The Manual for Streets: evidence and research · 2013-12-26 · iii CONTENTS Page Executive Summary...

The Manual for Streets: evidence andresearch

Prepared for Traffic Management Division, Department

for Transport

I York, A Bradbury, S Reid, T Ewings and R Paradise

TRL Report TRL661

ii

First Published 2007ISSN 0968-4107ISBN 1-84608-660-4Copyright Transport Research Laboratory, 2007.

This report has been produced by TRL Limited, under/as part ofa contract placed by the Department for Transport. Any viewsexpressed in it are not necessarily those of the Department.

TRL is committed to optimising energy efficiency, reducingwaste and promoting recycling and re-use. In support of theseenvironmental goals, this report has been printed on recycledpaper, comprising 100% post-consumer waste, manufacturedusing a TCF (totally chlorine free) process.

iii

CONTENTS

Page

Executive Summary 1

Acronyms 3

1 Introduction 5

1.1 Manual for Streets 51.2 Design Bulletin 32 61.3 Underlying research 61.4 Report structure 6

2 Review of existing literature 7

3 Site selection and measurement 9

3.1 Site selection 93.2 CAD measurements 93.3 Site surveys 11

4 Speeds and geometry data site ranges 11

4.1 Outliers 124.2 Variation within the data 13

5 Speed adaptation 15

5.1 Link speeds 155.2 Junction speeds 16

6 Modelled safety impacts 18

6.1 Braking modelling 186.2 Stopping distances on links 186.3 Stopping distances at junctions 196.4 Implications of modelled situations 20

7 Observed safety 21

7.1 Belgravia 217.2 Accidents at junctions 227.3 Accidents on links 23

8 Household survey 24

8.1 Sampling 248.2 Sample composition 25

iv

Page

9 Residents opinions 26

9.1 Streetscape 269.2 Parking 27

9.2.1 Car use and off-street parking 279.2.2 Parking problems 289.2.3 Parked vehicles 289.2.4 Respondents’ issues with parking in their street 29

9.3 Main safety concerns 309.4 Road safety 31

9.4.1 Walking and cycling safety 329.4.2 Safety of children 329.4.3 Improving road safety in residential streets 33

9.5 Accidents 339.6 Non-motorised vs. Motorised users: Access 349.7 Footways 349.8 Summary of household survey findings 34

10 Testing of network layout using SafeNet 35

10.1 Junction spacing 3510.1.1 Analysis 3610.1.2 Overall results 38

10.2 Crossroads analysis 38

11 Conclusions 38

12 Acknowledgements 40

13 References 40

Appendix A: Literature review 43

Appendix B: Case study sites 61

Appendix C: Braking distance matrix 82

Appendix D: Household survey questionnaire 85

Abstract 89

Related publications 89

1

Executive Summary

! Conflicting movements at junctions result in a highernumber of accidents, but geometry can lower speedswhich reduce both the likelihood and severity ofaccidents.

! Stopping distances on links and at junctions have amargin of safety down to a visibility of around 20 m inthe environments studied, unless other speed reductionfeatures are incorporated.

! The sites included roads with a range of surface types,varying use of speed restriction measures, differentlevels of on-street parking and a range of forwardvisibilities. The results are consequently applicable to awide range of developments throughout the UK.

! Parking was found to reduce speeds on links and atjunctions by 2 to 5 mph. That is, drivers react to theperceived danger by reducing their speed. The effect ofthis on safety is unclear. Reducing speed increasesrelative safety, but parked vehicles reduce lines of sightand can consequently obscure (crossing) pedestrians.There was no clear indication that this resulted in highernumbers of casualties from the accident statisticsanalysis. However, many of the reported accidents fromthe household survey were related to parked vehicles.

! The largest effect on speeds was found to be associatedwith reducing lines of sight. A reduction from 120 to 20metres reduced approach speeds by approximately 20 mphon links and 11 mph at junctions. Modelling has shownthe reduction in approach speed should result in sightdistances of 40 metres being safe, i.e. there is anacceptable safety margin to stop should a danger presentitself. However, the margin of safety becomes rapidlysmaller below 40 metres.

In addition, a household survey was undertaken toobtain the residents’ opinions of their streets at the twentycase study sites. This was to determine ‘user satisfaction’of a variety of residential street layouts, and to considerresidents’ transport needs alongside their perceptions ofsafety and sustainability of their streets. Three hundredhousehold questionnaires were returned for analysis toexplore the relationship between resident perceptions ofroad safety and highway geometries.

With respect to the perceptions of residents surveyed,the following can be concluded:

! Across the sites there were mixed reactions to whetherpersonal, or road, safety issues were of most concern.Residents at DB32 compliant sites considered personalsafety (in relation to crime) to be of the greatest concern,but this was not the case at other sites. It is unclearwhether this was owing to higher crime rates at theDB32 sites, the perception of road safety at other sites,or a combination of both these factors. However, overallnearly half the respondents considered road safety to bethe main issue, compared with nearly 30% whoconsidered personal safety to be the highest concern.

Demand for the Manual for Streets emerged from theGovernment research report Better Streets, Better Places(ODPM, 2003), which was commissioned to establishwhether there are any problems over the adoption of newhighways meeting the requirements of Planning PolicyGuidance Note 3, Housing (PPG3). This document focusedon new residential streets and identified highway standardsas a barrier to placemaking in the UK. The reportconcluded with a recommendation for development of aManual for Streets to replace Design Bulletin 32 (DB32)with an updated set of design guidelines for local roads toprovide a catalyst for innovative design that emphasisesplace over movement.

The resulting Manual for Streets is a guide to thedesign, construction, adoption and maintenance of newstreets whose aim is to deliver streets that help strengthencommunities, are pleasant and attractive, are cost-effective to construct and maintain, and are safe. TheManual for Streets has updated geometric guidelines forlow trafficked residential streets, examined the effect ofthe environment on road user behaviour, and drawn onpractice in other countries.

This research undertaken by TRL provides the evidencebase upon which the revised geometric guidelines in theManual for Streets are based, including:

! Link widths.

! Forward visibility.

! Visibility splays.

! Junction spacing.

In order to obtain primary data for examining therelationships between geometry, the environment, speed,and casualties, twenty survey sites were selectedthroughout the UK comprising a mixture of new build,Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment(CABE) good practice, DB32 compliant and historic(pre-war) street layouts, to produce a wide range ofdevelopment type to ensure the results were applicable tomany developments within the UK. Methods adopted tocollect data included measurement of X- and Y-distancesat junctions, visibility on links, road width, manual andautomated speed data readings and observations onparking, signing, lining, and traffic calming. 190 linksand 77 junctions were included in the research.

The headline findings from the site surveys can besummarised as follows:

! Lower vehicle speeds are associated with reduced roadwidth and reduced visibility, both on links and atjunctions.

! Site type (for example historic, new build, DB32compliant etc) is not a significant determinant of speed.Junction and link geometries are the important variables.

! Speed is known to be a key factor for road safety. Thefindings of this research are consistent with this fact,indicating that higher speeds on links increase thelikelihood of injury and its severity.

2

These results have been integrated into the Manual forStreets in the form of appropriate standards for residentialstreet design, and will become the focus for Governmentguidance on new residential streets.

3

Acronyms

ATC Automatic Traffic Count

CABE Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment

CAD Computer Aided Design

DB32 Design Bulletin 32

DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government

DEFRA Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

DETR Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

DfT Department for Transport

DPH Dwellings per hectare

HA Hectare

MfS Manual for streets

MPH Miles per hour

ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

PPG Planning Policy Guidance

SafeNet Software for Accident Frequency Estimation for Networks

5

1 Introduction

The Manual for Streets (MfS) is intended to consolidate thenecessary components for effective street design into asingle source of information. The MfS builds upon andupdates the guidance contained in Design Bulletin 32(DB32) and its companion guide ‘Places Streets andMovement: A Companion Guide To Design Bulletin 32,Residential Roads and Footpaths’. Its aim is to provideguidance for practitioners who will shape the developmentsof the future. It is therefore intended for:

! Developers.

! Local highway authorities.

! Local planning authorities.

! The emergency services.

! Utility and drainage companies.

! Access officers.

! Public transport providers.

! Architects.

! Highway engineers.

! Landscape architects.

! Town planners.

! Transport planners.

! Urban designers.

1.1 Manual for StreetsThe Manual for Streets has been designed to recognise thefull range of design criteria necessary for the delivery ofmulti-functional streets, assisting practitioners in makinginformed decisions relating to appropriate street design. TheManual will initially cover the design considerations forresidential streets and other lightly trafficked local roads.

The Manual deals with underlying values that can becreatively deployed by practitioners in order to pursue theGovernment’s ‘placemaking’ agenda of individuallydistinctive localities, while ensuring streets remainfunctional and safe. The Manual for Streets was preparedagainst a backdrop of sustainable development guidanceand initiatives, including the Department for Communitiesand Local Government’s Communities Plan ‘SustainableCommunities: Building for the Future’ (ODPM, 2003b) toensure that it facilitates the long-term sustainability ofstreets, and contributes to an enhanced sense of place.

The Manual for Streets supports the objectives of theGovernment’s commitment to sustainable development asexpressed in ‘A Better Quality of Life: A Strategy forSustainable Development in the United Kingdom’ (DETR,1999) and in the latest document on delivering the UK’ssustainable development strategy ‘Securing the Regions’Futures: Strengthening Delivery of SustainableDevelopment in the English Regions’ (DEFRA, 2006).This will ensure that residential streets meet the needs ofall street users, not just motorised vehicles.

1.2 Design Bulletin 32The document DB32 was used to assist in designing newhousing developments. It was created to remove the

restrictive criteria imposed in the post-war period thatresulted in a high degree of conformity between estateswithin the UK. Its purpose was to permit a more flexibleapproach to design that enabled developments to be bettertailored to the requirements of residents, for exampleHome Zones in which a variety of techniques (speedreductions and surface treatments) are used to create agreater impression of shared space.

However, a number of requirements are included toensure safety of pedestrians and road users within theestate. These include minimum sight distances in order thatvehicles travelling at a design speed are able to react to adanger and safely stop. The sight distances are specifiedfor an observer’s eye being between 1.05 and 2 metresabove ground level and in the case of a junction, the carbeing 4.5 metres from the stop line. The required visibilitydistances are summarised in Table 1.1, and Figure 1.1.

However, according to ‘Places Streets and Movement:A Companion Guide To Design Bulletin 32, ResidentialRoads and Footpaths’ these should be extended to 45 min a 20 mph zone and 90 m in a 30 mph zone to allowfor drivers exceeding the speed limit by up to 10 kph(Table 1.2). Also the Y-distance should be measured forvehicles at the following distances from the stop line onthe minor arm of the junction:

! 9.0 m: The normal requirement for major new junctionsand for the improvement of existing junctionsbetween access roads and district or local distributorroads - for instances where the minor road is busy.

! 4.5 m: For less busy minor roads and busy privateaccess points.

! 2.4 m: The minimum necessary for junctions withindevelopment to enable a driver who has stoppedat a junction to see down the major road withoutencroaching onto it.

! 2.0 m: For single dwellings or small groups of up to halfa dozen dwellings or thereabouts.

Table 1.1 DB32 visibility (Y) distances for differentdesign speeds

Speed ( mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30

Speed (kph) 8 16 24 32 40 48

Distance (metres) 6 14 23 33 45 60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Speed (mph)

Y D

ista

nce

(met

res)

Figure 1.1 DB32 visibility (Y) distances for differentdesign speeds

6

Consequently, consider a residential area with a 30 mphlimit. A driver on a minor road approaching a junctionshould be able to see vehicles at a distance of 60 to 90metres from the junction on the major road depending onwhether the drivers on the major road remain within thespeed limit. Further, they should have this field of view fora distance of 4.5 metres before the junction if showingcaution, or 2.4 metres if they are stopping at the junction.

These calculations assume a design speed and thestandard stopping model of a driver when presented with adanger: i.e. permitting a reaction time and then assumingthe driver will apply a constant braking force. However,the situation can be considered from the opposite direction.

If sight lines are reduced below the recommendation inthese guidelines, do drivers react to the lack of visibility?Suppose drivers reduce their speed when encounteringreduced lines of sight and therefore increased risk. Thiscould, in effect, result in the housing development being assafe as one with greater lines of sight and promote lowerspeeds. That is, the reduction in speed could still permitthem to stop the same distance before a hazard eventhough they see it when it is closer to them.

1.3 Underlying researchTRL has performed research into identifying andinvestigating design elements whose impact was not fullyunderstood, and in particular those not previously based onrigorous research. The study initially performed a literaturereview of local authority design guides: 32 were included.These indicated designs were constrained by the followingcritical aspects of highway geometry:

! Link widths.

! Forward visibility.

! Visibility splays.

! Junction spacing.

Little robust research supporting the DB32 standardswas found in the review. Furthermore, the identifiedresearch did not explore detailed design elements, such asgeometric dimensions.

The review revealed the majority of the localauthorities complied with, and recommended, the samestandards as DB32. Where standards differed, they weregenerally more stringent than those in DB32. Asexpected, road safety was the most significant barrier tothe adoption of standards with relaxed values of widthand visibility.

This research therefore aimed to assist in setting thedesign standards for MfS and to inform its developmentwith respect to road widths, visual splays, parking, andremoval of road markings. In particular, it aimed to:

! Examins the relationship between driver behaviour andhighway geometry.

! Establish the safety of roads which do not meet DB32standards in terms of casualty numbers, driver behaviourand resident perceptions.

! Investigate highway layouts to determine whether morepermeable layouts are associated with higher levels ofcasualties than spine and cul-de-sac layouts.

Three strands of research were included:

1 The first consisted of observations, conducted at twentyresidential developments, to examine links and junctionsthat were either at, or below, the limits specified in DB32.

Observations included detailed information on thegeometry and layout of each link and junction,observations of speed and obtaining accident statistics.Statistical analysis and predictive models based uponthese observations indicated whether relaxed geometricand visibility values could be incorporated into the MfS.The features also varied in relation to:

! Road width.

! Whether speed humps were present.

! Whether parking was permitted.

! Whether lines were present to indicate priorities e.g.give way line.

! The type of road surfacing used.

2 A household postal survey was conducted at the sametwenty sites. This explored residents’ opinions on anumber of aspects of their living environment. However,the emphasis of the questionnaire was to considerwhether they had any perceived safety or personalsecurity concerns. A comparison across the sites couldtherefore investigate if junction and road geometries thatdo not meet DB32 standards are perceived by residentsto be as safe as those that conformed to the standards.

3 Lastly, SafeNet, which can model a road network andconsider the effect of changes on safety, was used tostudy the effect of junction spacing on casualty rates,and the effect of changing the characteristics of aresidential area from a cul-de-sac approach to a moreconnected layout.

Within this report the following terminology is used:

! A site is a housing development that has been surveyedin this study.

! A feature is defined as being either a link or junctionwithin the site.

1.4 Report structure

Section 2 discusses the research methodology used, includinga rationale for selecting the research study sites and thevariety of methods used to collect and analyse the field data.

Section 3 provides a literature review and gap analysis thatsupports the development of the primary researchmethodology.

Table 1.2 Companion guide Y-distances

Speed (mph) 20 30 40 50 60 70

Speed (kph) 32 48 64 80 97 113

Distance (metres) 45 90 120 160 215 295

allowing speeding

Distance (metres) 33 60 120 160 215 295

7

Section 4 discusses the site surveys conducted, including adescription of the different sites and the results andanalysis of the surveys, particularly with regard tovisibility on links and at junctions in relation to trafficspeed and accident risk.

Section 5 describes the models used to consider whetherany observed speed reductions are sufficient for a link orjunction with limited visibility to be safe.

Section 6 considers the predicted effect of limited visibilityon speeds, and models a number of situations to ascertainwhether the speed reductions compensate for the lack ofvisibility.

Section 7 analyses road accidents statistics (STATS19data) for the research sites and the relationship betweenspeed and geometries on accidents.1

Sections 8 and 9 give an overview of results from thehousehold survey intended to assess residents’ opinions ofthe streets where they live and to identify particular issuesthat residents have about the design and layout of theirstreet and built environment.

Section 10 presents the results and analysis of the junctionspacing research using the Software for AccidentFrequency Estimation for Networks (SafeNet) to comparehypothetical networks based on DB32 compliant and‘organic’ street layouts.

Section 11 concludes with an overall summary of theresearch and a discussion about the proposed standardsthat will be included in the Manual for Streets.

The report concludes with a summary of results from theresearch, and how this affects the standards for residentialstreet design, to be revised for the MfS.

2 Review of existing literature

A literature review (see Appendix A) was performed as aninitial element of this research to collect togetherinformation relevant to the Manual for Streets. Its purposewas to perform a gap analysis. That is, to ascertain whereresearch could underpin the DB32 standards so they couldbe directly included in the Manual for Streets, and toidentify elements within the current guidance based uponlimited research (either needing validating or furtherresearch). Reports and articles on the following subjectswere sought:

! Policy, legal and technical frameworks.

! Objectives for streets.

! Sustainable communities.

! Quality places.

! Movement.

! Access.

! Parking.

! Materials, street furniture and planting.

! Lighting.

! Services and drainage works.

! Maintenance and management.

The literature evidence relating to each element is thenlisted, so that it may be cross-referenced to Appendix A.This gap analysis is shown in Table 2.1.

The review found few references concerned with theeffect of geometric dimensions within the contexts required.However, references were located on the theoretical aspectsof creating ‘liveable’ streets. The majority of elements wereassessed as partially covered by current knowledge butneeding validation before being used.

One element covered within a number of researchreports was road or carriageway width. However, furtherresearch was necessary to determine suitable carriagewaywidths within residential areas: i.e. those promoting lowtraffic speeds, create a safe environment and ensureadequate access.

Traffic calming measures also have adequate coveragewithin the literature, again with the objective of slowingspeeds and creating safer places. Whilst the majority of therobust evidence is concerned with physical traffic calmingmeasures (humps, pinch points etc), there is recentresearch examining psychological traffic calmingmeasures. These measures use the surroundings toinfluence driver behaviour (e.g. width of road, colouredsurfaces, location and height of buildings close to thecarriageway edge). However, this research was primarilyconducted in rural areas and hence its applicability toresidential areas requires further research.

There are a number of publications on Home Zones, orthe Dutch ‘Woonerven’. Research studies have also beenundertaken focusing on traffic volumes, accident levelsbefore and after implementation and the views of residents.However, there are some research gaps within the area ofHome Zones, such as the inclusion of disabled people(research has recently been commissioned on this topic)and robust research focusing on the safety implications ofHome Zones (as only limited ‘after’ data was analysed)and associated social impacts of schemes.

Parking research was fairly extensive, but not consideredrobust. Generally, research suggests parking should beincorporated within the design of residential streets as it canact as a traffic calming measure. However, its inclusion inresidential streets should not create danger for playingchildren or crossing residents, especially parking atjunctions, which may obstruct the vision of drivers.

Overall the research review highlighted a lack of robustresearch supporting DB32 standards and the information tobe incorporated in the Manual for Streets. Where researchhas been undertaken, detailed design elements, such asgeometric dimensions, have been neglected. Consequently,the following design aspects were investigated further:

! Road widths – which widths result in low speeds whilstmaintaining safety, access and ease of traffic flow?

! Visual splays – which sight lines result in preferreddriver behaviours, whilst maintaining safety?1 In this report, accidents are used to denote personal injury incidents.

8

Table 2.1 Gap analysis of research literature

Supported

Chapter content specifications Fully Partially Not Evidence source (see Appendix A for full details)

Street networks and types

Hierarchies of traffic and place functions "

Travel demand by mode "

Grids vs cul-de-sac "

Block dimensions – find / course grain "

Achieving appropriate speeds throughSee ‘Achieving appropriate speeds’ below

network / environmental effects

Public transport, walk and cycle networks "

Integration / segregation of cars / cycles / people "

Guard railing " English partnerships and Llewellyn

Davis (2002)

Mixed use streets "

Shared space "

Shared surfaces " Polus and Craus (1996)

Home Zones " Barrel and Whitehouse (2004); Tilly et al.

(2005); Layfield et al. (2005);

Webster et al. (2005)

Rural lanes / Quiet lanes " DfT (2004); Kennedy et al. (2004a and b)

Street dimensions

Design vehicles – dimensions, dynamic envelopes "

Widths – carriageways, cycleways, footways shared areas " Burrow (1977) Daisa & Peers (1997);

Gibbard et al. (2004); Oxley (2002);

Lawton et al. (2003)

Capacity for vehicle movement "

Street in cross-section – kerb height / crossfalls "

Absence of centre-line markings " Countryside Agency (2005)

Where streets meet

Place importance of junctions / squares "

Visibility splays "

Unmarked junctions "

Junction spacing "

X junctions "

T junctions "

Roundabouts " Lawton et al. (2003)

Signals "

Informal squares "

Footway crossings "

Pedestrian crossings- signal / zebra / refuge / courtesy "

Continued ....

9

! Parking – How can parking be best incorporated intoresidential design? Can it be successfully used as atraffic calming measure? What are the impacts onsafety? Can the quality of the area be retained?

! Removal of road markings – What effect does theremoval of road markings have on driver behaviour?

3 Site selection and measurement

3.1 Site selectionTwenty survey sites were selected throughout the UK; tenof the sites were ‘case study’ and ‘new build’ areasselected by CABE. The remaining 10 sites were a mix ofhistoric (pre-War), DB32 compliant and new build sitesselected to produce a wide range of development type to

ensure the results were applicable to many developmentswithin the UK. The full list of sites is shown in Table 3.1,and their distribution within the UK is shown in Figure 3.1(see Appendix B for a summary of each study site).

The sites were initially evaluated from CAD drawingsand then assessed in detail during a site visit.

