior to encountering significant numbers ofpedestrians;

• tactile features for blind or partially sighted people arerequired to enable them to navigate the space;

• control of parking needs to be considered in levelsurface schemes;

• with level surfaces designing for drainage needsparticular care because of the lack of conventionalcarriageway cross falls and kerbs; and

• providing surfaces in contrasting tones can assistpartially-sighted pedestrians in orientating themselveswithin a street. However colour fading, dirt, wetweather, low light etc. may affect the level of contrast.

22..99..99 These considerations will be reflected in the finaldesign guidance which will result from the ongoingresearch, expected to be published by DfT in 2011.

3.1_ The Need For Additional Clarification33..11..11 MfS1 sought to assuage fears of some highwayauthorities, when considering more innovative designs atvariance with established practice, concerning liability inthe event of damage or injury. Whilst this was acceptedby some it is clear that there is a need for more guidanceon risk and liability.

33..11..22 Since the publication of MfS1, the UK Roads Boardhas published a second edition of Highway Risk andLiability Claims (HRLC)21. All those with an interest inhighway design are strongly recommended to read thiscomprehensive document.

33..11..33 The document is quoted below more extensivelythan was its predecessor in MfS1 to raise awareness ofthe issues and demonstrate how few cases arise due toalleged defects in design and to give greater confidenceto designers to respect local context and move away froma standardised, rigid approach.

33..11..44 The HRLC document sets out the legal uses andobligations of users of the highway.

Uses of the Highway33..11..55 When discussing the rights to use a highway,reference should be made to the following:

“the public highway is a public place which the publicmay enjoy for any reasonable purpose, provided theactivity in question does not amount to a public or privatenuisance and does not obstruct the highway byunreasonably impeding the primary right of the public topass and repass” Lord Chancellor, DPP v Jones 1999

33..11..66 This shows that the public highway is not merely apiece of infrastructure for moving from place to place. It isa place in its own right that can be used for any purposethat does not cause nuisance or obstruction.

33..11..77 The Highway Code22 provides a guide to the use ofthe highway and confirms that users must behavereasonably, taking into account other people and localconditions.

029

3_ Highway Design, Risk and Liability

3_ Highway Design, Risk and Liability

33..11..88 Key guidance from the Highway Code states thatpeople must not drive dangerously, without due care andattention or without reasonable considerations for otherroad users. It goes on to say:

‘Adapt your driving to the appropriate type and conditionof road you are on. In particular

• do not treat speed limits as a target. It is often notappropriate or safe to drive at the maximum speedlimit

• take the road and traffic conditions into account. Beprepared for unexpected or difficult situations, forexample, the road being blocked beyond a blind bend.Be prepared to adjust your speed as a precaution

• where there are junctions, be prepared for road usersemerging

• in side roads and country lanes look out for unmarkedjunctions where nobody has priority

• be prepared to stop at traffic control systems, roadworks, pedestrian crossings or traffic lights asnecessary

• try to anticipate what pedestrians and cyclists mightdo. If pedestrians, particularly children, are looking theother way, they may step out into the road withoutseeing you’ (Highway Code Rule 146)

33..11..99 It is clear that the Highway Code requires drivers tohave regard for other road users particularly children,which is confirmed in the case of Russell v Smith:

“The Highway Code requires motorists to take particularcare in looking out for children in built up areas and totravel at an appropriate speed. In the case of Russell v.Smith and Another 2003 EWHC, a motorist, Miss Smithcollided with a young cyclist who had emerged into herpath from a side road. Failure to observe a provision ofthe Highway Code is something which a court can takeinto account when assessing liability, and does not involvefault on the part of the driver. The court judged that MissSmith had failed to observe the provisions of the HighwayCode that requires drivers to have regard to the safety ofchildren in a residential area, and was held partly liable.”

33..11..1100 There has been a long standing principle, asrestated in the Gorringe v Calderdale ruling, that driversare responsible for their own safety.

“The overriding imperative is that those who drive on thepublic highways do so in a manner and at a speed whichis safe having regard to such matters as the nature of theroad, the weather conditions and the traffic conditions.Drivers are first and foremost themselves responsible fortheir own safety”.


Risk Compensation33..11..1111 Risk compensation, whereby a driver is assumedto adjust behaviour in response to perceived changes inrisk is reflected in MfS1 but there is evidence of this datingback to the 1930s: (See Example above).

33..11..1122 The evidence based approach set out in MfS1used the research findings of 'The Manual for Streets:Evidence and Research', TRL66123, in concluding that anumber of environmental factors influence driverbehaviour to bring about this compensation. (See CChhaapptteerr 88..)

Design, Defects and Liability 33..11..1133 Streetscape and highway design have beendevolved to local authorities. However, some highwayauthorities do not take advantage of this and can shyaway from developing local guidance for fear of litigation.However, HRLC refers to a survey it conducted to assessthe scale of cases relating to defects in design.

“There have been very few cases relating to allegeddefects in design. A request went out to members of theCSS [now ADEPT] in 2008 for cases that had goneagainst the authority on the basis of design. There was nosignificant history. There was a small number of live casesthat were tending to focus on trip hazards resulting fromdesign. There is of course nothing stopping an individualmaking a claim for a design defect, however the instancesseem rare and the chances of success remote.”

3.2_ Design Guidance andProfessional Judgement33..22..11 For some time there have been concerns expressedover designers slavishly adhering to guidance regardlessof local context. Local Transport Note 1/08 specificallyadvises:

“Regulations and technical standards have a key role inthe delivery of good design, but, if used as a startingpoint, they may serve to compromise the achievement ofwider objectives. A standards-based template view ofroad junction design, for example, is inappropriate". LTN1/08 3.2.124

33..22..22 In reality, highway and planning authorities mayexercise considerable discretion in developing andapplying their own local policies and standards.

"Designers are expected to use their professionaljudgement when designing schemes, and should not beover-reliant on guidance". LTN 1/08 3.2.324

"Available guidance is just that, guidance, and cannot beexpected to cover the precise conditions andcircumstances applying at the site under examination.”LTN 1/08 3.2.224

33..22..33 On this issue HRLC states:

“The authors of guidance, how ever accomplished, willnot be cognizant of the site and situation in question. Itwould be neither reasonable nor rational to presume thatanyone could produce an optimal design in abstract. Theinformed judgement of trained professionals on-site,should logically take precedence over guidance.”

“Many more accidents occur on the wider, andshould be, safer roads than upon the so-calleddangerous ones. I have in some cases, widenedturns to render them safer, but more accidents haveensued owing to motorists taking the turns muchfaster.”

H T Chapman, County Surveyor of Kent, September1932

In 1954 in the paper 'Road Design in relation toTraffic Movement and Road Safety Proceedings ofthe Institution of Municipal Engineers', the author R JSmeed reported on research that had found arelationship between increased carriageway widthand increases in the average speed of traffic, andconversely reductions in radius of curvature ofhighways and reductions in speed of traffic.

Design champion

Projectmanager

Traffic engineer Urban

designer Safety auditor

Contractor Maintenancecontractor

Projectinitiation

Design Implementation Maintenanceand monitoring

Strategy/vision

Maintenanceprogramme

Maintenanceagreement

Sitesupervision

Policycontext

Schemevalue

assessment

Funding andtimescales

Project/scheme brief

Regulations guidance and

standards

Designtechniques

Contractorinvolvement

and continuity

Designchecklist

Qualityauditing

Performancemonitoring

Schemeevaluation

4.1_ Introduction44..11..11 A generic design and implementation process wasset out in MfS1 which leads from local policies throughdesign, auditing, approval to implementation andmonitoring. This process can be applied to all types ofprojects from new development to changes to existingstreets.

44..11..22 The detailed process given in MfS1 was primarily fornew development. For existing streets the followingexample of a design process can be applied and is takenfrom Local Transport Note 1/0824.

44..11..33 This process emphasises the need for a clear vision,a multidisciplinary team and the monitoring of theperformance of the completed project.

4.2_ Community Involvement4.2.1 On many schemes there will be a need for thoroughpublic consultation and involvement. The Mixed PriorityRoute projects (see LTN 3/081) all spent considerable timeand effort to consult widely which resulted in muchimproved and well-received schemes.

031

4_ Design and Implementation Process


FFiigguurree 44..11:: The Design Process - Flows, Inputs and Links, from LTN 1/08


44..22..22 These principles can also be applied on small low-budget schemes, for example the Sustrans DIY Streetsproject which is yielding significant benefits to localpeople, see Example below.

4.3_ Stages of Improvement44..33..11 Significant improvements to existing streets can bedelivered with relatively little effort by applying theprinciples of MfS during ongoing maintenance. A similarapproach has been developed by the Urban Design Teamwithin Transport for London Group Planning on behalf ofthe Mayor of London in his 'Better Streets strategy'25

published in November 2009 and the 'Mayors TransportStrategy' published in June 2010. These provide

guidance on how to provide better streets and a series ofstaged actions to deliver them. MfS and the BetterStreets strategy share a consistent philosophy.

44..33..22 The strategy sets out five practical steps todelivering better streets. The steps are progressive,moving from simple measures through to the completetransformation of streets, and more than one can be doneat the same time. Steps One to Four can be undertakenin the course of routine maintenance, or small-scaleimprovements. These can be inexpensive to implementfrom an engineering point of view and can be carried out quickly.

DDIIYY SSttrreeeettss –– AAccttiivvee CCoollllaabboorraattiioonn..

This Sustrans project involves local people in designingmodest but effective improvements to the streetswhere they live, using the principles of the first‘woonerf’ schemes in the Netherlands (and whichformed the basis of UK Home Zones).

A total of 12 projects have been implemented, all ofwhich have been founded on extensive collaborationwith residents. Sustrans has developed a toolkit of lowcost interventions to help groups develop future similarschemes. See http://www.sustrans.org.uk/what-we-do/liveable-neighbourhoods/diy-streets for moreinformation

Designing with residents, on street

Mina Road, Bristol – Before

Mina Road, Bristol – After

033


00.. EExxiissttiinngg SSttrreeeett

Considering a typical street in the UK, the strategy sets out five practicalsteps to deliver better streets.

11.. TTiiddyy UUpp

Get rid of unnecessary road markings and bits of kit that are easy to liftand remove. Remove things such as unwanted or broken seats whereremoval is simple and will not damage the footway or repair them whereappropriate.

22.. DDeecclluutttteerr

More thoroughly, justify each piece of equipment and obstruction with apresumption that it should be removed unless there is a clear case forretention, for example its contribution to the historic character of the area.Look particularly carefully at the need for signs, posts, guardrails, bollardsand road markings.

33.. RReellooccaattee//mmeerrggee ffuunnccttiioonnss

Make the remaining street features and equipment work together, maybeputting multiple signs on poles, private boundary walls, railings or buildingswhen possible or installing a furniture zone in preference to scatteringobjects across the pavement width.

44.. RRee--tthhiinnkk ttrraaffffiicc mmaannaaggeemmeenntt ooppttiioonnss

Consider how pedestrians, cars and cyclists use the area and rebalancepriorities. This might mean, for example, eliminating some traffic signals,removing redundant carriageway width and providing more generouspavements, creating indirect driving lines, or reverting to traditional two-way roads where practical.

55.. RRee--ccrreeaattee tthhee ssttrreeeett

Totally remodel the space creating a very different place. This type ofapproach is likely to be appropriate in very carefully chosen locations. Itshould be very well designed, with the aid of extensive consultation, andcarefully implemented with consideration to the effects on how the historicenvironment contributes to the sense of place and to the needs of allusers. High quality materials and craftsmanship are essential.

images copyright of Transport for London


4.4_ Developing a Quality Audit Process44..44..11 Quality Audit (QA) was first described in generalterms in MfS1. QA is a process whereby a series ofdiscrete evaluations are collected and given dueconsideration within the design process throughout thelife of a project.

44..44..22 Quality Audit is recommended as integral to thedesign process, from initial conceptual designs when avision for a scheme is developed and including criteria forsuccess, e.g. not just reducing collisions or congestionbut also increasing footfall and use of places. For largerschemes this will require a team approach whereby allthose with an interest at some stage in the project,including the general public and disability groups, arebrought together to identify and resolve competingobjectives. QA is appropriate for both large and smallschemes and for changes to existing streets. It couldbecome part of the Design and Access Statementrequired for submission with a Planning Application.

44..44..33 A number of local highway authorities andconsultants are already involved in QA processes, whichinclude a Road Safety Audit (RSA). More are involved inundertaking road user audits in addition to RSA on someschemes, (see Examples from Kent and Solihull).

44..44..44 It is recommended that local highway authorities setdown a process for implementing and documenting QA,including procedures for resolution if various audits orassessments are in conflict.

44..44..55 The design process should start with an evaluationof what is already there in the street, and how it operates.Street character assessments, including reviews ofexisting adjacent streets, can help to inform decisions onappropriate materials for new streets, and it may bepossible to draw from local designs in designing streetfurniture. This is a useful way to assess whether items ofstreet furniture (such as signs, posts or bollards) areredundant and can be removed. This approach will beparticularly important in conservation areas, nationalparks, World Heritage sites and other environmentallysensitive areas. Hampshire County Council has adopted a‘Companion Document to Manual for Streets’26 whichsets out its approach to street characterisation in a widevariety of settings.

44..44..66 The review might consider the following:

• A record of the geometry of the street, includingdistances between buildings and widths of pavement.

• A record of the materials that are in use. This mayinclude:- Old granite kerbstones, which are very durable

and often remain - Stone paving slabs- Stone setts in the road (which may be covered

by a layer of black-top)- Granite setts, for example marking the channel

or around cellar entrances• Details of any street furniture that adds to a sense of

place including historic street signs and fingerposts,milestones, traditional phone boxes and features suchas horse troughs or drinking fountains. Some of thesemay be heritage assets of local or national significance,as defined in Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5):‘Planning for the Historic Environment’27. In Walesfurther advice design is contained in Technical AdviceNote 1228. Locally specific information is available fromthe relevant local authority’s Historic EnvironmentRecord (HER) and from English Heritage regionaloffices and in Wales from Cadw.

44..44..77 Further information is available in English Heritage’s‘Streets for All’29 publications.

44..44..88 A QA could comprise a number of discrete studiesincluding:

• Road Safety Audit (RSA) possibly including a RiskAssessment

• Cycle Audit• Visual Quality Audit• Access Audit• Walking Audit• Cycle Audit• Non-Motorised User Audit• Community Street Audit• Placecheck

44..44..99 Other issues that may need to be considered in theQA process include parking, servicing, public transport,impact on utilities, trees and planting, drainage etc.

44..44..1100 The various audit reports should be broughttogether in order to identify any conflicts that may arise,with a view to seeking a balanced response.

44..44..1111 The following examples show how two authorities,Kent and Solihull, have approached Quality Audits.

035


QQuuaalliittyy AAuuddiitt PPrroocceessss:: SStt MMiillddrreedd’’ss TTaannnneerryyCCaanntteerrbbuurryy,, KKeenntt

St Mildred’s Tannery was the last major site in thehistoric city centre of Canterbury to become availablefor redevelopment. Since the 1980s, developmentplan allocations had moved from multi-storey carpark, coach park, major hotel and supermarket tomainly residential with a limited amount of commercialfloorspace. The latter element was eventuallyidentified as a small retail centre and a small hotel.

The site had ground contamination problems, lies in aflood risk area and had, for centuries, beeninaccessible to the public. Redevelopment offered theopportunity to open up important riverside and otherpedestrian and cycle routes in the area, as well ascreate a lively new ‘quarter’ of the city.

A Development Brief, prepared by a City Councilmultidisciplinary team, was subject to wideconsultation and member approval. The Brief not onlyestablished the principles of development, includinglisted building retention, scale and massing,permeability and street forms, but it also establishedthe Development Team principle for the assessmentof detailed schemes.

Two detailed proposals, both of which were workedon by the Development Team in partnership with thedeveloper’s Design Team, were rejected by the CityCouncil’s Planning Committee. The third scheme wasdeemed to be in accordance with the DevelopmentBrief. Long before the third proposal reached theCommittee stage, the Development Team agreed the

street layout and then invited highway maintenanceexperts to comment upon proposals for streetmaterials.

Certain materials were rejected because they wereconsidered to be unsuitable, but alternativesappropriate for this important part of the city centreconservation area were suggested and accepted.

Parking provision, at well below one space per unit,was agreed as being in line with established andemerging policies and guidance, and the site wasconsidered to pass all relevant tests for travelsustainability and transport impact. No major highwayinfrastructure improvements were required, but animportant addition to the riverside walking and cyclingroute will be delivered.

Over 400 units of residential accommodation arebeing built, along with the small retail centre andsmall hotel.

QQuuaalliittyy AAuuddiitt AAccttiioonnss

• Development Team approach established forDevelopment Brief preparation and carried throughto consideration of detailed proposals by theDesign Team.

• Additional expertise called upon at appropriatestages of assessment.

• Ongoing involvement of Development Team duringconstruction, including visits by PlanningCommittee members.

• Continuing liaison with Project Manager andAgreement Engineers, until development iscompleted.

KKeenntt DDeessiiggnn GGuuiiddee

“The Quality Audit is carried out by the DDeevveellooppmmeenntt TTeeaamm..This team is assembled by the Local Planning Authority andis made up of all relevant professionals. Its purpose is towork with the developer’s PPrroojjeecctt TTeeaamm to achieve a highquality development that is attractive, functional and safe.Within the Development Team there will normally be at leastone Development Planning Engineer representing KentHighway Services. All development proposals which involvethe creation of new streets (as part of the public realm)should be subject to a Quality Audit, albeit the team sizeand detailed approach should reflect the scale of theproposal.

Development Planning Engineers are primarily responsiblefor assessing the public realm for functionality and safety,and for making the highway authority’s recommendation tothe Local Planning Authority. The recommendation shouldbe discussed with the Development Team before it isformalised. RRooaadd SSaaffeettyy AAuuddiittss will normally figure in theassessment, but they will not direct it.

Quality Audits bring together the various assessments ofpublic realm. The Development Team, and not individualprofessionals, decides on the balance to be struck betweenthe outcomes. As such, Road Safety Audits have nosuperior status. Many Development Planning Engineershave been making value judgements on attractiveness,functionality and safety for years. Increasingly, their role willbe one of ‘placemakers’, hence they will become adept atinterpreting Road Safety Audits and understanding the risksto which the findings direct the Project Team’s attention.They will also develop the skills necessary to contributepositively and creatively to the placemaking agenda, notrestricting themselves to the application of standards.

The Local Planning Authority’s Case Officer will keep arecord of the Quality Audit inputs and decisions. This willbe sufficient to deal with enquiries in the very unlikelyevent of an incident being attributed to the design of thepublic realm. A copy of the Quality Audit should be kepton the planning file(s) and any subsequent adoptionagreement file.”30


CCaassee SSttuuddyy:: QQuuaalliittyy AAuuddiitt PPrroocceessss AAddoopptteedd bbyySSoolliihhuullll

As part of regeneration in North Solihull a new villagecentre, North Arran Way is being built with a highstreet designed around guidance in Manual forStreets.

In conjunction with its development partner, In-Partnership, Solihull MBC has developed a QualityAudit process which has review meetings at fourstages of the design process to consider whether theemerging design is meeting the objectives of thestreet. The review stages are:

• Outline design (pre-planning) – (user andprofessional audit);

• Detailed design – (professional audit only);• Completion of construction - (professional audit

only); and • After opening - (user and professional audit).

The objectives for the street identified the need for:

• A high quality public realm that people want to bein, is enjoyable to be in and encourages socialinteraction;

• The street to be acceptably safe from a highwayand community point of view; and

• The street to be functional, so the needs of allusers must be considered and catered for as faras possible.

The first stage of the quality audit was carried out atoutline design stage before the planning applicationwas submitted. Two review meetings were arranged.The first meeting was with invited representativesfrom user groups. The user audit was held close tothe development site and representatives from thefollowing groups invited: visually impaired, mobilityimpaired, other disabled users groups, schoolchildren, local people including the elderly,pedestrians and cyclists and potential high-streetshopkeepers, Solihull cycle campaign, the publictransport operator, drivers of delivery vehicles, andthe emergency services.

Representatives of the Design Team presented thescheme and answered questions. Council officersfrom planning, transport and highways also took part.The original intention was that a series of questionswould be worked through to identify any issues andconflicts. However, the user groups were soforthcoming that no questions were needed tofacilitate discussion. Many safety issues were raisedand discussed, in particular the challenges of theproposed shared space for visually impaired users.Many solutions were also offered to the Design Team.Structured notes of the meeting were taken andcirculated to the Design Team and the officers fromthe Council.

The outline stage professional audit review meetingtook place a week after the user audit. The DesignTeam again presented the scheme, this time tocouncil officers who included: highway safety,transport planning, landscape, environmentalmaintenance, street lighting, cycling and planning.

In addition to the Design Team and council officers,two independent reviewers were invited to act as‘independent challengers’. A Road Safety Auditorwho had not been involved in the design was invitedand also the ‘Design Champion’ for North Solihull.Their role was to challenge the design for their areasof interest i.e. highway safety and public realm quality.The Design Team and council officers then agreed aresponse to each point raised. It had been agreedprior to the meeting that if necessary a riskassessment approach would be used to help resolveany areas of tension, but the need for this did notarise.

The results of the user audit were worked through inaddition to comments raised by council officers andissues raised by the ‘independent challengers’. Thediscussion and agreed decisions were minuted andaction points for the detailed design agreed.

Further professional audits are planned at the detaileddesign stage and on the completion of construction.These audits will also include the ‘independentchallengers’ looking particularly at highway safety andpublic realm quality.

A final user audit will then be carried out when thescheme is completed and opened.

4.5_ Road Safety Audit

Safety Audit and Risk Assessment44..55..11 The aim of Road Safety Audit (RSA) is to check thatthe design has adequately addressed all safety issues inorder to minimise the number and severity of situations inwhich road users are injured whilst using the publichighway. This task is undertaken by experienced roadsafety practitioners who examine new schemes andhighway improvements during the design andconstruction stages (IHT RSA Guidelines, 2008)32.

44..55..22 The RSA process involves the preparation of anaudit brief and commissioning of an independent auditteam to carry out the audit. The designer responds to theaudit recommendations, and the client determineswhether to undertake the audit recommendations in thelight of the design response. As noted in MfS1, there is nosense in which a scheme ‘passes’ or ‘fails’ the RSAprocess.

44..55..33 Road safety auditing began around thirty years agoas a means of feeding back cutting edge knowledge onroad safety into main stream highway design. Some 25years later, MfS1 contained qualifications regarding somemore recent activity:

037


'There can also be a tendency for auditors to encouragedesigns that achieve safety by segregating vulnerableroad users from road traffic. Such designs can performpoorly in terms of streetscape quality, pedestrian amenityand security and, in some circumstances, can actuallyreduce safety levels.' MfS 3.7.11

44..55..44 Such situations may have arisen where an individualauditor had not kept up to date with latest thinking andresearch on road safety, or where the scheme objectiveshave not been fully appreciated by the audit team. Safetyauditors with an understanding of the latest safetyresearch and knowledge of innovations in road and streetdesign can perform an especially valuable role. Manyclient organisations now require that safety auditors keepup to date by attending appropriate training courses andseminars.

44..55..55 Where an RSA is undertaken on highways that fallunder the scope of MfS, the audit team should have asound understanding of the scheme objectives, designprinciples and research involved. It is important that in theinterests of the development of highway engineering thatthey play the role that was first envisaged, bringing an up-to-date understanding of safety into mainstream highwayengineering and public realm practice.

FFiigguurree 44..22 -- Example Quality Audit Process (Source: Solihull MBC)31

4.6_ Maintenance Issues44..66..11 Maintenance should play a major part of the designprocess as ongoing maintenance costs can be animportant influence on the quality of a public realmscheme. Whole life costs are sometimes only consideredat the later stages of the design process, which shouldnot be the case. Early consideration of maintenanceissues during the design process will help to ensure amaintainable scheme is being delivered.

44..66..22 There is a major opportunity to improve streetswhen authorities carry out routine maintenance. Carryingout minor street improvements at the same time asmaintenance can reduce overall costs. The process ofusing ongoing maintenance for minor improvement isincluded in the ‘tidy up’ and ‘declutter’ steps in the Mayorof London’s 'Better Streets Strategy'25.

44..66..33 The London Borough of Hounslow34 has developeda method to determine minimum asset provision andlevels of service and condition on a very diverse highwaynetwork using a location’s Link and Place functions; seeExample overleaf.


44..55..66 The RSA procedures set out in DMRB33 are a formalrequirement for trunk roads. Whilst RSA have never beenmandatory on local roads, many local authorities haveadopted the process. The 2008 IHT (now CIHT)Guidelines32 advise that local highway authorities shouldundertake RSA, but set out a more flexible approach thanthat prescribed for trunk roads.

44..55..77 In order to mesh with the balanced decisionapproach of Quality Audits, it is helpful if the RSA containsmeasured statements where the risk is assessed. The IHTRSA Guidelines contain helpful guidance on RiskAssessment.

44..55..88 Where appropriate, local highway authorities shouldconsider asking for a Risk Assessment of issues raised inan RSA.

44..55..99 The recommendations should be reviewed by thedesigner against the overall scheme objectives. Thisdesigner can then prepare a short Design Review Report,which evaluates how each recommendation of the auditbalances in relation to other scheme objectives (liveability,sustainability, etc), and states what course of action willbe taken for the overall benefit of the public.

44..55..1100 The 2008 IHT RSA guidance on Risk Assessmentincludes an example of the matrix below.

44..55..1111 The road safety auditor should be able to providesome assessment of the risk, and the reasoning why arecommendation is made. This approach gives thedesigner a clear indication of the importance of particularissues and problems raised and an audit trail.

TTaabbllee 44..11:: Risk Assessment Matrix from IHT RSA Guidelines

SSeevveerriittyy

FFrreeqquueennccyy ooff ccoolllliissiioonn

More thanone per year

Fatal

Serious

Slight

Damage

Very high

High

High

Medium

High

High

Medium

Medium

High

Medium

Medium

Low

One every 1-4years

One every 5-10 years

Less than oneper 10 years

Medium

Medium

Low

Low

44..66..44 During the design process the maintenance issuesrelated to the following street elements and issues needto be considered:

• Street Furniture including signs and lighting; • Footways; • Vehicle overrun areas;• On-street loading and parking bays; • Carriageways; • Street Cleansing - Chewing Gum / Staining; • Vandalism; • Security; • Stock Pile/Storage of materials; and• Finishings.

039


UUssiinngg SSttrreeeett FFuunnccttiioonn ttoo DDeetteerrmmiinnee MMaaiinntteennaanncceeRReeqquuiirreemmeennttss

The London Borough of Hounslow is putting intoplace, supported by an award of £267m of PFIcredits from the Department for Transport, a projectfor the upgrade and maintenance of its highwayinfrastructure assets over a 25 year period, starting in 2013.

The Council, supported by Mouchel and ProfessorPeter Jones of UCL, has developed an objective andconsistent basis for determining minimum assetprovision and appropriate levels of service andcondition on each part of a very diverse highwaynetwork. It has done this by codifying the use madeof each part of the network, in terms of its Link andPlace functions. The assigned Link and Place statusdetermines the maintenance and serviceabilityrequirements for a section of street, with Link carryingmost weight for carriageways and the Place forfootways.

The street network in the Borough consists of around400km of carriageway and 700km of footway; thishas been divided into around 2,000 street sectionsfor highway maintenance purposes. Each section hasbeen assigned a Link value and a Place value, on ascale from 1/A (high) to 5/E (low), based on a series

of guidelines. For example, a section with two orthree bus routes would have a minimum Link value of3, and the presence of a primary school would resultin that section having a minimum Place value of D.

These values are used to determine:

• The minimum condition at which maintenance isrequired to maintain required levels of service on asection of carriageway or footway

• The standard to which the carriageway or footwayshould be maintained, or reconstructed

• Whether a below-standard street section is eligiblefor a wider boundary-to-boundary treatmentscheme (a so-called Whole Street Environmentscheme) and

• The level of financial deduction – and byimplication the degree of incentive – that is appliedwhen the PFI contractor fails to meet contractualrequirements on a particular length of street

The Council has developed a new StreetsceneDesign Guide*, which sets out these and otherprinciples that should be used by all bodies involvedin the planning, design, construction andmaintenance of Hounslow’s roads and streets.