3.2 CAD measurementsDetailed site characteristics were measured from site plans:technical drawings of the selected sites depicting allstructures in the area. Using AutoCAD it was possible totake accurate measurements of sight lines, as the drawingswere detailed, accurate and all obscuring features wererecorded (see Figure 3.2).

The X-distance was set at 2.4, 4.5 and 9 m from thejunction measured down the centre line of the road, in

Table 2.1 (Continued) Gap analysis of research literature

Supported

Chapter content specifications Fully Partially Not Evidence source (see Appendix A for full details)

Street alignments

Gradients "

Curve radii, horizontal and vertical "

Forward visibility " Kennedy et al. (1998); Layfield et al.

(1996); Summersgill and Layfield

(1996); Taylor et al. (1996)

Achieving appropriate speeds

Ideally through network (and natural traffic calming) " Scottish Executive (1999); Grayling et al.

(2002); Vis et al. (1990) Kennedy et al.

(2005); Hardy (2004); Elliott et al. (2003)

Traffic calming as fallback " Engel and Thomsen (1992)

Integration of TC with environment "

Access

Access requirements to buildings – people and vehicles "

Emergency access. References to building regulations "

Servicing: refuse collection, deliveries, removals "

DDA/disabled requirements – into buildings, along streets " Oxley (2002)

Need to balance the perceived conflict between accessibility " ODPM (2004)

and crime – permeability versus security

Parking

Layouts / design of on/off street parking " Noble and Jenks (1996); TRL (1992);

Noble et al. (1987);

Westdijk (2001);

Scottish Executive (2005)

Relationship with capacity and safety "

Motorcycle / cycle parking "

10

Table 3.1 Research study sites

Rural / Housing Land NetworkCharacteristic Town Ward Region urban period use Density type

Historic (pre-war) Reading New Town South East Urban Victorian Mixed High GridLavenham Suffolk South East Rural Medieval Residential Low OrganicOxford Jericho South East Urban Victorian Residential High GridBloxham Village Oxfordshire South East Rural Victorian Residential Low OrganicChichester West Sussex South East Urban Medieval Mixed High OrganicLondon Belgravia South East Urban Victorian Mixed High Grid

Case study Charlton Down West Dorset South West Rural Post 90s Residential High OrganicLichfield Darwin Park West Midlands Urban Post 90s Residential High OrganicEastleigh Former Pirelli site South East Urban Post 90s Residential High Atypical gridNewhall East Harlow East of England Suburban Post 90z Residential High OrganicGuildford Queen’s Park South East Urban Post 90s Residential Mid OrganicLondon Tower Hamlets South East Urban Post 90s Residential High GridGlasgow Crown St. Scotland Urban Post 90s Residential High OrganicChelmsford Windley Tye East of England Suburban Post 90s Residential Low Court layoutChelmsford Beaulieu Park East of England Urban Post 90s Residential Low GridManchester Hulme North West Urban 1990s Residential Low Grid

New build Ipswich Rapier St. South East Suburban Post 90s Residential High Atypical gridPortishead Port Marine South West Suburban Post 90s Residential Mid Organic

DB32 Compliant Leicester Syston East Midlands Urban 1980> Residential Mid Cul-de-sac with spineReading Lower Earley South East Urban 1980> Residential Mid Cul-de-sac with spine

Figure 3.1 Distribution of sites

1: New Town, Reading2: Lavenham, Suffolk3: Jericho, Oxford4: Bloxham Village, Oxfordshire5: Chichester, West Sussex6: Belgravia, London7: Charlton Down, West Dorset8: Darwin Park, Lichfield9: Former Pirelli Site, Eastleigh

10: Newhall, East Harlow11: Queens Park, Guildford12: Tower Hamlets, London13: Gorbals, Glasgow14: Windley Tye, Chelmsford15: Beaulieu Park, Chelmsford16: Hulme, Manchester17: Rapier Street, Ipswich18: Portmarine, Portishead19: Syston, Leicester20: Lower Earley, Reading

11

accordance with generally accepted practice. From thesethree distances the line of sight (Y-distance) is measuredleft and right looking out of the junction. The Y-distance isthe furthest point of visibility on the kerb (the blue line),taking into account any obscuring features, and ismeasured from the centre line of the side road.

Lines of sight on links were measured using a similarmethod. The driver’s (direct) sight line was used to findthe shortest distance ahead of the vehicle that is visiblewhen on the link. In addition, the width of the road, bothwith and without footways, was also measured from theCAD drawings.

This information gave a first indication of the range ofgeometries available across the chosen sites. However, thiscould not take account of all complications on site. Thereforethis information was validated and enhanced by site surveys.

3.3 Site surveys

All site surveys were conducted from January to March2006. Each survey comprised measurements of speed, roadgeometry and visibility, at a minimum of 10 junctions and2 links within the site, and speed readings at a minimum of5 junctions and 2 links. The purpose of the surveys was tovalidate the measurements taken from the CAD drawingsand obtain a sample of speeds from a wide range ofjunctions and links throughout the sites. The followingprocedures were undertaken at each junction and link:

Junction visibility (Y Distance)

1 The centre line of the main road was ascertained.

2 The three X values were measured and marked off usingchalk on the road.

3 Y-distances were measured at a height of 1.2 m fromeach X chalk mark to the left and right.

4 Where parking was explicitly marked on the road, asecond measurement, assuming a parked vehicle waspresent, was also recorded. Lines of sight also took intoaccount cars parked on the road, as these were assumed tobe the general conditions that drivers would encounter.

5 Any visible obstructions were noted down, theseincluded buildings, brow of a hill, phone boxes, hedges,parked cars etc.

Link forward visibility

1 A pre-defined place in the road calculated to haveminimum visibility from the CAD drawings was located.

2 All obstructions, including parking, were recorded.

3 Taking the obstructions into account the pre-definedpoint of minimum visibility was confirmed as correct, oradjusted and recorded.

4 The distance between the correct position and thefurthest point of visibility was measured: along the roadif considered safe, or along the kerb, and the road widthwas recorded.

Manual speed measurements (speed gun)

! Recorded vehicle speeds for 20 minutes at a sub-sampleof links and junctions.

Sample sizesEstimates from CAD drawings and measurements fromsite surveys resulted in geometric information beingcollected for:

! 190 junctions, and

! 77 links.

A speed gun was used to record individual vehicleapproach speeds for approximately twenty minutes at asub-sample of the surveyed features. Exact speeds (to thenearest mph) were recorded above 10 mph, however,manually collected speeds at, or below, 10 mph wereclassified into one category. These observations werecollated into an analysable form for

! 57 junctions, and

! 23 links.

Also, automatic traffic counters (ATCs) were installedfor one week on:

! 18 links.

! The approach to 10 junctions.

The speed gun survey provided a snapshot of theapproach speeds of drivers across a wide range of differentjunctions and links, and therefore a wide range ofgeometries. In contrast, the ATC data was restricted to asmaller number of features, and therefore geometries, butgave a robust picture of the approach speeds used.

The purpose of the next section is to examine how thespeeds varied across the features studied and identify thecharacteristics that influenced those speeds.

4 Speeds and geometry data site ranges

A general understanding of the effect of road layout, andthe resulting visibilities, on drivers’ speeds can only be

x

y

Obscuring Feature

Centre Lines

Figure 3.2 Y-distance at junctions

12

200150100500Y distance measured at 4.5 metres from junction

(metres)

60

40

20

0

Freq

uenc

y

Mean = 30.97 Std. Dev. = 27.717

N =194

Figure 4.3 Range of observed junction visibilities

achieved if a wide range of different site conditions arestudied. The selected 20 sites were consequently chosen tobe representative of developments throughout the country.In terms of the type of sites studied there were:

! 6 historic (pre-war) sites.

! 6 sites conforming to CABE good practice guidelines.

! 2 sites conforming to DB32 specifications.

! 6 other (case study) sites.

Road surfacing within the sites varied from tarmac(12 sites), through to a mixture of tarmac and block paving(3 sites) to wide-scale use of block paving (5 sites). Halfthe sites had no speed restricting measures present (e.g.road humps or horizontal deflections), whilst some form ofspeed restricting measures were present in the others. Theextent of on-street parking also varied across the sites with7 sites having no parking near to junctions in evidenceduring the site visits, whilst some vehicles parked close tothe junctions at other sites. Also, parking on the linksvaried between no observed parked vehicles, to parking onone side of the road on some links and parking on bothsides of the road on others.

Forward visibilities on links, and visibility at junctions(Y-distance), were estimated from plans of thedevelopments and measured during the site visits. Often,the observed visibilities were less than those estimatedbefore the site visit (using AutoCAD). This was owing tothe presence of street furniture and other obstructions (forexample planting) that limited visibility. This study isconsidering the effect of actual visibility on drivers’speeds, therefore the visibilities measured on site havebeen used in assessing driver adaptive behaviour. Theobserved ranges of road width, forward visibility on linksand visibility at junctions are shown in Figures 4.1 to 4.3.

Road widths (excluding footways) generally varied from4 to 10 metres across the studied sites. Visibilities on links,and at junctions, varied from below 10 metres toapproximately 100 metres. The sites can therefore beconsidered to be representative of the majority of situationsoccurring within residential developments in the UK.

4.1 OutliersSites with abnormal characteristics can distort the findingsof any statistical analysis. Such sites can produceobservations that significantly differ from the trendspresent within, and across, other typical sites: suchobservations are referred to as outliers. These observationscan therefore affect the statistical models fitted to the data,referred to as points of high influence.

The accepted approach in these situations is to excludethese abnormalities from the analysis and produce modelsthat reflect the trends within the majority of situations. Theprevious section shows that nearly all the sites have roadwidths less than 10 metres (excluding footways) and linesof sight of less than 100 metres on links and at junctions.In addition, the average daily flows and average linkspeeds at each of the sites studied using ATCs aresummarised in Table 4.1.

Observations from Belgravia were anomalous. The roadwidth where the ATC was situated was 11.4 metres wide(excluding footways), and the average for all linkssurveyed in Belgravia was 10.5 metres. In addition, the

12.010.08.06.04.02.0

Road width without footways (metres)

40

30

20

10

0

Freq

uenc

y

Mean =6.285 Std. Dev. =1.641

N =145

Figure 4.1 Range of observed road widths

450400350300250200150100500

Forward visibility (metres)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Freq

uenc

y

Mean = 57.187 Std. Dev. = 69.7081

N = 99

Figure 4.2 Range of observed link forward visibilities

13

forward visibility on the link where an ATC was installedwas 446 metres and generally there was good visibility onthe links throughout the Belgravia site. These conditionsresulted in the highest average speed in any site. Inaddition, the daily vehicle flows were almost 30% higherthan on any other site. Thus the Belgravia observations aregenerally excluded from the analysis performed. As aconsequence, the results can be considered to be relevantfor developments such as shown in Figure 4.4 with roadwidths up to 10 metres and visibilities on links (and atjunctions) of up to 100 metres, and not for those with gridlayouts such as Belgravia (see Figure 4.5) with wide roadsand larger visibilities.

The site with the next highest average link speed wasLeicester where the forward visibility was 65 metres, andthe lowest average link speeds were at Beaulieu Park inChelmsford, where the forward visibility was 10 metres.The following sections consider the effect of forwardvisibility on links (and visibility at junctions) and otherrelevant influencing factors on speed.

4.2 Variation within the dataRanges in geometry, parking, signing and speed reductionmethods present within the 20 studied sites have beenexplored. The sites (excluding Belgravia) provide a goodvariation in all these site dependent factors that mayinfluence speeds. However, it is important to be able toensure that these are the only factors affecting differencesobserved between the sites and features studied, in orderthat the results are not confounded by other differences.Other possible influences at a given feature include:

! Time of day, for example night driving.

! Day of week, weekend driving compared with weekdaydriving.

! Weather conditions.

! Age of driver.

! Driving style.

! Other vehicles present.

It is not possible to take account of all these factors withinthis type of analysis. However, the best consistency wassought between the manual speeds and loop speeds. Allmanual speeds were collected on weekdays in the daytime.Consequently, the speed loop analysis was also restricted toobservations on a weekday between 0700 and 1900.

Table 4.1 Average flows and speeds

Site Average daily flow Average speed (mph)

Lower Earley 70.4 11.3Guildford 481.9 18.2New Town, Reading 242.6 14.4Chichester 1372.8 19.4Eastleigh 427.7 17.3Belgravia 2029.5 25.7Tower Hamlets 627.0 19.1Ipswich 121.6 19.0Lavenham 221.4 11.7Newhall 482.9 15.6Windley Tye 294.9 16.9Beaulieu 83.8 10.2Bloxham 112.3 12.5Portishead 1161.1 15.8Leicester 528.9 23.5Manchester 1060.6 19.3Lichfield 362.6 16.7Glasgow 1575.4 10.3

A 461

27

19

127

86.0m

45

119a

89.3m

51

The

24

33

LEAMONSLEY

WALSALL ROAD

VIC

TOR

IA

12

14

2

32

8

117

129

Vicarage

127a

15

23

121

40

44

40

38

House

36

32

26

4

11

2119

2

57

23

7

9

Court

Leomansley Court

37

53

27

22

15

CHATTERTON AVE

7

189

Easter Hill

97

145

104

178

98

139

147

174

179

99

101

SAXO

N WAL

K

LEOMANSLEY VIEW

Rookery

10

159

The Old

19

Vicarage

LANE

168a

25

105

9

5

168

2

BARDELL CLOSE

4187

El Sub Sta

192

25

21

52

16

2

ORMONDS CLOSE

6

1

3

1

6

4

2

8

5

ALESMORE MEADOW

11

59

17

194

CLO

SE

30

1

5

12

3

10

7

158

34

11

1

35

42

WALN

UT WALK

34

38

32

25

29

21

Headland

® Crown Copyright 2005. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449

92

1

146

138

5

106

CHRISTCHURCH

103

92.0m

165

14

PO

OLFIE

LD R

OA

D

4

2

177

14

12

10

170

WALSALL ROAD

191

BM 93.77m

= ATC Location

= Junctions Measured

= ATC I.D. = Links Measured

= Manual Speed Reading Locations

Lichfield

1

23

5

6

7

8

910

11

1

2

3

4

5

25

26

1

23

5

6

7

8

910

11

1

2

3

4

5

25

26

This organic layout is characterised by low link visibilities (see link 2 image). Jinction sight lines are also shorter compared to the grid layout of Belgravia.

23

22

25

2130

3 4

3 2

Figure 4.4 Lichfield – non-grid layout (limited visibilities)

14

ECCLESTON

STREET

100

Bolivian

106

107

108

109

Embassy

8

6.9m

LB

7.8m

TCB

BM 7.87

m

Eaton S

quar

e Gar

dens

6

24

SQUARE

26

7

36

11

32

103

102

EATON

95

98

Belgian Embassy

103

= ATC Location


= ATC I.D.

= Links Measured


Belgravia - London

The grid layout of Belgravia gives rise to high visibility levels at the majority of junctions, as can be seen in the image of junction 4. There were also clear views down the lengths of all measured links (link 1 = 122m, link 2 = 89m, link 3 = 194m, link 4 = 183m). This can be seen in the image of link 4.

46

7

5

LB

8

1 to 4

LB

14

12a

12

7.1m

EATON SQUARE

EATON S

QUARE

18

EATON S

QUARE

Eaton S

quar

e Gar

dens

EATON S

QUARE

117

118 7.5m

12

UPPER BELGRAVE STREET

KN

IGH

TS

BR

IDG

E A

ND

BE

LGR

AVIA

WA

RD

13

15

14

2

2

118

11

KN

IGH

TS

BR

IDG

E A

ND

BE

LGR

AVIA

WA

RD

115

6

8

10

22

12

111

109

7.9m

22

21

23

LB

6.9m

Tennis

Court

98.0m

LB

4

11

1

BM 8.12

m

17

31

5

36

24

EATON S

QUARE

ECCLESTON

STREET

6.9m

100

Bolivian

106

107

108

109

31

33

34

Embassy

8

Eaton S

quar

e Gar

dens

6.9m

LB

7.8m

TCB

BM 7.87

m

Eaton S

quar

e Gar

dens

LB

34

6

93

BELGRAVE PLACE

ECCLESTO

N MEW

S

24

SQUARE

26

7

36

11

32

107

103

44 to 47

40

CITIES OF LONDON AND WESTMINSTER BORO CONST

38

39

41 to 43

EATON S

QUARE

90

46

102

EATON

95

98

32

19

Nuffield Club

Belgian Embassy

103

LONDON EER

19

43

37

35b

35

ItalianEmbassy

Embass

y of th

e

Hunga

rian

People

's Rep

ublic

16

EATON M

EWS N

ORTH

54

56

14

15

86

38

83

LYALL STREET

84

BM 7.00

m

LB

69

BM 7.75

m

EATON P

LACE

68

8

57

45

CITY OF WESTMINSTER LB

WEST CENTRAL GL ASLY CONST

Club

82

The Irish

82

7

The Irish

Club

EATON S

QUARE

77

80

44

LYALL STREET

8

82

9

2

84

64

46

EATON M

EWS N

ORTH

48

47

62

6

48

EATON S

QUARE

51

EATON S

QUARE

57 to 60

53 to 56

6.9m

Eaton S

quar

e Gar

dens

The F

ive F

ields

61

67

72

6189

91

55

EATON M

EWS N

ORTH

73

53

108

57

58

103

93

EATON PLACE

101

102

104

99

7.3m

71

94

86

90

87

79

7.4m

62

2

LB

EATON SQUARE

66

66a

63


LBPH

35

12

7

2

34

1

123

4

5

6

15

9

10

11

823

Figure 4.5 Belgravia – grid layout (large visibilities)

It was also possible that differences could be influencedby the type of site. That is speeds could depend on theintrinsic design present within a historical site comparedwith one conforming to the DB32 standards: similar to theeffect of the grid layout in Belgravia. If such variations werepresent the different type of sites would result in distinctdata clusters. The resulting ATC link speeds according tothe measured visibility are shown in Figure 4.6.

Observed speeds, and average speeds, on links withinthe sites increased with forward visibility. The type of siteappeared to have no effect. Therefore, all sites and featureswithin them were considered together and the effect of

geometries, speed restriction measures and surface typesexplored across all non-anomalous data. Figure 4.7 showsthe same link speeds according to forward visibility andthe sites on which they were measured.

80.070.060.050.040.030.020.010.0

Measured forward visibility

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Obs

erve

d sp

eed

(km

/h)

Site 85th percentileSite meanOtherHistoricDB32 compliant

Type of site

Figure 4.6 Speed ATC data for links (by site type)

80.070.060.050.040.030.020.010.0

Measured forward visibility

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Obs

erve

d sp

eed

(km

/h)

LichfieldManchesterLeicesterPortisheadBloxhamBeaulieuWindley TyeLavenhamIpswichTower HamletsEastleighChichesterNew Town, ReadingGuildfordLower Earley

Site Number

Figure 4.7 Speed ATC data for links

Even restricting observations to weekdays during thedaytime, it is clear there was a large variation in speeds ateach site and on any given link. The variation will havebeen affected by factors that cannot be accounted forwithin this study, for example, variations in driving styleand individual circumstances occurring on the link.

15

Interestingly, some drivers were observed at approximately10 mph at nearly all the sites though this could be owing toparticular circumstances encountered by the drivers, forexample, slowing to permit a vehicle through from theother direction.

Increasing variation with increases in an independentvariable can be accounted for by transforming the dependentvariable. However, even with this approach the size of theinherent variation at any one site and feature will ensure thatthe percentage of variation accounted for by a model will below. The statistical models therefore investigatedexplanatory variables whose coefficient was significant, andhence captured a significant trend within the data, withoutplacing any criteria on the overall model’s fit, therefore theregression (R2) value could be low.

5 Speed adaptation

It is probable that drivers adapt their speed according tothe perceived danger on the road. Initial investigation inthe previous sections supports this as the observed averagespeed on a link decreased with forward visibility. The aimof the analysis was therefore to find significant trends inspeeds explainable by the differences between thejunction, and link, layouts.

Speed is an indicator of safety on a road. If the averagespeed is lower, then arguably the road is safer and lessintimidating to vulnerable road users. There are two effectsthat make the road safer. Firstly, the stopping distance ofvehicles is less and therefore the probability that a driverwill be able to stop and avoid an accident is higher underthe same conditions. Secondly, should an accident occur,its severity could be less owing to reduced impact speed.

Reductions occurring through non-geometric treatments(including the type of road surface, speed humps andsigning) would be expected to increase safety comparedwith a similar road without the same measures. However,the situation is more complicated with respect to geometricdifferences where lines of sight are affected. On the onehand drivers may reduce their speeds owing to theperceived danger, but there is a potential increase indanger through drivers being unable to see hazards untilthey are closer to them. These two effects counteract each

other. So, this research considers whether any observedspeed reductions (through perceived danger) are sufficientfor a link, or junction, with limited visibility to be as(actually) safe as one with good visibility.

5.1 Link speedsDrivers within a development generally negotiate anumber of links and junctions during their journey. Theywould be expected to have a highly variable drive cycle asthey can be stationary at junctions, and possibly on links,to give way to other traffic. They would be expected toadapt their speed to perceived dangers such as parking andhorizontal deflections that reduce their forward visibility.However, drivers will typically try to maintain themaximum speed to minimise their journey time.

Higher speeds, with greater variation, would be expectedon links as vehicles would not be expected to show thesame caution as at junctions. Therefore lines of sight areimportant on links because if lines of sight are reduced andspeeds remain high, an unexpected occurrence such as apedestrian stepping into the road, is more likely to result ina serious accident. For comparison the observed speeds onthe approach to a junction and on a link in Tower Hamletsare shown in Figure 5.1.