* Hounslow Street Design Guide, Streetcare Services,London Borough of Hounslow, Currently in draft

Bespoke street furniture


The photographs above show examples of how ascheme has failed as a result of poor design andconstruction. In the left hand case the restraining edge tothe natural stone sets has failed under vehicle loadingthus resulting in failure to the paved area. The right handcase is a further example of failure due to loading.

Damage to concrete paviours due to scraping off chewing gumand visual impact of chewing gum on footways

Section B

Detailed Design Issues



Section B of MfS2 provides guidance on geometric and other parameters for new and improvedhighways. Although numerical values are given in this section, designers are encouraged to take aflexible approach to its interpretation and application, thinking through for themselves the likelyoutcome of any course of action based on experience and local circumstances.

This section is divided into chapters by area of the highway (carriageway, footway etc) and bydesign elements (junctions, street furniture etc).

However, in preparing schemes, designers should consider the layout in totality, including therelationship of the highway to its surroundings, both in urban and rural areas.

The highway should not be seen in isolation or simply as a piece of infrastructure. The besthighway designs respect their surroundings - the buildings, open space and pedestrian/cycleroutes that pass through an area.

5.1_ Pedestrian Needs55..11..11 Advice on meeting pedestrians’ needs, including thegeometric design of footpaths and footways is given inChapter 6 of MfS1, and that advice applies to allhighways that fall within the scope of this document.Further guidance on planning and designing forpedestrians is given in the DfT’s ‘Inclusive Mobility’35 andthe IHT document ‘Guidelines for Providing for Journeyson Foot’36, further guidance in Wales is contained inTechnical Advice Note 18 Transport37.

55..11..22 Encouraging walking has many benefits, includingreductions in vehicle emissions and traffic collisions, andimprovements in personal health.

55..11..33 In summary, MfS1 advises that

• The propensity to walk is influenced not only bydistance, but also by the quality of the walkingexperience.

• Good sightlines and visibility towards destinations andintermediate points are important for way-finding andpersonal security.

• Pedestrian routes need to be direct and match desirelines as closely as possible, including across junctions,unless site-specific reasons preclude it.

• Pedestrian networks need to be connected. Whereroutes are separated by heavily-trafficked routes,appropriate surface-level crossings should be providedwhere practicable.

• Pedestrians should generally be accommodated onmultifunctional streets rather than on routessegregated from motor traffic. In situations where it isappropriate to provide traffic-free routes they should beshort, well-overlooked and relatively wide.

• Obstructions on the footway should be minimised.Street furniture on footways can be a hazard forvulnerable people.

• There is no maximum width for footways; widthsshould take account of pedestrian volumes andcomposition.

55..11..44 These principles are important throughout urbanareas, and are not confined to lightly-trafficked situations.Indeed, meeting pedestrians’ needs where traffic volumesare higher is vital if this most sustainable mode oftransport is to be encouraged.

55..11..55 This chapter provides key advice on the provisionand design of footways; CChhaapptteerr 99 deals with crossingsand pedestrians’ needs at junctions, and CChhaapptteerr 1122covers street furniture, including guardrail.

5.2_ Footway Provision55..22..11 There are many examples of routes in urban areasthat were built without footways where pedestrians still dowalk, despite the lack of any formal provision. Many ofthese routes were built as modern ring roads/relief roads

043

5_ Pedestrian Needs and Footways

5_ Pedestrian Needs and Footways

of the type discussed in CChhaapptteerr 22, which do not performwell in place terms. Moreover, drivers tend to react to theabsence of pedestrians by travelling faster, to thedetriment of road safety.

55..22..22 Where pedestrians are likely to be present insignificant numbers footways should normally be providedalong both sides of highways, particularly in urban areas.However, streets without conventional footways may beappropriate where traffic speeds are low and the areaoperates on ‘shared space’ principles such as in town orvillage centres (see CChhaapptteerr 22).

55..22..33 In town centres and other places where there arehigh numbers of pedestrians, footways should be ofsufficient width to cater for peak demand without causingcrowding and the risk that people will be pushed into thecarriageway. In some cases, this will mean that spaceneeds to be taken from the carriageway in order to createa better balanced street. It may be possible to achievethis without causing a significant reduction in vehicularcapacity by reducing the width of traffic lanes, as set outin CChhaapptteerr 88. It may also be possible to remove laneswithout affecting capacity or safety e.g. lightly-usedturning lanes.

55..22..44 Additional footway capacity can also be gained byremoving and/or rationalising street furniture, includingguardrail - see CChhaapptteerr 1122.

Modern urban highways without footways


55..22..55 Evidence from the Newland Avenue Mixed PriorityRoutes (MPR) project (see Example) indicates thatproviding more generous and better quality facilities forpedestrians can lead to large increases in walking.

The gradient of pedestrian routes should ideally be nomore than 5%, although topography or othercircumstances may make this difficult to achieve.However, as a general rule, 8% should generally beconsidered as a maximum, which is the limit for mostwheelchair users, as advised in Inclusive Mobility35.

The Newland Avenue MPR Project created much morespace for pedestrians by narrowing the carriageway tobetween 6 and 6.5m and removing guardrail. See LTN3/081 for further information.

At a pinch point under a narrow railway bridge, thefootway was widened from 1.1m to 1.6m, and the flowof pedestrians increased by around 1,700 per day, anincrease of 59%.

A marginal widening of footway led to a large increase in pedestrian flow.

Footways widened significantly by narrowing carriageway

6.1_ Introduction66..11..11 Advice on meeting cyclists’ needs is given inChapter 6 of MfS1, and that advice applies to allhighways that fall within the scope of this document.

66..11..22 As with walking, encouraging cycling has manybenefits, including reductions in vehicle emissions andtraffic collisions, and improvements in personal health.

66..11..33 In summary, MfS1 advises that

• Cyclists should be accommodated on the carriageway.• Cyclists prefer direct, barrier-free routes that avoid the

need for cyclists to dismount. Routes that take cyclistsaway from their desire lines and require them toconcede priority to side-road traffic are less likely to beused.

• Off-carriageway cycle tracks that bring cyclists intoconflict with side road traffic can be more hazardousthan routes that stay on the main carriageway.

• Cyclists are sensitive to traffic conditions; high speedsor high volumes of traffic tend to discourage cycling. Iftraffic conditions are inappropriate for on-street cycling,they should be addressed to make on-street cyclingsatisfactory.

• Junctions should be designed to accommodatecyclists’ needs. Over-generous corner radii that lead tohigh traffic speed should be avoided.

66..11..44 This chapter provides key advice on the provisionand design of cycle facilities; CChhaapptteerr 99 deals withcrossings and cyclists’ needs at junctions.

6.2_ Cycle Lanes, Cycle Tracksand Markings66..22..11 Detailed guidance on the design of specific facilitiesfor cyclists is given in Local Transport Note 2/0838, 'CycleInfrastructure Design' and its advice should be taken intoaccount when highway schemes are being developed.

66..22..22 Generally the preferred design approach - to enableand encourage increased levels of cycling - is to createconditions on the carriageway so that cyclists are contentto use it, particularly in urban areas. This may requirereductions in the volume and/or speed of traffic and thereallocation of space away from traffic. Reductions invehicular lane widths may make it possible to achieve thiswithout causing a significant reduction in vehicularcapacity, as set out in CChhaapptteerr 88. However the choice oflane width should carefully consider the ability of motorvehicles to pass cyclists, if necessary. Narrow traffic laneswill help to reduce traffic speed, which will in turn reducethe need for motor vehicles to pass cyclists.

045

6_ Cycle Facilities

6_ Cycle Facilities

66..22..33 Guidance on when to provide cycle lanes and cycletracks is given in Table 1.3 of LTN 2/0838, depending onthe volume, composition and speed of traffic. A highpercentage of larger vehicles, including buses, willincrease the desirability of cycle lanes (or alternativelycombined bus/cycle lanes).

66..22..44 Well-designed cycle lanes can benefit cyclists, butpoorly designed lanes can make conditions worse forthem. All cycle lanes should be of sufficient width as thereis evidence that vehicles are driven closer to cyclists whenthere is a cycle lane39. Cycle lanes are more beneficial inthe uphill direction as the speed differential betweencyclists and vehicles tends to be larger, while cyclists maywander a little as their speed is reduced. A single uphillcycle lane of the recommended width is far preferable tosub-standard cycle lanes in both directions.

66..22..55 Cycle lanes should be 2 metres wide on busyroads, or where traffic is travelling in excess of 40mph. Aminimum width of 1.5m may be generally acceptable onroads with a 30mph limit. Cycle lanes less than 1.2mwidth are only recommended at lead-in lanes to advancedstop lines where there is insufficient width for wider lanes.Cyclists will also benefit from bus lanes, when provided.Where cycle lanes pass parking and loading bayssufficient margin should be provided to allow for doorsbeing opened.

66..22..66 In some cases, providing the recommended widthof cycle lanes will mean that space needs to be takenfrom the carriageway. It may be possible to achieve thiswithout causing a significant reduction in vehicularcapacity by reducing the width of traffic lanes, as set outin CChhaapptteerr 88. In Cambridge, a scheme is being installedon a busy radial route that reduces the number of trafficlanes to provide wide cycle lanes (See Example overleaf).

Generous cycle lanes, Scunthorpe. Note absence of centralwhite line


66..22..77 Many authorities have chosen to use blue, red,green or another coloured surfacing for cycle lanes, andthis can make them more conspicuous, which is useful atcritical locations such as where a cycle lane crosses ajunction. However, coloured surfaces can be visuallyintrusive, particularly if used excessively, and may notalways be justified.

66..22..88 Hybrid lanes are wide cycle lanes with some form ofphysical demarcation, such as a cobbled strip, betweenthe cycle lane and the carriageway. They offer a greaterfeeling of protection which is important to less confidentcyclists. They are commonplace in the Netherlands and inother countries but are presently rare in the UK.

66..22..99 Using the cycle symbol (diagram 1057), inconjunction with appropriate upright signs but withoutmarking a cycle lane is a way of making drivers moreaware of the likelihood of encountering cyclists andconfirming to cyclists that they are on a designated route.Placing the symbol away from the kerb also encouragescyclists to take up a safer position in the carriageway andreduces the likelihood of drivers passing too close andforcing them towards the kerb. However, the cyclesymbol and associated signs do have a visual impact andadd to street furniture and authorities should therefore usethis approach selectively.

66..22..1100 Off-carriageway cycle tracks can have advantages,but will generally need to be shared with pedestrians, whomay see them as a reduction in provision. They willtherefore be the least desired option, particularly in urbanareas. More information on the design of shared useschemes is available in Local Transport Note 2/86‘Shared Use by Cyclists and Pedestrians’40. This LocalTransport Note is in the process of being updated and areplacement document is expected to be published byDfT in 2011.

66..22..1111 Shared use footway/cycle tracks can besegregated into pedestrian/cycle areas using a raisedwhite line or other measure, but these can be omitted onunsegregated routes, reducing street clutter.

Hills Road Bridge is one of the busiest routes in Cambridge. Formerly a four lane dual carriageway, it caters for over4,000 cyclists everyday, which often results in conflict for both cyclists and drivers. New 2.1m wide cycle lanes arebeing installed on Hills Road Bridge, which will allow cyclists to proceed straight ahead safely with motor traffic asthe lane moves to the right at the top of the bridge. Cyclists turning left will be provided with a by-pass lane.

Hybrid cycle lane, Netherlands

6.3_ Cycle Parking66..33..11 Convenient cycle parking should be provided at keydestinations - for example in local high streets - tosupport journeys by bike. This may be on the footway butthere should be a clear route for pedestrians. As indicatedin CChhaapptteerr 88, cycle parking can also be provided alongcentral reservations.

66..33..22 Public transport accessibility can also be greatlyincreased by providing good quality cycle parking at keybus and tram stops and at railway stations. Cyclists travelaround three times the speed of pedestrians and so thecycle catchment of a stop is around ten times thepedestrian catchment.

047

6_ Cycle Facilities

Secure, covered cycle parking - Newland Avenue MPR scheme

7.1_ Introduction77..11..11 Buses carry more passengers than any other publictransport mode, and are mainly routed along the moreheavily trafficked highways that are covered by thisdocument. Providing good bus services, particularly inurban areas, is fundamental to achieving more sustainablepatterns of movement that reduce people’s reliance onthe car.

77..11..22 Advice on designing for public transport users andvehicles is given in Chapter 6 of MfS1, with particularemphasis on bus-based transport, and the key points inthe document are as follows:

• Bus routes and stops should form key elements withinwalkable neighbourhoods. Bus services are mostviable when they follow direct and reasonably straightroutes, avoiding long one-way loops or long distanceswithout passenger catchments.

• Bus stops should be high-quality places that are safeand comfortable to use and highly accessible by allpeople, ideally from more than one route. Stops shouldbe provided close to specific passenger destinations(schools, shops etc.).

• Carriageways on bus routes should not generally beless than 6.0m wide, although this could be reducedon short sections with good inter-visibility betweenopposing flows. CChhaapptteerr 88 provides more detailedadvice on carriageway widths.

• Buses can help to control the speed of cars at peaktimes by preventing overtaking.

77..11..33 This chapter provides key advice on the provisionand design of bus facilities.

7.2_ Bus Priority77..22..11 Bus priority systems are provided to increase theoverall speed, efficiency and reliability of bus services incongested conditions, and can be a highly effective wayof improving the attractiveness of buses and increasingtheir mode share. Guidance on the design of bus prioritysystems is given in Local Transport Note 1/97, 'KeepingBuses Moving'41 and in 'Bus Priority: The Way Ahead'42,published by DfT in 2005.

77..22..22 Bus priority is most commonly achieved byproviding with-flow bus lanes, and unless signed to thecontrary they can be used by cyclists. Where roads arewide enough bus lanes should be 4.25m wide and theminimum preferred width is 4m; this allows buses toovertake cyclists safely and reduces the likelihood ofinterference from general traffic in the adjacent lane. Theminimum recommended width is 3m.

77..22..33 Bus lanes can also be provided in a contraflowdirection on streets that are one-way for general traffic,but their use can have road safety implications.

77..22..44 Providing bus lanes can increase the overall width ofthe carriageway, which will reduce the space that can begiven over to pedestrians, and make it more difficult forthem to cross the street. A careful balance will need to bestruck between the requirements of these different usergroups, taking account of local context.

77..22..55 In the case of the Walworth Road MPR scheme (seecase study in CChhaapptteerr 1144), bus lanes were removed inorder to enable wider footways to be created, with buspriority being achieved through bus advance facilities.

77..22..66 Bus advance areas with pre-signals enable buses tomove to the head of vehicle platoons by controllinggeneral traffic with a separate signal, which buses canbypass.

Bus Advance Area, Walworth Road MPR scheme

049

7_ Bus Facilities

7_ Bus Facilities

77..22..77 Many authorities have chosen to use red or anothercoloured surfacing for bus lanes and bus advance areas,and ‘Keeping Buses Moving’ advises that this canimprove compliance, but it does add to visual impact andso may not always be justified.

7.3_ Bus Stops77..33..11 Guidance on the design of bus stops is given in LTN1/9741, 'Keeping Buses Moving', and more detailedadvice is contained in the Transport for London documentBP1/06 'Accessible Bus Stop Design Guidance'43 and inDfT’s 'Inclusive Mobility'35.

77..33..22 The bus stop is a vital component of the publictransport system. Stops that are fully accessible, whichfeel safe and secure and provide good quality informationon services, are vital if patronage is to be increased. Asnoted above, providing cycle parking at key stops willgreatly increase public transport accessibility.


77..33..33 Well-designed bus stops should enable buses tostop parallel to the kerb and with a kerb of sufficientheight (minimum 125mm, but higher kerbs may bedesirable) to allow access ramps to be deployed whenrequired.

77..33..44 Bus shelters are desirable at stops, and the chosendesign must also be able to accommodate the numbersof pedestrians likely to wait for buses and any businformation systems that are provided.

7.4_ Bus Laybys and Boarders77..44..11 In the past, on busy routes, it was commonplace toplace bus stops in laybys so that general traffic was ableto pass a bus at the stop, but laybys can create difficultiesfor buses seeking to rejoin a traffic queue on the maincarriageway and can therefore make services slower andless reliable. They also reduce footway width and makeconditions worse for pedestrians. Bus laybys shouldtherefore only be used where a stationary bus wouldotherwise create a significant safety problem.

77..44..22 Conversely, bus boarders are used to enable busesto stop within a traffic stream and move off withoutdifficulty. They are built out from the existing kerb linewhere there are parked cars or other obstructions thatwould prevent the bus from stopping parallel to the kerb,so that people, particularly those with impaired mobility,can get on and off the bus without difficulty. A full widthboarder projects a vehicle width into the carriageway - 2mtypically, and 2.6m where large vehicles are parkednearby.

77..44..33 Half-width or narrower bus boarders can also beuseful, however, where there is insufficient remainingcarriageway width for a full-width boarder to be installedor where it is desirable to allow other traffic to overtake astationary bus.

Full width bus boarder

Reduced width bus boarder

8.1_ Introduction88..11..11 The design of carriageways between junctions inurban and rural areas is often based on TD9/9344,'Highway Link Design', part of DMRB, but that documenthas been prepared for Trunk Roads and may not alwaysbe appropriate in other circumstances. As noted inCChhaapptteerr 11 it is recommended that designers bear in mindthe key principles of MfS when applying DMRB.

88..11..22 This chapter provides designers with advice on howcarriageway widths, alignments and cross-sectionaldetails can be designed in a way that better respects localcontext and the needs of users other than motor traffic.

8.2_ Design Speed88..22..11 The geometric design of carriageways is generallybased on the notion of a design speed, which in the pasthas tended to be fixed along a route, or a substantialsection of a route.

88..22..22 Design speeds in urban areas (or rural routessubject to a local speed limit) have tended to be based onthe advice contained in DMRB TD 9/9344, whichdetermines design speed from the existing or proposedlocal speed limit, but with some allowance for vehiclestravelling at higher speeds. In urban areas subject to a30mph limit, a design speed of 60kph (37mph) has oftenbeen used.

88..22..33 It is now considered inappropriate in areas subject to a limit of 30mph, to adopt a design speed of more than 30 mph unless existing speeds are significantlyabove this level.

88..22..44 This is justified by the finding from the researchcontained in MfS1 that drivers tend to adopt higherspeeds in response to more generous highway geometryand that, in recent years, the proportion of vehicles thatexceed the speed limit in free flow conditions has beendropping; in 2008 it was below 50%, down from 69% in1998. Average free flow speeds were 30mph in 30mphlimits; and 36mph in 40mph limits45.

88..22..55 In rural areas not subject to a local speed limit,TD9/93 can be taken as a starting point for new routes,which relates design speed to the:

• Alignment Constraint, based on the bendiness of theroute (degrees per kilometre) and on singlecarriageways, the harmonic mean visibility; and the

• Layout Constraint, which measures the degree ofconstraint imparted by the road cross section, vergewidth, and frequency of junctions and accesses.

051

8_ Carriageways

8_ Carriageways

88..22..66 The finding in MfS1 that the context through whichdrivers pass does have an effect on their chosen speed isthus explicit in TD9/9344, which notes in Para 1.2 that‘Speeds vary accordingly to the impression of constraintthat the road alignment and layout impart to the driver’.

88..22..77 Whilst an appropriate design speed can bedetermined from the guidance above, designers shouldalso consider the potential for reducing design speedlocally, where it is appropriate that traffic should travelmore slowly.

88..22..88 Such situations could include where a major route ispassing through the centre of a small town or village, orwhere there is a site of significant ecological value withinthe corridor of a highway improvement and where areduction in design speed would allow a scheme of lowerimpact to be designed.

88..22..99 In urban areas, highway space is shared betweenmotor traffic, pedestrians, cyclists and public transport,and keeping speeds low has been demonstrated to havesignificant safety benefits. MfS1 and DMRB confirm thatdesigning for higher speeds will create an environmentwhere drivers tend to travel faster. Instead, speeds shouldbe designed down to an appropriate level.

88..22..1100 Speed limits of 20mph are now becomingcommonplace. Some authorities, such as Portsmouth,have adopted a policy of setting signed-only 20mph limitsacross most residential areas, which have succeeded inreducing speeds and improving safety.

88..22..1111 Advice on setting local speed limits is provided byDfT and the devolved administrations. In 2009, DfTconsulted on a change to Circular 1/200646 aimed atencouraging highway authorities, over time, to introduce20mph zones or limits into:

• streets which are primarily residential in nature; and• town or city streets where pedestrian and cyclist

movements are high, such as around schools, shops,markets, playgrounds and other areas where these arenot part of any major through route.

88..22..1122 The Welsh Assembly Government publishedguidance on the setting of speed limits in 200947 whichsupports the use of 20mph speed limits and zones atappropriate locations, including town centres, residentialareas and in the vicinity of schools.


88..22..1133 However, even where a 20mph limit is notappropriate, authorities may still choose to set the designspeed for a section of a route to below 30mph. Measuresthat will help to keep speeds low, particularly in urbanareas, are set out in section 7.4.4 of MfS1, and include:

• Physical features• Changes in priority• Street dimensions, including width• Reduced forward visibility• Psychology and perception - the following features

may be effective:- Visual narrowing;- Close proximity of buildings;- Reduced carriageway width;- Obstructions in the carriageway- Pedestrian refuges and other features

associated with activity;- On-street parking;- Land uses associated with large numbers of

people (e.g. shops); and- Pedestrian activity.

88..22..1144 Guidance on the design of physical traffic calmingmeasures is given in the IHT publication 'Traffic CalmingTechniques' (2005)48.

8.3_ Horizontal Alignment88..33..11 Parameters for horizontal curves are related to localdesign speed and radius and are dependent on the limitof sideways force in the bend that can be tolerated by thevehicle without skidding or overturning.

88..33..22 Desirable minimum horizontal curves set out inTD9/9344 seek to limit the sideways force to very lowlevels, commensurate with high speed inter-urban roads,and therefore result in generous curve radii.

88..33..33 The adoption of gentle minimum curve radii for newhighways in urban areas can result in alignments that areinappropriate to the surrounding urban grain, sometimesrequiring the acquisition and demolition of existingbuildings and creating awkward plots of remaining land.This could be avoided if sharper curves were used. TheSky Blue Way example in CChhaapptteerr 22 shows the damagethat can result when new highways are designed withgenerous curvature and widths.

88..33..44 Tighter radii can be adopted; TD9/9344 para 3.4advises that horizontal curves of four steps belowdesirable minimum radii can be used, "inter alia", fordesign speeds of 60kph and below. The relativesharpness of curves is established by the formula v2/R,where v=design speed (kph) and R= radius (m).

88..33..55 Horizontal curves of four steps below desirableminimum (TF9/9344 para 0.7) have a v2/R value of 56, andtherefore the minimum horizontal curves corresponding tothis criterion are as follows:

88..33..66 Superelevation in urban areas should be kept to aminimum, since it is often difficult to achieve due to thefrequency of accesses and junctions and otherconstraints. Excessive superelevation can also adverselyaffect the relationship between the carriageway andfrontage buildings and footways. When it is provided, amaximum superelevation in urban areas of 5% isrecommended (TD9/9344 para 3.2).

88..33..77 Where it is desirable to provide a horizontal curvebelow the values recommended in TTaabbllee 88..11 above, thepreferred solution will often be to reduce the speed oftraffic locally, rather than provide steep superelevation,which will tend to encourage higher speeds.

88..33..88 The presence of a sharp bend will itself lead tolower speeds. Research by TRL49 showed the followingreductions in speed at bends (v = Approach Speed (kph),R = Bend radius).

8.4_ Carriageway Gradients88..44..11 A maximum longitudinal carriageway gradient of 6%is desirable (TD9/9344 para 4.1), although a gradient of5% is desirable where there are significant numbers ofpedestrians walking along the route.

TTaabbllee 88..11 - Minimum Recommended Curve Radii

DDeessiiggnn SSppeeeedd,, kkpphh

30

40

48

50

60

CCuurrvvee RRaaddiiuuss,, mm

44 sstteeppss bbeellooww TTDD 99//9933

DDeessiirraabbllee MMiinn

16

28

41

44

64

TTaabbllee 88..22:: Percentage Speed Reduction at Bends

vv2//RR

20

28

40

56

80

PPeerrcceennttaaggee SSppeeeedd RReedduuccttiioonn DDuuee ttoo BBeenndd

FFrroomm 5500%%iillee ssppeeeedd FFrroomm 8855%%iillee ssppeeeedd

3.5 5

5 7

7 10

10 14

14 20

88..44..22 In hilly areas steeper gradients will frequently berequired, but a gradient of 8% should be regarded as apractical maximum unless there are particular localdifficulties. This is also the maximum gradient that amanual wheelchair user can negotiate (see guidance onfootway gradients in CChhaapptteerr 55).

8.5_ Vertical Curvature88..55..11 Minimum length requirements for vertical curves arenormally assessed based on two criteria - the comfort ofvehicle occupants and the need to maintain forwardvisibility.

88..55..22 For design speeds of 50kph and below, where itcan be expected that drivers will reduce speed inresponse to changes of alignment, forward visibility toachieve minimum Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) shouldbe used as the basis of design, but as with forwardvisibility around horizontal curves, there will be locationswhere it is appropriate to restrict forward visibility in orderto help reduce traffic speeds.

88..55..33 For design speeds of 50kph and above, designersshould follow the guidance contained in TD 9/9344.

8.6_ Carriageway and Lane Widths88..66..11 UK practice has generally adopted a standard lanewidth of 3.65m (12 feet) but this should not be taken as apreferred value in all circumstances. This can be anunsatisfactory lane width for cyclists, as there isinsufficient room for drivers to pass them comfortably.

88..66..22 Narrower lanes will be appropriate in manycircumstances, particularly in built up areas, resulting incarriageways that are easier for pedestrians to cross andencouraging low traffic speeds without causing asignificant loss of traffic capacity. The needs of cyclists willneed to be expressly considered however, as discussedbelow.

88..66..33 Lane widths should be determined based on thefollowing local consideration:

• the volume and composition of vehicular traffic; • pedestrian and cyclists’ needs;• the demarcation, if any, between carriageway and

footway (e.g. kerb, street furniture or trees and planting);• whether parking is to take place in the carriageway and,

if so, its distribution, arrangement, the turnover ofspaces, and the likely level of parking enforcement (if any);

• the design speed;• the curvature of the street (bends require greater width

to accommodate the swept path of larger vehicles); and• any intention to include one-way streets, or short

stretches of single lane working in two-way streets.

053

8 Carriageways

88..66..44 MfS1 Figures 6.18 and 7.1 provide information onthe width requirements of different types of vehicle, andthese can be taken as a guide to minimum lane widths.These can be applied to links between and at junctions.

88..66..55 Thus for example, at a traffic signal stop line, whereHGVs and buses make up only a small proportion oftraffic flow, 2 - 2.5m wide lanes would be sufficient formost vehicles, and would reduce overall carriagewaywidth requirements, making it much easier for pedestriansto cross the carriageway. Lanes wider than 3m are notnecessary in most urban areas carrying mixed traffic.

88..66..66 Carriageway and lane widths do not have to beconstant. Varying the width through non-parallel kerb linesor other physical limits can create interest, provideinformal parking opportunities at widenings and trafficspeed reduction at narrowings. The needs of cyclists atnarrowings should be considered in detail.

88..66..77 The needs of cyclists using the carriageway shouldbe expressly considered when lane widths are beingdetermined. Cyclists should wherever possible beaccommodated on carriageway without special provision,based on the recommendations of LTN 2/08, 'CycleInfrastructure Design'38.

88..66..88 The ideal minimum widths required for vehicles toovertake cyclists in comfort given in LTN 2/0838 are:

• Car passing at 20mph - 3.8m• Car passing at 30mph - 4.3m• Bus/HGV passing at 20mph - 4.6m• Bus/HGV passing at 30mph - 5.05m

88..66..99 These are not necessarily lane widths, however. Iftraffic flows are generally light enough for vehicles to passcyclists fairly readily by moving at least partly into theopposite lane then the overall carriageway width will beavailable. Lane widths of 3m or less will make it less likelythat drivers will try to squeeze past cyclists without pullingaround them.

88..66..1100 Providing a central median that can be overrun isone way of allowing motor vehicles to pass cyclistscomfortably without using excessively wide lanes - seeBroad Street, Birmingham and Leamington Spa examplesoverleaf.

88..66..1111 If traffic speeds are higher and motor vehicles arenot able to move into the opposite lane to pass cyclistswith comfort, then cycle lanes may be justified so thatexcessive lane widths are not provided, which wouldotherwise encourage higher speeds. Where there is morethan one lane in either direction, some authorities havedivided the carriageway into unequal lanes, giving morespace on the nearside lane to assist cyclists.


88..66..1122 Lane and carriageway widening requirements forhorizontal curves should be assessed using trackingsoftware. The criteria to be adopted should be based ontraffic flows and composition. For example, where HGVand/or bus flows are low, it may not be necessary todesign carriageways to cater for two large vehiclesmeeting at a bend, as long as there is sufficient inter-visibility for one driver to stop and wait. The use ofoverrun areas can be considered - see MfS1 7.11 forfurther guidance on their use.

8.7_ Refuges, Medians andCentral Reservations 88..77..11 Central medians/reservations and refuges are usefulfeatures in urban areas to enable pedestrians and cycliststo cross carriageways in two stages, whether as part of adesignated crossing of any type (see CChhaapptteerr 99), on theapproach to a junction, or along a highway link. Thesefeatures can also have a dramatic effect on the characterof a highway, and can therefore significantly enhance thesense of place.

88..77..22 The minimum width of central reservations/mediansand refuges should be based on the users anticipated35:

• 1.2m - to accommodate pedestrians only, with nostreet furniture on the median/island

• 1.5m - desirable width to accommodate wheelchairusers

• 2.0m - minimum width to accommodate allowwheelchair users to pass one another. This is also theminimum width for cyclists (LTN 2/08 para 10.2.738).

88..77..44 Formal central reservations, provided on dualcarriageway links, can be planted or paved depending onlocal context and requirements, including the need forpedestrians to cross the carriageway and the locallandscape character.

These simple pedestrian refuges were provided on The Parade,Leamington Spa MPR project. Note the absence of keep leftbollards, but also the intrusive road markings.

This informal median on Broad Street, Birmingham has operatedsuccessfully for many years

88..77..55 In urban areas, central reservations should be leftunfenced so that pedestrians can cross at any point,unless there is clear safety case for not doing so.

Mature trees in central reservation, Bristol Road, Birmingham.Here the central reservation is of little benefit to pedestrianscrossing the route, but the width of the reservation and themature trees are attractive and make up a vital part of the street’scharacter.

88..77..33 Narrower medians that can be over-run have alsoproved useful in some schemes, by giving pedestrians aspace to wait in the centre of the carriageway which canalso be used by vehicles when they need to pass cyclistsor other vehicles. Such medians also allow emergencyvehicles to cross over into the opposing lane whennecessary.

88..77..66 If it is of sufficient size, the central reservation canbe a place for useful activity. O’Connell Street in Dublinhas this form, which is also found at Las Ramblas,Barcelona.

88..77..77 There are few examples of this type of street in theUK, but The Broadway in Letchworth shares some of thecharacteristics, although the continuous fencing on bothsides has reduced the value of the central space as anaccessible and active place.

88..77..88 On Kensington High Street, the central reservationhas been used for cycle parking. This is a practical use ofthe space, which also sends a clear signal to drivers thatthis is a street that cyclists are encouraged to use.

Cycle parking on central reservation, Kensington High Street.Generous spacing between the cycle racks enables pedestriansto cross between the parked cycles.

Kerb heights of between 75mm and zero (at informal crossings)were used with streetscape improvements in the centre ofNottingham.

055

8_ Carriageways

8.8_ Kerbs88..88..11 Historically kerbs were primarily installed to form anedge to the drainage channel and provide a clean walkingroute in urban areas, but have now come to represent arecognisable divider between the carriageway and thefootway. In rural areas they are mainly used to form anedge restraint and drainage feature, but there are manyrural roads and streets where there is no kerb andseparate footway.

88..88..22 In urban areas, half-batter kerbs with a standardheight of 125mm are often used, but lower kerb heightsare easier for pedestrians to negotiate, particularly peoplewith impaired mobility, and can help to reduce vehicledominance by reducing the degree of segregation.

88..88..33 Higher kerbs are appropriate at bus stops to allowlevel access into vehicles - see CChhaapptteerr 77 for furtherguidance on bus stop design.

Upper Parliament Street, Nottingham – Unfenced CentralReservation

O'Connell Street, Dublin


88..88..44 Low kerb heights may mean that closer gullyspacings are required to avoid rainwater run-off fromaffecting footways during heavy storms.

88..88..55 Kerbs are often omitted in shared space schemes inorder to reduce the separate definition of areas forpedestrians and vehicles and to indicate that the street ismeant to be shared equally by all users of the highway.However more subtle delineators such as old granitekerbstones could be used, in a remodelled pavingscheme in order to retain historic kerb lines and localcharacter. Further guidance on the use of shared spacetechniques is given in CChhaapptteerr 22.

88..88..66 ‘Trief’ kerbs are designed to deter vehicles frommounting the kerb where high containment is thought tobe necessary, but they are more visually intrusive thannormal kerbs, are difficult for pedestrians to cross, andhave been known to cause small vehicles to overturn.They should therefore not be used without these adverseeffects being considered.

9.1_ Introduction99..11..11 Junctions are critical places in a number of ways. Intraffic terms, they are a potential source of delay andwhere most collisions tend to occur. They are often seenas a problem in these terms, and highway designers tendto minimise the number of junctions in a network. Whenjunctions are provided or modified, particularly on busierhighways, they tend to be designed with the principal aimof accommodating peak hour traffic flows.

99..11..22 In place terms, conversely, junctions can be seen asan opportunity. By definition they are accessible placesfrom several directions, and so tend to be a good locationfor buildings that attract significant numbers of people,such as shops and public buildings. Junctions are alsothe most natural way for people to find their way aroundan area, whether on foot or in a vehicle, and so are agood place for landmark buildings and other distinctivefeatures, such as public art.

99..11..33 It is critical therefore to achieve a good balance ofplace and movement functions at junctions, particularly inurban areas.

99..11..44 As noted in MfS1 section 7.3, there is considerableflexibility over the form of junctions, which can add to theirdistinctiveness, so that they function as significant placesin their own right.

99..11..55 In the past, concerns over capacity and safety havetended to overshadow any concerns about placemaking,and as a result many urban junctions are unattractive anddifficult to negotiate, particularly on foot and cycle.Excessive use of guardrailing is a particular problem andfurther guidance on how to minimise it is given in CChhaapptteerr 1122..

99..11..66 Because junctions are a natural focus for all modesof travel, wherever possible they should includeconvenient and direct crossing facilities for pedestrians,desirably across all arms.

057

9_ Junctions, Crossings and Accesses


99..11..77 Well-designed crossings are of vital importance tothe ability of pedestrians and/or cyclists to move aroundeasily and safely.

99..11..88 Crossings that involve grade separation - subwaysand bridges - are undesirable and should only be usedwhere essential due to traffic speeds and volumes. Gradeseparated crossings are much less convenient andtherefore less likely to be used, particularly subwayswhich create significant personal security concerns.These types of crossing are much more costly andelevated structures, with their lengthy approach ramps,cause a high degree of visual intrusion.

99..11..99 Where underpasses and bridges are used, theyshould be as short, wide and direct as possible toimprove users’ perception of security and make theroutes more legible.

99..11..1100 The former subway at Maid Marian Way,Nottingham, was unwelcoming and felt dangerous. Whenthe subway was replaced by an at-grade crossing, thenumber of pedestrians increased significantly (see CaseStudy CChhaapptteerr 1144).

99..11..1111 More generally, grade separated junctions andlinks, particularly in urban areas, are rarely successful inplacemaking terms. The carriageways have noconnection with their surroundings and are highlyinflexible and costly to change. Elevated structures createunwelcoming environments at ground level, both beneathand adjacent to the route.

A wide range of junction layouts is possible


99..11..1122 The choice of junction and crossing type at aparticular location should be made after considering all of itsfunctional requirements - including both movement andplace functions - and not just capacity and road safety.Every type of junction has its advantages anddisadvantages, and the effect of alternative options shouldbe considered.

99..11..1133 A Quality Audit approach (see CChhaapptteerr 44) can beused to assess alternative junction types and layouts, sothat the best balance of outcomes is achieved, taking intoaccount the objectives of the scheme.

9.2_ Spacing of Junctions99..22..11 In the past, guidance on minimum junction spacinghas often been based on recommended stopping sightdistances (SSD) for 85th percentile speeds. The reductionsin SSD compared to previous practice means that junctionspacing criteria determined on this basis should bereduced. However, in any event there appears to be littleevidence that spacing criteria based on SSD are justified onsafety or other grounds.

99..22..22 The need for and provision of junctions on newhighways, and additional junctions on existing routes,should be assessed in the round, considering a wide rangeof factors such as the need for access at particularlocations, the impact on the size of development blocks, thepotential for interaction between adjacent junctions and theconsequent effect on user delay and road safety.

9.3_ Crossings99..33..11 General advice on the choice of crossing type andtheir design is given in Local Transport Notes 1/9550 and2/9551 and in Chapter 6 of MfS1, which is complementedby the further advice in this section. While the focus is onpedestrian crossings the recommendations can also beapplied in most instances to crossings designed for cyclists(other than zebra crossings). Crossings should be providedwith appropriate tactile paving. The legal requirements forcrossings are given in the Crossing Regulations52.

99..33..22 Crossings should be located on or close to desirelines so that pedestrians find them convenient and pleasantto use. Placing crossings away from desire lines will reducetheir level of use, even when guardrailing or other deterrentfeatures are used.

Nechells Parkway, Birmingham - Despite this pedestrian subway being close by, and the absence of a formal surface crossing, manypeople choose to walk across the central reservation to reach the bus stops.

Stoke Newington - new zebra crossings and new routes through park, linking directly to one another.

99..33..33 The simplest form of uncontrolled or informalcrossing involves the provision of dropped or flush kerbsso that mobility-impaired people can cross to and fromthe carriageway. A refuge in the centre of the carriagewayenables pedestrians to negotiate one stream of traffic at atime, which can be of considerable help when flows arehigh. Combining a refuge with a kerb build out, so thatthe carriageway is narrowed, will provide additionalassistance to pedestrians. Further guidance on the designof refuges is given in CChhaapptteerr 88.

99..33..44 Informal crossings can also indicate clearly todrivers where pedestrians are encouraged - and aretherefore likely - to be crossing. Designs can make use ofcontrasting paving materials, street furniture and changesin carriageway width and level to emphasise pedestrianmovement. When done well, in a slow speed trafficenvironment, they will often encourage drivers to giveinformal priority to pedestrians.

99..33..55 Informal crossings require no signs or markings andtherefore do not add to visual clutter. They can begenerous in width (to pedestrians) so that the crossingbecomes a strong element within the street scene.

99..33..66 Replacing controlled crossings (ie zebra andsignalised) with informal crossings can reduce delays totraffic. In the Newland Avenue MPR scheme all signal-controlled crossings were removed, which resulted inreduced vehicle travel times as well as a reduction inmaximum vehicle speed. Road safety and vehicleemissions were also improved significantly - details aregiven in LTN 3/081.

99..33..77 Zebra crossings offer the greatest advantage topedestrians as they give them priority over all other traffic.In some authorities there has been a move away fromproviding zebra crossings towards signalised crossings,on the basis that they represent an ‘upgrade’ but this isnot necessarily the case. Research carried out in Londonfound that it was not possible to ascribe a safety benefitdirectly to the conversion of zebra crossings to pelicans53.

Shrewsbury High Street – ‘courtesy’ crossings are paved in thesame material as the footways and line up with pedestrian routeson either side. See Traffic Advisory Leaflet 8/98103.

059


99..33..88 Zebra crossings also typically result in lower delaysto traffic flow, except when pedestrian flows are heavy.They are more immediately visible to drivers thansignalised crossings and can be located closer tojunctions, which can help to put crossings on desire lines.

99..33..99 Zebra crossings are generally only used when thespeed limit is 30mph or below, as at higher speeds it maybe more difficult for pedestrians to establish precedence.

99..33..1100 There are four types of stand-alone signalisedcrossings - Pelican, Puffin, Toucan and Equestriancrossings, which are described in LTN 2/9551. Trafficsignal junctions can also incorporate signalised crossings.

99..33..1111 Signalised crossings can cause additional delaycompared to zebras and informal crossings, due to thelost time caused by intergreen periods etc. Linkingsignalised crossings to upstream signalised crossings canbring traffic benefits but this can lead to long delays forpedestrians.

99..33..1122 Signalised crossings need to be used whencontrolled facilities for mounted cyclists and equestriansare required, as these groups are not authorised to usezebra crossings. Older people and people with a visualimpairment may express a preference for signalisedcrossings as they provide greater certainty when crossing.

99..33..1133 All types of crossing can be provided on a raisedsurface, so that pedestrians cross between footways on alevel surface. This slows traffic on the approach to thecrossing, makes pedestrians more visible andemphasises their presence in the street, making it morelikely that drivers will see them and cede priority.

Zebra crossing located close to road junction.


99..33..1144 Raised crossings across the mouth of minor roadjunctions are very helpful to pedestrians, and provide anelement of informal priority at this key conflict point. Tightcorner radii help to reduce the speed of turning traffic andhelp make the crossing movements easier and safer. TheHighway Code notes (Rule 170)22 that pedestrians whohave started to cross a junction have priority.

99..33..1155 Zebra crossings can also be used across minorjunctions close to the give way line, when it is judgeddesirable to provide clear pedestrian priority at this point.

99..33..1166 Controlled crossings may be divided using centralrefuges. Straight ahead divided crossings are much moreconvenient for pedestrians than staggered crossings,which involve additional delay and deviation from thedesire line, particularly where the stagger is large.

Zebra crossing on raised table.

Signalised crossing on extensive raised table, City of London

Raised table across side road at signalised crossing – WalworthRoad MPR scheme.

Simple raised crossing of minor arm, with tight corner radii.

Zebra crossing across minor arm, close to junction, on desire lines.

99..33..1177 Divided zebras operate as two separate crossings,with pedestrians having to establish priority on each side.The absence of a stagger does not affect the operation ofa zebra crossing in terms of pedestrian priority.

99..33..1188 Signalised crossings that are divided by a refuge,and which are to operate in traffic terms as two separatecrossings, are normally staggered, although there areexamples of straight ahead signalised crossings thatoperate under separate phases (see box out on MaidMarian Way, overleaf).

99..33..1199 Pedestrian guardrailing is often used to reinforcestaggers, but it is not essential. Some authorities havesuccessfully used upstand kerbs or low walls to define thestagger at signalised crossings, which significantlyreduces street clutter.

061


High Street Kensington - replacement of staggered crossing withstraight over crossing at signalised junction.

Staggered signalised crossing without guardrail


MMaaiidd MMaarriiaann WWaayy –– TTwwoo SSttaaggee SSttrraaiigghhtt AAhheeaadd CCrroossssiinnggss

At the junction of Maid Marian Way and Friar Lane, Nottingham, a roundabout with pedestrian subways wasreplaced by a signal-controlled junction with pedestrian crossings.

Unwelcoming pedestrian subways were replaced by signal-controlled at-grade crossings.

Maid Marian Way is a busy dual carriageway and bothcrossings of this route needed to be signalled in twostages. Despite this requirement, straight aheadcrossings were used, rather than relying on moreconventional staggered layouts. Nearside pedestrianaspects were used, as farside aspects could have ledto confusion.

Another non-standard aspect of the design is that oneof the crossings is not perpendicular to the traffic flowand stop line, but rather follows the pedestrian desireline.

99..33..2200 Pedestrian crossings at traffic signals are typicallyacross each arm of the junction, but when an all-red (totraffic) phase is provided, consideration can be given toproviding diagonal crossing facilities. These enablepedestrians to cross to the opposite corner of the junctionin one movement instead of two, which is much quickerand more convenient. A high-profile scheme has recentlybeen installed at Oxford Circus in London, but there arelong-standing examples elsewhere, such as in Balham, atthe junction of Bramford Road and Yarmouth Road inIpswich, and in Wellingborough at the junction of CroylandRoad, Doddington Road and Broadway near a school.

9.4_ Priority and UncontrolledJunctions99..44..11 The simplest junctions are where two or morestreets meet at a point. These junctions may have markedpriority so that there is a major route through the junction,or the junction may have no marked priority and istherefore uncontrolled. Uncontrolled junctions tend toincrease driver uncertainty and lead to reduced speedsand are therefore appropriate to low volume and lowspeed environments, including in urban centres.

Diagonal crossing, Balham

Diagonal crossing, Oxford Circus

063


99..44..22 Detailed guidance on the design of priority junctionsis given in TD42/9554 but (as with all sections of DMRB)this is written specifically for trunk roads and, where usedin other situations, should not be applied uncritically.

99..44..33 T and Y junctions have the fewest conflicting trafficmovements. Where there is a straight or nearly straightthrough route drivers will tend to regard this as the majormovement, and so even without road markings or signs,a natural priority will tend to develop.

99..44..44 Crossroads and multi-armed junctions have muchhigher numbers of conflicting traffic movements andtherefore tend to perform worse in terms of road safety.However, grid-type networks with crossroads junctionsare extremely legible and therefore encourage walkingand cycling, and it is therefore important to strike the rightbalance. Well-connected street grids can also dispersetraffic flows, which will tend to reduce the level of conflictat any particular point.

99..44..55 Reducing traffic speed will also improve safety, andone way of achieving this at the conflict point is to raisethe junction onto a speed table.

99..44..66 Keeping the number of approach lanes to theminimum will make the junction safer and easier tonegotiate for pedestrians and cyclists. Research into cyclesafety at T-junctions found that higher cycle collision ratesare associated with two lane minor road approaches55.

99..44..77 TD 42/9554 recommends that consideration shouldbe given to providing a right turning lane at priorityjunctions where the side road flow exceeds 500 vehiclesper day, but this advice relates to trunk roads, where thereis an emphasis on providing an unimpeded route forthrough traffic. It is a relatively low flow, and junctionswithout right turn lanes will often be able to cater forhigher levels of turning traffic without resulting insignificant congestion.

99..44..88 Right turning lanes make it more difficult forpedestrians to cross major roads and lead to higher trafficspeeds and authorities should therefore consider carefully

Tabled crossroads


all of the effects before deciding to provide them.Removing unnecessary right turn lanes can also beconsidered, and will bring substantial benefits to non-motorised users.

99..44..99 Where right turn lanes are to be provided orretained, refuges should be provided within ghost islandsto facilitate pedestrians crossing.

99..44..1100 As noted in Sections 6.3 and 6.4 of MfS1, tightcorner radii help pedestrians and cyclists to travel acrossand through junctions by reducing the speed of turning

vehicles. Advice contained in TD 42/9554, that minimumcorner radii should be 6m in urban areas, should thereforenot be taken as representing best practice when theneeds of vulnerable road users are to be prioritised.

99..44..1111 Larger vehicles can still negotiate junctions whereminimal (1m or less) corner radii are used, depending onthe width of the junction arms they are turning to andfrom. In many cases it will be better to have slightlygreater carriageway widths at the junction, rather thangenerous corner radii, or accept that larger vehiclesoccasionally cross into the opposing lane. This approachallows the vehicle to take a larger radius than the junctionkerb, as shown below. This can be tested by vehicletracking software rather than relying on fixed standards.

99..44..1122 Designers are sometimes reluctant to use tightcorner radii on the grounds that vehicles slowing to turninto the minor arm may cause shunt collisions on the

major road. This may be the case where speeds are high,but in urban areas the overall emphasis of MfS is thatspeeds should be reduced to appropriate levels of 30mphor below through design and the use of tight corner radiiis consistent with this approach.

99..44..1133 Moreover, there are junctions on very busy routeswhere tight corner radii have existed for a considerabletime, as shown above.

99..44..1144 Footway crossovers can be used instead of moreformal priority junctions, which will give furtherprominence to pedestrians. Footway crossovers are oftenused successfully at accesses to commercial premises,as illustrated below, demonstrating that they can be usedat busy locations.

99..44..1155 Footway crossovers should maintain the normalfootway cross-fall as far as practicable from the back ofthe footway (900mm), as recommended in MfS1. Designs

Ghost island junction with pedestrian refuge

Despite the small corner radius, with sufficient carriageway width(X) a long vehicle can still negotiate a junction.

which ramp up over the whole width of the footway makeit difficult for people with a mobility impairment, includingwheelchair users, to negotiate the crossover.

99..44..1166 The safety aspects of visibility requirements atpriority junctions are dealt with in CChhaapptteerr 1100. Junctioncapacity is also dependent on visibility, however, as thedrivers on the minor arm will emerge more cautiously andslowly when visibility is limited. Standard junction capacitytools such as PICADY enable designers to consider theeffect of minor road visibility on junction capacity.

9.5_ Squares99..55..11 Squares are excellent opportunities for creatingsuccessful and attractive public spaces, where people willwish to spend time, and are natural sites for commercialand public buildings that add to vitality. Many towns andcities have public squares at their heart, and manydesigns for urban extensions incorporate public squaresas a focal point for the new community.

99..55..22 Although squares are primarily regarded as publicspaces, squares with traffic passing through them canalso be regarded as a development of priority and/oruncontrolled junctions, Squares offer a good way ofenabling complex turning movements to take placeacross a more dispersed area, rather than at a singlepoint, thus reducing conflict and improving safety. Manysquares successfully incorporate car parking within thespace.

Poundbury, Dorset. This square, where four routes meet, formspart of a new urban extension. It includes parking and local shops

065


9.6_ Conventional Roundabouts99..66..11 Conventional roundabouts are widely used in theUK. Detailed guidance on the design of roundabouts isgiven in TD16/0756 but (as with all sections of DMRB) thisis written specifically for trunk roads and, where used inother situations, should not be applied uncritically.

99..66..22 Roundabouts typically have the lowest rate andseverity of motor vehicle collisions and cause low levels oftraffic delay, and therefore reduced vehicle emissions, inoff-peak conditions. They can deliver high levels of trafficcapacity and can cater for junctions with more than fourapproach arms, although there is some evidence that thiscan lead to a reduction in road safety.

99..66..33 On the other hand, roundabouts generally have apoor collision record for cyclists and can be a significantbarrier to pedestrian movement. Many roundaboutdesigns make only minimal provision for pedestrians,requiring them to cross wide entry and exit arms. Whereformal crossings are installed, whether as zebra or signal-controlled crossings, they are often placed well away fromdesire lines. Some designers have created subwaysbeneath roundabouts in an attempt to give pedestriansmore direct crossing routes, but as the Maid Marian WayCase Study shows, this has rarely been successful(CChhaapptteerr 1144).

99..66..44 Providing adequate deflection is important inreducing speed for motor vehicles, and normal practice isfor the geometry to force vehicles to turn through a curveof less than 100m in radius. This is less important in urbanareas with a speed limit of 30mph or below where speedcan be limited by other means. Designs that use meansother than deflection to achieve low speeds can also havea good safety record.

99..66..55 Roundabouts can have a large land requirement andtheir circular geometry does not sit comfortably in denseurban areas. The signs and road markings generallyassociated with roundabouts can be very intrusive, althoughadvice is given in CChhaapptteerr 1133 on how this can be minimised.

Footway crossover access to commercial premises


99..66..66 When roundabouts are proposed, therecommended approach is to make the overall diameterof the junction as compact as possible to minimise landtake. This will reduce the disruption to pedestrian desirelines, with crossings placed close to entries and exits.This may have some impact on traffic flow, but this shouldnot always be seen as an unacceptable outcome, giventhe underlying need to encourage walking and cycling.Placing crossings on pedestrian desire lines will avoid theneed for guardrailing.

99..66..77 Entries, exits and circulatory carriageways shouldbe as narrow as possible, ideally to a single lane, subjectto capacity considerations. UK practice has generallybeen to have generous entry and exit radii and avoid re-entrant curves, but moving towards a more ‘continental’or ‘compact’ geometry will result in slower traffic speedson the entries, exits and circulatory carriageway, which willbe of benefit to cyclists and pedestrians.

99..66..88 Compact roundabouts are recommended inTD16/0756 for single carriageway roads, and areparticularly suitable where there is a need toaccommodate the movement of pedestrians and cyclists.Further guidance on providing for cyclists at compactroundabouts is given in Traffic Advisory Leaflet (TAL)9/9757.

99..66..99 The widths of circulatory carriageways should bechecked using swept path analysis, considering thelargest vehicle that will regularly negotiate the junction,rather than always designing for the largest legalarticulated vehicle, and using predetermined widthsbased simply on diameter. This may well allow smallerroundabouts to be achieved, particularly in urban areas.

99..66..1100 Roundabouts do not always have to be circular,and ovoid or less regular shapes can be used inconstrained situations. Care should be taken however toavoid sharp curves which can result in an overturninghazard for long vehicles.

99..66..1111 Left turn slip lanes are often used to increase trafficcapacity when there is a heavy demand for thismovement. These create a particular hazard for cyclists,however, when they are leaving the circulatorycarriageway and find themselves between two movingtraffic lanes. Designers should not use these designswithout resolving this problem satisfactorily.

99..66..1122 Central islands at roundabouts can be utilised assites for public art and monuments, but this is likely to bemuch more successful when these sites can be reachedand enjoyed by people on foot.

Cyclists leaving this roundabout can find themselves in the outsidelane of a dual carriageway.

The monument at Seven Dials, London, acts as a place to sit andlinger, as well as a place to move through and is a public squarewhere seven routes meet. Roundabout priority is established by theplacing of signs only on the entries to the junction.

Although the Wellington Arch, London is situated on a largeroundabout, the direct crossing facilities mean that it isaccessible by people on foot, cycle and on horses.

9.7_ Mini-Roundabouts99..77..11 Mini-roundabouts are essentially the application of aroad marking (TSRGD diag 1003.4)58 which defines agive-way to the right rule, circulating the marked centralisland. Detailed guidance is given in TD 54/0759 but (aswith all sections of DMRB) this is written specifically fortrunk roads and, where used in other situations, shouldnot be applied uncritically.

99..77..22 In particular, although TD 54/07 states that newmini-roundabouts are not to be used at new junctions ontrunk roads, no such presumption applies elsewhere, andmini-roundabouts remain a valid choice of junction typefor new as well as existing junctions.

99..77..33 Further detailed guidance on the design of mini-roundabouts is given in the DfT and County Surveyors’Society (now ADEPT) publication ‘Mini roundabouts goodpractice guidance’60.

99..77..44 Many mini-roundabouts have been installed atexisting junctions where they can bring advantages suchas the reduction in traffic speed on all approaches and areduction in overall traffic delay. The land requirement ofthis type of junction is small - they can be fitted intojunctions with an overall diameter of around 12m or lessand thus create little diversion for pedestrians. They aresafer for cyclists than large conventional roundabouts.

This mini-roundabout has an overall diameter of around 12m. Itwas installed as part of a village traffic calming scheme and hasresulted in a significant reduction in collisions.

067


99..77..55 Mini-roundabouts cannot easily achieve good entrydeflection and so are only suitable in locations whereapproach speeds are 30mph or below. One way ofachieving a slow approach speed is to raise the junctionon a table.

99..77..66 Most designs are unlikely to deliver high trafficcapacities; mini-roundabouts with multiple approachlanes have been used but these are less easy forpedestrians and cyclists to negotiate safely, and can leadto higher approach speeds.

99..77..77 Mini-roundabouts work best where the traffic flowon different arms is reasonably balanced, so that driverson all approaches slow down in anticipation of having togive way. When one or more arms has a relatively lighttraffic flow, a means of reducing traffic speeds, such asplacing the junction on a speed table, may be a solution.

99..77..88 The requirements for road markings and signs atmini-roundabouts do have a considerable visual impactand can be particularly intrusive.

99..77..99 Some authorities have responded to this byinstalling junctions that are designed to encourage driversto adopt circulatory priority, but they are in factuncontrolled junctions - see Example of Julian Road,Bath, overleaf.


99..88..22 Traffic signals and are widely used in urbansituations and in rural locations and can cater for hightraffic flows, although they are less appropriate thanroundabouts when approach speeds are high. Theygenerally have a worse road safety record thanroundabouts in terms of vehicle-vehicle collisions, but arebetter suited to accommodate pedestrians and cyclistson their desire lines, although less so as the size andcomplexity of the junction increases.

Julian Road Bath – Before and After

The scheme involved the redesign and realignment of astretch of busy road outside a primary school in thewest of Bath between Marlborough Street and thejunction with Harley Street. A ghost island junction wasreplaced by an uncontrolled junction that usedpavement materials to encourage circulatory priority.