Two (multi-linear) regression models were fitted to theavailable data. One to the manual speed data from 23 linksand the other was fitted to the ATC data from 18 links. Theforms of the regressions were:

In( ) ( ) ( )speed a b road width c forward visibility= + + +

( ) ( )d parking e surface type+

The natural logarithm of speed (km/h) was found toproduce the best fit to the data. The results of the models areshown in Figures 5.2 and 5.3 respectively, and in Table 5.1.

The regressions explained only between 20 and 22% ofthe total variation in the data. However, all the variableswere significantly different from zero at the 95%confidence level.

The models imply that either permitting parking on alink, or the use of block paving, can reduce link speeds by2 to 5 mph which could improve safety, though there areclearly issues with pedestrians being obscured by parked

70605040302010

Observed speed (km/h)

400

300

200

100

0

Freq

uenc

y

Mean = 26.0118 Std. Dev. = 7.69201

N = 4,400

70605040302010

Observed speed (km/h)

400

300

200

100

0

Freq

uenc

y

Mean = 30.8089 Std. Dev. = 8.47612

N = 4,389

Figure 5.1a Junction speeds Figure 5.1b Link speeds

16

vehicles. Similarly, reducing road width also has the effect ofreducing vehicle speeds on the link. However, the two modelsdisagree about the extent of the reduction. The manual speeddata implies that a reduction from 10 to 5 metres could reducethe link speeds by between 9 to 20 mph, depending on theforward visibility on the link. In contrast, the ATC dataimplies the reduction is between 2 and 4 mph. It is theconservative estimate from the ATC data that is most likely tobe accurate given that the model included nearly as manysites and also given that the average number of manualobservations was 32 within any one site.

Both models agree that drivers do adapt their speedaccording to the forward visibility on the link. Accordingto the model based on the ATC data an average driver

Table 5.1 Predicted changes across roads with 5 metrewidths and forward visibilities between 5 and110 metres

Decrease ( mph)

No parking to parkingon both sides of link Tarmac to block paving

Link model Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Manual speeds with 2.8 4.8 2.5 4.4 average site features

Loop speeds 1.5 3.5 1.3 3.2

reduces their speeds by approximately 20 mph if the forwardvisibility on the link is reduced from 110 to 20 metres.

5.2 Junction speedsApproach speeds at junctions were generally found to beless than link speeds, as drivers slowed and showed cautionon the approach in case they needed to give way to anotherdriver with priority. The requirement to assess a number offactors during their approach seems to have both heightenedawareness and also increased workload on the driver.Overall there appeared to be more accidents on the sites atjunctions than on links: 110 accidents at 187 junctionscompared with 21 accidents on 74 links. Hence reducingspeeds and accidents at junctions is clearly important.

Information was available on the visibility (Y-distance)at each junction for a vehicle positioned at 2.4, 4.5 and9 metres before the junction. Initial tests considered whichvisibility was the best predictor for the observed approachspeeds. This model indicated that a visibility of 4.5 metresshould be used within the regression modelling.

Regression models were formed on both the manuallycollected speed data and on the ATC data. In addition,whilst the ATC data recorded the speeds of all approachingvehicles, the manual data also classified the vehicles as towhether they turned at the junction. Therefore a separatemodel was also formed for all vehicles that did not turn atthe junction for this data set. A summary of the models isshown in Figures 5.4 to 5.6 and Table 5.2.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Forward visibility (m)

Spe

ed (

mph

)

Road Width = 5mRoad Width = 6mRoad Width = 7 Road Width = 8mRoad Width = 9mRoad Width = 10m

0

10

20

30

40

60

50

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


Spe

ed (

mph

)

Road Width = 5mRoad Width = 6mRoad Width = 7 Road Width = 8mRoad Width = 9mRoad Width = 10m

Figure 5.2 Link model – manual speeds with average site features

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


Spe

ed (

mph

)

Road Width = 5mRoad Width = 6mRoad Width = 7mRoad Width = 8mRoad Width = 9mRoad Width = 10m

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


Spe

ed (

mph

)


Figure 5.3 Link model – ATC speeds

17

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Y Distance (m)

Spe

ed (

mph

)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


Spe

ed (

mph

)


Figure 5.5 Junction model – manual speeds with average site features (non-turners only)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Y Distance (m)

Spe

ed (m

ph)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


Spe

ed (

mph

)


Figure 5.4 Junction model – manual speeds with average site features (all vehicles)

Table 5.2 Predicted changes across roads with 5 metre widths and Y-distances between 5 and 110 metres

Decrease (mph)

No parking No junctionto parking Tarmac to markings to

near junction block paving junction markings

Junction model Min Max Min Max Min Max

Manual speeds with average site features 1.5 2.1 3.7 5.2 -1.1 -0.8

Manual speeds with average site features (non-turners only) 1.8 2.5 3.9 5.5 -1.0 -0.7

ATC speeds 3.5 6.4 2.9 5.4 3.2 5.9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Y Distance (m)

Spe

ed (

mph

)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


Spe

ed (

mph

)


Figure 5.6 Junction model – ATC speeds

18

Parking and block paving were found to reduce vehiclespeeds by approximately 2 to 5 mph, though there is anindication from the ATC data that parking near junctionscould have a slightly stronger effect on speeds thanparking on a link. The models disagree as to the effect ofjunction markings. The manual data implies that withoutjunction markings, speeds were slightly greater. However,the ATC data indicates drivers reduced their speeds bybetween 3 and 6 mph when markings were absent.

The models agree on the order of magnitude of speedreductions through width reductions. For example at ajunction with Y-distance at 4.5 metres of 40 metres, areduction of road width from 10 to 5 metres would beexpected to reduce approach speeds by between 6 and 9 mph.

Both models also agree that drivers reduced theirapproach speed if the visibility at the junction (Y-distance)was less. The manual data predicts a reduction ofapproximately 5 mph if the Y-distance is reduced from110 to 20 metres at a junction where the road width is5 metres. However, the ATC data considers that drivers aremore sensitive to a lack of visibility. Under the sameconditions the resulting model predicts that drivers wouldreduce their speed by 11 mph.

6 Modelled safety impacts

Drivers have been shown to alter their speed according tothe conditions on the road. Reductions through the type ofroad surface and speed reduction measures (for examplespeed humps) almost certainly improve safety at a site.However, the implication of reduced speeds owing toreductions in forward visibility on links and visibility atjunctions is less clear. The reduced speed results in asmaller stopping distance requirement, but less distancewill generally be available for stopping when a hazardbecomes visible. So, it is a question of whether driversslow enough to make the junctions and links with limitedvisibility as safe as those with greater visibility.

This section considers the predicted effect of limitedvisibility on speeds, and models a number of criticalsituations to ascertain whether the speed reductionscompensate for the lack of visibility. The average speedspredicted by the regression models formed on the ATCdata are assumed within this modelling as they are basedupon the largest data set, and the predictions are inapproximate agreement with those formed on the manuallycollected data.

6.1 Braking modellingIt is possible to model relative safety of the schemes byconsidering the ability of the drivers to stop under differentconditions. In order to create these braking models thefollowing has been assumed (see Appendix C):

! The average perception-reaction time of a driver is 1.4seconds when stopping in response to a hazard. This is aconservative estimate for the average driver, for exampleOlson (1997) reviewed 27 driver perception-reaction timestudies and concludes ‘a great deal of data suggest thatmost drivers (i.e. about 85%) should begin to respond by

about 1.5 seconds after first possible visibility of theobject or condition of concern’. Guidance in DB32 isbased on an assumed time of 2 seconds.

! The average deceleration rate of drivers stopping is4.5 ms-2. This is approximately half the maximumdecelleration that can be achieved by cars under favourableconditions, and is consistent with firm braking (see, forexample, Auto Express, 2005). Guidance in DB32 is basedon an assumed rate of 2.5 ms-2, approximately equivalent tostopping on snow without skidding.

For example, consider a driver travelling at 30 mph(13.4 ms-1). If the driver reacts to a danger by stoppingthen they take 13.4 × 1.4 = 18.8 metres to react to thedanger. Using standard equations of motion the drivertakes (13.4 × 13.4)/(2 × 4.5) = 20 metres to becomestationary when travelling at a constant rate ofdeceleration. That is, it takes a driver a total distance of38.8 metres to stop from a speed of 30 mph.

6.2 Stopping distances on linksA range of links have been examined in which theforward visibility generally varied from less than 10 metresto approximately 100 metres. It was found that theaverage speed of drivers reduced with forward visibility.In addition, block paving and parking on the link werefound to affect speeds. To remove this complication,within this modelling it is assumed that the link has atarmac surface and no parking is permitted on the link.Furthermore, it was found that link width also influencesspeeds. It is therefore assumed that the link is either 5 or 9metres wide, i.e. a narrow or wide road.

The situation considered is if an event occurs, forexample a pedestrian stepping into the road at the limit ofthe driver’s forward visibility. It is assumed that the driverwill react as fast as possible and apply a fairly high averagedeceleration to stop their vehicle, as discussed in Section 6.1above. The distance required to stop is compared with thedistance available for road widths of 5 and 9 metres inFigures 6.1 and 6.2 respectively, and Table 6.1. Further, thedistance required to stop assuming drivers had not alteredtheir speeds owing to the reduced forward visibility isincluded for reference.

Initially it was assumed that drivers did not adapt theirspeeds as forward visibility reduced, i.e. that they did notperceive limited visibility as a danger and react to it. Thenthe model predicts that a collision would occur if visibilitywas less than 40 to 50 metres depending on the width ofthe road.

According to the regression modelling, drivers adaptedtheir speeds. However, the reduction does not fullycompensate for the reduction in forward visibility. That isthe margin for error is reduced as visibility falls. Forexample, with a forward visibility of 100 metres, should apedestrian appear at the limit of their vision a driver ismodelled as being able to stop at a distance ofapproximately 60 metres before the pedestrian. However,the model predicts that the driver would be able to stopwith just over 20 metres to spare under the sameconditions if the forward visibility was 40 metres. This

19

reduces to only 5 metres to spare with a forward visibilityof 20 metres.

Given the driver behaviour observed and the modellingassumptions, it would be expected that schemes in whichforward visibility is less than 40 metres could bereasonably safe for average drivers under these conditionsowing to the reduction in drivers’ approach speed.However, the margin for error decreases continually withforward visibility, and schemes with forward visibility onlinks of less than 20 metres are relatively unsafe, in theenvironments studied, unless other speed reductionfeatures are incorporated.

6.3 Stopping distances at junctions

A range of junctions has been examined in which theY-distance generally varied from less than 10 metres toapproximately 100 metres. It was found that the averagespeed of drivers reduced with Y-distance. Also, blockpaving, parking and the presence of lines to indicatepriority at the junction were found to affect speeds. Withinthis modelling it is assumed that the junction has a tarmacsurface, there is no parking at the junctions and no lines toindicate priority.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


Tota

l sto

ppin

g di

stan

ce (

met

res)

Total stopping distance (m)

Stopping distance if speeds not altered (m)Available distance (m)

Figure 6.1 Modelled stopping distances on a link of width 5 metres

Table 6.1 Modelled stopping distances for links ofvarying width

Stoppingdistance Estimated

Forward Road if speeds stopping Distancevisibility width not altered distance remaining(m) (m) (m) (m) (m)

20 5 41.1 13.2 6.87 44.0 14.1 5.99 47.1 14.9 5.1

40 5 41.1 16.8 23.27 44.0 17.9 22.19 47.1 19.0 21.0

60 5 41.1 21.5 38.57 44.0 22.9 37.19 47.1 24.4 35.6

80 5 41.1 27.7 52.37 44.0 29.6 50.49 47.1 31.6 48.4

100 5 41.1 35.9 64.17 44.0 38.4 61.69 47.1 41.1 58.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


Tota

l sto

ppin

g di

stan

ce (

met

res)

Total stopping distance (m)

Stopping distance if speeds not altered (m)Available distance (m)

Figure 6.2 Modelled stopping distances on a link of width 9 metres

20

The situation considered is when two vehicles approach ajunction. The first vehicle is on a minor arm of the junctionand the driver is assumed to show caution. They thereforedecrease speed from the modelled (regression) approachspeed (to 5 mph) as they approach over the 50 metres beforethe junction. The other vehicle has priority and the driverwill approach at the modelled approach speed.

Modelling has been used to consider the effect of thefirst driver seeing the second vehicle on its approach. Itconsiders the distance before the stop line at which theyneed to see the vehicle in order that the driver can react(taking 1.4 seconds) and then apply a higher deceleration(4.5 m/s-2) and be stationary at the stop line. These havebeen calculated using standard equations of motion, andare shown in Figure 6.3.

The driver approaching on the minor arm of the junctionand showing caution needs to see the vehicle approachingon the major arm when they are more than approximately4 and 6 metres from the junction in order to stop. Oncecloser to the junction they are committed to entering it.That is, drivers make a decision at or before 4 metres fromthe junction as to whether to stop or continue. This is inagreement with the regression modelling findings. Theregression models found that the visibilities measured at4.5 metres were the best predictors of approach speed, sodrivers appear to be making a decision on whether to stop

or continue at the junction based upon the information theyhave available at this distance.

Modelling has also been used to consider the effect ofthe second driver seeing the first vehicle on its approach. Itconsiders the deceleration required for the vehicle to stopbefore the junction if the driver sees the first vehicle whenat the ‘Y-distance’ before the junction and then deceleratesafter the reaction time of 1.4 seconds, Figure 6.4.

If the visibility at the junction is greater than 40 metresa driver travelling at 30 mph should easily be able tostop. Drivers have been shown to reduce their approachspeed as the Y-distance reduces. However, it isinsufficient to fully compensate for the potential reducedstopping distance available.

The predicted reduction in approach speed results indrivers being able to stop using reasonable deceleration rates(less than 4.5 ms-2) under the modelled conditions if theY-distance is between 20 and 40 metres. Below 20 metresthe model implies it is unlikely that the driver will be ableto stop before the junction, and an accident would be morelikely to occur.

6.4 Implications of modelled situationsDB32 guidelines indicate that the Y-distance at a junctionwhere the speeds are 25 to 30 mph should not be less than45 to 60 metres. Regression modelling on a road with a

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Y Distance (metres)

Dis

tanc

e fr

om s

top

line

(met

res)

Figure 6.3 Distance at which first vehicle must see second vehicle in order to stop

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Y Distance = Distance when driver decides to stop (metres)

Dec

eler

atio

n re

quire

d (m

/s/s

)

Figure 6.4 Deceleration rate required by second vehicle to stop if seeing first vehicle at ‘Y-distance’ metres from junction

21

width of 9 metres indicates that the average approachspeed of a vehicle travelling towards a junction with suchlines of sight would be 27 to 29 mph.

Modelling indicates that a vehicle approaching from aminor road has a decision point at approximately 4 to 6metres from the junction after which they are committedto entering the junction. However, a vehicle on the majorarm of the junction with a Y-distance of 45 to 60 metresshould be able to comfortably stop should such acircumstance occur.

With smaller Y-distances, down to approximately20 metres, the situation also appears relatively safe foraverage drivers. The extra caution shown by drivers on theminor road, and therefore the reduced approach speeds,result in them needing to decelerate at up to 3ms-2 in orderto stop safely: less than the usually acceptable limit.

Below Y-distances of 20 metres, the modelling indicatesthat the reduction in speed observed amongst drivers isinsufficient for the junction to be safe.

Observed standard deviations in approach speed implythat the 85th percentile of approach speeds could be4 to 6 mph greater than the average assuming a normaldistribution. Modelling implies drivers at these higherspeeds would be able to safely stop if the Y-distance is30 to 35 metres. Consequently, Y-distances between 20and 40 metres, and slightly below the recommended valuesmay be possible, but caution needs to be shown as thepercentage of drivers approaching at speeds that requirelarge decelerations if a conflict occurs quickly increases asY-distance decreases.

Considering links with a forward visibility of over40 metres, modelling indicates average drivers would beable to react to and stop safely before reaching a stationaryobject (say a pedestrian) appearing at the limit of theirvisibility. In fact the braking model indicates that anaverage driver would be able to stop with a margin forerror (i.e. expected distance between the resultingstationary vehicle and stationary object) of over 20 metres.

However, this margin of error reduces to approximately5 metres if the forward visibility reduces to 20 metres eventaking into account the reduction in speed observedamongst drivers in these situations. That is, the extent thatdrivers slow down as forward visibility reduces isinsufficient to result in geometries with a forward visibilityof less than 20 metres being safe. This modelling wasbased upon a tarmac surface and no parking on the link:both of which reduced link speeds. Therefore acombination of speed reducing measures may furtherreduce speeds to safely permit lower forward visibilities.

Observed standard deviations in link speeds indicate thatthe 85th percentile of link speeds could be 3 to 8 mphgreater than the average. Modelling implies drivers at thesehigher speeds would be able to stop with a margin of errorof 8 metres when the forward visibility is 40 metres and4 metres if the forward visibility was 35 metres.Consequently, forward visibilities of between 20 and 40metres might be considered, but again caution needs to beshown as the percentage of drivers approaching at speedswhere the margin of error is small quickly increase.

7 Observed safety

Road safety can be explored by observing behaviour andanalysing trends in accident statistics. An investigation intoobserved behaviour showed that drivers adapted theirspeed on links where forward visibility was low and inresponse to road width and other speed limiting factors.The same was also seen at junctions where visibility, theY-distance, was low. However, although these modelledresponses indicated relatively small visibilities could beconsidered, drivers adapted insufficiently for visibilitiesbelow 20 metres (and possibly higher) to be as safe aslinks and junctions with higher visibilities.

The actual effect on the number of accidents was alsoexplored by collecting information on the number ofaccidents each year between 1995 and 2005 on all the 20sites (excluding Ipswich). However, where sites were built,or modified, between these dates, only data from the yearssince the site was in its current form were considered.Within the 19 sites, 261 links and junctions were studied,and at these features there was an average of 8.6 years ofaccident data at the 187 junctions and 8.3 years of data onthe 74 links.

Over all junctions there was an average of 0.07 accidentsper year, whilst at links the average was 0.03 accidents peryear. Consequently, it would appear that accidents are moreprevalent at junctions than on links. For this reason,junctions can be considered the most important feature withrespect to the number of accidents occurring on theresidential sites studied.

The STATS19 database classifies all accidents accordingto the severity of the injury to each of the casualties. Thetotal number of accidents for all ten years at the 19 sites (i.e.including dates before the sites were inhabited) shows that98% of the casualties at junctions were slightly (and 2%were fatally) injured, but just over half the casualties onlinks were seriously injured and the others were slightlyinjured. It is possible that this difference in severity is due tothe lower speeds of vehicles approaching junctions. Overallonly 27 casualties were seriously, or fatally, injured. Henceall accidents are considered together.

7.1 BelgraviaSection 4.1 showed that Belgravia was anomalous. Thedevelopment had a grid layout which resulted in largevisibilities on the links and at junctions. This combinedwith wide roads resulted in high vehicle speeds. Inaddition, the vehicle flows within this site weresignificantly higher than those at the other sites.

Considering all these factors, it is not surprising thatBelgravia also has anomalous accident data (in that it hadmore accidents than the other sites). Of the 131 accidentsoccurring on all 19 sites, 65 occurred within Belgravia. Thehigh incidence of accidents is shown in Figure 7.1 (note thatthe stars indicate the location of the accidents, some ofwhich denote multiple accidents at the same location).

Excluding Belgravia, over all junctions there was anaverage of 0.034 accidents per year, whilst on links theaverage was 0.028 accidents per year. Consequently, onthe remaining sites there appears to be an approximatelyequal likelihood of an accident at a junction, or on a link.

22

Table 7.1 Accidents with respect to visibility

Total Average numberY Distance Number of accidents of accidents per(metres) junctions per year junction per year

0 to 25 107 2.7 0.0325 to 50 48 2.6 0.0550 to 80 14 0.3 0.02Over 80 15 0.3 0.02

46

7

5

LB

8

1 to 4

LB

14

12a

12

7.1m

EATON SQUARE

EATON S

QUARE

18

EATON S

QUARE

Eaton S

quar

e Gar

dens

EATON S

QUARE

117

118 7.5m

12


KN

IGH

TSB

RID

GE

AN

D B

ELG

RAV

IA W

AR

D

13

15

14

2

2

118

11

KN

IGH

TSB

RID

GE

AN

D B

ELG

RAV

IA W

AR

D

115

6

8

10

22

12

111

109

7.9m

22

21

23

LB

6.9m

Tennis

Court

98.0m

LB

4

11

1

BM 8.12

m

17

31

5

36

24

EATON S

QUARE

ECCLESTON

STREET

6.9m

100

Bolivian

106

107

108

109

31

33

34

Embassy

8

Eaton S

quar

e Gar

dens

6.9m

LB

7.8m

TCB

BM 7.87

m

Eaton S

quar

e Gar

dens

LB

34

6

93

BELGRAVE PLACE

ECCLESTO

N MEW

S

24

SQUARE

26

7

36

11

32

107

103

44 to 47

40


38

39

41 to 43

EATON S

QUARE

90

46

102

EATON

95

98

32

19

Nuffield Club

Belgian Embassy

103

LONDON EER

19

43

37

35b

35

ItalianEmbassy

Embass

y of th

e

Hunga

rian

People

's Rep

ublic

16

EATON M

EWS N

ORTH

54

56

14

15

86

38

83

LYALL STREET

84

BM 7.00

m

LB

69

BM 7.75

m

EATON P

LACE

68

8

57

45



Club

82

The Irish

82

7

The Irish

Club

EATON S

QUARE

77

80

44

LYALL STREET

8

82

9

2

84

64

46

EATON M

EWS N

ORTH

48

47

62

6

48

EATON S

QUARE

51

EATON S

QUARE

57 to 60

53 to 56

6.9m

Eaton S

quar

e Gar

dens

The

Five

Fiel

ds

61

67

72

61

89

91

55

EATON M

EWS N

ORTH

73

53

108

57

58

103

93

EATON PLACE

101

102

104

99

7.3m

71

94

86

90

87

79

7.4m

62

2

LB

EATON SQUARE

66

66a

63


LBPH

35Accident locations

Figure 7.1 Accidents in Belgravia

ST ANDREWS WARD

13

1

3

WEST CHELMSFORD CO CONSTHouse

1 to 6

2a

32.3m

40

36

2b

Upleatham

10

1

2

8

2

8

31

Path (um)

32.6m

191 to 2

3

BM 32.56m

11

23

11

17

19

8

24

FITZ

WA

LTE

R P

LAC

E

SACKVILLE CLOSE

WINDLEY TYE

9

Foremans

12

13 to 14

El S

ub S

ta

14

18

13

29

31

EASTERN EER

22 20

CHELMSFORD DISTRICTROXWELL ROAD

ESSEX COUNTY


54

Accident locations

Figure 7.3 Accidents in Windley Tye

7.2 Accidents at junctionsThere are distinct variations in the number of accidentsoccurring at junctions in the sites, even when excludingBelgravia. For example, the number occurring in Glasgowis relatively high and the number in Windley Tye is low,see Figures 7.2 and 7.3 respectively.