In the three years prior to the scheme, there were ninerecorded serious accidents in the relevant area,including one fatality. There have been no recordedaccidents in the three years since the scheme wascompleted. The scheme included removal of mostsigns, barriers and road markings, and the creation ofsimple informal “places” instead of sweeping priorityjunctions.

Zebra crossing close to mini-roundabout exit.

99..77..1100 Mini-roundabouts can also have controlledcrossings close to exits, on pedestrian desire lines.

9.8_ Traffic Signals99..88..11 The principles of traffic signal control are set out inTAL 01/0661 and the design of pedestrian facilities atsignals is covered by TAL 05/0562. Detailed guidance isgiven in TD 50/0463 but (as with all sections of DMRB) thisis written specifically for trunk roads and, where used inother situations, should not be applied uncritically.

Traffic signal junction with clear and simple pedestrian crossingsand advance cycle stop lines. Note lack of guardrailing andbuildings close to junction corner, and tight corner radii.

99..88..33 Traffic signals add to street clutter, particularlylayouts that require large numbers of signal heads andother equipment. They can therefore have a severe visualimpact. The minimum number of signals at crossings isspecified in the Schedule to Direction 54 of TSRGD58. Forexample, a non-staggered crossing only requires oneprimary and one secondary signal. Straight aheadcrossings generally require fewer signal heads andtherefore create less clutter.

99..88..44 Traffic signals generally occupy less land take thanroundabouts, depending on the number of approachlanes and the need for separate turning lanes.

99..88..55 Even where it is judged that pedestrian phases attraffic signals are not justified, pedestrians can still crossmore easily at traffic signals than at other locations, whentraffic streams are stopped by red signals or duringintergreen periods.

99..88..66 As with priority junctions, tight corner radii will makeit easier for pedestrians to cross and will reduce thespeed of turning traffic, although this will also reducesaturation flows and will need to be taken into account incapacity assessments.

99..88..77 Visibility requirements between arms of trafficsignals as set out in TD 50/0463 may affect the ability toposition buildings close to the corners of traffic signaljunctions, which can affect the ability to create a well-enclosed space. Reducing corner radii can enable stoplines to be brought forward to reduce this effect, butdesigners may need to consider whether the strictapplication of these visibility requirements is alwaysappropriate, particularly in urban situations where speedsare low; or where stop lines are set back considerabledistances due to swept path requirements or otherreasons, giving rise to large intervisibility zones.

Segregated left turn lanes make pedestrian crossing movementsmore complex and slow, as well as adding to clutter.

069


99..88..88 Many traffic signal layouts include segregated leftturn lanes, which may be signal-controlled or operate asgive way junctions. Whilst they can increase capacity, theymake pedestrian crossing movements much moredifficult, adding an extra crossing which can significantlyincrease overall crossing times. They also add to thenumber of signal heads needed, and therefore clutter.These disbenefits should be expressly considered beforethis type of layout is adopted.

99..88..99 Traffic signal junctions in urban areas shouldgenerally incorporate advanced cycle stop lines to whichenable cyclists to position themselves at the head oftraffic streams where they are more visible and safer.

99..88..1100 Outside peak hours traffic signals can causegreater levels of delay to all road users than other types ofjunction, due to the time lost when changing betweensignal stages. Keeping the number of signal stages to aminimum will reduce this disbenefit. Some authoritieshave begun to experiment with the removal of trafficsignal control to reduce delays, and research studies havefound this can lead to significant economic benefits64.

99..88..1111 Notwithstanding these potential benefits, careneeds to be taken that the removal of traffic signals doesnot worsen road safety, or make conditions worse forpedestrians and cyclists.

99..88..1122 Traffic signal controllers should be sited to allowunimpeded use of the footway by pedestrians. In theexample below, a signal controller has been installed in abench.

Traffic signals can have a severe visual impact


99..88..1133 Most highway authorities specify backing boardswith white borders to traffic signals, but they are notlegally required. Local Transport Note 1/9865 notes thatbacking boards may be omitted at urban sites wherespeeds are low and there are no distracting backgrounds.

Bench containing traffic signal controller

9.9_ Traffic Management andOne-Way Systems99..99..11 In many towns and cities traffic managementsystems, often involving networks of one-way streets,have been created. The usual aim of these systems is toincrease network capacity by simplifying turningmovements at junctions. These aims are understood, butthe improvements in traffic flow capacity are offset byreductions in legibility and accessibility for all road users.One-way streets also tend to cause higher traffic speeds.

99..99..22 Cyclists are particularly disadvantaged by suchsystems, since the additional travel distance can besignificant. Pedestrians can become disorientated by one-way streets, and fail to look for traffic in the correctdirection before crossing. This is a particular problemwhere there are contraflow bus lanes.

99..99..33 However, with appropriate designs to minimisevehicle speeds, one-way streets can result in narrowercarriageways which can create more space forpedestrians, cyclists and the public realm.

99..99..44 Some towns and cities have begun to simplify trafficmanagement systems, judging that the benefits to otherroad users outweighs any additional travel time for motorvehicles. In South Kensington (see overleaf) a complexone-way system has been removed, whilst at the sametime considerable areas of carriageway space have beengiven over to pedestrians.

Signalised crossing with no white borders to signal heads

9.10_ Direct Frontage Access99..1100..11 Providing direct access to buildings and publicspaces is an important element in creating streets that arelinked to their surroundings, rather than simply beingconduits for passing traffic. Access is a key part of theplace function of streets and should be facilitated wherepossible.

99..1100..22 MfS1 referred to research which looked at therelationship between traffic flow and road safety onstreets with direct frontage access to dwellings (MfS17.9.5). A limit of 10,000 vehicles per day (vpd) wasadvised, but this related to the limited number of sitesconsidered with more than this level of traffic, rather thanan indication that road safety declines above this level offlow.

071


99..1100..33 Research referred to in TD 41/953 examined therelationship between access frequency and collisions on3,000km of all-purpose trunk roads in England, bothurban and rural, dual and single carriageway. Theresearch showed that there was no simple statisticalrelationship between the number of collisions and thenumber of vehicular connections in the form of minorjunctions and direct accesses.

99..1100..44 For rural roads, there was a statistically significantrelationship between collisions and traffic flow, link lengthand the total number of all access connections. In thecase of urban roads, however, only traffic flow had asignificant effect on the number of collisions at this level ofconfidence, and was found no direct relationship betweenaccess provision and collision occurrence.

99..1100..55 It is therefore clear that the advice given in MfS1concerning direct access is applicable to all urban roads,and that providing direct frontage access is unlikely tohave significant disbenefits in road safety terms.

Before

Changes at South Kensington - a complex one-way system has been simplified

Area outside Underground station

After

Before After

10.1_ Introduction1100..11..11 This section of MfS2 incorporates Section 7.5 ofMfS1. It is based on a combination of the research carriedout by TRL23, the research carried out by TMSConsultancy for MfS266, a review of recent research andinternational standards and the outcome of publicinquiries since MfS1 was published (see Example below).

1100..11..22 Sight distance parameters can be based onvarious models, such as stopping sight distance,overtaking distance or gap acceptance. UK practicegenerally focuses on Stopping Sight Distance (SSD). Theeffect of sight distance on the capacity of priority junctionsis discussed in CChhaapptteerr 99 above.

1100..11..33 This section provides guidance on SSDs forstreets where 85th percentile speeds are up to 60 kph(37mph). This will generally be achieved within 30mphlimits and may be achieved in some 40mph limits.

1100..11..44 Stopping sight distance (SSD) is the distancedrivers need to be able to see ahead and they can stopwithin from a given speed. It is calculated from the speedof the vehicle, the time required for a driver to identify ahazard and then begin to brake (the perception-reactiontime), and the vehicle’s rate of deceleration. For newstreets, the design speed for the location underconsideration is set by the designer. For existing streets,the 85th percentile wet-weather speed is used.

073

10_ Visibility

10_ Visibility

1100..11..55 The basic formula for calculating SSD (in metres) is:

SSD = vt + v2/2(d+0.1a)where:v = speed (m/s)t = driver perception-reaction time (seconds)d = deceleration (m/s2)a = longitudinal gradient (%) (+ for upgrades and - for downgrades)

1100..11..66 The Desirable Minimum SSDs in general use priorto MfS1 were based on a driver perception-reaction timeof 2 seconds and a deceleration rate of 2.45 m/s2

(equivalent to 0.25g, where g is acceleration due togravity (9.81 m/s2)). The Absolute Minimum SSD valueskept the same reaction time of 2 seconds, but assumed adeceleration rate of 3.68 m/s2 (0.375g).

1100..11..77 The SSD values recommended in MfS1 werebased on a perception-reaction time of 1.5 seconds anda deceleration rate of 0.45g (4.41 m/s2). This value isappropriate for cars and other light vehicles, but heavygoods vehicles and buses have different decelerationcharacteristics. When deciding whether to carry outseparate checks for cars, HGV and bus SSDs, highwayauthorities should consider the following factors:

• Volume of HGVs and buses• Proportion of HGVs and buses• Presence of priority lanes which may enable higher

bus/HGV speeds

1100..11..88 As a guide, it is suggested that bus/HGV SSDshould not need to be assessed when the combinedproportion of HGV and bus traffic is less than 5% of trafficflow, subject to consideration of local circumstances.

1100..11..99 Based on international vehicle standards (seeExample) HGVs must be able to achieve peakdeceleration rates of at least 0.509g. However, allowingfor the delay in the maximum effectiveness of air brakingsystems, overall minimum stopping distances are alsospecified which reduce the minimum overall decelerationrateA under the regulations to some 0.36g. Real life testscarried out by ROSPA (also see Example) indicate thatthese values are likely to be exceeded in practice andtherefore the pre-MfS1 Absolute Minimum value of 0.375gis recommended for HGVs. These average decelerationrates already allow for the time taken for air brakingsystems to apply and therefore the same reaction time of1.5 seconds should be used.

1100..11..1100 For buses, the limiting design factor is passengercomfort and safety rather than the ability of the vehicle tostop, and therefore for buses, the recommendedmaximum deceleration rate is the same as the pre-MfS1Absolute Minimum value of 0.375g, as used for the pre-MfS1 Absolute Minimum SSD values.

Inspectors at public inquiries have accepted that SSD guidancein MfS1 applies to non-residential streets. At an appeal into adevelopment of some 100 dwellings, accessed from the B5215Leigh Road in Wigan, the Inspector concluded that MfS1 didapply, notwithstanding the volume of traffic (approximately1,700vph peak times) or the classification of the highway (part ofthe Strategic Route Network).

A The minimum overall deceleration rate means the deceleration rate, expressed as a uniform value, from the instant whenthe brakes begin to be applied when the vehicle stops, required by the standards.


1100..11..1111 Where designers wish to determine different SSDvalues for HGVs and buses it will be necessary to useappropriate design speeds for these classes of vehicle.Where SSD is being calculated for existing highways,actual 85th percentile values for these types of vehiclesshould be measured and the worst case SSD be used forhorizontal measurements of visibility.

1100..11..1122 Based on free flow vehicle speeds travelling in30mph limits given in Transport Statistics Bulletin 200845,buses travel at 90% of the average speed for all vehicles.

1100..11..1133 In summary, recommended values for reactiontimes and deceleration rates for SSD calculations aregiven in TTaabbllee 1100..11 below and the resulting SSD values forinitial speeds of up to 120kph are shown on the graphbeneath.

HHGGVV BBrraakkiinngg PPeerrffoorrmmaannccee

Minimum standards for lorry braking systems are setout in the UNECE Vehicle Regulation 1367, whichrequires that the mean fully developed decelerationrate achieved by the braking system (with the enginedisconnected) should be at least 5.0m/s2 (0.509g). Inaddition, the stopping distance of the vehicle mustbe no more than 0.15v+v2/130, where v=vehiclespeed in kph (up to 60kph), and 0.15v+v2/103.5 (vup to 90kph).

At 50kph the maximum allowable stopping distanceis therefore 26.7m, and this is equivalent to aminimum overall braking rate of 3.6m/s2 or 0.37g.

A series of real life braking tests were carried out byROSPA using a wide range of vehicles in 2001, asreported inhttp://www.rospa.com/RoadSafety/AdviceAndInformation/Driving/hgv-truck-braking-systems.aspx

Deceleration rates have been calculated from theresults of these tests which show that the minimumoverall braking rate achieved was 0.44g, for a 36tonne Foden vehicle, which stopped in 20.68m from30mph. (One vehicle did take longer to stop, at 27m,but this was on a down slope). Cars were also testedby ROSPA, and the best performing of these was aFord Mondeo, which stopped from 30mph in 7.14m,an overall deceleration rate of 1.27g.

DDeessiiggnn SSppeeeedd VVeehhiiccllee TTyyppee RReeaaccttiioonn TTiimmee DDeecceelleerraattiioonn RRaattee CCoommmmeennttss

60kph and below Light vehicles 1.5s 0.45g

HGVs 1.5s 0.375g See 10.1.9

Buses 1.5s 0.375g See 10.1.10

Above 60kph All vehicles 2s 0.375g (Absolute Min SSD) As TD 9/93

All vehicles 2s 0.25g (Desirable Min SSD) As TD 9/93

TTaabbllee 1100..11:: Summary of Recommended SSD Criteria

10.2_ Visibility Requirements1100..22..11 Visibility should be checked at junctions and alongthe street. Forward visibility is measured horizontally andvertically.

1100..22..22 Using plan views of proposed layouts, checks forvisibility in the horizontal plane ensure that views are notobscured by vertical obstructions.

1100..22..33 Checking visibility in the vertical plane is thencarried out to ensure that views in the horizontal plane arenot compromised by obstructions such as the crest of ahill, or a bridge at a dip in the road ahead. It also takesinto account the variation in driver eye height and theheight range of obstructions. Eye height is assumed torange from 1.05m (for car drivers) to 2m (for bus and HGVdrivers).

1100..22..44 Drivers need to be able to see obstructions from 2m high down to a point 600 mm above the carriageway.The latter dimension is used to ensure small children canbe seen.

1100..22..55 The SSD figure relates to the position of the driver.However the distance between the driver and the front ofthe vehicle is typically up to 2.4m, which is a significantproportion of shorter stopping distances. It is thereforerecommended that for assessments of SSD, anallowance is made by adding 2.4m to the distancecalculated using the formula.

075

10_ Visibility

10.3_ Forward Visibility1100..33..11 The minimum forward visibility required is equal tothe minimum SSD, based on the design speed at thelocation being considered. It is checked by measuringbetween points on a curve along the centreline of theinner traffic lane (see FFiigg..1100..11).

1100..33..22 However there will be situations in locations withdesign speeds of 60kph or less where it is desirable andappropriate to restrict forward visibility to control trafficspeed - research carried out for MfS1 describes howforward visibility influences speed. An historic example isshown below.

Graph showing recommended SSD values, allowing for bonnetlength.

FFiigguurree 1100..11 - Measurement of forward visibility

Spaniards Inn, Hampstead – historic building restricting forwardvisibility and carriageway width


10.4_ Visibility At Priority Junctions1100..44..11 The visibility splay at a junction ensures there isadequate inter-visibility between vehicles on the majorand minor arms.

1100..44..22 It has often been assumed that a failure to providevisibility at priority junctions in accordance with the valuesrecommended in MfS1 or DMRB (as appropriate) willresult in an increased risk of injury collisions. Researchcarried out by TMS Consultancy for MfS266 has found noevidence of this (see research summary below). Researchinto cycle safety at T-junctions found that higher cyclecollision rates are associated with greater visibility55.

HHiigghh RRiisskk CCoolllliissiioonn SSiitteess aanndd YY DDiissttaannccee VViissiibbiilliittyy

IInnttrroodduuccttiioonn

The accepted approach to visibility at priorityjunctions has been to provide a minimum stoppingsight distance value appropriate to a particulardesign speed. The assumption made by somedesigners and road safety auditors is that this valueprovides a minimum road safety requirement, andthat collision risk will increase if the SSD is notachieved.

The purpose of this research was to examine thisassumption and to identify whether or not a directrelationship can be established between variations inY distance SSD and collision frequency at priorityjunctions.

MMeetthhooddoollooggyy

SSiittee SSeelleeccttiioonn

A series of “high risk” priority junctions was identifiedas the basis for research. Uncontrolled crossroadsand T- junctions were selected for all classes of roadthroughout all 20, 30 and 40mph speed limits inNottinghamshire, Sandwell, Lambeth, and Glasgow.For each area a list of all non-pedestrian collisionswas ranked in descending order of collision total for arecent five-year period, with over 1500 collisionslisted in total. Each location was then analysed indetail to identify specific collision characteristics.

CCoolllliissiioonn AAnnaallyyssiiss

Collisions involving vehicles emerging from junctionsinto the path of vehicles on the main road, togetherwith nose-to-tail shunts on the minor road wereidentified as the type of incident that could have beencaused by “poor visibility”. The locations were thenranked in descending order of these types ofcrashes, and site visits were carried out at the“worst” sites.

In addition to the 626 potential “poor visibility”collisions, a record was made of 203 collisionsinvolving main road shunts, 46 collisions involvingmain road bus passengers, 22 collisions involvingmain road large goods vehicles, and 216 collisionsinvolving main road two-wheeled vehicles. There is aconcern that these types of collisions could be over-represented at locations with poor visibility.

SSiittee VViissiittss

Two investigators visited each location, andmeasured visibility to the left and right, from a pointon the side road, 2.4m back from the main roadchannel line. Visibility was measured from a height of1.05m, to a point at the kerb edge and a secondpoint 1m out from the kerb edge, where observationsshowed that visibility increased.

077

10_ Visibility

SSuummmmaarryy ooff FFiinnddiinnggss

• “High risk” sites were defined as locations that hadthree or more potential poor visibility collisions - in afive year period (94 in total). Of these 90 were on30mph roads, with 3 on 40mph roads. At 55 of the94 locations the worst case visibility (either to the leftor right) was restricted to less than 120m. Thus inrelation to the total number of uncontrolled junctionsthat exist, the proportion of “high risk” sites wherevisibility is less than that recommended for 70kph inDMRB is likely to be very low. It is possible thatsome former high risk priority junctions have beenconverted to other forms of junction control.

• In two thirds of the cases where visibility was lessthan 120m, the restriction was due to parkedvehicles or street furniture. It is not possible todetermine whether the parking was present at thetime of the collision.

• Linear regression to compare potential poor visibilitycollisions with Y distance has a very low R2 value,which shows that the variation in collision frequencywas explained by factors other than Y distancevisibility, for a large number of different situations.Therefore Y distance cannot be seen as a singledeterministic factor at these high-risk collisionlocations (see example graph below).

VViissiibbiilliittyy mmeeaassuurreedd ttoo rriigghhtt,, ttoo nneeaarrssiiddee kkeerrbb..

NNoo.. ooff ssiitteess NNoo.. ccoolllliissiioonnss CCoolllliissiioonnss ppeerr yyeeaarr CCoolllliissiioonnss ppeerr ssiittee ppeerr yyeeaarr

0-20m 4 16 3.2 0.80

20-40m 14 58 11.6 0.83

40-60m 15 64 12.8 0.85

60-80m 5 24 4.8 0.96

80-100m 2 11 2.2 1.10

100-120m 1 6 1.2 1.20

120m+ 48 208 41.6 0.87

• A series of collision types at high risk locationswhere Y distance was less than 45m were comparedwith locations with more than 45m visibility. There wereno statistically significant differences between the twosets of data. The data analysed included main roadbus and large goods vehicle collisions, and theresearch did not find high numbers of collisionsinvolving these types of vehicles at low visibility sites.

CCoolllliissiioonn ttyyppee NNoo && %% iinn NNoo && %% iinn ssiitteess <<4455mm vviiss ssiitteess >>4455mm vviiss

Potential visi collisions in dark 40 (31.75%) 90 (30.3%)

Main road shunts 24 (8.79%) 50 (9.11%)

Bus passenger 10 (3.66%) 10 (1.82%)

Main road HGV 1 (0.37%) 5 (0.91%)

Main road two-wheeled. 38 (13.92%) 85 (15.58%)

CCoonncclluussiioonnss

• This study has been unable to demonstrate thatroad safety concerns regarding reduced Y distanceare directly associated with increased collision riskat “high-risk” urban sites;

• Previous research for MfS1 demonstrated that mainroad speed is influenced by road width and forwardvisibility. Many of the locations in this study werestraight roads with good forward visibility. The abilityof the driver to stop is likely to be affected by morethan just what is happening in the side road and anunderstanding of the factors influencing main roadspeed is important when assessing visibilityrequirements.


10.5_ X and Y Distances

Measurement of X and Y distances1100..55..11 The distance back along the minor arm from whichvisibility is measured is known as the X distance (FFiigguurree1100..22). It is generally measured back from the ‘give way’line (or the main road channel line if no such markings areprovided).

1100..55..22 This distance is normally measured along thecentreline of the minor arm for simplicity, but in somecircumstances (for example where there is a wide splitterisland on the minor arm) it will be more appropriate tomeasure it from the actual position of the driver.

1100..55..33 The Y distance represents the distance that adriver who is about to exit from the minor arm can see tothe left and right along the main alignment. For simplicity ithas previously been measured along the nearside kerbline of the main arm, although vehicles will normally betravelling at a distance from the kerb line. Therefore amore accurate assessment of visibility splay is made bymeasuring to the nearside edge of the vehicle track. Themeasurement is taken from the point where this lineintersects the centreline of the minor arm (unless, asabove, there is a splitter island in the minor arm).

1100..55..44 When the main alignment is curved and the minorarm joins on the outside of a bend, another check isnecessary to make sure that an approaching vehicle onthe main arm is visible over the whole of the Y distance.This is done by drawing an additional sight line whichmeets the kerb line at a tangent.

1100..55..55 Some circumstances make it unlikely that vehiclesapproaching from the left on the main arm will cross thecentreline of the main arm - opposing flows may bephysically segregated at that point, for example. If so, thevisibility splay to the left can be measured to the centrelineof the main arm.

Recommended values for X and Ydistances1100..55..66 An X distance of 2.4m should normally be used inmost built-up situations, as this represents a reasonablemaximum distance between the front of a car and thedriver’s eye.

1100..55..77 Longer X distances enable drivers to look for gapsas they approach the junction. This increases junctioncapacity for the minor arm, and so may be justified in somecircumstances, but it also increases the possibility thatdrivers on the minor approach will fail to take account ofother road users, particularly pedestrians and cyclists.Longer X distances may also result in more shunt collisionson the minor arm. TRL Report No. 18468 found that collisionrisk increased with greater minor-road sight distance.

1100..55..88 A minimum X distance of 2m may be considered insome slow-speed situations when flows on the minor armare low, but using this value will mean that the front ofsome vehicles will protrude slightly into the runningcarriageway of the major arm, and many drivers will tendto cautiously nose out into traffic. The ability of drivers andcyclists to see this overhang from a reasonable distance,and to manoeuvre around it without undue difficulty,should be considered. This also applies in lightly-traffickedrural lanes.

1100..55..99 The Y distance should be based on therecommended SSD values. However, based on theresearch referred to above, unless there is local evidenceto the contrary, a reduction in visibility belowrecommended levels will not necessarily lead to asignificant problem.

FFiigguurree 1100..22

10.6_ Visibility Along The Street Edge1100..66..11 Vehicle exits at the back edge of the footway meanthat emerging drivers will have to take account of peopleon the footway. The absence of wide visibility splays atminor accesses will encourage drivers to emerge morecautiously - similarly to how vehicles pull out whenvisibility along the carriageway is restricted (see Examplebelow)

1100..66..22 . Consideration should be given to whether this willbe appropriate, taking into account the following:

• the frequency of vehicle movements;• the amount of pedestrian activity; and• the width of the footway.

1100..66..33 When it is judged that footway visibility splays areto be provided, consideration should be given to the bestmeans of achieving this in a manner sympathetic to thevisual appearance of the street (FFiigguurree 1100..33). This mayinclude:

• the use of boundary railings rather than walls; and• the omission of boundary walls or fences at the exit

location.

FFiigguurree 1100..33

079

10_ Visibility

Access to commercial property with limited visibility.


10.7_ Obstacles To Visibility1100..77..11 Parking in visibility splays in built-up areas is quitecommon, yet it does not appear to create significantproblems in practice. Ideally, defined parking bays shouldbe provided outside the visibility splay. However, in somecircumstances, where speeds are low, someencroachment may be acceptable. (See Example below.)

1100..77..22 The impact of other obstacles, such as street treesand street lighting columns, should be assessed in termsof their impact on the overall envelope of visibility. Ingeneral, occasional obstacles to visibility that are not largeenough to fully obscure a whole vehicle or a pedestrian,including a child or wheelchair user, will not have asignificant impact on road safety.

At urban junctions where visibility is limited bybuildings and parked cars, drivers of vehicles on theminor arm tend to nose out carefully until they cansee oncoming traffic, and vice-versa.

In the images above, the blue car moves forwardslowly until it can see far enough past the parkedvehicles to see that the gap to the next oncomingvehicle is long enough for it to pull out. Drivers on themajor route will also be able to see the vehicle pullingforward slowly and may slow down or stop to allow itto pull out.

1111..11..11 Parking is an important consideration in theplanning and design of highway networks, particularly inurban areas. General guidance on the development ofparking strategies is given in the IHT publication ‘ParkingStrategies and Management’ (2005)69 and the document‘Car Parking, what works where’70 provides acomprehensive analysis of the design of parking inresidential and mixed-use areas.

1111..11..22 On-street car parking can be a vital component ofhighways, particularly where routes pass through towncentres and commercial areas. The decision whether ornot to provide on-street car parking should take intoaccount its positive and negative effects, as summarisedin MfS1:

Positive Effects• A common resource, catering for residents’, visitors’

and service vehicles in an efficient manner.• Able to cater for peak demands from various users at

different times of the day, for example people at workor residents.

• Adds activity to the street. • Typically well overlooked, providing improved security.• Popular and likely to be well-used.• Can provide a useful buffer between pedestrians and

traffic.

Negative Effects• If there are few places for pedestrians to cross with

adequate visibility it can introduce a road safetyproblem, particularly if traffic speeds are above 20mph.

• Can be visually dominant within a street scene and canundermine the established character.

• May lead to footway parking, unless the street isproperly designed to accommodate parked vehicles.

• Vehicles parked indiscriminately can block vehicularaccesses to premises.

• Cars parked on-street can be more vulnerable toopportunistic crime than off-street spaces.

• Providing parking bays potentially reduces footwayspace, which could also be used for cycle parking.

1111..11..33 Where car parking is provided, a good solution isto break it into discrete groups of spaces with build outsthat provide opportunities for pedestrians to cross withgood visibility.

Well-integrated on-street parking.

081

11_ On-Street Parking and Servicing

11_ On-Street Parking and Servicing

1111..11..44 Car parking alongside carriageways can belongitudinal, echelon or at right angles to the kerb.Longitudinal parking will be more appropriate where trafficspeeds and volumes are higher, since vehicles enteringand exiting the spaces cause less interruption to trafficflow. In town centres and other locations where speedsare low, echelon and right angled parking may be the bestsolution, since it is more efficient and creates a strongerstatement that the area is for ‘place’ activities as well asfor movement.

Manchester Ancoats Before and After.


1111..11..55 Echelon parking may be more difficult forpedestrians to pass through than longitudinal and rightangled parking, depending on the spacing of parkedvehicles, and can provide a greater barrier to crossing thestreet. This can be solved by leaving regular gapsbetween parked vehicles, however. It is easier to forvehicles to enter and exit echelon than right angle spacesand so the former have less impact on through traffic.

1111..11..66 With echelon and right angle parking, care has tobe taken that overhanging vehicles do not have anadverse impact on the available footway width. This canbe addressed by providing generous footways, or usingstreet furniture or wheel stops, in the form of dishedchannels, to prevent vehicles from encroaching too far.

1111..11..77 On-street servicing bays are often required inurban centres where commercial premises can only beaccessed from the front. Where they are designed as lay-bys, they can be difficult to keep clear of parked cars andtake space away from pedestrians that is empty for muchof the time. Some authorities are placing loading areas onstrengthened areas of the footway, which makes it muchless likely that space will be used for parking, and allowspedestrians to use the space when there are no vehiclespresent.

1111..11..88 This approach has been used in numerouslocations in London in recent years71.

1111..11..99 The minimum widths required to manoeuvreto/from 2.4m wide parking spaces are as follows:

• 90° - 6m• 60° - 4.2m• 45° - 3.6m• 30° - 3.6m

1111..11..1100 Where parking is provided on street, thismanoeuvring width will generally be provided by thecarriageway.

1111..11..1111 For echelon and right angle parking, manoeuvringspace can be reduced by providing wider spaces, asshown in Figure 8.20 of MfS1.

Manchester Ancoats Plan

On-footway servicing bay - Walworth Road MPR Scheme,London

12.1_ Introduction1122..11..11 Street furniture is the collective term for the widerange of extraneous items that are placed in highways,most of which is to be found outside the carriageway.Street furniture has an important role to play in facilitatingthe use of the highway for many purposes, and some itemssupport important ‘place’ functions, such as seating andcycle parking. While trees may not be strictly classed asstreet furniture, they are important elements withinhighways that are highly beneficial, although they should belocated and managed carefully.

1122..11..22 In recent years there has been increasing concernthat excessive and poorly-planned and maintained streetfurniture is seriously degrading the quality of the localenvironment.

1122..11..33 Based on the guidance that is already contained inMfS1 the key principles that should be followed withrespect to street furniture, including traffic signs, are asfollows:

• Designers should start from a position of having nostreet furniture and only introduce these elements whenthey serve a clear function.

• Street designs should be as self-explanatory aspossible, so that the number of signs can be minimised.Providing additional signs may not solve a particularproblem - it may be necessary to consider removingsigns and dealing with the problem another way.

• Excessive street furniture should be avoided, althoughstreet furniture that is of direct benefit to street users,such as seating and cycle parking, can contribute to asense of place, making the street a destination in itsown right.

• Street furniture should be laid out so that pedestrianroutes along and across the street are kept clear.

• New street furniture should be well designed and insympathy with the character of the street. Items ofhistoric interest should be retained.

1122..11..44 Further detailed advice on minimising the numberand impact of traffic signs is given in CChhaapptteerr 1133.

Excessive signs and street furniture can have a severe impact onthe public realm.

083

12_ Street Furniture and Trees


1122..11..55 A proliferation of street furniture can often arise inmixed-use environments. This is made worse whencomplex traffic management systems are also used.Consequently the key principles from MfS1 are even moreimportant to consider in the context of the wider range ofstreet and road types that are covered by this document.

1122..11..66 Local Transport Note 1/08 ‘Traffic Managementand Streetscape’24 provides advice on how to managestreet furniture in a more sensitive way, with particularemphasis on the processes that should be followed.Whilst LTN 1/08 focuses on traffic management schemes,its principles can be applied more generally, including onnew and improved highway schemes.

1122..11..77 Reducing the amount of street furniture will bringsignificant benefits in terms of visual amenity. It is onlypossible to appreciate the character of an area if it is notobscured by excessive standardised street paraphernalia.

Character Obscured

Character Revealed - same location, same street furniture, butrationalised (Images Courtesy Colin Davis)


1122..11..88 Other benefits of reducing the amount of streetfurniture include:

• reducing the costs of provision and maintenance.• improving the overall image of a place, helping it to

function well economically and making its features ofinterest, such as heritage buildings and structures,stand out more clearly.

• improving the safety and amenity of pedestrians,particularly people with impaired mobility and peoplewho are blind or partially sighted.

• making those signs that are most important stand outmore clearly, improving safety and user behaviour.

In summary, less can be more.

Mare Street Hackney - Before and after a decluttering scheme inAugust 2007. Casualty records have revealed a safety neutraloutcome.

12.2_ Procedures For ReducingStreet Furniture1122..22..11 In existing streets, highway authorities, workingclosely with other agencies and other interested parties,can carry out targeted decluttering schemes, reviewingtraffic signs and street furniture. This will identify what canbe removed without adversely affecting road safety andthe proper functioning of the street. Highway authoritiesshould also work with external bodies, such as thestatutory undertakers, and with other local authoritydepartments to prevent streets becoming degraded withexcessive street furniture over time.

1122..22..22 It is also recommended that highway authoritiesadopt a process of decluttering as an integral part of theirongoing maintenance regimes. It will often be possible toidentify items of street furniture that are redundant duringroutine street inspections so that they can be removed atlittle cost during maintenance operations. This process iscovered by the ‘tidy up’ step in the London Mayor’sBetter Streets strategy25, set out in CChhaapptteerr 44.

1122..22..33 When new highways are built or improvements arecarried out, designers may over-provide and over-specifytraffic signs, markings and other street furniture, based onthe principle that they will only have one opportunity toprovide such items. This practice adds unnecessarily tostreet clutter and should be avoided. Instead, the startingpoint should be that they are not to be provided unlessthere is a clear need for them. Where there is doubt overthe need for any items, they should be omitted, and thesituation monitored closely to establish whether they arejustified in the light of experience.

This guardrail has no function - the pedestrian route it wasprotecting has been closed - and can therefore be removed.

1122..22..44 Local policy and guidance on streetscape designand implementation processes has a key role to play insetting procedures for the progressive reduction of streetclutter while promoting walking and cycling - see Examplebelow.

Junction of Corporation Street and Croft Road, Coventry - Junction simplified, traffic signs, bus lane, keep left bollards and guardrailremoved, cycle parking on median.

085


1122..22..55 Local highway authorities are encouraged todevelop policy documents to ensure that similar principlesare adopted as a matter of course when existinghighways are maintained and improved, and when newones are being designed.

12.3_ Keeping Footways Clear1122..33..11 Guidance on the space requirements forpedestrians is contained in Section 6.3 of MfS1 and canbe related to the volume of pedestrians per square metre(Fruin Level of Service). Experience from Copenhagen73

indicates that pedestrians start to take alternative routeswhen the flow exceeds 13 people per metre of footwaywidth per minute.

1122..33..22 In many places, however, particularly in towncentres, the effective width of footway is significantlyreduced by the presence of street furniture and otherobstacles (see box out on UCL research). Waste bins area particular hazard in many cities. ADEPT have publishedtheir practical guide for developers and local authoritiescalled ‘Making Space for Waste’74.

Transport for London’s 'Streetscape Guidance'72

contains detailed advice on the use of appropriatematerials and details across the TfL network, andrequires designers to ensure that:

• Signs are sufficient to enforce the regulations butare not excessive in terms of numbers and size.

• Key views and landmark buildings are notobstructed by poorly located street furniture,unless there is an unavoidable safety or securityneed.

• Clear pedestrian routes are maintained byremoving redundant furniture and locating newfurniture outside pedestrian desire lines.

• Clutter is reduced by combining elements ofstreet furniture, such as signals and signs onstreet lighting or CCTV columns, incorporatingbins and seats into bus shelters, and bymounting street signs and equipment onbuildings or structures, wherever it is safe andacceptable to do so and the agreement of theowner has been obtained.

• The extent and visual impact of safety fencesand barriers is reduced to the minimum requiredfor safety and security to lessen visual impactand severance effects.


TThhee IInnfflluueennccee ooff SSttrreeeett FFuurrnniittuurree oonn PPeeddeessttrriiaannFFoooottwwaayy CCaappaacciittyy

Research carried out at UCL by Peter Jones andRachel Palfreeman75 looked at the spacerequirements of different types of street furniturelocated on the footway. The amount of space takenup by such objects is often much greater than their

physical footprint due to two factors. First eachobject has a ‘no go’ buffer space around it aspedestrians seek to avoid coming into contact withthe object. The literature has historically assumed a0.3 to 0.45m buffer width, but this research suggeststhat it varies according to pedestrian flow rates andcan be as little as 0.1m at high rates of flow – seefigure below.

But there is a second factor which further reducespedestrian capacity, which has not previously beentaken into account. This is the ‘footprint in use’ of theobject. This may result either from the intended useof an object (e.g. additional space taken up by acycle parked against a cycle rack; a person sitting ona bench with shopping bags or a pushchairalongside; or people queuing to use a cash

machine), or from unintended use (e.g. rubbish bagsleft next to a bin, or cycles parked alongsidepedestrian guardrailing). The ‘footprint in use’ mayadd considerably to the physical footprint of theobject itself, as shown in the table below, and sohave a major impact on pedestrian flows and the useof the footway.

Street furniture and other clutter affecting footway capacity

IItteemm ooff SSttrreeeett FFuurrnniittuurree TTyyppiiccaall DDiimmeennssiioonnss EExxttrraa ffoooottpprriinntt ((ffoooottwwaayy wwiiddtthh ooccccuuppiieedd))

wwhheenn iinn uussee

Bus Shelter 0.28m x 3.9m to 1.3m x 5.2m 0.4m to 1.1m

Cycle Stands 0.1m x 0.6m to 0.1m x 0.7m 0.5m

Litter Bins 0.5m x 0.5m to 0.6m x 0.6m 0.1m to 0.9m

Cash Machines NA 0.55m to 1.6m

1122..33..33 The first step to improve conditions for pedestriansis to remove any unnecessary obstacles, whether throughregular maintenance processes, a declutteringprogramme or through the prevention of ad-hocinstallation of features by external agencies such asutilities, by developing local working and communicationarrangements. Encroachment by frontagers, such as byA-boards or licensed street trading, should also becontrolled.

1122..33..44 Where substantial items of street furniture, such asstreet lighting columns, are to be replaced the opportunityshould be taken to co-locate items onto a single polewherever possible, with individual departments of a localauthority and external agencies working together. Itemssuch as traffic signal heads, belisha beacons and litterbins can all be dealt with in this way. Street elements canalso be mounted on walls and other structures to removethe need for a pole entirely.

1122..33..55 Street furniture should be located in a consistentplace so that a clear pedestrian zone is maintained.Normally street furniture will be positioned betweenpedestrians and the carriageway to avoid affecting accessto buildings and to provide a buffer to passing traffic.

087


1122..33..66 Bollards create an obstacle to pedestrian movementand can also be visually intrusive, particularly when used inlarge numbers. They are often installed where there is aconcern that vehicles will encroach onto pedestrian areas,particularly in level surface schemes, but they have tendedto be over-used as they provide an ‘easy’ design solution.

1122..33..77 Where designers consider it essential to preventvehicles gaining access to a footway or pedestrian area,items of street furniture with a definite purpose, such asseating, cycle racks or trees, will often be preferable. Betterenforcement of parking can also have a part to play.

1122..33..88 When used, bollards should be of a minimumheight of 1m so that they are detectable by visually-impaired people.

12.4_ Guardrail1122..44..11 Guardrail is usually installed where there is a risk,or perceived risk, that pedestrians and/or cyclists will, inits absence, cross carriageways away from designatedcrossing points, or will otherwise wander into placeswhere they can come into conflict with motor traffic. It iswidely used in the UK, both on existing streets where aproblem has been identified, and often on new orimproved highway schemes as a matter of course.

1122..44..22 Guardrail is a very intrusive element. Itdisadvantages pedestrian movement by making peoplewalk further, away from their desire lines, and creates anunpleasant feeling of restraint. It also narrows the usablefootway which can lead to congestion. It is unsightly anddetracts from local character and visual amenity, andthere is evidence that it can increase traffic speeds andpresent an increased risk to cyclists, who can be crushedagainst it by vehicles.

Maid Marian Way, Nottingham

Belisha Lamp Column

Source - TfL ‘Streetscape Guidance'72. Note - ‘InclusiveMobility’35 advises that minimum width for pedestrians of 1mshould only be used for distances of up to 6m.

Bollards can add considerably to street clutter.


1122..44..33 There is a pressing need to strike a moreappropriate balance in the use of guardrail. That is not tosay that there are no locations where it may be necessary- but it should only be used when no other solution to asignificant safety problem is practically possible, and theadverse effects on amenity, capacity and safety havebeen fully evaluated and recognised.

1122..44..44 Local Transport Note 2/09, 'PedestrianGuardrailing'76, provides advice with respect toguardrailing, including:

• a description of the development of policy guidance onguardrailing;

• an assessment procedure for the evaluation of theneed for the installation or removal of guardrailing; and

• encouragement for authorities to consider developingand using an audit trail, recording decisions andactions when considering guardrailing.

1122..44..55 LTN 2/09 advises that alternative measures shouldbe considered before a decision is taken to installguardrailing. Such measures may include:

• Reducing traffic speed;• Relocating or installing a new pedestrian crossing to

better fit pedestrian desire lines;• Footway improvements and widening;• Providing straight-ahead pedestrian crossings; and• Using other means of directing pedestrians if this is

necessary.

Despite extensive guardrailing, many pedestrians still choose totake the shortest path, putting themselves at greater risk. The redline shows the designated path, the blue line where many peoplewalk.

Guardrailing can add to pedestrian congestion

1122..44..66 Experience has shown that the careful removal ofguardrail from existing streets does not necessarily resultin a worsening of road safety (see Prince of Wales RoadExample below).

089


Prior to its improvement, as part of the DfT’s MixedPriority Route demonstration project Prince of WalesRoad in Norwich had a very poor collision record anda poor quality environment.

As part of the scheme, guardrails were removed frommost of the street, footways were widened, all on-street parking moved into defined bays, and thepublic realm was improved (including therationalisation and reduction of street furniture andthe introduction of street trees).

At some junctions, kerbs have been usedsuccessfully to define staggered crossings ratherthan using guardrail. These give guidance to lessconfident pedestrians (including visually impairedpeople) on the direction of stagger, whilst allowingmore confident pedestrians to cross on their directdesire lines.

Prior to the scheme being implemented the streethad a very poor casualty record of 23 per year (44per km), 75% of whom were pedestrians and cyclists.In the three years after implementation, the averagenumber of casualties had reduced by 60% despite anincrease of 16% in pedestrian footfall.

Before and after pictures of Prince of Wales Road and UpperKing Street, Norwich

Pedestrians choosing different routes to cross thecarriageway

1122..44..77 Guardrail has been extensively used in the past asa means of preventing footway parking, and ofdiscouraging parking generally. This is not an appropriateuse of guardrail - better enforcement should be usedinstead. If it is necessary to control vehicle access to anarea, other useful street furniture such as a bench couldbe used. Where footway overrunning is a problem it maybe simpler just to increase the construction depth so thatoverrunning can be tolerated.

1122..44..88 Guardrail is commonly installed when pedestrianand cycle routes meet a carriageway. There should be nopresumption that this is necessary, unless there is areason to think that pedestrians are more at risk thanwhen approaching a junction along a footway next to acarriageway - a situation where guardrail is not providedby default.


1122..44..99 Guardrail is often installed as a matter of course atnew junctions, even when there is no particular reason tothink that pedestrians are at a high risk of injury. As withother street elements, highway authorities should startwith the presumption that no guardrail is necessary. If it isconsidered that it may be needed, only the minimumamount should be installed, after considering all otherways of resolving the issue. If in doubt, it may be better toomit the guardrail and carefully monitor the site after thescheme opens to establish whether it is needed in thelight of actual usage.

1122..44..1122 Transport for London has developed a GuardrailRisk Assessment Form77 which provides a method for theassessment of the suitability of pedestrian guardrail at anexisting site.

1122..44..1133 A more context-sensitive methodology for theassessment of the need or otherwise for guardrailing hasbeen developed by Urban Initiatives for LB Hackney78.Details of the procedure are given in the box out below.

1122..44..1144 Local highway authorities are advised to developsimilar tools, which can also consider how measuresdescribed in 12.4.5 above, together with more generalpublic realm improvements, can reduce or eliminate theneed for guardrail.

Newly-implemented highway scheme with extensive guardrailing

Guardrail assessment procedures1122..44..1100 When considering the removal of guardrail,authorities should go through a well-documented processto show that the decision has been made following carefulconsideration of all relevant factors. General advice onmanaging authorities’ liability is given in CChhaapptteerr 33.

1122..44..1111 LTN 2/0976 provides an assessment tool forauthorities considering the removal of guardrail fromexisting junctions, based on research carried out by theUniversity of Southampton (see box out). The methoduses the evidenced comparison of sites with and withoutguardrail, and does depend on data from a similarcomparison site being available. It focuses on the degreeof compliance with crossing points rather than a roadsafety assessment.

GGuuaarrddrraaiill rreesseeaarrcchhResearch on the effectiveness of guardrail has beencarried out by University of Southampton for theDepartment for Transport. The research for DfT,which underpins LTN 2/0976, examined 78 junctionand crossing sites with and without guardrailing inthe UK outside London and found that:

• The frequency of all collisions and pedestriancollisions was some 1.5 to 1.6 times higher atsites with guardrailing than sites withoutguardrailing, (although this may in part be due tothe with-guardrail sites having slightly highertraffic flows and speeds).

• Guardrailing does (unsurprisingly) increase theproportion of pedestrians that cross in thedesignated places.

• However, there is no conclusive evidence thatthe inclusion of pedestrian guardrailing at anytype of pedestrian crossing or junction has anystatistically significant effect on road safety.

091


LLBB HHaacckknneeyy –– GGuuaarrddrraaiill AAsssseessssmmeenntt PPrroocceedduurree

The methodology consists of two parts:

Part A provides a framework for the determination ofthe necessity for guardrail, up to the stage at whichrevised design proposals, if necessary, are broughtforward. These proposals should be audited in anindependent safety audit.

Part B considers the recommendations of the safetyaudit, and, where problems are identified with thescheme developed in Part A, weighs up all theinformation considered in the previous stages, andrecords the authority’s conclusion.

PPaarrtt AA

Stage 1a of the procedure considers the character ofthe place, how different users perceive it and how thecurrent design favours one or more groups. Stage 1bthen considers road safety issues specifically,including the collision record, vehicle speeds and thepresence of any vulnerable users.

Stage 2 assigns the location to one of 12 streettypes, ranging from a pedestrianised street to amajor distributor road in a non-built up area.

Stage 3 assesses the in-principle appropriateness ofguardrail, depending on the street type. For example,guardrail is considered to be never appropriate in apedestrianised street, sometimes appropriate in highstreets and likely to be necessary on major distributorroads.

Stage 4 then identifies desire lines on the assumptionthat there is no guardrail considering local origins anddestinations such as doors in nearby buildings. Theassessor then identifies where these importantpedestrian movements coincide with major vehiclemovements. Guardrail may be needed to influencethese conflict points but should not otherwise beconsidered in most situations.

Stage 5 assesses the severity of these conflicts atcoincidence points and other locations, and whetherthere are any particular concerns.

Stage 6 then considers whether guardrail is anappropriate means of diminishing danger at theseconflict points, or whether there are any other/bettertools that could be used, even if these cannot bedelivered in the short term. From this assessment,proposals for the installation or retention of guardrail,or other measures, are developed.

PPaarrtt BB

The recommendations from Part A may then besubject to a Road Safety Audit. If this does notidentify problems with the proposals, the process iscomplete.

If problems are raised by the Safety Audit, adocumented process considers the previousproposals and the Audit recommendations, leadingto an exception report and a final decision.

12.5_ Street Trees and Planting1122..55..11 Trees bring a wide range of benefits both toindividual people and to society as a whole. Theycontribute to character and distinctiveness, create visualinterest and help to soften the urban environment.However, their potential contribution goes far beyond thepurely visual; they have a critical role to play in helping toadapt urban areas to climate change, for instance, byproviding shade and reducing the local environmentaltemperature79 or by slowing the rate at which rainfallenters the drainage system.

1122..55..22 The introduction of trees as part of a scheme orimprovements around existing trees is as much aspecialist discipline as highway engineering and designersneed to take advice from a qualified and professionalarboricultural consultant or tree officer from the planningor highway authority at the planning stage of a scheme toensure that suitable trees are used and their needs interms of growth, protection and maintenance areappropriately catered for.

1122..55..33 Although providing and maintaining street treeshave financial implications, the economic, environmentaland social benefits vastly outweigh these costs. Forexample, a recent cost:benefit analysis study of New Yorkstreet trees has revealed significant cost benefits80.Guidance on the asset valuation of trees (for non-timberpurposes) has recently been published by the RICS81.

The street trees in the centre of The Circus in Bath are an exampleof how trees can contribute significantly to the quality of place.


1122..55..44 Recent studies have shown that in urban areas allover England trees are under threat82. Large, mature treesare under particular threat, while new trees being plantedtend to be smaller varieties. It is worth noting that thebenefits that trees bring are proportionate to their size:large, mature trees bring more benefits than small ones.The potential contribution of trees will be further improvedwhere they are integrated into ‘green infrastructure’networks.

1122..55..55 Large species will grow to have large canopies andextensive root networks. Designers should chooseappropriate species and ensure that their physiologicalneeds are incorporated into scheme designs. Informationabout the types of trees that will survive in urban areas inEngland can be found at http://www.right-trees.org.uk.

Designers need to plan now to achieve streets lined with largecanopy trees which will be vital in reducing the expected increasein urban temperatures anticipated with climate change.Appreciation of long-term growth issues such as root ball sizeand overhang of carriageway must be taken into account.

1122..55..66 Designers should take steps to prevent conflictsbetween tree root systems, underground services andbuilding foundations83. Wherever possible undergroundservices should be routed in shared service ducts. Ductsmake maintenance easier and minimize the amount ofspace taken by services. Modern utilities in plastic ductingcan tolerate deformation by tree roots in ways that olderservices cannot.

1122..55..77 Tree pits are an important part of tree plantingproposals in an urban street environment and the designwill be site specific due to the nature and conditions of thelocal environment. An arboricultural consultant or treeofficer must be consulted to provide advice on tree pitdesign to ensure trees can grow to maturity.

1122..55..88 One of the underlying reasons why urban trees areunder threat is that many people believe they cause arange of problems. This section considers whether or notthese perceptions are realistic, and outlines ways in whichpotential problems can be avoided.

1122..55..99 The incidence of subsidence in urban areas that iscaused by trees is far lower than assumed. One study in aLondon borough found that only 0.05% of its buildingstock was affected by tree-related insurance claimsannually. Selecting appropriate species for a location andmaintaining the tree appropriately will ensure that roots donot affect building stock. The London Tree OfficersAssociation has produced 'A risk limitation strategy fortree root claims'84.

1122..55..1100 Measures to be taken to avoid commonproblems include:

Pavement lift:

• Ensure that the planting pit is designed and built toallow for root expansion in the future.

• Where necessary, it might be possible to have non-structural surface roots removed.

Footpath obstruction

• Ensure pavements are sufficiently wide toaccommodate large species trees where appropriate.

• Where trees have already grown too wide for a path, itmight be possible to build the path out into the streetso that pedestrians can go round the tree trunk.

Leaf litter and fruit fall

• Leaf litter and fruit fall can be collected by localauthorities and used to create locally sourcedcompost.

• Blocked gutters and drains can be avoided by fittingmesh guards.

1122..55..1111 For further guidance, see:

• Trees and Design Action Grouphttp://www.tdag.org.uk

• CABE 'Managing Urban Trees'85

• Trees for Cities http://www.treesforcities.org.uk andguidelines on street trees86

• Mayor of London’s Street Treeshttp://www.london.gov.uk/streettrees/

• Greater London Authority ‘Right Trees for a ChangingClimate’ http://www.righttrees.org.uk

• Communities and Local Government trees web pageshttp://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/treeshighhedges/trees/

• Chris Britt and Mark Johnston, 2008 ‘Trees in towns II:a new survey of urban trees in England and theircondition and management’82

• Communities and Local Government, 2006 ‘TreeRoots in the Built Environment’87

12.6_ Street Lighting12.6.1 Street lighting can contribute to:

• improving road safety;• assisting in the protection of property;• discouraging crime and vandalism;• making residents and street users feel secure; • Enhancing the appearance of the area after dark; and• Encouraging walking, cycling and the use of public

transport.

1122..66..22 MfS1 provides advice on the design of streetlighting. The following key principles are given, which canbe applied to the range of highway types covered byMfS2.

• Lighting should be planned as an integral part of thestreet layout, including any planting. The potential forplanting to shade out lighting through growth shouldbe considered when deciding what to plant.

• Lighting should be appropriate to context and streetfunction. In some locations, such as rural villages,lighting may not have been provided elsewhere in thesettlement and therefore it may not be appropriate innew developments.

• Lighting should illuminate both the carriageway andfootway.

• The height of street lighting units should be appropriateto the cross-section of the street. Lowering the heightof lighting can make the scale more human but this willmean that more lighting units are required.

• Lighting levels do not have to be constant during thehours of darkness.

• Lighting columns should be placed so that they do notimpinge on the available widths of footways.

093


• Lighting design should ensure that shadows areavoided in streets where pedestrians may bevulnerable. Sudden changes in lighting level can beparticularly problematic for partially sighted people.

• It is important that lighting is carefully designed toreduce stray light.

• Consideration should be given to attaching lightingunits to buildings to reduce street clutter.

1122..66..33 Sustainability is an important consideration. TheCarbon Reduction Commitment Energy EfficiencyScheme (CRCEE) and the Energy Using ProductsDirective (EuP) should be taken into account in the designof lighting schemes. Other recent legislation that shouldbe considered includes the Climate Change Act (2008)and the Energy Act 2008 (Consequential Amendments)Order (2009).

Inconspicuous lighting units on buildings help to minimise clutterin this village high street.


1122..66..44 Current guidance documents on street lightinginclude the following:

• BS 5489 (2003) Code of Practice for the Design ofRoad Lighting - Part 1: Lighting of Roads and PublicAmenity Areas88.

• BS EN 13201-2: 2003 Road Lighting - PerformanceRequirements89.

• BS EN 13201-3: 2003 Road Lighting - Calculations ofPerformance90.

• BS EN 13201-4: 2003 Road Lighting - Methods ofMeasuring Lighting Performance91.

• *Guide on the Limitation of the Effects of ObtrusiveLight from Outdoor Lighting Installations’92.

• ‘Guidelines for Minimising Sky Glow’93.• Institution of Lighting Engineers (ILE) (2005) ‘Guidance

Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light’94.• ‘Lighting in the Countryside: Towards Good

Practice’95.

12.7_ Security Measures1122..77..11 With an evolving criminal and terrorist threat toinfrastructure and areas where high concentrations of thepublic may gather, certain sites may have anti-ramprotection measures installed to protect them fromvehicle-borne attack. Such countermeasures wouldtypically consist of vehicle security barriers such asbollards, planters, structural walls or balustrades,appropriately resilient landscape architecture, or usingstructural elements concealed within commonstreetscape items such as shelters, benches, cabinetry,signposts and lighting columns.

1122..77..22 For protection reasons, their position is usuallyoptimised as far from the vulnerable site as possible. Theadvantage of having an effectively managed cordon-based scheme, where barriers are located at the furthestperimeter of a vulnerable site, is that individual assetswithin the area will not typically need to be protected withextra security barriers, thus helping a local authorityachieve its objectives with minimal clutter.

1122..77..33 If designed to be permeable by pedestrians thenthe spacing between structures will be no more than1.2m apart such that hostile vehicles cannot encroachthrough the gaps. They are unlikely to be less than 1metre apart so that people with impaired mobility are notinconvenienced. Although dressed to blend in to thearchitecture and streetscape in an urban area, thesemeasures are designed to resist forced attack using

special materials and foundations and, in so doing, theyare not frangible or likely to bend if accidentally hit.

Anti-ram walls that also provide seating outside the SupremeCourt, Parliament Square

1122..77..44 In future years, town and city centres may installpermanent retractable bollard and gate schemes not justfor bus priority or environmental reasons but also toinclude a security theme and thus be specified to asecurity specification. These measures may be in placefull time or just at times of increased risk (e.g. when thesite is crowded or when a secure event is being hosted intown).

1122..77..55 Any traffic regulation introduced for this nationalsecurity purpose will typically be accompanied by Anti-Terrorist Traffic Regulation Orders (ATTROs using Sections22C or 22D of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 asamended by the Civil Contingencies Act 2004).

1122..77..66 Further information is available in the HomeOffice’s documents “Working Together to ProtectCrowded Places”96, “Crowded Places: The PlanningSystem and Counter Terrorism”97 and “ProtectingCrowded Places: Design and Technical Issues”98.Protective security advice and a palette of appropriatelyresilient vehicle security barriers or structural elements forembedding in the public realm are available fromspecialists at the UK Government’s Centre for theProtection of National Infrastructure (CPNI) or via the localpolice Counter-Terrorism Security Adviser (CTSA).

13.1_ Introduction1133..11..11 Traffic signs and markings add significantly to theamount of street furniture and it is important that highwayauthorities look for opportunities to reduce excessivesigning, where this would not have a detrimental impacton road safety. Examples of where this could be done,whilst complying with the legal requirements of the TrafficSigns Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) andother Regulations, are given in this section of thedocument.

1133..11..22 Based on the guidance that is already contained inMfS1 the key principles that should be adopted withrespect to traffic signs are as followsB:

• The Traffic Signs Manual (TSM)99 and other DfTpublications such as Traffic Advisory Leaflets provideadvice to designers on signing.