Previous sections have shown that drivers alter their speedaccording to the junction’s geometry. An investigation wastherefore conducted into whether junction layout affectedthe number of accidents. Visibility would be expected to beone of the most important variables with respect to accidentsat junctions. The average number of accidents per year atsites with different Y-distances at 4.5 metres from thejunction is shown in Table 7.1.

Figure 7.4 Junction accidents – according to Y-distance

1501251007550250

Y distance at 4.5 metres

0.40

0.20

0.00

Acc

iden

ts p

er y

ear

(at j

unct

ions

)

There appears to be little correlation between thenumber of accidents and visibility. Figure 7.4 shows thehigh variability present in the data.

Although a trend in the number of accidents appear tobe present, the variation and sample size preclude anypossibility of these being significant. A number of testswere performed. These included examining the percentageof junctions where accidents were observed according todifferent ranges of Y-distances. The conclusion was thatthe observed accident trends could have occurred as part ofnatural variation and it is possible that the actual numberof accidents is independent of the junction geometry. This

258

159 to 167

PIN

E PL

ACE

146 to 150

130 to 134

136 to 144

19 to 27

1115

17

7

175

169

45

45 to 49

16

2435 to 43

28 to

32

ERROL GARDENS

GLASGOW PER 29 to 33

19 to 27GLASGOW

36 to

40

34

8

238

147 to 151

BENN

Y LY

NCH

COUR

T

16

11

ST N

INIA

N T

ERR

ACE

36

56

40

7

137 to 143

OLD RUTHERGLEN ROAD

125 to 129

131 to 135

113 to 117

119 to 123

20

15

17

6

PO

12 16

114 to 118

120 to 128

110

167

161

155

180-

154

61

PIN

E PL

ACE

55

32

235

48

42 to

46

34

227

229

46

44

221 to 225

39

192190

184 to 188

215 to 219

CR

OW

N S

TREE

T

ERROL GARDENS

22 to

26

18

181

207 to 211

197 to 201

191 to 195

27

9

11

15

203 to 207

166 to 170

4-8

5-7

197

209 to 213

Supermarket

50

CR

OW

N S

TREE

T

9.1m

101

CAM

DEN

TER

RAC

E

CUMBERLAND STREET

164

10.0m

10-14

201 to 205

221 to 225

16-18

5557

45-49

42

9 to 11

235

37

39227 to 233

170

SAN

DIE

FIEL

D R

OAD

GLASGOW CITY

Supermarket

GORBALS

Play Area

Play Area

SA

ND

IEFI

ELD

RO

AD

SCOTLAND EER

El Sub Sta

170

200

El Sub

Sta

154

146 to 150

126 to 132

7 to 9

Play Area

NABURN GATE

KID

STO

N P

LAC

E

23

15 to 19

CRESCENT

230

224

19

KIDSTON TERRACE

15

21 to 2328

22 26

11

ALEXANDER

GLA

SG

OW

SH

ET

TLE

STO

N P

CO

NS

T

15

29

719 to 23

33

HAN

DEL

PLA

CE

SOUTHSIDE CRESCENT

18

7

11

3

5 to 9

11 to 17

19 to 23

TCB


GLA

SG

OW

HU

TC

HE

SO

NTO

WN

WA

RD

6 to

10

THIS

TLE

TE

RR

AC

E

SOUTHSIDE CRESCENT

ALEXANDER

CRESCENT

25 to 27

11 to 1719 to 23

GO

RB

ALS

15

MA

LTA

TE

RR

AC

E

14

4

2

7

11

16

30

1921

12 to

16

18 to

22

24 to

28

3

Accident locations

Figure 7.2 Accidents in Glasgow

23

could have occurred because of the behaviouralmodifications explored in previous sections; alternatively,it is possible that the sample size was insufficient given thesize of the effect compared with the variation.

It would also be expected that the number of accidentsat a feature would be dependent on the traffic flow. Theobserved link flows were used to calculate the averagenumber of accidents per year for 1000 vehicles, these areshown in Figure 7.5.

Figure 7.5 Junction accidents weighted by flow – accordingto Y-distance

1501251007550250

Y distance at 4.5 metres

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

Acc

iden

ts p

er y

ear

per

1000

veh

icle

s (a

t jun

ctio

ns)

GlasgowLichfieldManchesterLeicesterPortisheadBloxhamJerichoBeaulieuWindley TyeNewhallLavenhamTower HamletsEastleighChichesterNew Town, ReadingGuildfordLower EarleySite Number

1 to

3

129

8.6m

2022

124 to 134112 to 122

30

11

86

12

SHAW C

RESCENT

3

4

6

2

1

2

18

BETHNAL GREEN AND BOW BORO CONST

8

15

CA

RR

ST

RE

ET

2741 1

3537

to 47

4953

78

78 92

100 to 110

94 to 9860 to 70

119 to 123

BE

TH

NA

L G

RE

EN

AN

D B

OW

BO

RO

CO

NS

T

ST

DU

NS

TAN

'S A

ND

ST

EP

NE

Y G

RE

EN

WA

RD

125

107 to117

EA

ST

FIE

LD S

TR

EE

T

2230

32

17

89 to 9395 to 105

1929

87

52 to 56

81

61

55 to 65

72 to 76

1

16

26

Playground

1

62

60

27 to 33

3634

BM

10.

56m

TCB10.1m

74

9.9m

182025

84

23

2426

7

Cau

ston

Cot

tage

s

Bailey Cottages

16

Batten Cottages

311

CA

RR

ST

RE

ET

7458

76

47

69

63

9498

96100

76

29 to

33

79

73

66

61

1

30

104

1 to

66

78

3

44

67 to 71

34

GA

LSW

OR

TH

Y A

VE

NU

E

23

Don

oghu

e C

otta

ges

121314

16 1517

20

HALLEY STREET

Elsa Cottages

7.9m

4632

34

GA

LSW

OR

TH

Y A

VE

NU

E

6

GA

LSW

OR

TH

Y A

VE

NU

E

Cau

ston

Cot

tage

s

2

9


6

LIMEHOUSE

REPTON STREET

10.4m

1713

6

1

Berry Cottages

Bradshaw Cottages

1

6

1

6

53

Burroughs Cottages

1

6

1

MAROON STREET

1

LimehouseFields Estate

41

16

1213 14

15 1617

9

2823

20

CO

LTM

AN

ST

RE

ET

Gre

aves

Cot

tage

s

13 to 3943

HE

AR

NS

HA

W S

TR

EE

T

4151

9

HE

AR

NS

HA

W S

TR

EE

T

TOWER HAMLETS LB

Am

esC

otta

ges

Am

es C

otta

ges

18


96

BM 9.12m

4

15 to 21

21286

AS

TON

ST

RE

ET

Posts 9.1m

Channel

House

Accident locations

Figure 7.6 Accidents in Tower Hamlets

Accident locations

24

10

16

7

MACE CLOSE

SAG

EC

LOS

E

ROAD

6

12

CARAWAY

HILLS

IDE

WA

RD

1

3

20

19

1

23

7

17

5

5

CH

IVE

RO

AD

FENNELCLOSE

21

7

CLO

SE

THY

ME

8

41

FENNELCLOSE

3

46

1

3

1

17

8

CAR

AWAY

RO

AD

47

45

CA

RA

WAY

RD

10

DR

IVE

21

ROSEMARY AVENUE

1412

37

35

34

CA

SS

IA

614

11

27

16

20

28

1

ROSEMARY

AVENUE

19

15

6


CO

RIA

ND

ER W

AY

5

16

12

1

Figure 7.7 Accidents in Lower Earley

108642

Road width excluding footways (metres)

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

Acc

iden

ts p

er y

ear

per

100

met

res

(link

s)

GlasgowLichfieldManchesterLeicesterCharlton DownPortisheadBloxhamJericho

BeaulieuWindley TyeNewhall

LavenhamTower HamletsEastleighChichesterNew Town, ReadingGuildfordLower Earley

Site Number

Figure 7.8 Link accidents per 100 m – according to roadwidth

Once again there are no statistical relationships betweenY-distance and number of accidents. However, the sites withover 0.8 accidents per year per 1000 vehicles were LowerEarley, New Town, Lavenham and Bloxham. These foursites all had low flows of below 250 vehicles per day andlow average speeds, and Beaulieu was the only other sitewith such small flows. There is therefore an implication thatthere are other factors affecting junction safety.

7.3 Accidents on linksThere were only a small number of accidents observed onlinks. The differences between sites with a relatively largenumber of accidents (e.g. Tower Hamlets) and those with asmall number of accidents is small (e.g. Lower Earley), asshown in Figures 7.6 and 7.7.

Strong statistical differences between accident ratesowing to the site characteristics would not be expectedgiven the small number of accidents. The accident ratesper 100 metres of link according to the road width isshown in Figure 7.8, and the accidents per 100 metres oflink and 1000 vehicles are shown in Figure 7.9.

Consequently, apart from the relatively high number ofaccidents given the flow in Lower Earley, there are nomajor differences between the sites. In agreement withthis, a statistical analysis could not find any significantrelationships between site characteristics and accidents.

However, one interesting relationship was identifiedbetween the percentage of links within a site having atleast one accident and the observed amount of parking onthe links (Table 7.2).

24

A test on the difference in the proportion of links withaccidents occurring was significantly greater on those linkswith parking on both sides of the road compared to linkswithout parking.

Modelling based upon site observations has shown thatdrivers adapt and reduce their speeds when sight lines androad widths are reduced. This in turn results in sites withlimited visibility being safer than if this behavioural changedid not occur. Therefore the analysis indicates developmentswith visibilities less than those considered in DB32 and itscompanion guide can be considered. The actual effect ofreduced visibilities on accidents is not fully resolved in thisstudy. There was no large and significant difference inaccidents on sites with limited visibility which againindicates that such designs can be considered, however,parking on links appears to be detrimental to safety.

Residents’ opinions were collected in addition to theseobservations. The next sections explore their opinions andinvestigate whether they perceive safety issues owing toreduced visibility or other geometric aspects of their livingenvironment.

8 Household survey

A household survey was undertaken to obtain theresidents’ opinions of their streets at the twenty case studysites (see Appendix D for the household questionnaire).This was to determine ‘user satisfaction’ of a variety ofresidential street layouts, and to consider residents’

transport needs alongside their perceptions of safety andsustainability of their streets.

The content, format and layout of the household surveywere derived from previous surveys that had beenconducted by TRL and by Leicestershire County Council.The TRL survey focused on a Home Zone site in Ealing. A‘Home Zone’ is a street or a group of streets designedprimarily to meet the interests of pedestrians and cyclistsrather than motorists, opening up the street for social use.The TRL survey tried to gain residents’ perceptions oftheir street and also how they used the street since theHome Zone had been built. The Home Zone survey hasbeen extensively developed and trialled because of its usein a previous project and as a result was used to developthe household survey for this research in terms of theformat and content of the questions used.

The Leicestershire County Council survey was againdesigned to address similar topics to this research. Itconcentrated on housing estate road design, focusing onthe layout of estates including road designs, housedriveway designs and car parking spaces. This survey wasintended to assist the council in preparing and developingnew design standards.

The topics surveyed were further developed, based onthe particular objectives and research questions for thisreport. Residents’ views were sought for the Manual forStreets research on the following topics:

! What they like and dislike about the street.

! How they spend their time in the street.

! Parked vehicles.

! Convenience of travel by a variety of transport methods.

! Road safety and personal safety issues.

! Behaviour of motorists.

! Safety of children.

! Whether they had been involved in an accident on theirstreet.

! The changes they would make to improve the street.

8.1 Sampling

Two thousand survey forms were distributed across thetwenty case study sites (100 questionnaires per site) in anattempt to obtain a statistically significant sample. Basedon previous experience, it was estimated that the responserate to the surveys would be approximately 15-30%. Anadded incentive to complete and return the survey wasprovided with residents being able to enter a free prizedraw to win £100 of shopping vouchers on the return ofthe survey in an attempt to improve response rates.

To ensure a representative sample across all twenty casestudy sites, one hundred households in each case study sitewere selected using purposive sampling, whereby thesample was limited to the geographical boundaries of thecase study sites (see Appendix B). The boundaries of thesites cut across postcodes, and so the addresses wereselected using maps of the case study sites. A spread ofhouseholds was selected to ensure the sample wasrepresentative of the site, and the addresses were obtained

Table 7.2 Personal injury incidents according to parking

Whether any Percentageaccidents on link of links with

Sample personal injuryLink parking No Yes size incidents

No parking 32 3 35 8.6Parking on one side 18 4 22 18.2Parking on both sides 9 5 14 35.7

108642

Road width excluding footways (metres)

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00Acc

iden

ts p

er y

ear

per

100

met

res

per

1000

veh

icle

s

GlasgowLichfieldManchesterLeicesterCharlton DownPortisheadBloxhamJerichoBeaulieuWindley TyeNewhallLavenhamTower HamletsEastleighChichesterNew Town, ReadingGuildfordLower EarleySite Number

Figure 7.9 Link accident rates per 100 m and per 1000vehicles – according to road width

25

using ‘Address Management Software’. Any addresses thatwere not present in this software package due to theirrelatively recent development (post-2003) were obtainedusing the Royal Mail’s online ‘Postcode Finder’ service.Addresses registered with the ‘Mail Preference Service’had to be excluded from the sample.

Due to the variation in the number of households at eachcase study site, for small villages and sites that had beenbuilt very recently, it was not feasible to sample 100households. To compensate, the shortfall in questionnaireswere posted to other larger and more populous sites.

8.2 Sample compositionOut of the 2000 questionnaires distributed, only 1948reached their destination (52 questionnaires were returnedunopened) and a total of 296 completed responses (15%)were received.2 Table 8.1 shows the distribution ofquestionnaires received from each site.

Of these respondents, 54% were female and 46% weremale. A breakdown of the respondents’ age groups is shownin Figure 8.1. This shows that most of the respondents wereaged 25 or over, with relatively even amounts responding ineach age group over 25. The highest proportion ofrespondents lived in detached and terraced properties andFigure 8.2 shows that the most common number of peopleresiding in a property was 2. Figure 8.3 indicates that mostrespondents (41%) have lived in their property for less than3 years, which is consistent with the number of new buildsites surveyed (five of the housing developments studied

Table 8.1 Distribution of questionnaires from each site

Site Frequency Percent

Lower Earley, Reading 29 9.8Chichester 29 9.8Guildford 26 8.8Lichfield 25 8.4Portishead 19 6.4Leicester 18 6.1Eastleigh 18 6.1Bloxham Village 18 6.1Glasgow 17 5.7Charlton Down, Dorset 16 5.4Manchester 15 5.1Beaulieu Park, Chelmsford 11 3.7Lavenham 10 3.4New Town, Reading 10 3.4Newhall, Harlow 10 3.4Jericho, Oxford 9 3.0Tower Hamlets 6 2.0Belgravia 3 1.0Ipswich 1 0.3Windley Tye, Chelmsford 1 0.3

87654321

No. people living in property

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Freq

uenc

y

Figure 8.2 Number of people living in property

65 or over55 to 6445 to 5435 to 4425 to 3419 to 24Under 18

Age

60

40

20

0

Freq

uenc

y

Figure 8.1 Age of respondents

were constructed in the last three years).The survey findings were categorised according to

aspects of:

! Streetscape.

! Parking.

! Main safety concerns.

! Road safety.

! Non-motorised road users.! Accidents.

! Pavement.

These are discussed in the next section.

2 The household survey sample did not provide any statisticallysignificant responses because of the small number of questionnairescompleted at each site. For this reason, caution should be taken whenreferring to the percentage of responses in the analysis.

26

disliked about their streets with respect to the liveability ofthe streetscape. These are shown in Figures 9.1 and 9.2.

Over 120 (40%) of respondents liked their streetbecause it was quiet. Other aspects of their streets thatwere liked included friendly neighbours, pleasant locationand proximity to local amenities. Personal safety andsecurity issues were also cited as positive aspects, forexample ‘security awareness/safety’ was in ninth position,and ‘community spirit’ in sixteenth position whichincluded participation in ‘Neighbourhood Watch’ schemes.For example, one respondent suggested as a way toimprove safety:

‘A “homewatch” scheme should be introduced – it wouldget the neighbours talking’ (Manchester resident).

Figure 9.2 shows that parking issues were the mostfrequent issue disliked by 97 respondents. This includedhaving problems parking, other people parkinginconsiderately and problems with other residents usingdesignated parking spaces. Other stated concerns related toroad traffic, including high traffic speeds and throughtraffic. The design of streets was also frequently disliked,

9 Residents opinions

9.1 StreetscapeThe Manual for Streets is intended to deliver safe andfunctional streets and meet the Government’s‘placemaking’ agenda, hence the respondents were askedto list the three things they liked and the three things they

41%

14%

16%

9%

7%

13%

Less than 3 years

3 to 4 years

5 to 9 years

10 to 14 years

15 to 19 years

20 years or over

Figure 8.3 Length of time lived in property

Figure 9.2 Respondents’ ‘dislikes’ about their streets

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

parki

ng is

sues

high t

raffic

spee

ds

desig

n

throu

gh tr

affic

litter

traffic

other

narro

w road

poor

pave

ments/

road

s

neigh

bour

s

traffic

noise

none

youth

s

not e

noug

h gre

en/po

or vi

ews

vand

alism

/crim

e

poor

amen

ities

stree

t ligh

ting

HGVs

child

ren p

laying

dog f

oulin

g

scho

ol tra

ffic/pa

rking

acce

ss is

sues

lack o

f com

munity

feel

Buildin

g/con

struc

tion s

ite

incon

sider

ate m

otoris

ts

turnin

g poin

t for c

ars

dust/

pollu

tion

prox

imity

to ra

ilway

Dislike

Freq

uenc

y

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

quiet

friend

ly ne

ighbo

urs

pleas

ant e

nviro

nmen

t/loca

tion

conv

enien

ce to

loca

l amen

ities

Proxim

ity to

town/c

ity ce

ntre

cul-d

e-sa

c/no t

hrou

gh tr

affic

open

spac

e and

gree

n are

as

hous

ing

secu

rity aw

aren

ess/s

afety

stree

t des

ign clean

new sc

heme/m

oder

n sch

eme

conv

enien

ce to

publi

c tra

nspo

rt/tra

nspo

rt ro

utes

not m

uch t

raffic vie

w

commun

ity sp

irit

plenti

ful pa

rking

gard

ens

priva

cy

good

upke

ep

child

frien

dly

conv

enien

ce to

wor

k

conn

ectio

n to h

ouse

/area

close

to fa

mily

wide st

reet

Likes

Freq

uenc

y

Figure 9.1 Respondents’ ‘likes’ about their streets

27

including issues such as house frontages opening out ontoroads, the design of isolated footpaths and houses beingtoo close to footpaths.

Personal safety and security were also stipulated asconcerns amongst residents. For example, the presence of‘youths’ was the thirteenth most stated dislike, crime thefifteenth, and street lighting the seventeenth.

Respondents were asked to what extent elements ofstreet design are a concern to them and their responses arereflected in Figure 9.3.

9.2 Parking‘When designing new towns and streets, more consider-ation should be given to parking’ (Lower Earley resident).

The survey revealed that parked vehicles were majorconcerns for residents about their streets. This is notunsurprising given that 37% of respondents have two vehiclesper household, hence it is likely that parking facilities forresidents are stretched to capacity, especially at historic sites,where off-road parking is at a premium and the majority ofvehicles are parked on the street. Parking is a factor thatresidents believe should be incorporated into street design, asthe above quote illustrates.

9.2.1 Car use and off-street parkingThe survey revealed that 82% of residents have access to acar as the driver, with 90% of respondents having access toa car as either the driver or a passenger. Figure 9.4 showsthat over 125 respondents have one vehicle per householdand 110 respondents have two vehicles per household. Asignificant number of respondents therefore are motoristsand require parking for at least one or two cars.

Figure 9.5 indicates that over a third of respondentshave access to two off-street car park spaces. Over a fifthof respondents have access to one off-street parking space.As only 17.4% of respondents have no off-street parkingfacilities one might assume that parking is not a significantissue as the majority have one car and two car parkingspaces. However, the respondents’ comments suggest thatsome residents might not effectively use their allocatedparking spaces. For example:

! ‘People with garages or off-street parking that do not usethem and park on the street instead’ (Lavenham resident).