• Whilst signs must comply with legislation in the form ofthe TSRGD58 and the Crossing Regulations52, there isflexibility within the regulations.

• Highway Authorities should not see TSRGD and theTSM as constraining documents, and they are able touse the flexibility in the documents to suit localcircumstances.

• TSRGD does not require any signs to be installed.However, signs are needed to warn, inform or to giveeffect to Traffic Regulation Orders.

1133..11..33 Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual notes thatresearch has shown that the greater the number of signs

Village gateways do not have to use garish colours - imagestaken from the Suffolk Countryside Manual, produced by SuffolkCounty Council100.

095

13_ Traffic Signs and Markings


that drivers are presented with simultaneously, the greaterthe difficulty they are likely to have in assimilating all theinformation.

1133..11..44 Excessive signs and road markings can beparticularly intrusive in rural areas, where it can have anurbanising influence. The impact is not only aesthetic;many rural economies are dependent on tourists,attracted by the quality of the landscape, which can bedamaged by insensitive design. Some authorities, such asDorset County Council, have developed policies formanaging rural roads in a more sensitive way.

B Note – road ‘markings’ are legally ‘signs’ and so the latter includes the former


13.2_ Size and Mounting HeightOf Signs1133..22..11 Advice on the size of signs is given in the variouschapters of the Traffic Signs Manual99 and is generallyrelated to actual traffic speed (85th percentile values) andin some cases the speed limit.

1133..22..22 Although highway authorities should take accountof this advice in determining the size of signs, it should benoted that it is not unlawful to deviate from the advicecontained in these documents. TSRGD58 sets out the

1133..22..44 There is no legal requirement for signs to bemounted at a particular height, although the Traffic SignsManual recommends that signs are generally set with theirlower edge between 0.9m and 1.5m above carriagewaylevel, and 2.1 to 2.3m above footways and cycle tracks.While their effectiveness may be reduced, mounting signsat lower levels can reduce the visual impact of signs andmay be appropriate in some situations, particularly rural

Sign mounted at low level

sizes of signs that can be used, and highway authoritiesare at liberty to select from these alternative dimensions.

1133..22..33 The Traffic Signs Manual confirms this, noting (inChapter 3, Appendix A) that smaller signs may be usedwhere special amenity considerations apply, but notingthat this will offer drivers less time to react to the sign.Highway authorities will need to judge, based on theimportance of the information on the sign and theconsequences of drivers not being able to read it in time,whether this will lead to a significant road safety problem.

If all signs have yellow backing boards, how well does aparticular sign stand out?

areas where it is often important to mount traffic signsbelow adjacent hedges or walls to minimise the impact onlong views across the countryside.

13.3_ Yellow Backing Boards1133..33..11 Yellow backing boards are placed on signs toincrease their conspicuity and while this may beappropriate in some exceptional circumstances, thistechnique significantly worsens their visual impact. Theeffect is particularly marked when a blanket decision is

C Note – retroreflective bollards complying with BS 8442:2006 section 14 incorporating traffic signs which are not lit require specialauthorisation from the Department for Transport since they do not comply with TSRGD.

Multiple yellow retroreflective bollards can have a significant visualimpact.

taken by a highway authority to use yellow backingboards on all signs along a route.

1133..33..22 Chapters 3, 7 and 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual99

provide advice on the use of backing boards and notesthat there are potential disadvantages to their use:

• Yellow backing boards can be especiallyenvironmentally intrusive, and their over-use devaluestheir attention-attracting benefits.

• Even a grey board can deprive triangular and circularsigns of a primary recognition aid, their distinctivesilhouettes.

Keep left bollard, with rear face uncoloured

097


• The larger overall size of the assembly can sometimesobstruct sight lines.

• Where it is necessary to increase a sign’s conspicuity, aless garish way of doing this may simply be to providea standard sign of larger size. Not only will this be morenoticeable than a smaller sign, but it will also improvelegibility and hence reading distance, which a yellowbacking board cannot.

• Yellow backing boards will not normally be necessarywhen signs indicate an increase in the speed limit.

Pedestrian refuge without keep left bollards, Walworth RoadMixed Priority Route scheme

Sign to diagram 610 mounted on post. Note - yellow backing isnot compulsory.

• Where it seems that a sign is not being noticed bydrivers, it should be checked to ensure that it is wellsited, not obscured by vegetation or other obstructionsand is of the appropriate size and in good condition.Only then should the use of a yellow backing board beconsidered.

13.4_ Keep Left/Right Signs

The London Road, Southampton scheme omits central linemarkings for part of its length.

Sign to diagram 610 mounted on hoop top frame.


1133..44..11 Signs to Diagram 610 (keep left or right) or 611(pass either side) are typically provided at the ends ofcentral islands and refuges and at kerb build-outs to warndrivers of the obstacle in their path. They are oftenmounted within illuminated or reflectorised bollards, whichover recent years have increasingly been of the passivelysafe type, usually with a yellow reflective finishC.

1133..44..22 These can be highly intrusive, particularly where alarge number of such bollards are installed at a junction.

1133..44..33 Where the highway authority considers that retro-reflective bollards are essential, they should giveconsideration to specifying that the coloured material isonly provided on the side of the bollard that faces thetraffic flow, so that the overall intrusive effect is reduced.

1133..44..44 Highway authorities should consider whether signsand bollards are required at every central island or kerbbuild-out, particularly where the area is lit and othervertical features would alert drivers to the presence of theobstacle. The Crossings Regulations52 make it clear thatsigns to diagrams 610 and 611 are optional.

1133..44..55 Similarly, there is no legal requirement for suchbollards and signs on the median islands on theapproaches to roundabouts.

1133..44..66 Where traffic signs are necessary, there is a rangeof mounting and lighting arrangements that can be used.The hoop type of sign mounting has been used in manyschemes, for various types of sign, and can be lit frombelow when this is necessary. Signs to Diagrams 610 and611 can also be mounted on lamp columns and otherstreet furniture.

13.5_ Centreline Markings1133..55..11 MfS1 notes that the use of centre lines is not anabsolute requirement and includes reference to thereductions in traffic speed that result by omittingcentreline markings on carriageways. This has been donesuccessfully on busy routes in urban areas as well as invillage settings. Removing centrelines can be done easilywhen carriageways are resurfaced, with an immediatesaving in capital and ongoing maintenance costs.

13.6_ Zig-Zag Markings1133..66..11 Zig-zag markings on the approaches to pedestrianand cycle crossings are required under the CrossingRegulations52, which state that the number of zig-zagmarks shall be between 8 and 18 in number. However,the regulations also state that the number of zig-zag

Excessive use of coloured surfacing can be visually intrusive

This junction has the Give Way marking (1003) and the approachtriangle (1023) but no Give Way sign. It would have been possibleto omit the approach triangle. Note also table to slow speedsand make pedestrian crossing easier.

marks may be reduced to 2, of a minimum length 1m,where the traffic authority is satisfied that, by reason ofthe layout or character of the location, it will beimpracticable to comply with the normal requirements.

13.7_ Coloured Surfacing

1133..77..11 Coloured road surfacing is often used to givegreater conspicuity to areas that are hatched (to Diagrams1040, 1040.2, 1040.3 and 1040.4) as being areas thatshould not be entered by vehicles unless it is consideredby the driver to be safe to do so. It is also often applied to

One sign (Diagram 616), as shown on the lower image, can belegal and sufficient.

099


bus and cycle lanes in an effort to improve compliance.Anti-skid surfacing is also sometimes coloured, althoughless intrusive grey and buff colours are available.

1133..77..22 Coloured road surfacing has no legal significance.It adds to visual intrusion and should not be used by

default. It should be reserved for situations where it isconsidered that it will have a particular safety benefit, andwhere this outweighs the aesthetic disadvantages.Studies have shown101 that coloured surfacing canreduce the number of vehicles overrunning hatchedareas, but that the effect reduces with time as the colourfades. Coloured surfacing therefore creates an ongoingmaintenance liability.

13.8_ Signs and Markings at Junctions1133..88..11 There is no legal requirement to use road markingsto define priority at T-junctions or crossroads.

1133..88..22 The give way rule at T-junctions is often signedusing both road markings to Diagram 1003 (give way line)and 1023 (approach triangle) and a sign to Diagram 602(Give Way). However, not all are mandatory and highwayauthorities should consider whether it is necessary to gobeyond the minimum legal requirement. The followingoptions are possible:

• Give Way marking (1003) alone• Give Way marking (1003) and approach triangle (1023)• Give Way marking (1003) and approach triangle (1023)

and Give Way sign (602)1133..88..33 Roundabout central islands are usually signed withthe proceed left arrow sign (Diagram 606) and black andwhite chevrons (Diagram 515) but it is lawful to omit bothtypes of sign, or to use Diagram 606 without Diagram

Roundabout in Taunton town centre with proceed left signs toDiagram 606 but no black and white chevrons to diagram 515.Note - cobbled surface is difficult for cyclists.

Visually intrusive yellow lines in a narrow street.


515. At roundabouts and bends consideration could begiven to reducing the size of signs.

1133..88..44 No entry signs (Diagram 616) are normallyprovided on either side of the entrance to a one-waystreet from a junction, but this is not a requirement ofTSRGD where the carriageway or vehicle track width isless than 5m.

Detail for tabled side road crossing, omitting yellow/red markings across table

Section C

Case Studies



CS2 Louise Duggan

CS3 CABE/Jane Sebire







CS10 Sam Wright TfL


CS12 Southampton City Council

CS13 Graham Redman/Southampton City Council

CS14 Southampton City Council

CS15 Graham Redman Southampton City Council





CS20 Sheffield City Council



CS23 CABE/David Millington


CS25 Urban Initiatives




CS30 CABE/ David Milington

CS31 John Dales Urban Initiatives


CS33 David Johns Urban Initiatives

CS34 CABE/James Whitaker

CS35 John Dales Urban Initiatives

CS36 Gillespies



CS39 Gillespies

CS40 Gillespies

CS41 Nottingham City Council




CS45 CABE/Stephen McLaren

CS46 CABE/Stephen McLaren

The detailed case studies have been developed on behalf of CABE by John Dales and DavidJohns at Urban Initiatives. We are grateful to the project contacts for the time they took introducingus to their schemes. Visit the CABE website (www.cabe.org.uk ) for detailed scheme drawings, awider selection of street focussed case studies, and information about training and direct projectsupport that we offer.

CCaassee SSttuuddyy PPhhoottooggrraapphh CCrreeddiittss

The CIHT would like to acknowledge and thank all those who supplied photographs of the casestudies they are listed below:

CS1 Ian Hingley Urban Initiatives

14.1_ Walworth Road, Southwark, LondonSSuummmmaarryy

Walworth Road in Southwark faced problems with roadsafety. As a distributor route with heavy traffic and a localhigh street with lots of shoppers things had becomeunbalanced:

• The street space was largely allocated to motorvehicles, including designated bus lanes.

• The footways were relatively narrow, and longstretches of guard rails stopped pedestrian movementboth along and across the street.

• The guard railing also made servicing difficult for themany retail and other commercial properties whichfronted the street.

Despite many conventional traffic engineering and roadsafety measures, the collision record gave considerablecause for concern.

Walworth Road became one of ten Department forTransport ‘mixed priority route’ demonstration projects. Itwas the most complex, because of its heavy traffic, andthe high importance of making it a much more attractiveplace for shopping, business and the local community.

Photo CS2

103

14_ Case Studies

14_ Case Studies

The scheme helped to re-establish balanced provisionchanging from a traffic-dominated thoroughfare into avibrant place for people –that still carries important trafficflows (see photo CS1 before and photo CS2 after).

DDeessccrriippttiioonn

The A215 Walworth Road runs from the Elephant andCastle in the north to Albany Road in the south - some1.2km. It is a key radial route, carrying around 20,000vehicles per day. However, it is also an important andbusy neighbourhood retail centre, in the area around theEast Street Market (see photo CS3). Around 500m of thestreet in the heart of this centre was redesigned (seeLocation Plan.

Photo CS1

Location Plan


BBaallaanncceedd pprroovviissiioonn

Before the improvement scheme, Walworth Road wasdominated by through vehicles. This came at the expenseof pedestrian movement, and undermined the sense ofplace:

• the carriageway contained a dedicated bus lane and ageneral traffic lane in each direction

• vehicles and pedestrians were segregated by longsections of guard rails

• there were infrequent crossing facilities• it was badly cluttered in places by typical permanent

traffic management equipment and street furniture, andby temporary ‘A-boards’ placed there by localbusinesses.

One of the most critical issues was the reallocation ofspace (see photo CS5) – carriageway to footway – toenable the street to function far better as a local highstreet and neighbourhood centre. This was a verychallenging task, given the fixed frontage to frontagewidths and localised narrowness on the road in certainsections.

PPuubblliicc ttrraannssppoorrtt

A comprehensive transport assessment was done to findout the feasibility of removing bus lanes and redistributingsome of this space to the footways. Ten different busroutes – with some 150 buses per hour at peak times –use the road.

Bus ‘gates’ were installed at both entrances to thescheme area (see photo CS6). These allow buses to havepriority over general traffic. Nearly two years after thescheme opened, anecdotal evidence suggests that it hashad little impact (either way) on bus journey times. Busdrivers often do not use the gates, even at peak times.

Generally the street is fronted by retail and commercialproperties, though the immediate hinterland to both sidesis residential. Walworth Road is mainly used by localresidents from the nearby social housing. The lower levelsof car ownership in the social housing sector mean it’s allthe more important to enhance the walkability of the localhigh street (see photo CS4). It’s historic alignment andbuildings create a well-defined street scale, but its relativenarrowness was a problem for the modern-day demandsof vehicles and pedestrians.

Photo CS3

Photo CS4

Photo CS5

Other critical elements of the scheme included:

• improved and new formal (see photo CS7) andinformal crossing points along the street, including awide median strip in the southern section of thescheme (see photo CS8)

• extensive tree planting (see photo CS9)• seating (see Photo CS5)• improved management of parking and loading (see

photo CS10)• improved pedestrian and vehicular lighting, through

multi-function poles• major de-cluttering - approximately 600 unnecessary

signs and poles, and around 425m of pedestrian guardrails were removed.

Photo CS6

105

14_ Case Studies

Photo CS7

Photo CS8

Photo CS9

Photo CS10


DDeessiiggnn PPrroocceessss

SScchheemmee ggeenneessiiss

The scheme began life as a road safety scheme. A bidwas made by the London Borough of Southwark forDepartment for Transport ‘mixed priority route’ road safetydemonstration project funding. The bid’s successencouraged the council not only to seek out innovativeapproaches to achieving better safety, but also to take awider view of the street in the context of regenerationbenefits.

PPrrooccuurreemmeenntt

Southwark Council commissioned a comprehensivetransport and public realm design for the street, through acombination of conventional tendering and publiccompetition. Five consultancies were initially asked tosubmit full tenders. From these, two were shortlisted toproduce design concepts for the competition.

A public vote identified Project Centre as the winningdesigner, on the basis of:

• the scheme’s simplicity• the use of public realm elements appropriate for

Walworth Road’s use and character• views on robustness and long-term cost-effectiveness.

DDiisscciipplliinneess//ppeeooppllee iinnvvoollvveedd

There were two principal workstreams – transport/safetyand public realm/street design – and these ran largely inparallel. Officers from both Southwark Council andTransport for London (TfL) were closely involved, as wellas the consultancy team.

A comprehensive traffic analysis and modelling exercisewas carried out by Southwark and presented to TfL aspart of the justification of the scheme. This informationwas used not only to determine the impact of the schemeon traffic flows – especially buses – but also to helpidentify opportunities for reallocating carriageway space tofootways.

There was considerable public involvement throughoutthe design and delivery process, not only at theprocurement stage. This included public meetings,targeted stakeholder events and a businessquestionnaire.

There was direct engagement with transport user groups,including:

• TfL (buses, signals, cycling and walking)• the emergency services• Southwark Cyclists

NNoottaabbllee iissssuueess

Public consultation and engagement was a critical factorin the success of the project. Consultation with traders ledto agreement on a reorganisation of loading and deliveryarrangements. The primary changes were an increase inpermitted loading times and relocation from carriagewayto footway loading. A construction method was alsodeveloped in partnership with retailers to ensurecontinuous footway access to all premises during thebuild period. This was done through night working andcareful phasing.

Given the many and complex transport issues along thestreet and negotiations with London Buses and TfL’sNetwork Assurance team, it took over two years for thescheme design to be agreed.

TTeecchhnniiccaall DDaattaa

DDaatteess Contract mobilisation October 2006.Works largely complete in January 2008with some minor amendments andsnagging works continuing until March2008.

VVoolluummeess � • Pre-scheme: 75 buses/hour/direction; 20,000 pedestrians/day

• Pre-scheme: 24-hour weekday flow >20,000 vehicles

• 2010: 24-hour weekday flow = 18,300 vehicles (am peak hour 1,030; pm peak hour 1,080)

SSppeeeeddss Post-scheme mean speed 18 mph (85thpercentile 24 mph)

RRooaadd 36 months ‘Before’ record: 63 total SSaaffeettyy collisions, of which 29 involved

pedestrians or cyclists19 months ‘After’ record (factored up to 36 months): 53 total collisions, of which 30 involved pedestrians or cyclists

CCoossttss £4.5 million (approximately £2.5 millionSouthwark Council; £1 million Departmentfor Transport; £1 million Transport forLondon)

EEvvaalluuaattiioonn

BBeenneeffiittss

Walworth Road now has the character and appearance ofbustling high street. Anecdotal evidence indicates:

• a noticeable increase in footfall and in the number ofpedestrians crossing

• a decrease in shop vacancies• growth in the amount of time people spend in the street.

Considering the challenging economic conditions since thescheme opened, this is good news - although there is nosupporting factual evidence.

Specific improvements include:

• better provision for pedestrians to cross according totheir desire lines (see photo CS4)

• better provision for bus passengers in terms of thepositioning, layout and prominence of bus stop ‘pairs’

• easier pedestrian movement and a more visually pleasingstreet scene due to the removal of unnecessary streetclutter and the creation of raised side street crossings(see photo CS11).

The footways are not just less cluttered - they are alsoconsiderably wider. The most important, and obvious,transformation the scheme has brought is the reallocation ofspace away from motor vehicles.

Comprehensive repaving in consistent, simple andmaintainable materials has given the district a positive andcohesive identity. The tree-planting programme softens theimpact of traffic, and adds a welcome new element to thestreet’s overall character (see photo CS9).

Throughout the scheme, kerb heights have been loweredand in places there is no kerb at all (see photo CS5). Thisreduces segregation between those on the footway andthose in the carriageway - requiring them to be generallymore aware of one another. However, some national usergroups and Southwark’s Access Officer maintain the

107

14_ Case Studies

blurring of pedestrian and vehicle areas can cause problemsfor blind and partially sighted people. Tactile paving -‘Corduroy’ - has been used to mark the boundary wherethere is no kerb.

PPrroobblleemmss

There have been a number of minor changes to resolveparticular issues. Pedestrian crossings were originally pavedin modular granite blocks. However, these failed to copewith the weight and flow of buses and had to be removed.

Although footway materials are durable and maintainable,the lack of agreement on an overarching streetmanagement plan has led to poor reinstatement of pavingby utility operators, and some problems with refusecollection.

The scheme opened in April 2008, so it will be another yearbefore sound conclusions can be drawn. Collisionmonitoring after six months painted a positive picture,although further analysis after 19 months was lessconclusive – with some positive and some negative results.

The interim data shows:

• the total number of collisions reduced noticeably• the proportion of collisions leading to people being killed

or seriously injured increased, also noticeably. • this increase has fallen more heavily on user groups

usually considered less vulnerable, than on pedestriansand cyclists.

Collisions incurring personal injuries are more evenlydistributed, rather than in clusters as before. As the schemedid away with much of the paraphernalia focusingpedestrian crossing in specific locations, this is unsurprising.

CCoonncclluussiioonn

Despite the radical nature of the changes implemented onWalworth Road, the scheme is characterised by itspragmatism. This is evident throughout, from the reasonsbehind the public selection of the design team, through tothe choice of materials. Walworth Road may look muchdifferent and better than it did previously - but the designfully responds to the practical and functional requirementsof this very hard-working street.

FFuurrtthheerr IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn

http://www.southwark.gov.uk http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/dpp/mpr/

PPrroojjeecctt TTeeaamm

• Project Management- London Borough ofSouthwark/Malcolm Reading Associates

• Public consultation- London Borough of Southwark• Lead Designer – Project Centre Ltd• Main Contractor – FM ConwayLondon

Photo CS11


14.2_ London Road,SouthamptonSSuummmmaarryy

The improvements to London Road, to the north ofSouthampton city centre, were opened in September2008. The scheme aimed to radically change the way inwhich London Road was used and understood,strengthening its friendliness to pedestrians, the visualquality of its public realm, and its sense of place. (Seephoto CS12 before and photo CS13 after.) The designadopted a minimalist approach to traffic management kitand other street furniture.

Southampton City Council intentionally associated the term‘shared space’ with the scheme. However, it is perhapsbest described as a ‘better balanced’ street, in which theneeds of all users are now given appropriate consideration(see photo CS14 before and photo CS15 after). Thecouncil’s aim was that the London Road design should be aquality benchmark for future work in the city - and it hassucceeded in achieving this challenging objective.

Photo CS12

Photo CS13

Photo CS14

Photo CS15


London Road is an historic gateway to Southampton citycentre for traffic arriving from the north (see LocationPlan). The section covered by the scheme is around450m long. It is home to around 80 businesses, mostlyretail. It also has a developing café society and night-timeeconomy, and is considered ‘on the up’ after years ofdecline.

Before the scheme, it was also a road safety hotspot, with31 personal injury collisions recorded from 2002-2004,particularly affecting vulnerable road users. The degradedstreetscape reinforced antisocial driver behaviour, andmarginalised pedestrian movement along and across thestreet.

Southampton City Council’s design team built on recentexperience from European countries of ‘shared space’approaches to street design. They placed a strongemphasis on innovative traffic management to reducespeed and improve walkability:

• carriageways were narrowed• kerb heights were lowered• the centre line and other superfluous road markings

were removed.

Horizontal deflection (see photo CS16) was used tovisually break the street into two sections, disrupting thetraditional linearity. Parking was reorganised into discreteareas of echelon - angled - parking. Vehicles manoeuvringinto and out of spaces increase ‘friction’ and help calmtraffic speeds (see photo CS17).

Location Plan

Photo CS16

109

14 Case Studies

A banned right turn at the junction with Brunswick Place –at the southern end of the scheme – has encouragedthrough traffic heading south towards the city centre touse the A33. This has led to reduced traffic volumes onLondon Road.

FFoooottwwaayyss

Footways were widened - significantly in places - to givespace for café seating and ‘spill out’ activity (see photoCS15). Street furniture and signs were rearranged into afurniture zone, so that pedestrian movement was notobstructed. Carriageway and footway lighting werecombined to reduce the number of columns.

Photo CS17


CCrroossssiinngg PPooiinnttss

Informal pedestrian crossing points were implemented inthree locations, using a change in materials and layout -but no traffic management signs or measures. Flush kerbsand granite sett paving were used on the carriageway toindicate the crossing (see photo CS16). Build outs andinformal crossing points associated with angled parking (seephoto CS19B)

PPuubblliicc TTrraannssppoorrtt

Bus stop improvements like raised kerbs (see photo CS18),new bus shelters and better information have significantlyimproved the public transport user experience. BespokeSouthampton wayfinding signs were piloted in LondonRoad, and are due to be rolled out across Southampton.

SSeeaattiinngg

Bespoke seating was designed by a local artist, focusing onthe history of London Road (see photo CS19). Two largeseats replicate the shape of the main rose window of StPaul’s church, which formerly stood in London Road.



The 2000 Southampton city centre masterplan identified theneed to improve London Road as part of a wider strategy toupgrade the Queen Elizabeth II (QEII) Mile north-southspine. This links the waterfront to the retail and civic cores ofSouthampton.


An interdisciplinary in-house team delivered the project frominception through to construction. This team was supportedby specialist consultancy advice on street lighting, public artand legibility aspects.

PPeeooppllee//ddiisscciipplliinneess iinnvvoollvveedd

The City Council team included an urban street andlandscape designer, transport engineers, transportplanners, a city centre manager, parking services, marketingand public relations professionals. The team workedtogether to foster new ideas about street design and tochallenge traditional thinking. A communications plan wasused to:

• Keep people informed• invite views on proposals• build support for the project • actively manage participation

Photo CS18

Photo CS19B


A ‘Placecheck’ survey was done in 2004 to find out howlocal businesses and residents thought London Roadshould be upgraded. The design team then developed anoverall vision and concept for the street, and took theconcept ‘on the road’ using a mobile exhibition spacewithin a bus.

Adjoining landowners and tenants were engaged on aone-on-one basis. This aimed to help them understandthe scheme, allay any concerns, and work through thecomplexities of construction programming. Post-consultation and approval of the design, regularnewsletters, updates and thank you letters were sent tomaintain communications.

The lead designers developed solutions that weredifferent and challenging. The experience has helped tobuild council officers’ capabilities and capacities to deliversimilar schemes throughout the city.

Complex issues of parking and loading along the streetwere adequately resolved.

• Third-party parking forecourts to the south of the streetwere successfully integrated into the street design, whileretaining the primacy of the footway for pedestrians.

• Designated cycle lanes within the street were initiallyproposed, but these were removed in favour ofencouraging cyclists to share the main carriageway. Partof the reason for this was possible conflicts betweencyclists in the lanes and vehicles manoeuvring into andout of the angled parking bays.

FFuunnddiinngg

Council officers got approval for improvements to LondonRoad on the basis of benefits to road safety, publictransport, walking and cycling. Local transport plan fundingwas obtained to address these issues in a single package.

111

14_ Case Studies


BBeenneeffiittss

The London Road improvement scheme has had amarked impact on the way people use and appreciate thestreet. It has transformed a once failing space into aworthy gateway to the city.

Simple lines and a clean finish give the street a sense ofpurpose (see photo CS13). The well considered layout ofpublic realm elements emphasises the mixed-use natureof the street. A series of public spaces provides a settingfor new public activities to happen in the street.

The design has used horizontal deflection (see photoCS16) of the carriageway alignment to create twoprecincts - north and south - of different character, and toreduce traffic speeds. The deflection is reinforced by shortrows of parking in angled bays on alternating sides.

Angled bays can be awkward for crossing pedestrians tonegotiate. However, the consolidation of parking, and theloss of some spaces overall has opened up new areas forpedestrian crossings with unobstructed sight lines (seephoto CS16). Together, the horizontal deflection and newparking arrangements help to interrupt traffic flow andlimit speeds. In turn, this helps create gaps in the flow sopedestrians can cross without formal signal control.

A representative of the local access forum commentedhow the scheme has ‘settled down’ since opening.Visually impaired people have got used to some particularfeatures – such as raised tables – having previously hadmisgivings. It helped that certain design details – forexample kerb heights - were tested in a mock-up at a


DDaatteess Construction: June 2007-August 2008

VVoolluummeess � • 2005 Pre-scheme: 24-hour weekdayflow = 12,716 vehicles (am peak hour764; pm peak hour 950)

• 2010 Post scheme: 24-hour weekdayflow = 7,260 vehicles (am peak hour432; pm peak hour 559)

• Post-scheme counts: pedestrians 5,500/day; cyclists 400/day

SSppeeeeddss • Post-scheme mean speed 18 mph (85th percentile 23 mph)

RRooaadd 2003-2006 inclusive (48 months): 31 SSaaffeettyy collisions (28 slight; 3 serious)

Jan-Dec 2009 (10 months): 3 collisions(all slight)

CCoossttss £1.3 million (works and fees for allphases)

Photo CS19


council depot, before progression within the overalldesign.

PPrroobblleemmss

It is perhaps unavoidable, given the scheme’s remit andthe nature of the roads which London Road connects toboth north and south, that the improvements come to avery abrupt end at the scheme’s ‘red line’. For example,the staggered pedestrian crossing at the southernjunction of London Road and Brunswick Place still acts asa barrier to pedestrian movement to and from the citycentre. Reduced traffic flow on London Road means thatin hindsight an un-staggered crossing should have beeninstalled.

Although costs prohibited this, the design team wouldhave preferred to have gone with a higher specificationlighting column - the visual qualities and frequency of thecolumns used means they do tend to dominate the street.Tree planting on the eastern footway would have softenedthe impact of lighting columns, and balanced verticalelements along the street. However, the cost of relocatingutilities was too high.


Despite the economic climate, pedestrian footfall onLondon Road has increased. Early results suggest thatboth traffic speeds and the number of collisions havebeen reduced.

Overall, the London Road scheme has considerablelessons to offer. The project has showcased how in-house design teams are capable of taking ownership of -and delivering - high quality street improvement schemes,in challenging urban ‘main street’ conditions. A simple yetaesthetically pleasing design has been achieved withoutmajor cost in terms of materials. It is both affordable andreplicable across Southampton, and in similar locationsacross the UK (see photo CS18).


• Designer: Simon Taylor, City Projects, SouthamptonCity Council

• Project Manager: Phil Marshall, Southampton CityCouncil

• Project Engineer: Graham Redman Southampton CityCouncil

• Site Engineer: Nigel Best Southampton City Council • Principal Contractor: A Machola Ltd• Public Artist: Christopher Tipping• Street Lighting: Halcrow Group Ltd• Legible City Design: City ID

14.3_ Sheaf Square & HowardStreet, SheffieldSSuummmmaarryy

Sheffield’s ‘Gold Route’ (see Location Plan) is a series ofstreets and places running through the city centre fromSheffield Station to the east, through to the Heart of theCity to Devonshire Park in the west. Identified in the 2000City Centre Masterplan, it has contributed a range of citycentre regeneration schemes, and has been a focus forpublic investment to turn the historic tide of city centredecline.

Sheaf Square and Howard Street are two key elements ofthe Gold Route that connect Sheffield Station to the citycentre, by incorporating new crossings of what were twodistinct parts of Sheffield’s relief/ring road system (SheafStreet and Arundel Gate). They have transformed thesense of arrival in the city for many visitors, and greatlyimproved the setting for Sheffield Hallam University.

They exemplify the successful relationship that can bestruck between an area’s historic character and heritageand its emerging purposes and community. Although thescale of change may be beyond the reach of mostCouncils, they demonstrate what is achievable when thepotential contribution of public realm to city regenerationis recognised and a commitment to joined-up design andintegrated delivery and management structures isestablished.

113

14_ Case Studies

14_ Case Studies

Location Plan



Sheaf Square was once dominated by Dyson House (seephoto CS20) – a disused part of the Hallam UniversityCampus, and separated from the centre by the heavily

trafficked Ring Road (Sheaf Street) (see photo CS22) anda large roundabout. Pedestrian connections to the citycentre from the station were unpleasant, indirect andillegible (see photo CS21).

Photo CS22

Howard Street and Sheaf Square have been redesignedto create a much better 'first impression' of Sheffield andto reinforce one of the city’s major pedestrian axes. Bothwere constructed at the same time as the majorreshaping of the station itself.

SShheeaaff SSqquuaarree

Demolition of Dyson House made a much enlargedsquare possible and opened up two parcels of land formajor redevelopment (see photo CS23). The walkingroute between the station and Howard Street now runsbetween a water cascade and a gigantic stainless steelsculpture ‘The Cutting Edge’ that frame a gentle slope tothe realigned and redesigned crossing of Sheaf Street.The sound of the water and the form of the sculptureblocks out any traffic noise.

Photo CS20

Photo CS21

Photo CS23

115

14_ Case Studies

The Ring Road itself has been substantially remodelledbetween Sheaf Square and Howard Street so that a wide,direct signalised crossing of the main carriageway is nowon the exact alignment between the two spaces (seephoto CS24) and a second, informal crossing of PondStreet/Paternoster Row (see photo CS25). This streetnarrows at the raised crossing point, so that only onevehicle can pass at a time. Vehicles give way to oneanother and pedestrians have a short crossing distanceto negotiate. This bus gate has experiencedvehicle/pedestrian conflicts and is currently under designreview including looking at ways to reduce bus speeds.

HHoowwaarrdd SSttrreeeett

Howard Street, which runs up the side of a valley, waspreviously dominated by traffic access and servicing inconflict with high flows of pedestrians (see photo CS26before). Access to Pond Street/Paternoster Row wasrestricted to buses and local access traffic and HowardStreet restricted to pedestrians and cyclists only.

Photo CS24

Photo CS25

Photo CS26

Howard Street itself is now a tree lined avenue with 12illuminated stainless steel and granite seats (see photoCS27). The street is paved in a mix of flamed granite flagsand sandstone with flush kerbs along the alignment of theold carriageway (see photo CS28 and photo CS29). Thestreet is a shared surface for pedestrians,cyclists andoccasional vehicles accessing the University front entrance.As elsewhere there is ongoing discussion about the designof such spaces in relation to use by people with visualimpairments. Alongside, Hallam Gardens was created (seephoto CS30) by the University entrance and consists of asimple terraced garden edged by a curved and rampedstone sitting wall containing a small water feature.

Photo CS27


At its upper end, Howard Street connects with ArundelGate, previously a dual carriageway ‘concrete collar’.Formerly, the pedestrian route across Arundel Gate wasvia a subway. In association with the redesign of ArundelGate itself, and through the creation of ‘Hallam Square’ infront of the main University entrance, there is now asignalised surface level crossing across a two-lanecarriageway (see photo CS31).

Photo CS28


SScchheemmee GGeenneessiiss

The ‘Gold Route’ emerged from the City CentreMasterplan, with the Sheaf Square, Howard Street andrelated projects identified as having a particular role toplay in re-connecting the city centre with its mainlinerailway station. The Novotel building which is on the directline between Howard Street and 'Hallam Square'represented an ‘immovable object’ and, in order for theroute, to achieve its primary objective, the improvementswould have to exhibit excellence in its design.


Initial city centre masterplanning was carried out byEDAW, working with the City Council's in-houseRegeneration Projects Design Team (RPDT) who went onto design and detail the scheme.

PPeeooppllee//DDiisscciipplliinneess IInnvvoollvveedd

Critically, the public realm and pedestrian interventionswere progressed within a wider programme of city centreregeneration and involved the collective working of arange of public institutions, asset/service managers, andprivate land owners. Through collaborative working andinvestment the Gold Route projects have been sosuccessful in stitching together the station with the Heartof the City and beyond.

Photo CS30

Photo CS31

117

14_ Case Studies

NNoottaabbllee IIssssuueess

The successful regeneration of the Peace Gardens andthe Heart of the City projects helped to generate supportand commitment to further projects from politicians,council officers and the public generally. Councilrestructuring led to the creation of a single directorate andcommittee dealing with both transport and planningprojects for the city, enabling more integrated andconsistent decision making.

Both the Masterplan and detailed designs for each projectarea were the subject of extensive public consultation andengagement, especially with the users and operators ofthe station and of Hallam University Campus.Subsequently development of sites and spaces aroundthe Sheaf Square and Howard Street were the subject offurther consultation as part of the development of theSheaf Valley Masterplan, which was later incorporated into the 2008 City Centre Masterplan Review.

The management of Sheaf Square and Howard Street issupported by the City Centre Management Team, whosework ensures that the Council holds National BeaconCouncil status, and whose roles include cleaning, waterfeature maintenance, horticulture, City CentreAmbassadors and security (see photo CS32).

FFuunnddiinngg

Sheaf Square was linked to the refurbishment of therailway station, and was implemented and fundedthrough a partnership comprising Sheffield 1 (UrbanRegeneration Company), the City Council, Network Rail,Midland Mainline, the Department for Transport,Yorkshire Forward (Regional Development Agency) andthe South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority. Theregeneration and pedestrianisation of Howard Street andHallam Square was delivered in partnership with, and incases only made possible by, the efforts of HallamUniversity.

Photo CS32

Overall, the success of the Gold Route programme andassociated projects has been the consequence ofcommitted leadership by the City Council, based on aclear and agreed vision for change that was conceived ofand promoted as essential to the future success of theCity. Continued commitment to this vision at the highestlevel helped to ensure the necessary interdisciplinaryworking within the Council, to which members remainedcommitted despite possible concerns about cost, andthat the many vital partnerships with other parties andagencies were well managed. The Gold Route is a greatexample of what genuine civic leadership can achieve inthe 21st century.


DDaatteess Construction: June 2007 to August 2008

VVoolluummeess SShheeaaff SSttrreeeett

7am-7pm vehicle counts: 2001 – 36,6002008 – 29,2002010 – 25,520

24-hour weekday flow: 2010 – 33,000

7am-7pm pedestrian counts: 2001 – 3174 movements at previous roundabout2008 – 8700 movements in same broad area

AArruunnddeell GGaattee

7am-7pm vehicle count: 1990 – 24,0002010 – 11,780

24-hour weekday flow: 2010 – 15,520

SSppeeeeddss Sheaf Street: post-scheme mean speed 23mph (85th percentile 29mph)Arundel Gate: post-scheme mean speed 21mph (85th percentile 25mph)

RRooaadd Sheaf Street/Paternoster Row (vicinity of SSaaffeettyy Howard Street/Sheaf Square)

Before – 1/04/00-1/04/04 (48 months): 18 collisions (16 slight; 2 serious) After – 1/04/08-31/1/10 (22 months): 10 collisions (all slight)Arundel Gate (vicinity of Howard Street)Before – 1/04/00-1/04/04 (48 months): 7 collisions (3 slight; 3 serious; 1 fatal)After – 1/04/08-31/1/10 (22 months): 4 collisions (3 slight; 1 serious)

CCoossttss £24 million (£11.1m European ‘Objective 1’funding; £6.8m DfT; £2.8m YorkshireForward; £3.3m from Hallam University,s106 contributions, English Partnerships,Railway Heritage, private developers)



The regeneration of Sheaf Square and Howard Street hasdelivered seamless and legible connections between keypoints in the city centre (see photo CS31 and photoCS24). The reflection of history, culture and enterprise intheir layout, form and aesthetic give them meaning andpurpose.

In terms of transport, the reconfiguration of the Ring Roadand the downgrading of the infamous concrete collarhave not only been essential to the transformation inSheffield but can also act as inspiration to the many otherUK cities and towns that suffer from the stifling of growthand development that such highway infrastructure leadsto. The concerns about gridlock in Sheffield that wereonce voiced at the prospect of the changes, though theywere understandable, have proved unfounded.

A few concerns about the scheme design have beenraised from an accessibility perspective. These include thedesign of some seating without backs or arms, an issuethat has since been resolved. The sharing of HowardStreet by pedestrians and cyclists remains a potentialconcern in relation to the safety of the former, and this isan aspect of the scheme that is presently being monitoredto see if remedial action – perhaps simply through accessmanagement rather than design – is required.

The cost of these improvements, while justified byexperience, may be considered beyond the ability of otherCouncils to afford. Nevertheless, the Gold Routedemonstrates the need for an institutional framework andprocess to guide wider city centre regeneration. Thepartnership between the Council and Hallam University inthe delivery of improvements to Howard Street andHallam Square, and between the Council and NetworkRail in joining-up the station redevelopment and SheafSquare project, show how such mechanisms arenecessary in creating better functioning, formed anddesigned spaces.

Four years on from opening, both Sheaf Square andHoward Street remain in good condition. This would nothave been the case had the Council not earnt lessonswith preceding schemes such as the Peace Gardens. Themajor water features in Sheffield were installed with aclear understanding of, and commitment to, a lifecyclemaintenance regime capable of keeping features such asthose in Sheaf Square and Hallam Gardens in excellentworking order.

The City Centre Management Team (CCMT) is key to theongoing success of the public realm investment (seephoto CS32). Specific service level agreements onmaintenance standards and budgets are based upon thepriority allocated to the location of the street or space.These include a lifecycle asset management regime and

costs for cleaning, repair and reinstatement, and for themanagement of major public realm features.

Day-to-day management of the spaces is enhanced bythe presence of the CCMT Ambassadors. There areexcellent working relationships with the local police, andthis partnership allows for the sharing of responsibilities ofpublic space management.

Successful partnerships; inspired and committedleadership; design excellence; the prioritisation ofpedestrian movement over vehicular movement whereappropriate; and a clear ongoing maintenance andmanagement regime. All of these have been essential tothe success of Sheaf Square and Howard Street inachieving genuine benefits for the users of the spacesand Sheffield as a whole.


• Lead Designer – Sheffield City Council RegenerationProjects Design Team with support from EDAW andFaber Maunsell

• Main Contractor – Interserve• Lighting – Sutton Vane• Highways Design – Street Force• Artists – Si Applied (‘Cutting Edge’ sculpture); Jeremy

Asquith (street furniture); Mosaic Workshop (HowardStreet Rill); RPDT (Sheaf Street Water Cascade)

119

14_ Case Studies

14.4_ High Row & West Row,Darlington - Part Of The‘Pedestrian Heart’SSuummmmaarryy

The Darlington ‘Pedestrian Heart’ project opened insummer 2007, following more than two years of physicalwork in the town centre. Darlington wanted to maintain itscompetitive edge as one of the main shoppingdestinations in the Tees Valley. The scheme aimed tobring people back, encourage an improved retail offer,and attract new investment and development in the town.

The scheme involved rationalising bus access (see photoCS33) and improving pedestrian provision within a largepart of the town centre. It was focused around the historicmarket hall and market square, and included the uniquethree-level street at High Row/West Row. Bus routes wereconsiderably reconfigured, with a bus-only gatemaintaining excellent bus penetration into the centre. Allprivate car parking is provided on the edge of the core.


High Row and West Row lie parallel and immediately nextto one another in Darlington’s town centre (see LocationPlan). They form part of what was once the Great NorthRoad between London and Edinburgh. High Row wasformed from a raised footway on the western side,separated from its carriageway to the east by a triple-stepped kerb. The whole was separated by a slopingbank from the lower West Row.

Photo CS33

Over two years after opening, the scheme is considered amajor success. Footfall has increased and theimprovements have been cited as the reason why anumber of significant retail landlords have invested furtherin the town. Darlington Pedestrian Heart is an example ofhow appropriate public realm investment can enable amarket town to transform not only its image, but also thequality of life for its people (see Photo CS34).

Photo CS34

Location Plan

The layout dates back to 1904, when the street hosted acattle market. Before the Pedestrian Heart improvements,traffic tended to dominate. There were access restrictions,including one-way operation and bus lanes. These weresigned and enforced using conventional methods, whichtogether with planters and associated paraphernaliacreated a poor impression.(see photo CS35)


The dominance of the two carriageways, the lack ofpedestrian facilities, and some vehicle congestion meantthe space did not work well for anyone. DarlingtonBorough Council saw an opportunity to create a focalpoint for civic and market activity (see photo CS36).

creating a single surface. In the lower section - West Row- the distinction between footway and carriageway wasalso largely removed (see photo CS34). It is noweffectively a pedestrianised street. The level changebetween the two streets is the defining feature within thetown centre which has been celebrated and articulatedthrough a single flight of steps that runs the entire lengthof the space (see photo CS37).

Photo CS35

Photo CS36

A critical challenge was to reorganise provision fordifferent modes to stop vehicles ‘choking’ the town centrestreets, particularly along High Row and West Row. Busstop capacity and layover space were issues, givenincreasing numbers of bus patrons and bus mode share.Bus routes and interchange facilities were relocated, butremained very close to the retail core (see photo CS33).

This enabled vehicles to be effectively excluded fromWest Row. Service access to High Row was restricted tobefore and after retail trading hours. These changesallowed the three levels to be rationalised to two and thecreation of a predominantly pedestrian space. The upper- High Row - carriageway was raised to footway level,

Photo CS37

The steps terminate at the junction of West Row andNorthgate to the north of the scheme with a newamphitheatre and focal point for civic gatherings andevents (see photo CS39). The removal of traffic outsidethe market hall allowed for the relocation of the outdoormarket to a primary location within the town centre. Asimilar market/events space was created to the southalong Blackwell Gate.

121

14_ Case Studies

One of the scheme’s most interesting features is the‘stepped water cascade’ developed by Gillespies,Fountain Workshop and artist Michael Pinsky (see photoCS40). This water feature sits under the main pedestrianramp linking High and West Rows, and is made fromcoloured strips of granite. Alternate grey and red linesreflect both the historic washing of blood down the slopeassociated with the earlier market, and the ‘barcode’pattern that underpins contemporary trading.



The Pedestrian Heart scheme emerged from the 2001town centre development strategy. The strategy aimed tomake a distinct improvement in the economy and qualityof the environment in Darlington town centre. It had twomain strands:

• to attract new retailers and businesses• to increase the ease, comfort and safety with which

the town centre could be used.


A 2001 town centre access study identified theopportunity to create a ‘pedestrian heart’. The proposalwas approved by Darlington Borough Council in 2002.Gillespies were appointed in 2003 as lead consultants totake forward the design development. The PedestrianHeart project therefore pre-dates Darlington’s sustainabletravel demonstration town initiative.


Design development and delivery was helped by all thekey contributing officers being within the same division.Transport officers in particular made a positivecontribution to negotiations with bus operators. Theprocess was also aided by strong buy-in from councilmembers, and the council’s general political unity.

Despite not having a formal role in project execution, asteering group of council members ensured thatmembers remained informed and supportive throughout.Without this well co-ordinated project management andgovernance regime, some of the more controversialaspects of the scheme – such as the water feature andinclusion of cyclists – would have been lost.

Public and focused stakeholder engagement was acrucial component throughout the process. This includedvery close working with town centre businesses tominimise construction disruption, and with the DarlingtonAccess & Disability group on inclusive design.


In such a historic location, there was understandableconcern about the nature and scope of change. Localheritage groups were particularly concerned about thechange from the previous three levels to two (see photoCS37). This was addressed by outlining the benefits ofthe new layout, and by that the fact that the new schemewould be reinstating the original simpler layout that was inplace pre 1904.

Significant disruption to local businesses during theconstruction period was recognised as inevitable. Adedicated liaison officer was appointed. Whose efforts inbuilding personal relationships with retailers and markettraders were key to maintaining their support. A major gasmain was encountered beneath West Row duringconstruction, and this had a significant impact on schemedesign and costs. It also added three months to theconstruction period.

During design development, there was considerablediscussion about the initial plan to allow cyclists to usethe pedestrian area informally. The close workingrelationships and trust between officers and membersmeant that, despite opposition based on safety concerns,cyclists were permitted to use the scheme on opening.This was initially for a six-month trial period. Based onexperiences during this period – during which CCTV-based assessment of pedestrian-cyclist interactions tookplace – the decision to allow cycling within the PedestrianHeart area was made permanent.

Concerns were expressed by blind and partially sightedpeople about the loss of kerbs in some locations. Thiswas addressed partly by varying certain design details.The very low vehicle volumes and speeds that would beencountered in what is a virtually pedestrianised part ofthe town centre were also pointed out.

Photo CS39


FFuunnddiinngg

The Pedestrian Heart scheme was largely funded by:

• Darlington Borough Council• the Local Transport Plan and • One North East (the regional development agency)

‘Single Programme’ funding, through the Tees ValleyPartnership.

• Cycling levels in the town centre have increased sincethe scheme opened, with the number of cyclistscounted over a 12-hour period rising from around1,000 in July 2007 to over 1,300 in July 2008

• Support from people in the town centre for allowingcycling to continue has also increased over the sameperiod, from 53.9% to 62.1%.


Perhaps the most important mark of the Pedestrian Heartscheme’s success is that, despite the economicrecession, the town centre economy is showing signs ofresilience. Pedestrian footfall and parking duration of stayfigures improved between 2008 and 2009, in contrast toother centres in the Tees Valley. Darlington’s town centremanager reports greater investor confidence in Darlingtonas an investment location - though objective data tosupport this is not available.

BBeenneeffiittss

The design has delivered numerous benefits:

• The upper section exploits the east-facing orientationand elevated position relative to the rest of the town byincorporating new areas of seating, and a wide, flush,retail and civic promenade.

• The scheme maintains good access to the centre forpublic transport and for people with disabilities.

• Space has been created for the market traders to belocated on the main retail street to provide vitality andgreater choice to the town centre offer.

• Planters have been integrated into a retaining wallbetween the upper and lower sections, breaking up thehard urban condition and facilitating Darlington’s ongoingparticipation in ‘Britain in Bloom’ (see photo CS39)

Photo CS40

The scheme was ambitious, with a clear vision fortransformation and a strong emphasis on creating aquality environment for pedestrians. It has successfullyachieved an appropriate balance between various modesof travel. The greatly enhanced public realm has createdboth a safer and more attractive environment for all users,and a more flexible space for markets and events.

PPrroobblleemmss

As might be expected with such a major scheme, anumber of issues were encountered in the developmentand construction phases. Engagement with businesseswas a major issue:

• the 18-month period of design development meantthat several consultees moved on during the process

• some felt that more could have been done to get thepeople of Darlington excited about the project - whatthe ‘gain’ would be for the construction ‘pain’.

Project cost increases and overrun, largely due to theproblems associated with the gas main under West Row,meant that compromises were made in relation to someof the design features. There have also been maintenanceproblems associated with some of the more complexelements.


DDaatteess Construction: 2005 – Summer 2007

VVoolluummeess � Prebend Row2010: 24-hour weekday flow = 2,020vehicles (am peak hour 130; pm peak hour 160)

SSppeeeeddss Post-scheme mean speed 13mph (85thpercentile 17mph)

RRooaadd No personal injury collisions involving SSaaffeettyy pedestrians or cyclists were recorded

within the town centre ring road in the year following scheme completion.

CCoossttss £6.5 million (approx) (£3.3 million OneNorth East; £2.5 million Darlington Borough Council; £0.65 million LocalTransport Plan)

123

14_ Case Studies


Darlington Pedestrian Heart has nevertheless achieved itsprimary objective of bringing people back to the towncentre - and encouraging them to stay there longer. Theheart of the town now throngs with people – whatever theweather. It’s still easy to get to by bus, and businesses aredoing well. High Row and West Row no longer look orwork like the historic Great North Road did, but what thispart of Darlington needed then and needs now is quitedifferent. The Pedestrian Heart is a benchmark for thetown – and other market towns – for the early 21stcentury (see photo CS36 and photo CS37).


http://www.darlington.gov.uk/Living/Planning+and+Building+Control/Planning+Services/Projects+and+Schemes/PedHeart/PedestrianHeart.htm


• Lead Designer – Gillespies• Main Contractor – Birse• Artist – Mike Pinsky (Water Cascade and ‘Life Pulse’)• Highway Engineers – Faber Maunsell• Quantity Surveyors – Kinsler & Partners• Lighting Design – Equation• Water Feature Designer – The Fountain Workshop


Location Plan

14.5_ Maid Marian Way,Nottingham

SSuummmmaarryy

Voted by the public as one of Britain's worst streets,Nottingham's Maid Marian Way has since beentransformed from a traffic-dominated corridor into a morepedestrian-friendly part of the city.

Pedestrian subways under busy roads on the edge of citycentres are a common legacy from the 1960s and 70s. InNottingham, Maid Marian Way was turned into an inner-city dual carriageway in 1964. The intersection with FriarLane was turned into a roundabout with a sunken plaza,which linked four pedestrian subways each served bystairways and ramps (see Photo CS41). There are similarexamples in many other UK towns and cities.

In 1989, a review of planning policy for Nottingham citycentre highlighted a number of essential measures toretain the city’s competitive position for retail, businessand tourism - including overcoming the barrier effect ofMaid Marian Way. Consideration was given to sinking theroad into a tunnel, but this was discounted on financialgrounds (see Photo CS44).

Remodelling of the dual carriageway and the inclusion ofwide pedestrian crossings has restored a direct visual andpsychological link across the busy road (see Photo CS42and CS43). Large areas of additional public space havebeen won back in the process, creating generouspavements and areas of planting.


Maid Marian Way runs from Canal Street/CastleBoulevard to the south, to the roundabout junction withUpper Parliament Street to the north – some 650m (seeLocation Plan).

It was previously laid out as a four lane dual carriagewaythat bore no direct relation to the surrounding urbanfabric, and was designed primarily for moving largevolumes of traffic. As a result it severed the parts of thecity centre to west and east. It was lined by a mixture ofolder buildings and undistinguished office blocks from the1970s and 1980s.

Photo CS41

Photo CS42

125

14_ Case Studies

The centrepiece of the improvements is the treatment ofthe roundabout that formed the intersection with FriarLane. A sunken plaza with sloping concrete wallssurrounding a small retail kiosk connected four subways,which emerged through step/ramp arrangements on eachof the four corners of the space (see Photo CS41). Theavailable footway at each corner was reduced by thisarrangement to narrow fragments close to the buildings.

CCrroossssiinnggss

SSttrreeeett ffuurrnniittuurree

Modern street furniture, including bicycle parking, wasinstalled, with new tree planting along the footway. Trafficsignal equipment was mounted on new lighting columns,with dedicated electrical supply for each to keepmaintenance simple and safe (see photo CS45). The CityCouncil also took the decision to omit the surroundingwhite backing boards for signal heads to reduce theirimpact on the streetscape at the junction.

The design involved filling the subways and sunken plazawith concrete. The roundabout was replaced with a set oftraffic signals and two in-line pedestrian crossings overMaid Marian Way to the north and south of Friar Lane.The five metre wide crossings provide adequate space onthe central median to allow them to be directly alignedwith the dominant pedestrian movement. Generous newpavement areas were added, with side-street connectionsincorporated into the design (see photo CS43 and CS44).

Photo CS43

Photo CS44

Photo CS45

FFrriiaarr LLaannee jjuunnccttiioonn

Although the speed limit - 30mph - and the basic dualcarriageway layout remained unchanged, bothapproaches to the Friar Lane junction were redesignedwith ramps as speed reduction features. Kerb heights atthe junction itself were reduced to around 25mm.

The Friar Lane junction has been transformed, influencinghow the whole of Maid Marian Way impacts on thesurrounding built environment and on pedestrianmovement. The street continues to carry broadly thesame traffic volume as before.


However, traffic capacity and horizontal alignment issues– for example at the Mount Street junction - along withawkward carriageway levels, have meant that a moreconventional highway design has been used north of theFriar Lane junction (see Photo CS46). This includessignificant lengths of guard rails, and staggeredpedestrian crossings.

The introduction of bus lanes and a dedicated right-turning lane into Friar Lane (east) means that Maid MarianWay is now six lanes across in some places, comparedwith the previous four. However, the width of each newlane is less than the former lanes.

Further improvements are proposed for this northernsection:

• the red tactile paving at junctions will be replaced witha less obtrusive colour

• significant lengths of pedestrian guard rails will beremoved from the Mount Street junction as part of awider city centre decluttering programme.



The changes in Maid Marian Way were part of a widerpackage of improvements. These aimed to reduce theseverance created by the inner ring road in order to allowthe city centre to expand. From the outset, it wasrecognised Maid Marian Way would need to continue tohandle large volumes of traffic - so the focus was on howbest to improve physical and perceptual links forpedestrians.


Funding was sought via a major scheme bid to theDepartment for Transport (DfT) - an ‘Annex E’ submissionas part of the Local Transport Plan.

The focus on improved pedestrian movement and citycentre environment meant that a conventional cost-benefit assessment rated the overall package as negative.This led to delays in the DfT approving the major schemebid. However, Nottingham City Council pressed aheadwith the implementation of the Maid Marian Way element,using general Local Transport Plan funding. The schemewas procured, designed and delivered entirely byNottingham City Council.


Close working relationships between urban designofficers, highway engineers and transport planners wereachieved. Construction managers were included early inthe design process, exploiting the opportunities of in-house contracting. The experience built confidence incouncil officers working together and managing large-scale schemes. This prompted the setting up of a citydevelopment team, to bring together a wide range of skillsand professions.


The project also gave momentum to a growing public andpolitical interest in streetscape design. This led to thepublication of a comprehensive streetscape designmanual in September 2004, updated in August 2006.This has raised awareness of good design across thecouncil, and among contractors, statutory undertakers,and other partners.

Communication and consultation involved someimaginative measures:

• a programmed series of events and meetings withbusinesses

• hotels promoting 'quiet days' during constructionwhen noisy operations were avoided

• regular monthly meetings for bus and taxi operators,focusing on minimising disruption during construction

• articles written by a local food writer, observingprogress from a nearby restaurant

Photo CS46

Photo CS47

127

14_ Case Studies

• where tree planting had to wait until the appropriateseason, the word 'tree' appeared across thetemporary paving

• an imaginative series of handouts to keep the publicinformed, explaining the logic of the scheme

• a programme of artworks and events celebrating thenew pedestrian connection.