! ‘People do not use their allocated parking spaces’(Portishead resident).

Hence, the provision of allocated off-street parking spacesis not a guarantee that people will use them effectively.

0

20

40

60

80

100

vehic

le sp

eeds

Vehic

les pa

rked o

n roa

d

Vehic

les ob

struc

ting f

ootw

ay/ve

rge

large

vehic

les

lack o

f visi

bility

for d

river

s

lack o

f visi

bility

for p

edes

trians

lack o

f cyc

le pa

ths

no. v

ehicl

es

shar

ed pa

rking

area

s

lack o

f footw

ays

poor

stre

et lig

hting

lack o

f ped

estria

n cro

ssing

s

confi

ned n

arro

w alley

ways

vege

tation

obstr

uctin

g foo

tway

s

isolat

ed fo

otway

s

Concern

Per

cent

age

of r

espo

nden

ts

Not at all concernedNot very concernedQuite concernedVery concerned

Figure 9.3 Respondents’ road safety / personal safety concerns

543210

No. vehicles in household

125

100

75

50

25

0

Freq

uenc

y

Figure 9.4 Number of vehicles per household

28

Figure 9.5 further illustrates that over 50 respondents(17.4%) have no off-street parking at all, of whom 34reside in the ‘historic’ sites. This implies that parking ismore likely to be an issue at these sites, especially forhouseholds with multiple car ownership. However, 18% ofrespondents from the historic sites claimed not to haveaccess to a car, which could indicate that residents are lessreliant on cars and possibly that historic sites are closer totown centres and amenities.

9.2.2 Parking problemsFigure 9.6 shows that the majority of respondents (42%)claimed that being able to park outside their home was nota problem, with 31% stating there was ‘sometimes aproblem’ and 17% that there was ‘a big problem’.

Table 9.1 Parking problems at specific sites

Sites without parking problemsBelgravia 100% of respondents said there was no problem.

Beaulieu Park 73% of respondents said there was no problem.

Sites with parking problemsNew Town 90% of respondents said there was a problem, of

which 50% said it was a ‘big problem’.

Eastleigh 62% of respondents said there was a problem, ofwhich 40% said it was a big problem.

of respondents said that vehicles parked on the road neartheir home ‘a lot of the time’, 22.5% said ‘sometimes’ and14.5% said that drivers did not park near their home at all.

Figure 9.8 illustrates the extent of on-street parking, withvehicles parking on both sides of the street and parking onkerbs and pavements, reducing the width of footways.

Fifty five percent of respondents in new build sites and56% in historic sites said that people park their vehicles onthe road/footway near their home ‘a lot of the time’,compared with 36% of respondents at DB32 compliantsites (these are summarised for specific sites in Table 9.2).

In addition, when asked whether vehicles parked on theroad caused concern in terms of road safety or personalsecurity, 51% of all respondents said they were concernedwith vehicles parked on the road (see Figure 9.3). Newbuild sites were shown to be more concerned aboutvehicles parked on the road in comparison to other sites

129876543210

No. off street parking spaces on property

100

80

60

40

20

0

Freq

uenc

y

Figure 9.5 Number of off-street parking spaces on respondents’ properties

17%

31%42%

10%

Yes, a big problem

Yes, sometimes a problem

No

Not applicable

Figure 9.6 Is parking outside your home a problem?

52%

33%

15%

Yes, a lot of the timeYes, sometimesNo

Figure 9.7 Do many vehicles park on the road/footwaynear your home?

There was found to be little variation between sites, 53%of residents at the historic sites stated that they have aproblem with parking compared with 46% and 47% fornew build and DB32 compliant sites respectively, whichcorrelates with the proportion of residents who have off-road parking. Residents at historic sites have less off-streetparking capacity and are therefore more likely toexperience problems parking in limited on-street parkingspaces. Table 9.1 summarises individual sites whereparking is and is not deemed to be a problem.

9.2.3 Parked vehiclesResidents were asked about whether many vehicles parkon the road outside their home. Figure 9.7 shows that 52%

29

Table 9.2 Sites with vehicles parked outside their home‘a lot of the time’ and ‘sometimes’

Site Percentage of respondents

Lichfield 100.0%New Town 90.0% Eastleigh 83.3%Jericho 66.7%Belgravia 66.7%Chichester 58.6%Manchester 57.1%Lavenham 55.6%Guildford 52.0%

Figure 9.8 Parking in New Town

Table 9.3 Case study sites with high proportions ofconcern over parked vehicles

Site Percentage of respondents concerned

Portishead 78.9% Lichfield 72.0%New Town 60.0% (50.0% ‘very concerned’)Chichester 60.7%Manchester 60.0%

(by a factor of 10%). Specific sites showed highproportions of concern over parked vehicles in the roadand are summarised in Table 9.3.

gave ‘plentiful parking’ as one of the factors they likedabout their street. In contrast, 19% of respondents gaveparking issues as a ‘dislike’ about their street.

9.2.4 Respondents’ issues with parking in their streetThe issues respondents have with parking relate to access,safety and aesthetics.

Firstly, parking is identified as a main culprit inrestricting access to streets. For example:

! ‘Access to my drive is often affected by cars parked onthe street’ (Lichfield resident).

! ‘There are not enough parking spaces, so carssometimes block drives’ (Guildford resident).

Respondents also refer to the reduced visibility that parkedcars cause, which both restricts access and has an effecton safety:

! ‘You can’t drive through. Cars park on bends and blockthe footpath’ (Beaulieu resident).

! ‘Cars parked on double yellow lines at street cornersobstruct the view of the driver’ (Chichester resident).

! ‘There is a slalom effect driving down the road andvision is obscured on the bend of the road’ (LowerEarley resident).

! ‘Cars are unable to drive straight through and wait totake their chance to pass’ (Chichester resident).

This implies that these streets are not functioning as theyshould because, according to the perceptions of residentsin these streets, on-street parking creates hazardous drivingconditions and impacts on access.

Respondents also commented on the impact of narrowroads. Respondents referred to how difficult it is tomanoeuvre in narrow roads and how narrow roads pluson-street parking leads to congestion. For example:

! ‘The streets are too narrow for the masses of peopleliving in the area and visitors have to park elsewhere’(Portishead resident).

! ‘The neighbours opposite have a terrible time, often havingdamage done to their cars by traffic squeezing by. Theypark on one side of the road, but traffic has to go up onpavements on our side of the road’ (Guildford resident).

Figure 9.9 reflects respondents’ concerns about narrowroads and parking, where parking has transformed the roadinto a single-traffic road and created hazards for driversattempting to negotiate the road.

These issues raised are supported by the accident andnear miss incidents reported by respondents in the survey.20 out of 66 of those respondents who provided details ofthe accident/near miss they were involved in were relatedto parking. When describing these accidents, respondentsreferred to street parking on blind bends, narrow roadsforcing one vehicle onto the other side of the road andwhere parked cars significantly reduce visibility.

Indeed, the primary research documented in Section 7suggests that, while parking on links appears to bedetrimental to safety, there is also a correlation betweenroads with no on-street parking and higher speeds,

Figure 9.3 also shows the following respondentconcerns with regard to parking:

! Over 50% of all respondents revealed concern aboutvehicles obstructing the footway. Residents in Lichfieldand Eastleigh showed most concern about vehiclesparked and obstructing footways (68% and 61.1% ofrespondents respectively).

! 27% of all respondents were concerned about sharedparking areas. In Eastleigh, 68% of respondents wereconcerned over shared parking areas.

Parking as a prime issue is also shown in respondents’comments about what they like and dislike about theirstreet (see Figures 9.1 and 9.2). Only 1.3% of respondents

30

indicating that drivers adapt and reduce their speeds whensight lines and road widths are reduced. Hence, for roadswhere sight lines and road widths are increased becausethere are no parked cars to reduce visibility, arguablydrivers will adapt and increase their speeds leading to amore risky environment.

Respondents also commented on the design of parkingin the street. Issues were raised about there not beingenough off-road parking:

! ‘There is not enough parking provided for houses, somehouses on the street are four bedroomed, with only oneoff-street parking space’ (Portishead resident).

! ‘With only having one parking space and two cars,I would like to park outside, but can’t’ (Manchesterresident).

However, some respondents note that it is people whohave too many cars that cause the problem and not thedesign:

! ‘People in executive houses use the road mainly to parkcars and some appear to have two or more’ (Manchesterresident).

! ‘Many old houses with single frontages own 2 or 3 cars,so they have to park in front of someone else’s house’(Lichfield resident).

A further issue raised about the lack of parking isresidents’ frustration at not having anywhere for visitors topark and others who are frustrated by non-residentsparking in their spaces:

! ‘Too many cars park here as there is no parkingrestriction, so other people from other streets come andpark there and leave it’ (Tower Hamlets resident).

School traffic is a particular issue:

! ‘School run parking causes double parking, pavementparking and blocks driveways’ (Lichfield resident).

! ‘School run mindless parking’ (Lichfield resident).

! ‘It is a school location and there is easy access throughthe close, but there should be better parking access forparents. When off loading and loading at school time,

parking is haphazard. All rules of the road are notadhered to’ (Chichester resident).

To resolve parking issues, residents highlighted twomain points. Firstly, parking should be restricted:

! ‘Lines to stop on street parking where dangerous to doso or where double parking may occur’ (Beaulieu Parkresident).

! ‘No more street parking at all. Cars could go in anunderground car park’ (resident’s location unknown).

! ‘Stop cars from parking on both sides of the road –encourage people to use driveways and garages’(Portishead resident).

! ‘Widen road or put double yellow lines down so twocars can pass on the road without having to drive onpathway’ (Portishead resident).

! ‘Council enforcement of parking regulations. Too manyhouseholders think they have a right to park as manyvehicles as they please, despite others having paid topark’ (Eastleigh resident).

These comments convey a desire to limit parking byusing road markings, better enforcement or alternativedesigns to deal with the problem. Secondly, to improvesafety, residents would like to see more off-street parkingdesignated, for example:

! ‘Allocate more off street parking for each home at timeof build. Why would any Local Authority think homesselling for £300K plus will attract purchasers with onlyone vehicle. Madness!’ (Portishead resident).

! ‘If parking was sorted, this would improve safety.Maybe a car park for residents would help’ (Guildfordresident).

This implies that residents feel that street design shouldaccommodate cars, rather than attempting to restrict carparking and promote more sustainable travel modes suchas provision for cyclists and bus routes.

Aesthetically, respondents highlight how parking,‘spoils the look’ (Bloxham resident) of their street and,‘makes it congested and looks very ugly’ (Guildfordresident). This further adds to respondents’ unpleasantexperiences of their streets due to parking issues.However, one resident commented:

! ‘Parking is provided away from road to improveaesthetics. Of course people don’t use it and park on thenarrow street. This is ridiculous, people want to parknear the door, especially when they have kids/shopping/elderly. Improving aesthetics has caused the problem inour street’ (Lichfield resident).

Street design therefore faces a dilemma: how to improveaesthetics by providing parking away from houses and yetstill allowing access for those who need it, especiallyvulnerable groups, notably elderly and disabled people.

9.3 Main safety concernsRespondents were asked what they considered the mainsafety threat to be on their street. Figure 9.10 shows thatthe highest proportion of respondents (46%) considered

Figure 9.9 Parking on a narrow road in Jericho, Oxford

31

‘danger from road traffic’ to be the main safety threat intheir street. For example, one respondent commented:

‘Road safety is the main issue and with furtherdevelopment proposed within the immediatelocation it is sure to escalate further. We have hada number of street protests and we are petitioningas much as possible for a solution to this growingproblem’ (Guildford resident).

Table 9.4 illustrates the ‘other’ safety threats thatrespondents provided. Of these ‘other’ threats, poordriving, parked cars and narrow roads relate to road safetyissues. Hence, 48.2% of respondents considered roadsafety issues to be the main safety threat.

Road traffic as the main safety threat is supported byrespondents’ comments about what they dislike about theirstreets (Figure 9.2) including:

! High traffic speeds.

! Through traffic.

! Traffic volume.

! Narrow roads.

! Poor roads.

! School traffic.

! Inconsiderate motorists.

! Street being a turning point for cars.

Over half of respondents referred to road safety issues asa dislike about their street. The accident and near miss datashow that 26% of respondents said they had been involvedin an incident, which might be considered high consideringthe low trafficked streets surveyed.

Table 9.5 indicates new build sites had the highestproportion of reported accidents and near misses fromamongst the residents surveyed. However, this differenceis small and not statistically significant.

46%

29%

16%

9%

Danger from road traffic

Danger from crime

Both

Other

Figure 9.10 Main safety threat

9.4 Road safetyResidents generally considered that road safety was themain aspect of concern within their neighbourhood. Thequestionnaire explored the underlying reasons for theseconcerns. One of the key issues that arose was traffic speedin the residential area, and over half (52.8%) of respondentsclaimed to be either ‘very’ or ‘quite’ concerned aboutspeeds when asked about road and personal safety issues intheir street.

In New Town (Reading), this was of particularconcern: 80% of respondents were either ‘very’ or ‘quite’concerned about vehicle speeds. Other sites where higherpercentages of respondents indicated concern over highvehicle speeds include:

! Eastleigh (77.8% of respondents concerned).

! Lichfield (72% of respondents concerned).

Confirmation of the issue with speeds was obtainedfrom comments about how residents would improve safetyin their streets. Over 100 comments were receivedreferring directly to improving speed calming measuressuch as road humps, lower speed limits and enforcingspeed limits. For example, respondents requested:

! ‘More traffic calming schemes in the narrow streets onnew estates’ (Eastleigh resident).

Table 9.4 Main safety threat ‘other’ responses

Main safety threat ‘other’ responses Percentage

Poor driving 0.4%Parked cars 1.1%Drugs 0.7%Isolated cycle path 0.4%Poor street lighting 0.7%Narrow roads 0.7%Pavements 0.7%Children playing 0.4%None 4.3%

Given that the Manual for Streets is intended to deliversafe and functional streets and meet the Government’s‘place making’ agenda, personal safety and security issuesare an important part of the analysis:

! ‘In future, design out back alleys – I always refer tothem as ‘burglar paradise’ as it allows access via theside of the house’ (Eastleigh resident).

! ‘There is a bus that comes near to the area, but you haveto walk along a long lonely road or across a very lonelyfield to get to the local bus service’ (Newhall resident).

! ‘Street lighting is not very well placed for cut throughwalkway opposite. One street light could be moved asmall distance, which would make all the difference’(Lower Earley resident).

At DB32 compliant sites (Lower Earley, Reading andLeicester), the main threat is considered to be ‘danger fromcrime’ (45.7%), with 32% of respondents citing ‘dangerfrom road traffic’ as being the main threat to safety.

Table 9.5 Accidents / near misses recorded by sitecharacteristic

Numberof reported

Site No accidents/ Percentagecharacteristic respondents near misses of respondents

New build 162 56 34.6%Historic 79 25 31.6%DB32 compliant 47 10 21.3%

32

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Childrenwalking

Childrencycling

Adultswalking

Adultscycling

Street user

Per

cent

age Very safe

Fairly safe

Fairly unsafe

Very unsafe

Figure 9.11 Safety of different street users with regards todanger from road traffic

! ‘Road humps or speed signs that light up on excessspeed’ (Lichfield resident).

! ‘Clear signs and well enforced 10 mph speed limit’(Eastleigh resident).

! ‘Advance warning to motorists that the area is a 20 mphzone’ (Leicester resident).

Another lesser impact that influenced residents’perception of traffic safety was flow: 27.3% of respondentsexpressed concern over the number of vehicles passingthrough the street. This appeared to be a particular issuefor residents in the historic sites. This could be a result ofthe lack of off-street parking spaces at historic sites and thenarrow road widths, leading to congestion. Specific siteswith notable concerns about the number of vehicles intheir street include:

! New Town (50% of respondents concerned).

! Eastleigh (44.4% of respondents concerned).

! Bloxham village (44.4% respondents concerned).

Two of these were historic sites, and the other was anew development. Furthermore, none of these sites hadparticularly high flows (see Section 4), particularly inrelation to the other sites. Residential perception of highflows must therefore be influenced by other factors in thestreet design.

Other concerns relating to road safety include:

! 38% of all respondents were concerned about the lack ofvisibility for drivers.

! 15% of all respondents were concerned about the lack offootways.

! Over 33% of all respondents were concerned about largevehicles.

! 28% of all respondents were concerned about the lack ofcycle paths.

! 29% of all respondents were concerned about the lack ofvisibility for pedestrians.

! 19% of all respondents were concerned about the lack ofpedestrian crossings.

Once more the greatest other safety concern forresidents was over traffic, in this case the lack of visibilityfor drivers. All main aspects of traffic that result in higheraccident rates (flow, speed and visibility) were citedamongst the highest concerns.

9.4.1 Walking and cycling safetyThe Manual for Streets is intended to act as a guide toensure streets are functional and safe for all road users. Ithas also been prepared against a backdrop of sustainabledevelopment initiatives and guidance. As a result, the issuesand experiences of non-motorised users (comprising 9.5%of the sample) are vital components and are now discussed.

Respondents were asked to comment on how safe theyconsidered their street to be, with regards to danger fromroad traffic for both children and adults to walk and cycle.Figure 9.11 shows that 12% of respondents consider theirstreets unsafe for adults walking due to road traffic (thisincludes both ‘very’ and ‘quite’ unsafe responses). The

same proportion also considered adults to be unsafe whilstcycling. Twenty seven percent of respondents considertheir streets to be unsafe for children walking and 41% ofrespondents considered children cycling to be unsafe as aresult of road traffic.

DB32 compliant sites reported the lowest amount of‘unsafe’ responses to this question. 8.5% of respondentsconsidered it unsafe for adults to cycle, compared to25.5% for new build and 15.6% for historic sites.

Over 50% of respondents were either ‘very’ or ‘quite’concerned about ‘vehicles parked obstructing footways’(see Figure 9.3). Vehicles obstructing footways was also acommon theme that emerged from the respondents’comments, for example:

! ‘Cars park fully on the pavement so you have no choicebut to walk in the road, others park on bends so youcannot see what is coming’ (Charlton Down resident).

! ‘Children have to walk on the road to get round carsparked on the pavement’ (Leicester resident).

Figure 9.3 illustrates respondents’ concerns relating tonon-motorised road users. These are summarised as follows:

! 15.2% of all respondents were concerned about the lackof footways.

! 28.0% of all respondents were concerned about the lackof cycle paths.

! 29.0% of all respondents were concerned about the lackof visibility for pedestrians.

! 18.6% of all respondents were concerned about the lackof pedestrian crossings.

In terms of concern over the lack of cycle paths, over afifth of respondents consider this question ‘not applicable’indicating that cycle use is minimal among the residentsample.

9.4.2 Safety of childrenThe survey also considered the safety of children ofdifferent ages. Figure 9.12 shows that 70.8% ofrespondents consider it unsafe for pre-school children toplay unsupervised. Many respondents criticised thisquestion, suggesting that pre-school children should neverbe left unsupervised. Over half (54.1%) of respondentsbelieved their street is unsafe for primary age pupils to

33

play unsupervised, while 27% of respondents consideredtheir streets to be unsafe for secondary school age children.

Respondents were asked to provide reasons if they gave‘unsafe’ as a response. These are summarised in Table 9.6.The main reason given for ‘unsafe’ responses across allage groups was the speed of traffic. This correlates withrespondents’ concerns about road safety in their street.Respondents were most concerned about high trafficspeeds (as previously discussed).

Eighty percent of New Town respondents consideredtheir streets unsafe for pre-school age children, with 70%providing speed of traffic as the reason.

9.4.3 Improving road safety in residential streetsIn addition to improving road safety by the speed calmingmeasures discussed in section 9.4, other common themeswere cited by respondents. These include:

! Making the street ‘one-way’: ‘A solution would be toadopt a one way system in part of the area. This wouldallow an element of on street parking withoutcompromising traffic safety and flow’ (Portisheadresident).

! Better road maintenance: potholes in the road aredangerous for all road users.

! Prohibiting large vehicles, including buses: ‘Stop busesentering estates – roads are not wide enough and are toowinding to accommodate large single-decker buses’(Leicester resident).

! Restricting access to the street: ‘Removal of all vehicleswould considerably improve safety, access andaesthetics’ (Newhall resident).

! Road safety issues related to parking.

9.5 AccidentsRespondents’ perceptions about the safety of non-motorisedusers in their street is reflected in the accident/near missincidents reported in the survey. 13.3% of accidents/nearmisses recorded involved non-motorised road users(pedestrians or cyclists). All of the non-motorised incidentsrecorded involved a motorised road user. For example:

! ‘My daughter was riding her bike on the pavement anda car reversed out of the drive and did not see her’(Lichfield resident).

! ‘Leaving my car on foot and a car travelling on thepavement at speed. I had to pull my children back’(Guildford resident).

Non-motorised users are shown to be vulnerable tomotorised users. Clearly, there are issues with regard tosharing the street space.

Figure 9.13 conveys how considerate respondentsbelieve motorists are to non-motorised street users.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pre-school age Primary schoolage

Secondaryschool age

Age grouping

Per

cent

age

Very safeFairly safe

Fairly unsafeVery unsafe

Figure 9.12 Safety of children spending time in their streetunsupervised by an adult

Table 9.6 Reasons for ‘unsafe’ responses

Pre-school age Primary school age Secondary school age

Reason for unsafe response Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Speed of traffic 135 46.7% 105 36.6% 53 18.5%Amount of traffic 80 27.7% 56 19.5% 29 10.1%Stranger danger 62 21.5% 47 16.4% 18 6.3%Crime/mugging/physical assault 23 8.0% 24 8.4% 25 8.7%Bullying from other children 19 6.6% 20 7.0% 19 6.6%

Table 9.7 How considerate are motorists towards non-motorised road users by site type?

DB32 compliant New build Historic

Children walking 76.6% 70.0% 68.4%Children cycling 74.5% 63.1% 61.8%Children playing in the street 72.3% 57.5% 53.9%Adults walking 83.0% 73.1% 76.6%Adults cycling 72.3% 66.9% 64.9%

0

20

40

60

80

100

Childrenwalking

Childrencycling

Childrenplaying in

street

Adultswalking

Adultscycling

Non-motorised road user

Per

cent

age Very considerate

Fairly considerate

Fairly inconsiderate

Very inconsiderate

Figure 9.13 How considerate respondents perceive motoriststo be towards non-motorised road users

Approximately three quarters of respondents consideredmotorists to be considerate to children walking, cyclingand playing in the street. Three quarters of respondentsalso considered motorists to be considerate towards adultswalking and cycling. Respondents who cited motorists asbeing considerate to non-motorised users are summarisedby site type in Table 9.7.

34

9.6 Non-motorised vs. Motorised users: AccessAn overwhelming majority of the sample consideredtravelling on foot or by bicycle to be easy and convenient.Figure 9.14 illustrates that only 5% of respondentsconsider the ease and convenience of travelling aroundtheir street by foot to be either ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’.Equally, 7% of respondents consider cycling to be ‘bad’ or‘very bad’. A surprising 29.1% of respondents consideredthis question not applicable, which might indicate that theydo not regularly use these modes of travel around thestreets in which they live.

! ‘Pavement on both sides is grassed, therefore peopletend to walk in the middle of the road, which is veryunsafe’ (Lichfield resident).

! ‘The council should get rid of grass pavements andprovide a proper tarmac style pavement all around theroad. These grass pavements force pedestrians into theroad because it is impossible to push prams etc in thesoft surface – more pedestrians in the road willeventually result in an accident’ (Lichfield resident).

Figure 9.15 shows the grass verges in Lichfield.Some respondents criticised pedestrian and cycle access

routes for encouraging crime:

! ‘Due to the cycle path, kids have thrown stones andeggs, and broken fences as well as damaging trees andshrubs’ (Lower Earley resident).

! ‘Our small set of local streets for a cul-de-sac with apathway through which is not needed at the end.Closing this off would virtually eliminate crime’ (LowerEarley resident).

0

20

40

60

80

100

By foot By bike By car

Transport mode

Per

cent

age

N/A

Very good

Good

Reasonable

Bad

Very bad

Figure 9.14 Ease and convenience of travelling around thestreet by different transport modes

Figure 9.15 Grass verges as pedestrian walkways inLichfield

The design of pedestrian and cycle access routes fornon-motorised users could be exacerbating personal safetyfears for residents. This might particularly be the case forDB32 compliant sites in Reading and Leicester, whichhave spine and cul-de-sac road layouts. These layouts aremore likely to have isolated pedestrian and cycle routescompared to more permeable and shared use streets, suchas Charlton Down.

9.8 Summary of household survey findings

The primary objective of this household survey was toexplore residents’ perceiptions. Results of the attitudinalsurvey provide a better understanding of how highwaylayouts that are considered successful, in terms ofcasualties and driver behaviour (for instance sitesconsidered to be best practice by CABE) perform from theperspective of street users and residents.

Conversely, 15% of respondents said that the ease andconvenience of travelling by car around their streets is‘bad’ and ‘very bad’. An additional third of respondentssaid that travelling around their street by car was‘reasonable’.

Respondents also highlighted how hard it was to travelaround the street using ‘other’ modes of transport. Theseincluded travelling by wheelchair and with a pram/buggy.This is reflected in the respondents’ comments:

! ‘People in wheelchairs have their right of way blockedby parked cars’ (Lavenham resident).

! ‘I can’t get past with a double buggy and can’t seeproperly when crossing the road’ (Leicester resident).

Non-motorised users with specific needs therefore needconsidering in street design, in particular those withmobility constraints and vulnerable groups (people withchildren and buggies, wheelchair users, deaf, blind andpartially sighted people, and older people).

9.7 Footways

Figure 9.2 conveys respondents’ dislikes about their street.This shows that respondents considered poor footways andpoor amenities as pertinent issues after parking and traffic.Poor footways affect pedestrian use and how safepedestrians feel using the footway. Poor amenities meanthat people without motorised transport can feel excluded.

The need for better pedestrian and cycle routes emergedas an issue from respondents’ comments. Respondentswould like ‘more cycle friendly facilities’ and also criticisethe design of ‘grass verges’ as pavements, for example:

35

The headline concern from the survey is that the majorityof residents have little appreciation for the attributes thatmake streetscapes liveable, desirable and safe places to live(for example, reduced clutter, public areas to encouragechildren’s play, neighbourly interaction, reduced congestionand sustainable travel).

Many respondents take particular issue with parking,which reflects the bias in the sample of residents who owna car, and in particular, households with multiple carownership. Other key findings are listed as follows:

! Danger from road traffic is considered to be the mainsafety threat in the streets sampled.

! The main concern for respondents is high traffic speedsin their streets. High traffic speeds are also given as themain reason why roads are considered unsafe forchildren of all ages.

! Non-motorised road users are vulnerable to motorvehicles. Accidents and near misses reported by non-motorised users all involve a motorised user. Childrencycling are perceived to be the most vulnerable.However, the findings suggest that cycling as a mode oftransport is not widespread amongst respondents.

! In terms of personal safety and security, respondents areparticularly concerned about poor street lighting andpedestrian walkways. Poor street lighting and desertedwalkways increase insecurity, encourage crime andprevent residents from using their streets effectively andusing more sustainable modes of transport.

! The presence of parked vehicles in their street is a majorissue of concern for residents. On-street parking reducessafety, access and the aesthetic qualities of streets butconversely encourages lower speeds. The respondentswould prefer more off-street parking or for parking to berestricted. The dilemma is how to respond to residents’needs whilst attempting to prioritise non-motorised usersand more sustainable modes of transport.

! DB32 compliant sites performed consistently well in thehousehold survey with regard to road safety andparking. These sites were viewed as safer from traffic byrespondents compared to historic sites and new buildsites but generated more negative responses with regardto personal security. In fact, the hypothetical analysis ofjunction spacing in Section 10 of this report indicatesthat there are only small differences in the effect onaccidents using different road network layouts (whencomparing DB32 compliant spine and cul-de-sac layoutswith organic layouts that have more junctions andgreater permeability for pedestrians and cyclists).

! Specific case study sites that stand out are New Town,Eastleigh and Lichfield. Respondents from these sitesconsidered them to be consistently unsafe, showingconcerns over vehicle speeds, the number of vehicles intheir street, the lack of footways, the lack of cycle paths,the lack of visibility for drivers and the lack of visibility forpedestrians. Both adults and children were considered to beunsafe at these sites as a result of road traffic. Parking andthe resultant safety issues were also major concerns for ahigh proportion of respondents at these sites.

Arguably, the Manual for Streets, which is aimed attransport practitioners in their various capacities, willreflect the user needs. However, it may be necessary toinform the public of advancements in street designcontained within the Manual for Streets, in order tomanage their expectations about street function over form.

The next section explores the effect of crossroads andjunction spacing on predicted accident risk using a softwaremodel to predict accidents on urban road networks.

10 Testing of network layout using SafeNet

10.1 Junction spacingIt has been identified by work carried out to date that the formof highway layouts is to a significant degree shaped byhighway safety concerns, with some engineers keen tomaximise junction spacing and concentrate vehicle flows ontolinks higher in the road hierarchy. The negative consequenceof this approach however can be to reduce permeability topedestrians and to concentrate the negative impacts of traffic.

A secondary element of research will therefore be to testdifferent highway layouts to determine whether, makingreasonable assumptions about the distribution of trafficwithin those hypothetical networks, more casualties onaggregate could be expected. This test was carried outusing SafeNet (TRL, 2006).

SafeNet (Software for Accident Frequency Estimationfor Networks) was originally developed in 1999 with thesupport of the Department for Transport and was primarilydesigned to predict the number of accidents per year thatwould occur on an urban road network. SafeNet2 has beendeveloped over the past six years with the support of theHighways Agency and extends the capability of SafeNet tocover the trunk road network.

SafeNet is based on extensively researched accident-riskmodels which started in the 1980s with the study ofroundabouts (see Maycock and Hall, 1984) and continuedwith most of the junction and link types found on UKroads, and in particular urban priority junctions and linksections used here (Summersgill et al., 1996; Summersgilland Layfield, 1996; Layfield et al., 1996). The studiesrelated accidents to traffic flow and to road geometry andcontrol variables.

SafeNet2 can be used to model road networks whichinclude:

! Urban single carriageway roads.

! Urban roads including minor junctions.

! Roundabouts and mini-roundabouts.

! Traffic signal junctions.

! Traffic calming measures.

It can be used to determine the safety implication ofchanges to a network or the effect on safety of increased ordecreased traffic flows.

SafeNet2 uses vehicle flow, pedestrian flow and geometricdata for each junction and road link within the road network.There are 4 levels at which the model can be used, rangingfrom simple inflow data (Level 0) to vehicle turning flows,

36

pedestrian flows, and geometrical data (Level 3). The analysishere uses Level 1 models. The number of expected accidentsand casualties (fatal, serious, slight) can then be calculated fora given junction or link. These values can then be summed togive an estimate of the number of accidents that would beexpected to occur across the network as a whole.

10.1.1 AnalysisThe area chosen for analysis was Thorpe Astley inLeicester. This site is a typical DB32 layout with cul-de-sacsand roundabouts onto the highway network. Flows were

estimated by Phil Jones Associates for all the junctions andlinks within the given network, based on trip rates of 3journeys inward bound and 3 journeys outward bound fromeach house (see Figure 10.1). These values were thenentered into SafeNet2 together with the length of each link.Pedestrian flows were not included in the analysis.Geometric data was not included. The results showed thatthe total vehicle casualties per year expected would be 0.03(fatal), 0.40 (serious) and 1.89 (slight) giving an estimatedtotal of 2.32 casualties per year or 1.78 accidents per year.

Personal accident data was supplied by Leicestershire

Figure 10.1 DB32 network for SafeNet analysis

37

County Council for 5 years which showed that there had been3 slight accidents on the residential estate road junctions ontothe highway network and 2 slight accidents on the residentialestate roads giving an average of 1 accident per year overall.

Unconnected network (1)Estimated by SafeNet 1.78 accidents per year (1)Actual recorded 1 accident per year

These results show good agreement with the observedaccidents. It should be noted that the accident data suppliedby Leicestershire County Council stated that Thorpe Astley

is ‘an on-going settlement’ and the effect of this on the 5 yearaccident data was unknown.

Connected network (2)The roads in the DB32 compliant network (1) (see Figure10.1) were connected so that the area was made morepermeable and the street layout more organic. The flowsthrough each line and junction were estimated, using thesame assumptions as in the original network, for the newconnected network (see Figure 10.2) and the SafeNetanalysis was repeated.

Estimated by SafeNet 1.85 accidents per year (2)

Figure 10.2 Connected network for SafeNet analysis (organic)

38

Table 10.1 Results of SafeNet analysis compared withactual accidents

Accidents per year

Network type Links Junctions Total Actual 0.40 0.60 1.00Estimated DB32 (1) 1.08 0.70 1.78Estimated organic (2) 0.92 0.92 1.85Estimated organic (3) 0.92 0.76 1.69

Table 10.2 Effect of varying major and minor flows onaccidents per year predicted by SafeNet

Accidents per year for givenpercentage flow on minor arm

Flow on major arm(vehicles per day) 50% 25% 10%

5000 3.31 1.93 0.994000 2.48 1.45 0.753000 1.72 1.01 0.522000 1.03 0.61 0.321000 0.44 0.26 0.14500 0.19 0.12 0.07250 0.09 0.05 0.03125 0.04 0.02 0.02

Accidents per year at crossroads

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Vehicle flow (1000s per day each direction)

Acc

iden

ts p

er y

ear

Accs/year (50% flow on minor arm)



Figure 10.3 Effect of varying major and minor flows onaccidents per year predicted by SafeNet

Connected network (3)It was noted that two crossroads in the connected network(2) (marked as solid black circles in Figure 10.2) had arelatively high number of accidents per year. These twocrossroads were replaced by two roundabouts and theSafeNet analysis was repeated.

Estimated by SafeNet 1.69 accidents per year (3)

10.1.2 Overall resultsThe overall link and junction results for the various networksestimated by SafeNet are summarised in Table 10.1, togetherwith the average number of actual accidents recorded peryear over a 5 year period.

of 1000 vehicles per day the predicted accidents are lessthan 0.5 per year.

In summary, the hypothetical analysis exercise,undertaken using SafeNet, found that these types ofnetwork (DB32 compliant versus organic) appear toproduce only small differences in the effect on accidents,except when crossroads were substituted for roundabouts.In support of this, an analysis of crossroad data found thataccidents markedly increase to over one per year whenflows on the minor arm exceed 1000 vehicles per day.However, it should be noted that the number of accidentsoverall was very low, no geometric or pedestrian flowvariables were included, and only one sample networkwas tested.

The next section summarises the conclusions from thisresearch and offers some possible recommendations.

11 Conclusions

This report constitutes the evidence base for the standardsproposed in the Manual for Streets. Arguably, its radicalfindings are ground breaking because they demonstratethat residential street design can indeed be innovative, asevidenced by the headline findings:

The SafeNet analysis showed that some of the data usedwas outside the lower limits of the validated working rangeof SafeNet (See Figures 10.1 and 10.2). The lower limit for‘T’ junctions in SafeNet is 200 vehicles per day for themain road and the lower limit for circulating flows forroundabouts in SafeNet is 276 vehicles per day and for theentry/exit to an arm is 305 vehicles per day.

There were slightly more accidents predicted by SafeNetfor the DB32 network (1) compared with the connectedorganic network (2), but it should be noted that some ofthe data used was outside the lower limits of the normalworking range of SafeNet.

Substituting two roundabouts for two crossroads, theorganic network (3) was predicted to have fewer accidentsthan the original DB32 network (1).

Bearing in mind that, for these networks, SafeNet isbeing used outside its normal working range (for somejunctions) there appear to be only small differences in theeffect on accidents using the different networks. However,it is encouraging that the actual numbers of accidents peryear are below those predicted by SafeNet.

10.2 Crossroads analysisSafeNet was used to study the effect of varying the vehicleflows on the major and minor arms of a hypotheticalcrossroads to see how the predicted accidents per yearvaried, based on speeds of up to and including 40 mph.

Major road flows were varied from 125 to 5000 vehiclesper day in each direction and the flows on the minor armwere varied from 10% to 50% of the major road flow. Allmovements were across the junction only i.e. no turning.

Pedestrian flows were set to zero for the analysis.The results of the analysis are given in Table 10.2 and

Figure 10.3. The results show that for the major road flows

39

is an acceptable safety margin to stop should a dangerpresent itself. However, the margin of safety becomesrapidly smaller below 40 metres, and sight distances of 20metres are predicted to be unsafe unless other features areemployed to further reduce vehicle speed.

! Other factors that can affect speeds at junctions werefound to be block paving and junction markings. Blockpaving was found to reduce approach speeds byapproximately 5 mph. The effect of having no junctionmarkings was less clear with the models disagreeing asto whether removing them reduces speeds. The modelbased upon ATC data, and therefore the most robustdataset, predicted that removing junction markingreduced approach speeds by between 3 and 6 mph.

Residents’ concerns

With respect to the perceptions of residents surveyed, thefollowing can be concluded:

! Residents’ opinions of their area, in particular withrespect to safety, were investigated in twenty housingestates. The estates covered a mixture of historic sites,new build sites and ones that were DB32 compliant.

! The main reasons for residents choosing to live in theseestates were because of the ambiance (quietness,friendly neighbours) and the location of the houses inrelation to amenities.

! Across the sites there were mixed reactions to whetherpersonal, or road, safety issues were of most concern.Residents at DB32 compliant sites considered personalsafety (in relation to crime) to be of the greatest concern,but this was not the case at other sites. It is unclearwhether this was owing to higher crime rates at theDB32 sites, the perception of road safety at other sites,or a combination of both these factors. However, overallnearly half the respondents considered road safety to bethe main issue, compared with nearly 30% whoconsidered personal safety to be the highest concern.

! One consistent comment stemming from this research inrelation to crime was the association of youth crime withpedestrian and cycle routes. It was considered that theseresulted in various forms of vandalism, presumably ifthese were off the main thoroughfares whereperpetrators are less likely to be observed.

! Generally, respondents considered their street to be safefor adults walking, but less so for children. As would beexpected, they considered the danger to children playingincreased as age decreased. They also consideredcyclists to be at risk, with over 40% considering childcyclists unsafe.

! Residents’ strongest dislikes about their area wererelated to parking, in particular, inconsiderate parkingcausing difficulties of access, or the misuse ofdesignated parking spaces. Inconsiderate parkingincluded parking on the footway and therefore impedingpedestrians, parking on corners and reducing lines ofsight and parking resulting in difficulty for othervehicles passing. Furthermore, respondents considered

! Lower speeds are associated with reduced road widthand reduced visibility, on both links and junctions.

! Site type (for example historic, new build, DB32compliant etc) is not a significant determinant of speed.Junction and link geometries (width and forwardvisibility) are the important variables.

! Speed is known to be a key factor for road safety. Thefindings of this research are consistent with this fact,indicating that higher speeds on links increase thelikelihood of injury and its severity.

! Conflicting movements at junctions result in a highernumber of accidents, but geometry can lower speedswhich reduce both the chance and severity of accidents.

! Stopping distances on links and at junctions have amargin of safety down to a visibility of a round 20 m inthe environments study, unless other speed reductionfeatures are incorporated.

! The sites included roads with a range of surface types,varying use of speed restriction measures, differentlevels of on-street parking and a range of forwardvisibilities. The results are consequently applicable to awide range of estates throughout the UK. However, thestudy could not encompass all situations. One site(Belgravia) was significantly different from the others,with wide road widths, large forward visibilities andhigh traffic speeds. This site had to be excluded from theanalysis and therefore other exceptions could exist.

! Parking was found to reduce speeds on links and atjunctions by in the region of 2 to 5 mph. That is, driversreact to the perceived danger by reducing their speed.The effect of this on safety is unclear. Reducing speedincreases relative safety, but parked vehicles reducelines of sight and can consequently obscure (crossing)pedestrians. Double parking was associated with highernumbers of casualties in the STATS19 analysis.Moreover, many of the reported near misses from thehousehold survey were related to parked vehicles. Onbalance it would appear prudent to manage parkingwithin an estate design. The household surveyconfirmed the importance to residents of havingadequate provision close to their home, but thatunmanaged on-street parking can cause issues andpossibly dangers. Design could therefore aim to eitheruse off-street parking, or reduce the interaction ofpedestrians with parked vehicles near to a thoroughfare.

! Reducing road width reduces drivers approach speeds, areduction from 10 to 5 metres was predicted to reducespeeds on links by up to 4 mph and speeds approachingjunctions by up to 10 mph. Though these were absolutewidth measurements, it is possible that the same resultsmay be achievable using psychological measures to givethe appearance of reduced width.

! The largest effect on speeds was found to be associatedwith reducing lines of sight. A reduction from 120 to 20metres reduced approach speeds by approximately20 mph on links and 11 mph at junctions. Modelling hasshown the reduction in approach speed should result insight distances of 40 metres being relatively safe, i.e. there

40

that available off-street parking was not often optimallyutilised, and nearly half of them had difficulties parkingoutside their home.

! Parking on-street can result in streets not functioning inthe way they were designed, and this can createhazardous driving conditions. Twenty of the sixty-sixincidents reported by respondents, who gave details ofaccidents and near-misses, were related to parking.

! Through traffic, particularly the high speeds of vehicles,was another major concern for residents: second only toparking. Overall approximately half the respondentswere concerned about speeds, and in New Town(Reading) 80% expressed a concern over speeds.

These results have been integrated into the Manual forStreets in the form of appropriate standards for residentialstreet design, and will become the focus for Governmentguidance on new residential streets.

12 Acknowledgements

The work described in this report was carried out in theSustainable Communities Group of TRL Limited. Theauthors are grateful to Janet Kennedy, the TechnicalReferee who carried out the quality review and auditingof this report. We would also like to acknowledge thecontribution of Phil Jones.

13 References

Aburahmah A E and Al Assar R. (1998). Evaluation ofneighborhood traffic calming techniques in residentialareas. ITE Annual Meeting Compendium. Washington DC:Institute of Transportation Engineers.

ACPO (2004). Secured by design. Retrieved: December2006, from www.securedbydesign.com.

Auto Express, 9-15 November 2005, Issue 883.

Barrel J and Whitehouse J (2004). Home Zones - Anevolving approach to community streets. Proceedings ofthe Institution of Civil Engineers, 157, pp. 257-265

Ben-Joseph E (1995). Changing the residential streetscene: adapting the shared streets concept to the suburbanenvironment. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation, 61 (4)

Boulter P G, Hickman A J, Latham S, Layfield R,Davison P and Whiteman P (2001). The impacts of trafficcalming measures on vehicle exhaust emissions. TRLReport TRL482. Wokingham: TRL.

Brindle R E (1996). Designing for moderate speeds innew neighbourhoods. ARRB Special Report No. 53.Australia: Australian Road Research Board

Burrow I J (1977). Delays on single-lane roads withpassing places. Working Paper WP/TSN/29R.Wokingham: TRL. (Unpublished report available ondirect personal application only)

Chinn L and Elliott M (2002). The effect of roadappearance on perceived safe travel speed: Final report.Papers & Articles PA3827/20. Wokingham: TRL.