The multi-disciplinary in-house team meant a moreinformed approach to safety auditing than mightotherwise have been expected. After extensivediscussions, traffic movements at the Friar Lane junctionwere simplified, with no vehicles entering Maid MarianWay from Friar Lane. This enabled road safety officers tofeel confident with the proposals. Other technicalchallenges included the use of ‘puffin’ pedestriancrossings, and providing an adequately wide centralmedian. This meant a direct - as opposed to staggered -pedestrian route could be provided, linking the twoseparate signalised crossings (see photo CS47).

FFuunnddiinngg

The £2.9 million cost of the Maid Marian Way schemewas met through Local Transport Plan funding and by theEast Midlands Regional Development Agency -specifically for environmental enhancements. Anadditional £11.7 million of Local Transport Plan fundingbecame available by 2003 to support a wide-rangingstrategy for Nottingham's city centre called 'TurningPoint'. The scheme for Maid Marian Way was also part ofthe city's 'Big Wheel' transport plans for GreaterNottingham.


BBeenneeffiittss

The remarkable transformation of Maid Marian Wayhighlights the effort required to overcome the worstlegacies of segregation as a highway design philosophy. Italso shows how changing the highway alone can’tchange the whole place:

• the architecture and urban design of the surroundingsdo little to foster a distinctive sense of place

• much remains to be done to integrate the street intothe fabric of Nottingham.

Nevertheless, a street identified as one of the least lovedin the country has been transformed into a legible andfunctional space. In comparison with its previous layout,its barrier effect is largely overcome.

A survey of pedestrian movements between April 2003and April 2005 suggested that the Friar Lane route acrossMaid Marian Way has attracted considerably morepeople: a 56 per cent increase in weekday pedestriansand a 29 per cent increase among Saturday shoppers. It


DDaatteess Scheme construction began in May 2003and was substantially completed byAugust 2004.

VVoolluummeess � 2010: 24-hour weekday flow = 27,840vehicles (am peak hour 1,970; pm peakhour 1,960)

SSppeeeeddss Post-scheme mean speeds (north of Friar Lane): northbound 24mph(85th percentile 28mph); southbound16mph (85th percentile 21mph)

RRooaadd Analysis of accidents has shown no SSaaffeettyy detriment to safety as a result of

removing the guard rail.In each of the years 2000-2002, there was a single Vulnerable Road User(VRU) casualty at the Friar Lane junction (a cyclist in all three cases). There were noVRU casualties in 2003-2005, but a total of six VRUs in the three years 2006-2008,comprising four pedestrians, one cyclistand one motorcyclist. Of the fourpedestrian casualties, three wereintoxicated at the time and the fourth was a child walking down the carriageway backwards.

CCoossttss £2.9 million (£2.35 million from LocalTransport Plan; £650,000 from RegionalDevelopment Agency for environmentalenhancements)


feels comfortable to cross the busy road - a pedestrianjourney across Maid Marian Way is no longer the hostileexperience it once was.

PPrroobblleemmss

The scheme involved the clearance of the previousplanting on the median to the north and south of FriarLane. This was due to the reduction in width of themedian itself, and to increase the visual connectionacross the street. However, this meant the loss of somemature trees. Although 80 new trees were planted onboth the median and the - now wider - footways, it will besome years before they have grown enough to provideenclosure for the street.

There were problems with the new low-level plantingbetween the trees on the median. The 2004 plantingscheme was not strong enough to withstand wintersalting, and failed to restrict pedestrians from crossing inmid-block locations. It was replanted with denservegetation, coupled with a 1m-high ‘post and wire’ fenceto stop pedestrians crossing until the planting couldbecome established.

Although transformed from its former configuration, thecentral junction still feels highly engineered. Greateremphasis could have been given to the continuity andimportance of Friar Lane, stressing the connectionbetween castle and city centre without compromisingsafety or traffic flows on the main road. An integral tactilelanguage as part of the overall design would have beenpreferable – and this is now to be addressed.


The Maid Marian Way scheme kick-started a positivechange to Nottingham's public image that was taken onby the rest of the Turning Point project. Tackling the worstaspects of Maid Marian Way was an essential componentin reconnecting the fabric of the city. This projectdemonstrates what can be achieved by bringing togetherthe skills and imagination of several professions torebalance the multiple functions of streets and publicspaces.

The scheme demonstrates how problem inner city ringroads can be transformed. However, it also highlights –for example at the Mount Street junction – the tensionsthat still exist between traffic capacity and safetyconcerns, and the desire to deliver more walkable andhigh-amenity streets.

Some of its worst attributes have been removed and highquality connections have been provided. However, morework is required for Maid Marian Way to become anurban boulevard that is supportive of the full range of citycentre movement patterns and other activities.

Maid Marian Way remains perhaps the best UK exampleof a ring road that has been transformed despite retainingits strategic traffic function. Maid Marian Way shows how– with a strong, shared commitment to change – soullesstraffic conduits can be made into lively city streets.


• Turning Point(http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=2805)

• Big Wheel (http://www.thebigwheel.org.uk/)


• Ben Webster, Urban design officer• David Jones, Modelling, appraisal & business case• Bob Bolus, Project manager• Alan Solaini, Traffic signals design team leader• Sarah Clarke, Communications officer• John Hardy, Senior engineer, Highway design• Chris Keane, Senior engineer, Highway design• Francis Ashton, Road Safety Manager, Environment

and Regeneration• Nigel Turpin, Urban design team leader• Brian Etherington, Site agent for highways construction

1 Mixed Priority Routes: A Practitioners Guide, LocalTransport Note 3/08, Department for Transport, 2008

2 DfT Shared Space Project - Stage 1: Appraisal ofShared Space, MVA Consultancy, 2009

3 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 6Section 2, TD41/95, Vehicular Access to All-PurposeTrunk Roads, Highways Agency, 1995

4 Rediscovering Mixed-Use Streets: The Contribution ofLocal High Streets to Sustainable Communities,Joseph Rowntree Foundation, The Policy Press, 2007

5 Paved with Gold the Real Value of Good StreetDesign, Commission for Architecture and the BuiltEnvironment, 2007

6 Link and Place: A Guide to Street Planning andDesign, Landor Publishing, 2008

7 Highways Asset Management Plan, London Boroughof Hounslow, 2009

8 Understanding Place Historic Area Assessments:Principles and Practice, English Heritage, 2010

9 Understanding Place: Historic Area Assessments in aPlanning and Development Context, English Heritage,2010

10 Cycling in Pedestrian Areas, Traffic Advisory Leaflet9/93, Department for Transport, 1993

11 Cycling in Vehicle Restricted Areas, TRL ResearchReport 583, TRL, 2003

12 Suburbs and the Historic Environment, EnglishHeritage, 2007

13 The Boulevard Book: History, Evolution, Design ofMultiWay Boulevards, MIT Press, 2003

14 Better Rail Stations, An Independent ReviewPresented to Lord Adonis, Secretary of State forTransport, Department for Transport, 2009

15 Pedestrian Environmental Review System Version 2,Transport Research Laboratory, 2010

16 Walking Good Practice Volume 3, Transport forLondon, 2010

17 10 Big Numbers, Commission for Rural Communities,2009

18 Managing Dorset’s Rural Roads: Our New Approachto Road Management in a High Quality Environment,Dorset County Council, 2008

19 Devon County Council20 Streets for All Practical Case Study 6: Tactile Paving,

English Heritage, 200821 Highway Risk and Liability Claims, UK Roads Board,

200922 The Highway Code, Department for Transport, 200723 The Manual for Streets: Evidence and Research, TRL

Report 661, Transport Research Laboratory, 200724 Traffic Management and Streetscape, Local Transport

Note 1/08, Department for Transport, 200825 Better Streets, Mayor of London, 200926 Companion Document to Manual for Streets,

Hampshire County Council, 201027 Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town

Centres, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 200528 Planning Policy Wales, Technical Advice Note 12:

Design, Welsh Assembly Government, 200929 Streets for All, English Heritage, 200530 Kent Design Guide Review: Interim Guidance Note 1:

Quality Audits, Kent Highway Services, 200831 Solihull MBC

129

References

References

32 Road Safety Audit Guidelines, Institution of Highwaysand Transportation, 2008

33 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 5Section 2, HD19/03, Road Safety Audit, HighwaysAgency, 2003

34 Hounslow Streetscape Design Guide, LondonBorough of Hounslow, Draft

35 Inclusive Mobility, Department for Transport, 200536 Providing for Journeys on Foot, Institution of

Highways and Transportation, 200037 Planning Policy Wales, Technical Advice Note 18:

Transport, Welsh Assembly Government, 200738 Cycle Infrastructure Design, Local Transport Note

2/08, Department for Transport, 200839 The Effect of Cycle Lanes on the Proximity between

Motor Traffic and Cycle Traffic, Accident Analysis &Prevention, Volume 42, Issue 1, January 2010

40 Shared Use by Cyclists and Pedestrians, LocalTransport Note 2/86, Department of Transport / TheWelsh Office, 1986

41 Keeping Buses Moving, Local Transport Note 1/97,Department for Transport, Local Government and theRegions, 1997

42 Bus Priority: The Way Ahead, Department forTransport, 2004

43 Accessible Bus Stop Design Guidance, Bus PriorityTeam technical advice note BP1/06, Transport forLondon, 2006

44 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 6Section 1, TD9/93, Highway Link Design, HighwaysAgency, 1993

45 Transport Statistics Bulletin, Road Statistics 2008:Traffic, Speeds and Congestion, Department ofTransport, 2008

46 Setting Local Speed Limits, DfT Circular 01/2006,Department for Transport, 2006

47 Setting Local Speed Limits in Wales, Circular No.24/2009, Welsh Assembly Government, 2009

48 Traffic Calming Techniques, Institution of Highwaysand Transportation, 2005

49 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Highway LinkDesign, TA43/84 (Withdrawn), Highways Agency,1984

50 The Assessment of Pedestrian Crossings, LocalTransport Note 1/95, Department for Transport, 1995

51 The Design of Pedestrian Crossings, Local TransportNote 2/95, Department for Transport, 1995

52 The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian CrossingRegulations and General Directions 1997

53 Safety Investigation at Pelican Crossing Sites, LondonAccident Analysis Unit, 1974

54 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 6Section 2, TD42/95, Geometry Design of Major/MinorPriority Junctions, Highways Agency, 1995

55 Layout and Design Factors Affecting Cycle Safety at T-Junctions, Traffic Engineering and Control, October1992

56 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 6Section 2, TD16/07, Geometric Design ofRoundabouts, Highways Agency, 2007

57 Cyclists at Roundabouts: Continental DesignGeometry, Traffic Advisory Leaflet 9/97, Departmentfor Transport, 1997


58 The Traffic Signs Regulation and General Directions2002

59 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 6Section 2, TD54/07, Design of Mini-Roundabouts,Highways Agency, 2007

60 Mini Roundabouts Good Practice Guidance,Department for Transport and County Surveyors’Society, 2006

61 General Principles of Traffic Control by Light Signals,Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/06, Department forTransport, 2006

62 Pedestrian Facilities at Signal-controlled Junctions,Traffic Advisory Leaflet 5/05, Department forTransport, 2005

63 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 6Section 2, TD50/04, The Geometric Layout of Signal-Controlled Junctions and Signalised Roundabouts,Highways Agency, 2004

64 Economic Impact of Traffic Signals, Greater LondonAuthority, 2009

65 The Installation of Traffic Signals and AssociatedEquipment, Local Transport Note 1/98, Department ofthe Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1998

66 Research for MfS2 – High Risk Collision Sites and YDistance Visibility, TMS Consultancy, 2010

67 UNECE Vehicle Regulation 1E/ECE/324 -E/ECE/TRANS/505, Rev.1/Add.12/Rev.6, UnitedNations Economic Commission for Europe,

68 Accidents at Three-Arm Priority Junctions on UrbanSingle-Carriageway Roads, TRL Report 184,Transport Research Laboratory, 1996

69 Parking Strategies and Management, Institution ofHighways and Transportation, 2005

70 Car Parking: What Works Where Toolkit, EnglishPartnerships, 2006

71 Kerbside Loading Guidance, Freight Unit TechnicalAdvice Note: FU5/08, Transport for London, 2009

72 Streetscape Guidance 2009: A Guide to BetterLondon Streets, Transport for London, 2009

73 Towards a Fine City for People, Transport for Londonand Central London Partnership, 2004

74 Making Space for Waste: Designing WasteManagement in New Developments, Association ofDirectors of Environment, Economy, Planning andTransport, 2010

75 The Impact of Street Furniture on PedestrianMovement, Paper to the 7th Transport PractitionersMeeting, 2009

76 Pedestrian Guardrailing, Local Transport Note 2/09,Department for Transport, 2009

77 Guardrail Assessment Form, Transport for London,2007

78 Review of Criteria for the Provision of PedestrianGuardrailing in the London Borough of Hackney,London Borough of Hackney and Urban Initiatives,2007

79 Adapting Cities for Climate Change: The Role of theGreen Infrastructure, Built Environment Volume 33Number 1, 2007

80 Benefits of NYC’s Urban Forest, Million Trees NYC,http://www.milliontreesnyc.org/html/urban_forest/urban_forest_benefits.shtml

81 Valuation of Trees for Amenity and Related Non-Timber Uses Guidance Note, Royal Institution ofChartered Surveyors, 2010

82 Trees in towns II: A New Survey of Urban Trees inEngland and Their Condition and Management,Communities and Local Government, 2008

83 Guidelines for the Planning, Installation & Maintenanceof Utility Apparatus in Proximity to Trees, NationalJoint Utilities Group Volume 4, 2007

84 A Risk Limitation Strategy for Tree Root Claims 3rdEdition, London Tree Officers Association, 2007

85 Managing Urban Trees, Commission for Architectureand Built Environment,http://www.cabe.org.uk/sustainable-cities/advice/urban-trees, 2010

86 Best Practice Guidelines: How to Assess theSuitability of a Site for Street Tree Planting and Whatto do Next ,Trees for Cities, 2008

87 Tree Roots in the Built Environment, Communities andLocal Government, 2006

88 BS 5489: 2003, Code of Practice for the Design ofRoad Lighting – Part 1: Lighting of Roads and PublicAmenity Areas, British Standards Institute, 2003

89 BS EN 13201-2: 2003, Road Lighting – PerformanceRequirements, British Standards Institute, 2003

90 BS EN 13201-3: 2003, Road Lighting – Calculationsof Performance, British Standards Institute, 2003

91 BS EN 13201-4: 2003, Road Lighting – Methods ofMeasuring Lighting Performance, British StandardsInstitute, 2003

92 Guide on the Limitation of the Effects of ObtrusiveLight from Outdoor Lighting Installations, InternationalCommission on Illumination, 2003

93 Guidelines for Minimising Sky Glow, InternationalCommission on Illumination, 1997

94 Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light,Institution of Lighting Engineers, 2005

95 Lighting in the Countryside: Towards Good Practice,Communities and Local Government, 1997

96 Working Together to Protect Crowded Places, HomeOffice, 2010

97 Crowded Places: The Planning System and CounterTerrorism, Home Office and Communities and LocalGovernment, 2010

98 Protecting Crowded Places: Design and TechnicalIssues, Home Office, 2010

99 Traffic Signs Manual, Department for Transport,Various

100 The Suffolk Countryside Manual: Design Guidelines forHighway Works in Rural Areas, Suffolk LocalAuthorities, 2003

101 The Use of Coloured Surfacing in Road Layout, TrafficSafety and Environmental Division, Highways Agency,ETC Proceedings, 1997

102 Statutory Guidance to Local Authorities on the CivilEnforcement of Parking Contraventions, Departmentfor Transport, 2008

103 Shrewsbury Historic Core Zone. Traffic AdvisoryLeaflet 8/98, Department for Transport, 1998

131

References

References

Note: Titles of documents are printed in italics.

Access see Vehicle accessADEPT 3Advanced cycle stop lines 69Alignment of highway 52, 54, 109, 111Anti-terrorism measures 94Arterial routes 17At-grade crossings 16, 57, 62, 116Audits

quality 34–7road safety 34, 37–8

Barrierspedestrian 61, 84, 87–91security 94

Benefits 9, 11case studies 107, 111, 118, 122, 127–8

Blind people see Visual impairmentBollards 87, 96–7Boulevards 21Building frontages, vehicle access 71Buses 49–50

bus boarders 50bus ‘gates’ 104bus lanes 49, 104bus laybys 50bus priority systems 49bus routes 49bus stops 49, 49–50carriageway width 49, 53stopping sight distance (SSD) 73–4

CABE (Commission for Architecture and the BuiltEnvironment) 11

Cambridge, cycle lanes 46Car parking see On-street parkingCarriageways

design speed 51–2gradients 52–3horizontal alignment 52, 54vertical curvature 53width 53

changes in 59, 64roundabouts 66vehicle lanes 45, 49, 53and vehicle speeds 30, 77

Case studies 103–28High Row & West Row, Darlington 119–23London Road, Southampton 108–12Maid Marian Way, Nottingham 124–8Sheaf Square & Howard Street, Sheffield 113–18Walworth Road, Southwark, 103–7

Central islands 66, 96–7Central medians/reservations 54–5Central refuges 54, 59, 60, 96–7Centreline markings 97

133

Index

Index

City centres 15–16case studies 113–23

Classification of streets see Street typesColoured road surfacing 95, 98Comfort space 28Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment

(CABE) 3, 11Communal space 15, 28, 65Community involvement 31–2, 111, 126–7Connectivity 17, 21, 22, 63Context appraisal

interchanges 23rural areas 26town and city centres 15urban and rural settlements 27urban and suburban areas 17urban extensions 21village centres 24

Corner radii 60, 64, 69Crime prevention 94Crossing Regulations 58, 97Crossings for pedestrians see Pedestrian crossing pointsCrossovers 64–5Curve radii 52, 75Cycle lanes 45–6Cycle parking 47Cycle tracks 46Cycling 45–7

advanced cycle stop lines 69carriageway/lane width 53cyclists needs 45junction design 63roundabouts 66safety 63, 65, 69, 76shared use footway/cycle space 16, 46, 121traffic management systems 70transport integration 23vehicle forward visibility 76

Darlington, High Row & West Row 119–23DASs (Design and Access Statements) 34Design and Access Statements (DASs) 34Design audits 34–7Design context see Context appraisalDesign guidance 30Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) 4, 8, 51Design principles 7–8Design process 31–40Design quality 34–7Design responsibility 30Design speed 51–2Design standards 4, 8, 30Desire lines see Pedestrian desire linesDevelopment Team approach 35, 126Diagonal crossings 63Direct frontage access 8, 64–5, 71, 79


Direction signs see Traffic signsDisabled people see Mobility impairment; Visual

impairmentDIY Streets 32DMRB (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges) 4, 8, 51Dropped kerbs 28, 55–6Echelon parking 81–2, 111Energy efficiency 93English Heritage

Streets For All 28, 34Suburbs and the Historic Environment 17

Footwaysat bus stops 50obstructions 85–7, 94parking on 89provision 43–4vehicle crossovers 64–5visibility splays 79width 43, 82, 87

echelon and right angle parking 82and street furniture 86–7and street trees 92

Forward visibility 75Frontage access 8, 71Funding 111, 122, 127Ghost islands 64Give way signs and marking 98Gradients 44, 52–3Green infrastructure (see also Trees) 11Guardrailing 61, 84, 87–91Heavy goods vehicles (HGV)

carriageway width 53stopping sight distance (SSD) 73–4

High streets 17–18, 21–3case studies 103–12design context 18

Highway authoritiesdesign responsibility 30Quality Audit (QA) 34Road Safety Audit (RSA) 38street furniture rationalisation 84, 95

Highway Code 29Highway networks 14Highway Risk and Liability Claims 29, 30Historic areas

conserving the suburbs 17understanding place 14use of natural materials 28

Historic features 28, 33kerbstones 56street audits 34

Horizontal alignment 52, 54, 109, 111Hull, Newland Avenue project 44Implementation process 31–40Improvement stages 32–3Informal crossings 59Informatory signs see Signage

Integrated transport 23Interchanges 22, 47Junction design (see also Priority junctions; Roundabouts)

57–8, 63–5carriageway width 64corner radii 60, 64, 69cycle safety 63guardrailing 89–90pedestrian crossing points 58–63, 64spacing of junctions 58visibility splays 80

Keep left/right signs 96–7Kent, quality audit process 35Kerb build-outs

keep left/right signs 96, 97on-street parking 81pedestrian crossing points 59

Kerbs 28, 55–6bus boarders 50defining staggered crossings 89granite kerbstones 56and visual impairment 121

Landscaping (see also Trees) 11Laybys, bus 50Left turn lanes 66, 69Legal requirements

bollards and signs on median islands 97no-entry signs 99pedestrian crossing points 58risk and liability 29–30road markings 98, 99stopping sight distance (SSD) 8, 73–5traffic signs

backing boards 70size and height 95–6

Level surface 28, 55–6Liability and risk see Risk and liabilityLighting, street 93–4‘Link and Place’ methodology 13–14Local policies and standards 30London Borough of Hackney 91London Borough of Hounslow 39Maintenance issues 38–9Manual for Streets (MfS)

principles 7–8scope 8–9

Materials see Surface materialsMedians 54, 97, 128Mini-roundabouts 67–8Mixed Priority Routes (MPR) (see also Shared space)

community involvement 31demonstration projects 10, 44, 89, 103–7

Mobility impairment (see also Wheelchair users)bus boarders 50footway crossovers 65kerb heights 55, 59

Motor vehicles see Vehicle

Movement function 13–14boulevards 21high streets 18, 22interchanges 23relief/ring roads 19residential streets 22rural roads and lanes 26shared space 28town and city centres 15village centres 24–5

Movement/place diagram 13–14Multifunctional streets and spaces 15Networks see Highway networks; Pedestrian networksNew-build schemes 18No entry signs 99Nottingham, Maid Marian Way 124–8Obstructions (see also Visibility)

on footways 85–7, 94On-street parking 81–2

echelon and right angle parking 81–2, 111on footways 89in visibility splays 80yellow lines 99

One-way streets 70–1Outcomes 10

case studies 107, 111–12, 118, 122–3, 127–8Overrunning

central median 53footways 89hatched areas 98

Parking see On-street parkingPartially-sighted people see Visual impairmentPavement parking 89Pavements see FootwaysPaving materials (see also Tactile paving) 28, 34, 56Pedestrian barriers 61, 84, 87–91Pedestrian bridges 57Pedestrian crossing points 58–63

ghost islands 64grade separation 57granite blocks 107mini-roundabouts 68and on-street parking 82roundabouts 66surface level crossings 16, 57, 62, 116tabled crossings 100

Pedestrian desire lines 58, 59, 60, 66Pedestrian Environment Review Software (PERS) 23Pedestrian gradients 44Pedestrian guardrailing 61, 84, 87–91Pedestrian needs 43Pedestrian networks 15, 23, 43Pedestrian refuges 54, 59, 60, 64Pedestrian underpasses 57, 124Pedestrianised areas 16

case studies 113–23Permeable street layouts see Connectivity

135

Index

PERS (Pedestrian Environment Review Software) 23Place function 13–14

boulevards 21high streets 18, 22interchanges 23relief/ring roads 19residential streets 22rural roads and lanes 26shared space 28town and city centres 15village centres 24–5

Place/movement matrix 13–14Planning policies 30Planting see Landscaping; TreesPolicy context 30Priority junctions 63–5

signs and markings 98–9visibility 76–8, 80X and Y distances 78

Public consultation 31–2, 111, 126–7Public space 15, 28, 65Public squares 65Public transport (see also Buses)

in case studies 104, 110interchanges 23urban extensions 21

Quality Audit (QA) 34–7Raised crossings 59–60Refuges 54, 59, 60, 64Regulations see Design standards; Legal requirementsRelief roads 18–20Residential streets 21–3, 51Responsible driving 29Right turning lanes 63–4Ring roads 18–20, 115

case study 124–8Risk and liability (see also Road safety) 29–30Risk assessment 37–8Risk compensation 30Road markings 95

centrelines 97coloured surfacing 95, 98cycle lanes 46for parking 99–100tabled crossings 100zig-zag markings 98

Road safety (see also Risk and liability; Speed reduction)cycling 63, 65, 69, 76in demonstration projects 10, 106, 107, 111, 117,

122, 127direct frontage access 71drivers’ responsibility 29guard railing 87–90highway authority’s responsibility 30, 38horizontal deflection 65junctions 63, 68, 71, 80pedestrian crossing points 59


roundabouts 65, 68street furniture removal 84traffic signal junctions 68and visibility 71, 77, 80

Road Safety Audit (RSA) 34, 37–8Road surfacing, coloured see Surface materialsRoad types see Street typesRoundabouts 65–8, 98RSA (Road Safety Audit) 34, 37–8Rural roads and lanes 26–7

design speed 51signs and road markings 95

Rural settlements 27–8Safety see Road safetySafety audits 37–8Security measures 94Servicing bays 82Shared space

benefits 9, 11definition 28design issues 28Manual for Streets principles 7–8typical characteristics 27–8

Shared use footway/cycle space 16, 46, 121Sheffield, Sheaf Square & Howard Street 113–18Sight distance see Stopping sight distance (SSD)Signage (see also Traffic signs)

‘de-cluttering’ 83–7Signalised crossings 59, 61Single lane working 70–1Solihul, quality audit process 36Southampton, London Road 108–12Speed limits 51–2Speed reduction

horizontal alignment 52, 54at junctions 63, 64speed tables 63, 100vertical curvature 53

Squares 65SSD (Stopping sight distance) 8, 73–5Staged approach 32–3Staggered crossings 61, 89, 112Standards see Design standardsStopping sight distance (SSD) 8, 73–5Straight ahead crossings 60–2Street audits 23, 34Street character assessments 34Street furniture 83–91, 125

audits 34‘footprint in use’ 86reducing ‘clutter’ 83–7

Street lighting 93–4Street networks 14, 17, 23, 43Street trees 91–3

Street types 13arterial routes 17boulevards 21high streets 17, 21multifunctional streets and spaces 15relief road/ring road 18–19residential streets 21rural roads and lanes 26shared space 27–8village streets 24

Streets For All 28, 34Suburban areas 17–21Suburbs and the Historic Environment 17Subways see UnderpassesSurface level crossings 16, 57, 62, 116Surface materials

coloured road surfacing 95, 98paving materials 28, 34, 56pedestrian crossing points 107

Surveillance 34Sustainability 9, 21, 93Sustrans DIY Streets project 32Tabled crossings 63, 100Tactile paving 28, 58Town centres 15–16Traffic management systems 70–1, 83Traffic signals 68–70Traffic signs 95–7

at junctions 98–9keep left/right signs 96–7reducing ‘clutter’ 83–7size and mounting height 95–6yellow backing boards 96

Traffic Signs Manual (TSM) 95Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD)

95Traffic speeds see Vehicle speedsTransport for London (TfL)

Streetscape Guidance 85Walking Good Practice 23

Transport integration 23Trees (see also Landscaping) 91–3, 128‘Trief’ kerbs 56Types of streets see Street typesUncontrolled crossings 59Uncontrolled junctions 63–5Underpasses, pedestrian 57, 124Urban areas (see also City centres; Suburban areas)

context 17–21design speed 51–2

Urban extensions 21–3Urban settlements 27–8Vehicle access

direct frontage access 8, 64–5, 71, 79restrictions 16

Vehicle braking 73–4Vehicle crossovers 64–5Vehicle-lane width 45, 49, 53Vehicle speeds (see also Speed reduction)

and carriageway width 30, 77design speed 51–2

Vertical curvature 53Village centres 24Village gateways 95Village streets 24Visibility (see also Stopping sight distance (SSD)) 75–80

along the street edge 79forward visibility 75at junctions 76–7, 80and vehicle speeds 52visibility splays 79, 80

Visual impairmentbollard height 87kerb loss 121raised tables 111signalised crossings 59

Walking (see also Pedestrian) 43–4Wheelchair users

central reservations/medians and refuges 54footway crossovers 65maximum gradient 44

Widthbus boarders 50carriageways

changes in 59, 64junctions 64roundabouts 66vehicle lanes 45, 49, 53

central reservations/medians and refuges 54cycle lanes 45footways 43, 82, 87

echelon and right angle parking 82and street furniture 86–7and street trees 92

informal crossings 59Yellow lines 99Zebra crossings 59Zig-zag markings 98

137

Index

www.ciht.org.uk


Wider Application of the Principles

Ma

nu

alfo

rStree

ts2

Manual for Streets 2

Documents

Transcript of Manual for Streets 2