Chorlton E (2000). Just whose street is it anyway?Surveyor, 20th July 2000, pp.15-18

Countryside Agency (2005). Mini guide to rural roadsafety and traffic calming. St. Albans: Faber Maunsell.

Daisa J M and Peers J B (1997). Narrow residentialstreets: do they really slow down speeds? ITE 6th AnnualMeeting Compendium of Technical Papers.

Department for Communities and Local Government(DCLG) (2006). Tree roots in the built environment. London:Department for Communities and Local Government.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs(DEFRA (2006). Securing the Regions’ futures:strengthening delivery of sustainable development in theEnglish regions. London: Department for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs.

DeRobertis M and Wachtel A (1996). Traffic calmingdos and don'ts to encourage bicycling. ITE AnnualMeeting Compendium. Washington DC: Institute ofTransportation Engineers.

Department for the Environment, Transport and theRegions (DETR) and Commission for Architecture andthe Built Environment (CABE) (2000). By design: urbandesign in the planning system: towards better practice.London: Department for the Environment, Transport andthe Regions and Commission for Architecture and theBuilt Environment.

Department of the Environment, Transport and theRegions (DETR) (1999). A better quality of life: astrategy for sustainable development in the UnitedKingdom. London: Department of the Environment,Transport and the Regions.

Department for Transport (DfT) (2004). Quiet lanes.Traffic Advisory Leaflet 3/04. London: Department forTransport.

Department of Transport (DOT) (1993). Pavementparking. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 04/93. London:Department of Transport.

Department for Transport, Local Government and theRegions (DTLR) (2002). Green spaces, better places:Final report of the Urban Green Spaces Taskforce.London: Department for Transport, Local Government andthe Regions.

41

Department for Transport, Local Government and theRegions (DTLR) and Commission for Architecture andthe Built Environment (CABE) (2001). By design: betterplaces to live. London: Department for Transport, LocalGovernment and the Regions and Commission forArchitecture and the Built Environment.

Elliott M A, McColl V A and Kennedy J V (2003). Roaddesign measures to reduce drivers' speed via ‘psychological’processes: a literature review. TRL Report TRL564.Wokingham: TRL.

Engel U and Thomsen L K (1992). Safety effects of speedreducing measures in Danish residential areas. AccidentAnalysis and Prevention, 24 (1), pp. 17-28

English Partnerships and Llewelyn Davies (2000). UrbanDesign Compendium. London: English Partnerships.

Engwicht D (2003). Intrigue and uncertainty: towardsnew traffic-taming tools. Version 2.1. CreativeCommunities International.

Gibbard A, Reid S, Mitchell J, Lawton B, Brown E andHarper H (2004). The effect of road narrowings oncyclists. TRL Report TRL621. Wokingham: TRL.

Grayling T, Hallam K, Graham D, Anderson R andGlaister S (2002). Streets ahead: safe and liveable streetsfor children. Institute for Public Policy Research

Hardy S (2004). Pushing the boundaries. Surveyor, 1stJuly 2004.

Harris G J, Stait R E, Abbott P G and Watts G R(1999). Traffic calming: vehicle generated noise andground-borne vibration alongside sinusoidal, round-topand flat-top road humps. TRL Report TRL416.Wokingham: TRL.

Home Office (2000). An evaluation of secured by designhousing within West Yorkshire. Briefing Note 7/00.London: Home Office

Kallberg V and Ranta S (2000). Impacts of urban speed-reducing measures. 2nd International Symposium onHighway Geometric Design, Mainz, Germany, June 14-172000, pp. 93-109

Kennedy J V, Gorell R, Crinson L, Wheeler A andElliott M (2005). Psychological traffic calming. TRLReport TRL641. Wokingham: TRL.

Kennedy J V, Wheeler A H and Inwood C M (2004a).Norfolk Quiet Lanes Scheme. TRL Report TRL603.Wokingham: TRL.

Kennedy J V, Wheeler A H and Inwood C M (2004b).Kent Quiet Lanes Scheme. TRL Report TRL602.Wokingham: TRL.

Kennedy J V, Hall R D and Barnard S R (1998).Accidents at urban mini-roundabouts. TRL Report TRL281.Wokingham: TRL.

Lawton B J, Webb P J, Wall G T and Davies D G (2003).Cyclists at ‘Continental’ style roundabouts: report on fourtrial sites. TRL Report TRL584. Wokingham: TRL.

Layfield R, Webster D and Buttress S (2005). Pilothome zone schemes: evaluation of Magor Village,Monmouthshire. TRL Report TRL633. Wokingham: TRL.

Layfield R, Summersgill I and Chatterjee K (1996).Accidents at urban priority crossroads and staggeredjunctions. TRL Report TRL185. Wokingham: TRL.

Maycock G and Hall R D (1984). Accidents at 4-armroundabouts. Laboratory Report LR1120. Wokingham: TRL.

Noble J and Jenks M (1996). Parking: demand andprovision of private sector housing developments. Oxford:School of Architecture, Oxford Brooks University.

Noble J, Bennett G and Jenks M (1987). Roads andparking in private sector housing schemes: studies ofaccident records, innovative layouts and parkingprovision. UK: Housing Research Foundation.

Noordzij P C and Hagenzieker M P (1996).Verkeersborden, bebakening en verkeersveiligheid.Leidschendam: SWOV.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2003a).Better streets, better places: delivering sustainableresidential environments. London: Office of the DeputyPrime Minister.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2003b).Sustainable communities: building for the future. London:Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2003c).Delivering planning policy for housing: PPG3Implementation Study. London: Office of the DeputyPrime Minister

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2004).Safer places: the planning system and crime prevention.London: The Stationery Office.

Olson P (1997). Driver perception-response time. Instituteof Traffic Accident Investigators. Proceedings of the 3rdNational Conference, Telford, 14 - 16 November 1997.

Oxley P R (2002). Inclusive mobility: a guide to bestpractice on access to pedestrian and transportinfrastructure. London: Department for Transport.

Polus A and Craus J (1996). Planning and geometricaspects of shared streets. Washington DC: TransportationResearch Board.

42

Scottish Executive (2005). Residential streets. PlanningAdvice Note 74. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Planningand Building.

Scottish Executive (1999). Natural traffic calming:guidance and research report. Edinburgh: ScottishExecutive Development Department.

Summersgill I and Layfield R (1996). Non-junctionaccidents on urban single-carriageway roads. TRL ReportTRL183. Wokingham: TRL.

Summersgill I, Kennedy J V, Baynes D (1996).Accidents at 3-arm priority junctions on urban single-carriageway roads. TRL Report TRL184. Wokingham: TRL.

Svensson T (2000). Balancing car accessibility and goodurban environment, transport systems organisation andplanning. Proceedings of 3rd KFB Research Conference,Stockholm, June 2000

Taylor M, Hall R and Chatterjee K (1996). Accidents at3-arm traffic signals on urban single-carriageway roads.TRL Report TRL135. Wokingham: TRL.

Tilly A, Webster D and Buttress S (2005). Pilot homezone schemes: evaluation of Northmoor, Manchester. TRLReport TRL625. Wokingham: TRL.

Vis A A, Dijkstra A and Slop M (1992). Safety effects of30 km/h zones in the Netherlands. Accidents Analysis andPrevention, 24, pp. 75-86.

Webster D, Tilly A and Buttress S (2005). Pilot homezone schemes: evaluation of Cavell Way, Sittingbourne.TRL Report TRL626. Wokingham: TRL.

Westdijk E (2001). Designing a safe residentialenvironment for children. Proceedings of the Conferenceon Traffic Safety on Three Continents. Moscow, Russia,19-21 September 2001

43

App

endi

x A

: Lit

erat

ure

revi

ew

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

iptio

n of

sou

rce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

datio

ns /

Key

con

clus

ions

Obj

ectiv

es f

or s

tree

ts

Wha

t mak

es f

or g

ood

stre

ets

Eng

lish

Part

ners

hips

/H

as s

ampl

es o

f m

odel

str

eets

bas

ed o

n th

eir

posi

tion

in a

Eng

land

, UK

The

cur

rent

hig

hway

/eng

inee

ring

app

roac

h to

roa

d hi

erar

chie

s is

and

netw

orks

.L

lew

elyn

Dav

ies

(200

0).

hier

arch

y co

veri

ng t

he f

ollo

win

g cl

assi

fica

tions

:in

appr

opri

ate.

It

sugg

ests

ins

tead

an

alte

rnat

ive

hier

arch

y of

Urb

an D

esig

n C

ompe

ndiu

m.

Mai

n R

oad;

Ave

nue

or B

oule

vard

; Hig

h St

reet

; Str

eet o

rst

reet

s an

d sp

aces

.Sq

uare

; and

Mew

s or

Cou

rtya

rd (

p. 7

5). I

t set

s th

is in

dire

ct c

ontr

ast

to t

he e

ngin

eeri

ng o

rien

ted

pers

pect

ive

whi

ch s

ees

stre

ets

sole

ly in

term

s of

veh

icle

car

ryin

gca

paci

ty a

nd i

gnor

es t

he m

ulti-

func

tiona

l ro

le o

f st

reet

s.

Loc

al d

istin

ctiv

enes

s.Sc

ottis

h E

xecu

tive

(200

5).

Thi

s PA

N f

ocus

es o

n th

e de

sign

of

bette

r qu

ality

Scot

land

, UK

Con

text

, whe

n co

nsid

erin

g de

sign

, is

very

im

port

ant.

Res

iden

tial

stre

ets,

pla

nnin

g.re

side

ntia

l st

reet

s, in

par

ticul

ar, f

acto

rs w

hich

can

cre

ate

Rec

omm

enda

tions

are

mad

e re

gard

ing

fitti

ng in

with

the

loca

lA

dvic

e N

ote

74.

good

qua

lity

stre

ets

desi

gn.

char

acte

r, lin

king

des

ign

to t

he s

urro

undi

ng a

rea,

and

cons

ider

ing

the

mov

emen

t thr

ough

and

with

in a

site

. Cre

atin

g an

iden

tity

for

a st

reet

is a

lso

impo

rtan

t, w

hich

will

invo

lve

defi

ning

a s

tree

t ch

arac

ter

type

, sel

ectin

g ap

prop

riat

e st

reet

furn

iture

, mat

eria

ls a

nd s

igna

ge.

Hie

rarc

hy o

f m

odes

.C

horl

ton,

E (

2000

). Ju

st w

hose

Cho

rlto

n (2

000)

que

stio

ns s

tree

t use

s an

d w

heth

er a

llU

KSt

reet

s ar

e do

min

ated

by

exce

ssiv

e si

gnag

e, u

tility

ins

talla

tions

,st

reet

is it

any

way

? Su

rvey

or,

stre

ets

have

to b

e m

ade

acce

ssib

le to

all.

Pro

gres

s on

the

barr

iers

and

clu

tter,

whi

le th

e hi

ghw

ay s

pace

bet

wee

n bu

ildin

gs20

th J

uly

2000

, pp.

15-

18.

‘Des

igni

ng S

tree

ts f

or P

eopl

e’ d

ocum

ent i

s di

scus

sed.

is

giv

en p

rim

arily

to m

otor

ised

mod

es o

f tr

affi

c. V

ast a

cres

of

surf

acin

g ha

ve b

een

laid

to e

nsur

e th

at th

e bi

gges

t art

icul

ated

vehi

cles

in

the

coun

try

can

nego

tiate

eac

h be

nd a

nd j

unct

ion,

whi

le p

edes

tria

ns, v

isito

rs, s

hopp

ers

and

resi

dent

s m

ake

do w

ithw

hat i

s le

ft.

Sust

aina

ble

com

mun

ities

Secu

rity

iss

ues.

OD

PM (

2004

). Sa

fer

plac

es:

The

gui

de s

tres

ses

the

impo

rtan

ce o

f st

ruct

ure

and

UK

Cre

atin

g de

fens

ible

spa

ces

and

clea

r vi

sibi

lity

are

esse

ntia

lth

e pl

anni

ng s

yste

m a

nd c

rim

ebu

ildin

g bl

ock

layo

ut i

n or

der

to m

inim

ise

the

likel

ihoo

dco

nsid

erat

ions

.pr

even

tion.

of c

rim

e. A

saf

e ur

ban

stru

ctur

e is

cha

ract

eris

ed b

ybu

ildin

gs w

ith l

imite

d ex

posu

re t

o th

e pu

blic

rea

lm, w

ithac

tive

fron

tage

s lo

okin

g on

to s

tree

ts, c

ompl

emen

ted

by a

regu

lar m

ovem

ent f

ram

ewor

k.

OD

PM (

2004

). Sa

fer

plac

es:

The

gui

de a

rgue

s th

at c

ar p

arki

ng is

idea

lly lo

cate

d in

UK

!Pa

rkin

g ne

eds

to b

e pr

ovid

ed in

a m

anne

r w

hich

allo

ws

for

the

plan

ning

sys

tem

and

hom

e ga

rage

s or

dri

vew

ays

behi

nd c

urta

ilage

. Thi

s is

of

natu

ral

surv

eilla

nce

and

redu

ces

the

likel

ihoo

d of

the

ft o

rcr

ime

prev

entio

n.co

urse

not

alw

ays

poss

ible

and

not

alw

ays

desi

rabl

e in

vand

alis

m.

desi

gn te

rms.

The

rec

ent p

refe

renc

e fo

r co

urty

ard

park

ing

need

s to

be

care

fully

des

igne

d to

max

imis

e na

tura

l!

Perm

eabi

lity

is n

ot o

nly

abou

t acc

ess,

but

als

o ab

out v

isua

lsu

rvei

llanc

e. I

deal

ly o

nly

one

entr

ance

sho

uld

be a

llow

ed.

perm

eabi

lity

whi

ch i

mpr

oves

sur

veill

ance

and

saf

ety.

On

stre

et p

arki

ng w

hich

is w

ell s

uper

vise

d fr

omne

ighb

ouri

ng h

ouse

s m

ay a

ctua

lly b

e be

tter

than

!T

ackl

ing

fear

of

crim

e is

mul

ti-fa

cete

d an

d de

pend

ent o

nco

urty

ard

park

ing

in s

afet

y te

rms

in m

any

case

s.m

any

fact

ors,

not

all

of w

hich

can

be

tack

led

by th

ede

sign

pri

ncip

les

and

effe

ctiv

e m

anag

emen

t an

d po

licin

gca

n he

lp to

red

uce

fear

of

crim

e.

44

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

iptio

n of

sou

rce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

datio

ns /

Key

con

clus

ions

Sust

aina

ble

com

mun

ities

(C

ontin

ued)

Secu

rity

iss

ues

(con

tinue

d).

Stre

ets

shou

ld b

e pa

rt o

f a

clea

r an

d le

gibl

e m

ovem

ent

!Pl

anne

rs s

houl

d ta

rget

an

appr

opri

ate

leve

l of

hum

anfr

amew

ork.

The

re s

houl

d be

a c

lear

dis

tinct

ion

betw

een

activ

ity f

or e

ach

loca

tion

in o

rder

to r

educ

e th

e ri

sk o

f cr

ime

plan

ning

sys

tem

alo

ne. H

owev

er a

com

bina

tion

of g

ood

and

crea

te a

sen

se o

f sa

fety

at a

ll tim

es.

publ

ic, s

emi-

priv

ate

and

priv

ate

spac

es. T

his

defi

nitio

nne

ed n

ot b

e ac

hiev

ed b

y in

trod

ucin

g ob

stac

les

to v

isua

lpe

rmea

bilit

y an

d he

nce

redu

cing

sur

veill

ance

and

pas

sive

obse

rvat

ion.

Red

ucin

g fe

ar o

f cr

ime

is a

cro

ss-c

uttin

g th

eme

thro

ugho

ut th

e re

port

. Fea

r ca

n be

red

uced

eff

ectiv

ely

byad

heri

ng t

o th

e pr

inci

ples

out

lined

in

the

repo

rt. A

mon

gth

e m

ost i

mpo

rtan

t whi

ch c

an m

ake

peop

le ‘

feel

’ sa

fer

are:

havi

ng c

lear

and

ide

ntif

iabl

e ro

utes

; ha

ving

urb

anst

ruct

ures

whi

ch p

rovi

de f

or n

atur

al s

urve

illan

ce o

fpu

blic

spa

ces

and

‘def

ensi

ble’

pri

vate

spa

ces;

hav

ing

appr

opri

ate

publ

ic l

ight

ing

in d

arke

r ar

eas

at n

ight

and

in c

erta

in l

ocat

ions

(e.

g. d

ark,

enc

lose

d la

new

ays,

und

erbr

idge

s et

c.)

duri

ng th

e da

y; C

CT

V a

nd o

ther

man

agem

ent m

easu

res

in c

erta

in e

xtre

me

case

s; a

ndha

ving

act

ive

spac

es.

Cri

me

can

be d

eter

red

by th

e pr

esen

ce o

f on

look

ers.

On

the

othe

r ha

nd t

oo m

any

peop

le p

rese

nt o

ppor

tuni

ties

for

cert

ain

type

s of

cri

me

such

as

pick

-poc

ketin

g.

AC

PO (

2004

). Se

cure

dT

he S

ecur

ed B

y D

esig

n sc

hem

e is

run

by

the

Ass

ocia

tion

UK

!C

ar p

arki

ng –

in-

curt

aila

ge p

arki

ng a

rran

gem

ents

are

By

Des

ign.

of C

hief

Pol

ice

Off

icer

s (A

CPO

) w

hich

aim

s to

enc

oura

gepr

efer

red.

Com

mun

al p

arki

ng s

houl

d be

in s

mal

l gro

ups,

hous

ing

deve

lope

rs t

o de

sign

out

cri

me,

with

par

ticul

arcl

ose

to o

r ad

jace

nt to

the

resi

dent

's pr

oper

ty.

emph

asis

on

dom

estic

bur

glar

y, a

t th

e pl

anni

ng s

tage

.H

owev

er, r

esea

rch

behi

nd t

he r

ecom

men

datio

ns i

s no

t!

Stre

et li

ghtin

g –

all l

ight

ing

mus

t com

ply

with

BS

5489

.cl

ear,

and

cert

ain

sugg

estio

ns c

ontr

adic

t m

easu

res

sugg

este

d in

oth

er k

ey a

reas

(e.

g. tr

affi

c ca

lmin

g).

Hom

e O

ffic

e (2

000)

. An

Thi

s br

iefi

ng n

ote

expl

ores

the

im

plem

enta

tion

ofU

KC

ompa

riso

ns o

f ne

w b

uild

site

s re

veal

ed th

at th

ere

wer

e 26

%ev

alua

tion

of s

ecur

ed B

ySe

cure

d B

y D

esig

n (S

BD

) pr

inci

ples

and

its

effe

cts

onfe

wer

cri

me

even

ts p

er d

wel

ling

(usi

ng r

ecor

ded

crim

e fi

gure

s)D

esig

n ho

usin

g w

ithin

Wes

tac

tual

leve

ls o

f C

rim

e. A

n ev

alua

tion

of S

BD

hou

sing

per

dwel

ling

in th

e SB

D s

ampl

e. F

or v

ehic

le c

rim

e (T

heft

of

York

shir

e. B

rief

ing

Not

e 7/

00.

took

pla

ce in

the

Wes

t Yor

kshi

re A

rea

betw

een

Apr

ilM

otor

Veh

icle

, The

ft f

rom

Mot

or V

ehic

le a

nd T

WO

C)

ther

ean

d O

ctob

er 1

999.

wer

e 42

% f

ewer

off

ence

s w

ithin

the

SBD

sam

ple.

Atti

tude

sto

war

ds s

afet

y w

ere

also

fou

nd to

be

posi

tive

on th

e SB

Dho

usin

g es

tate

s. 1

1.4%

of

SBD

res

pond

ents

in a

sur

vey

stat

edth

at th

ey f

elt '

very

uns

afe'

on

the

stre

ets

surr

ound

ing

thei

r ho

me,

alon

e, a

t nig

ht, c

ompa

red

to 1

9% o

f no

n-SB

D r

espo

nden

ts.

Mix

ing

uses

.B

en-J

osep

h E

(19

95).

Cha

ngin

gB

en-J

osep

h (1

995)

inv

estig

ates

the

ele

men

ts o

f sh

ared

USA

Stat

es th

at m

ore

time

spen

t pla

ying

in s

tree

ts in

crea

ses

chan

ces

the

resi

dent

ial

stre

et s

cene

:st

reet

s, i

nclu

ding

soc

ial

bene

fits

, re

side

nts

satis

fact

ion,

for

soci

al in

tera

ctio

n. G

erm

an s

tudy

fou

nd th

at s

tree

t re-

desi

gnad

aptin

g th

e sh

ared

str

eets

cost

s, lo

cal c

ontr

ols

and

desi

gn in

itiat

ives

. le

d to

a 2

0% in

crea

se in

pla

y ac

tivity

(E

uban

k, 1

987)

. Stu

dies

in

45

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

iptio

n of

sou

rce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

datio

ns /

Key

con

clus

ions

Sust

aina

ble

com

mun

ities

(C

ontin

ued)

Mix

ing

uses

(co

ntin

ued)

.co

ncep

t to

the

sub

urba

nJa

pan

repo

rted

that

90%

sur

veye

d sa

id th

at s

hare

d st

reet

s ar

e fo

ren

viro

nmen

t. Jo

urna

l of

the

peop

le r

athe

r th

an a

utom

obile

s, 6

7% s

aid

thei

r ch

ildre

n pl

ay o

nA

mer

ican

Pla

nnin

g A

ssoc

iatio

n,th

e st

reet

and

it is

a s

afe

plac

e to

pla

y. 6

6% f

elt t

hat t

he s

hare

dV

olum

e 61

, Iss

ue: 4

.st

reet

s en

cour

ages

soc

ial

inte

ract

ion

and

conv

ersa

tion

betw

een

neig

hbou

rs (I

chik

awa,

198

4).

Eng

lish

Part

ners

hips

/ L

lew

elyn

The

Com

pend

ium

has

a s

ectio

n w

hich

con

cent

rate

s on

UK

Roa

ds s

houl

d be

und

erst

ood

as s

tree

ts a

nd s

tree

ts in

turn

as

Dav

ies

(200

0). U

rban

Des

ign

deve

lopi

ng a

thr

ivin

g pu

blic

rea

lm. T

he s

ectio

n on

plac

es. I

n th

is li

ght t

he f

unct

ion

of a

nd a

ctiv

ity w

ithin

the

spac

eC

ompe

ndiu

m.

crea

ting

soci

al s

pace

s is

of

rele

vanc

e he

re a

nd s

ugge

sts

is im

port

ant.

focu

sing

act

ivity

are

as o

n no

des

of a

ctiv

ity a

long

with

quie

t are

as to

res

t and

rel

ax. I

t als

o se

para

tely

em

phas

ises

the

impo

rtan

ce a

ctiv

e fr

onta

ges

in te

rms

of g

ener

atin

gac

tivity

and

enc

oura

ging

pas

sive

obs

erva

tion.

It

sugg

ests

that

roa

ds s

houl

d be

tter

be u

nder

stoo

d as

str

eets

link

ing

a ne

twor

k of

pla

ces,

rat

her

than

as

a hi

erar

chy

of r

oads

.

Prov

isio

n fo

r pl

ay,

AC

PO (

2004

). Se

cure

dH

ome

Zon

es.

By

Des

ign.

The

Sec

ured

By

Des

ign

sche

me

is r

un b

y th

e A

ssoc

iatio

nU

KC

omm

unal

are

as –

pla

ying

and

sea

ting

area

s sh

ould

be

with

inof

Chi

ef P

olic

e O

ffic

ers

(AC

PO)

whi

ch a

ims

to e

ncou

rage

view

of

resi

dent

ial

prop

ertie

s.ho

usin

g de

velo

pers

to

desi

gn o

ut c

rim

e, w

ith p

artic

ular

emph

asis

on

dom

estic

bur

glar

y, a

t th

e pl

anni

ng s

tage

.H

owev

er, r

esea

rch

behi

nd t

he r

ecom

men

datio

ns i

s no

tcl

ear,

and

cert

ain

sugg

estio

ns c

ontr

adic

t m

easu

res

sugg

este

d in

oth

er k

ey a

reas

(e.

g. tr

affi

c ca

lmin

g).

Gre

en s

pace

s.D

TL

R (

2002

). G

reen

spa

ces,

Thi

s re

port

sug

gest

s th

at u

rban

par

ks a

nd g

reen

s sp

aces

UK

An

esse

ntia

l ele

men

t of

prov

idin

g hi

gh q

ualit

y ur

ban

park

s an

dbe

tter

plac

es:

final

rep

ort

of t

heha

ve a

cru

cial

rol

e to

pla

y in

invo

lvin

g th

e co

mm

unity

ingr

een

spac

es in

des

igni

ng th

em w

ith a

wid

e ra

nge

of u

sers

inU

rban

Gre

en S

pace

Tas

kfor

ce.

prov

idin

g th

e vi

sion

for

and

get

ting

invo

lved

in

thei

rm

ind,

suc

h as

chi

ldre

n, B

ME

gro

ups

and

peop

le w

ithlo

cal

envi

ronm

ent.

Var

iety

of

func

tion

is a

n im

port

ant

disa

bilit

ies.

aspe

ct in

enc

oura

ging

the

com

mun

ity to

mak

e be

tter

use

of s

uch

plac

es a

nd s

pace

s.

DT

LR

(20

02).

Gre

en s

pace

s,Po

sitiv

e G

reen

Spa

ces

can

impr

ove

the

imag

e of

the

UK

Des

ign

revi

ews

and

bette

r m

anag

emen

t can

res

ult i

n an

bette

r pl

aces

: fin

al r

epor

t of

the

loca

lity

and

help

to in

stil

a se

nse

of lo

cal p

ride

. Cre

atin

gim

prov

ed u

rban

par

k an

d gr

een

spac

e pr

oduc

t. L

ands

cape

des

ign

Urb

an G

reen

Spa

ce T

askf

orce

.at

trac

tive

urba

n pa

rks

and

gree

n sp

aces

doe

s no

t hap

pen

shou

ld m

eet t

he n

eeds

of

effi

cien

t mai

nten

ance

and

cos

tby

cha

nce.

The

rep

ort s

ugge

sts

mak

ing

use

of d

esig

nef

fect

iven

ess

with

out

com

prom

isin

g va

riet

y.re

view

s fo

r fa

iling

par

ks a

nd g

reen

spa

ces.

It a

rgue

sst

rong

ly a

gain

st u

sing

gen

eric

blu

epri

nts

and

inst

ead

argu

es t

hat

ever

y sp

ace

is c

onte

xtua

lised

. Bet

ter

man

agem

ent o

f pa

rks

and

open

spa

ces

is u

rgen

tly r

equi

red

in o

rder

. The

rep

ort a

dvoc

ates

a b

ette

r fo

cus

on p

arks

amon

g lo

cal

auth

oriti

es, i

n pa

rtne

rshi

p w

ith t

he l

ocal

com

mun

ity in

ord

er to

est

ablis

h ag

reed

pri

oriti

es f

orm

aint

enan

ce a

nd i

nves

tmen

t.

46

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

iptio

n of

sou

rce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

datio

ns /

Key

con

clus

ions

Sust

aina

ble

com

mun

ities

(C

ontin

ued)

Mix

ing

uses

(co

ntin

ued)

.E

nglis

h Pa

rtne

rshi

ps /

Lle

wel

ynIt

sug

gest

s us

ing

a va

riet

y of

met

hods

to m

ake

the

urba

nU

KC

aref

ul la

ndsc

apin

g ca

n be

use

d to

stim

ulat

e th

e se

nses

and

Dav

ies

(200

0). U

rban

Des

ign

envi

ronm

ent

mor

e st

imul

atin

g; i

t su

gges

ts t

hat

desi

gner

sm

ake

the

urba

n en

viro

nmen

t m

ore

appe

alin

g.C

ompe

ndiu

m.

shou

ld c

onsi

der

the

sens

es in

term

s of

how

they

des

ign

spac

es a

nd p

lace

s. A

side

fro

m th

e vi

sual

ele

men

ts w

hich

can

aid

livea

bilit

y an

d ta

stef

ul s

igna

ge w

here

nec

essa

ry,

ther

e is

als

o to

uch,

sou

nd a

nd s

mel

l.

Qua

lity

plac

es

Lay

out,

geom

etri

c an

dSt

ewar

t (2

000)

. R

ecla

imin

gSt

ewar

t (20

00)

disc

usse

s th

e de

sign

of

Ingr

ess

Park

hou

sing

UK

!C

halle

ngin

g th

e do

min

atio

n of

the

car

by

prio

ritis

ing

othe

rm

ater

ial

choi

ces.

the

stre

ets.

Sur

veyo

r,de

velo

pmen

t, th

e si

te o

f 95

0 ne

w h

omes

in G

reen

hith

e,fo

rms

of tr

ansp

ort.

20th

Jul

y 20

00.

sout

h ba

nk o

f th

e T

ham

es in

Ken

t. T

he r

oads

with

in th

ede

velo

pmen

t hav

e be

en d

esig

ned

to r

educ

e th

e im

pact

of

!U

sing

bui

ldin

gs to

cre

ate

stro

ng p

inch

poi

nts

on s

tree

ts.

the

car

on th

e en

viro

nmen

t. T

he d

esig

n fe

atur

es d

eplo

yed

to a

chie

ve th

is h

ave

chal

leng

ed a

nd s

tret

ched

the

curr

ent

!‘T

hrea

ding

’ th

e sp

ine

road

thro

ugh

the

site

.gu

idel

ines

and

acc

epte

d no

rms.

The

re is

a m

ain

spin

e ro

adru

nnin

g th

roug

h th

e de

velo

pmen

t, bu

t it

rang

es f

rom

onl

y!

Cre

atin

g co

ntin

uous

fro

ntag

e to

spi

ne r

oad.

5 to

6 m

wid

e at

the

narr

owes

t poi

nt, 1

.25

m b

elow

the

desi

gn g

uide

min

imum

. The

spi

ne r

oad

also

run

s pa

st th

e!

Des

igni

ng-i

n bu

s pr

iori

ty a

nd i

nclu

ding

des

igna

ted

bus

rout

esfr

ont

of h

omes

, enc

oura

ging

saf

er d

rivi

ng a

nd p

edes

tria

nC

reat

ing

‘Hom

e Z

ones

’ w

here

ped

estr

ians

, not

car

s, h

ave

use

of s

pace

. The

spi

ne r

oad

also

enc

ompa

sses

90o b

ends

,pr

iori

ty P

erm

eatin

g th

e si

te w

ith f

ootp

aths

and

cyc

le n

etw

orks

.cr

ossr

oad

junc

tions

and

pin

ch p

oint

s, a

nd d

rive

rs h

ave

to p

ass

side

ele

vatio

ns o

f bu

ildin

gs o

nly

a fo

otpa

th’s

!D

evel

opin

g a

stro

ng c

ar p

arki

ng s

trat

egy.

wid

th a

way

. It i

s en

visa

ged

that

thes

e de

sign

fea

ture

s w

illen

cour

age

vehi

cles

to s

low

and

incr

ease

ped

estr

ian

safe

ty.

!R

estr

aini

ng v

ehic

ular

spe

ed to

20

mph

and

bel

ow.

Pede

stri

ans

and

cycl

ists

are

pro

vide

d w

ith d

irec

t st

raig

htlin

e ro

utes

acr

oss

the

site

, whe

reas

dri

vers

are

for

ced

tofo

llow

the

spin

e ro

ad a

s it

snak

es a

roun

d th

e ho

uses

eith

erin

sha

rp o

r sw

eepi

ng c

urve

s. P

arki

ng p

rovi

sion

nor

ms

have

als

o be

en c

halle

nged

, with

a m

axim

um o

f 2

spac

espe

r ho

use,

reg

ardl

ess

of th

e nu

mbe

r of

bed

room

s,pr

ovid

ed. T

o en

cour

age

the

use

of p

ublic

tran

spor

t, no

hom

e is

mor

e th

an 3

00 m

fro

m a

bus

sto

p. H

owev

er, n

ola

ybys

are

pro

vide

d an

d th

ere

are

land

scap

ed c

entr

alro

ad is

land

s ad

jace

nt to

bus

sto

ps, e

nsur

ing

that

oth

erve

hicl

es h

ave

to r

emai

n be

hind

bus

es u

ntil

all p

asse

nger

sha

ve b

oard

ed.

Stre

et c

hara

cter

. Sv

enss

on T

(20

00).

Bal

anci

ngT

he p

urpo

se o

f th

e re

sear

ch w

as to

inve

stig

ate

and

anal

yse

Swed

en44

% (

the

maj

ority

) of

all

resp

onde

nts

stat

ed th

at th

ey w

ould

car

acce

ssib

ility

and

goo

dth

e ba

lanc

e be

twee

n th

e be

nefi

ts to

an

indi

vidu

al o

ffer

edpr

efer

the

low

er s

peed

lim

it sc

enar

io. H

owev

er, t

he s

cena

rio

urba

n en

viro

nmen

t, tr

ansp

ort

by u

nlim

ited

car

acce

ss a

nd th

e re

late

d co

nseq

uenc

es o

fst

ress

es th

e im

port

ance

that

car

acc

ess

does

not

jeop

ardi

se th

esy

stem

s or

gani

satio

n an

dov

eral

l tr

affi

c vo

lum

es t

hat

indi

vidu

als

wou

ld c

hoos

e if

safe

ty a

nd c

omfo

rt o

f cy

clis

ts a

nd p

edes

tria

ns. T

he s

cena

rio

plan

ning

. Pr

ocee

ding

s of

conn

ectio

ns b

etw

een

thes

e va

riab

les

was

mad

e cl

ear.

advo

cate

s sp

ace

shar

ing

for

the

use

of th

e en

tire

stre

et in

3rd

KFB

Res

earc

h C

onfe

renc

e,In

divi

dual

s w

ere

pres

ente

d w

ith a

que

stio

nnai

re, a

skin

g to

resi

dent

ial a

reas

. The

ove

rall

resu

lts o

f th

e st

udy

reve

aled

that

Stoc

khol

m,

June

200

0.ch

oose

a n

umbe

r of

dif

fere

nt s

cena

rios

, pre

sent

ed b

yin

divi

dual

s pr

efer

sce

nari

os w

here

all

kind

s of

roa

d us

ers

diff

eren

t, bu

t co

mpl

emen

tary

, tec

hniq

ues.

Fou

r di

ffer

ent

rela

tivel

y co

exis

t on

stre

ets

and

road

s in

tow

ns a

nd c

ities

whe

re

47

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

iptio

n of

sou

rce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

datio

ns /

Key

con

clus

ions

Qua

lity

plac

es (

Con

tinue

d)

Stre

et c

hara

cter

(co

ntin

ued)

.sc

enar

ios

of r

esid

entia

l are

as w

ithin

an

urba

n se

tting

are

this

situ

atio

n ha

s be

en r

each

ed b

y tr

affi

c ca

lmin

g m

easu

res.

desc

ribe

d. T

he c

hara

cter

istic

s th

at v

ary

betw

een

scen

ario

sar

e th

e co

nditi

ons

for

cars

and

par

king

, whi

ch w

ill h

ave

cons

eque

nces

for

pub

lic t

rans

port

, ped

estr

ians

, cyc

lists

and

child

ren’

s pl

ay o

n th

e st

reet

s.

DfT

(20

05).

Atti

tude

s to

Thi

s re

port

foc

uses

on

the

resu

lts o

f th

e D

fT’s

ON

S om

nibu

s U

KO

ne q

uart

er o

f re

spon

dent

s st

ated

that

the

impa

ct o

f tr

affi

c on

stre

etsc

ape

and

stre

et u

ses.

surv

ey (

unde

rtak

en i

n O

ctob

er 2

004)

reg

ardi

ng p

eopl

e’s

thei

r qu

ality

of

life

was

ser

ious

. 55%

of

all r

espo

nden

ts th

ough

tat

titud

es to

str

eets

as

part

of

the

built

env

iron

men

t,th

at tr

affi

c in

thei

r ar

ea w

as d

ange

rous

to p

edes

tria

ns a

nd o

ther

incl

udin

g pu

blic

opi

nion

on

resi

dent

ial s

tree

ts.

road

use

rs. O

f th

ose

that

thou

ght t

raff

ic w

as d

ange

rous

in th

eir

area

, hal

f th

ough

t tha

t tra

ffic

cal

min

g w

ould

be

a so

lutio

n. W

hen

aske

d to

rat

e th

e qu

ality

of

thei

r st

reet

in te

rms

of h

ow it

is la

idou

t or

built

, 80%

of

resp

onde

nts

agre

ed it

was

ple

asan

t. Pe

ople

wer

e as

ked

whi

ch u

sers

sho

uld

have

pri

ority

in th

eir

stre

et o

rro

ad if

it w

ere

to b

e re

desi

gned

. Par

king

for

res

iden

ts (

46%

),ch

ildre

n pl

ayin

g (4

35)

and

wal

king

(42

%)

wer

e th

e th

ree

mos

tpo

pula

r re

spon

ses.

67%

of

resp

onde

nts

agre

ed th

at it

was

impo

rtan

t for

them

that

thei

r st

reet

sho

uld

have

mor

e ‘s

oft

land

scap

ing’

suc

h as

tree

s an

d gr

een

area

s. T

he m

ajor

ity (

71%

)th

ough

t tha

t it w

as im

port

ant f

or e

very

one

to h

ave

a pa

rkin

gsp

ace

outs

ide

thei

r ho

use.

Peo

ple

gene

rally

thou

ght t

hat i

t was

impo

rtan

t for

the

stre

et to

be

a go

od p

lace

to s

top

and

talk

tone

ighb

ours

(81%

).

Res

pond

ents

wer

e as

ked

whi

ch p

hysi

cal

qual

ity t

hey

look

ed f

orw

hen

choo

sing

a p

lace

to li

ve. 8

0% s

tate

d fe

elin

g sa

fe w

hen

wal

king

aro

und,

75%

tho

ught

tha

t a

good

gen

eral

env

iron

men

tw

as im

port

ant,

whi

le 6

6% lo

oked

for

a w

ell-

mai

ntai

ned

stre

et.

80%

of

resp

onde

nts

thou

ght t

hat i

t was

impo

rtan

t for

thei

r st

reet

to b

e a

high

qua

lity

envi

ronm

ent

(e.g

. qua

lity

pavi

ng, g

reen

area

s, s

tree

t art

).

Dim

ensi

ons

stre

ets

and

squa

res,

Scot

tish

Exe

cutiv

e (2

005)

.T

his

PAN

foc

uses

on

the

desi

gn o

f be

tter

qual

ity r

esid

entia

lSc

otla

ndD

orse

t Cou

nty

Cou

ncil’

s ‘H

ighw

ay G

uida

nce

for

Est

ate

Roa

ds’

rela

tions

hip

to b

uild

ing

heig

hts

Res

iden

tial

stre

ets,

pla

nnin

g.st

reet

s, in

par

ticul

ar, f

acto

rs w

hich

can

cre

ate

good

qua

lity

(200

2) w

as p

rodu

ced

to e

nsur

e th

at e

stat

es w

ere

no lo

nger

and

mas

sing

.A

dvic

e N

ote

74.

stre

ets

desi

gn.

indi

stin

guis

habl

e fr

om e

ach

othe

r an

d no

t re

late

d to

the

ir l

ocal

e.T

he d

ocum

ent s

uppo

rts

spee

d re

stra

int t

hat i

s de

sign

ed in

to th

ede

velo

pmen

t fro

m th

e be

ginn

ing

and

is n

ot b

olte

d on

as

anaf

tert

houg

ht. S

peed

hum

ps a

nd c

hica

nes

are

not

acce

ptab

le, a

ndsp

eeds

are

kep

t low

thro

ugh

the

posi

tioni

ng o

f ke

y bu

ildin

gs a

ndsp

aces

, and

red

ucin

g th

e ef

fect

ive

leng

th o

f ro

ad s

ectio

ns to

60

m–

spee

ds s

houl

d th

eref

ore

rem

ain

belo

w 2

0 m

ph. J

unct

ions

with

redu

ced

radi

i are

enc

oura

ged,

as

are

spee

d re

stra

inin

g be

nds

(whi

ch li

mit

forw

ard

visi

bilit

y) a

nd v

aryi

ng th

e w

idth

of

the

hori

zont

al a

lignm

ent.

On-

stre

et p

arki

ng is

allo

wed

.

48

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

iptio

n of

sou

rce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

datio

ns /

Key

con

clus

ions

Qua

lity

plac

es (

Con

tinue

d)

Dim

ensi

ons

stre

ets

and

squa

res,

DT

LR

and

CA

BE

(20

01).

Bri

ef r

efer

ence

to f

our

poss

ible

rat

ios

of s

tree

t wid

th to

UK

The

key

issu

e is

the

spac

e be

twee

n th

e bu

ildin

gs in

rel

atio

n to

rela

tions

hip

to b

uild

ing

heig

hts

By

Des

ign:

bet

ter

plac

es to

live

.bu

ildin

g he

ight

(re

side

ntia

l are

as o

nly)

. The

re is

als

o a

the

scal

e of

the

build

ings

and

the

activ

ities

taki

ng p

lace

in th

ean

d m

assi

ng (

cont

inue

d).

disc

ussi

on a

bout

‘se

tbac

ks’

agai

n in

rel

atio

n to

the

mod

elst

reet

. Spe

cifi

c ra

tios

shou

ld b

e ta

ken

as a

gui

de o

nly

and

prov

ided

by

Poun

dbur

y.ad

apte

d to

the

leve

l of

activ

ity a

nd th

e co

ntex

t.

Min

imis

ing

clut

ter

/ si

gnag

e /

Eng

lish

Part

ners

hips

/ L

lew

elyn

The

Urb

an D

esig

n C

ompe

ndiu

m o

ffer

s an

ove

rvie

w o

fU

KB

rief

ref

eren

ce to

pre

vale

nce

of s

lopp

ily d

raw

n lin

es a

nd n

eed

tom

arki

ngs.

Dav

ies

(200

0). U

rban

Des

ign

urba

n de

sign

bes

t pra

ctic

e in

the

UK

and

Int

erna

tiona

lly.

cons

ider

roa

ds/s

tree

ts m

ore

sens

itive

ly.

Com

pend

ium

.It

cov

ers

a w

ide

rang

e of

inte

rrel

ated

topi

cs w

hich

pro

vide

prac

titio

ners

with

a r

efer

ence

gui

de o

f w

hat w

orks

wel

lPu

blic

Rea

lm c

onta

ins

man

y di

ffer

ent

elem

ents

whi

ch n

eed

and

why

.ca

refu

l co

nsid

erat

ion.

The

des

ign

com

pend

ium

arg

ues

that

thi

s is

not

ofte

n ac

hiev

ed w

ell

with

too

man

y or

gani

satio

ns p

uttin

g in

too

man

y di

ffer

ent e

lem

ents

to th

e pu

blic

rea

lm in

an

unco

ordi

nate

d m

anne

r. T

his

can

lead

to

exce

ssiv

e cl

utte

r w

hich

can

have

neg

ativ

e ef

fect

s on

non

-car

use

rs. T

hey

cite

the

exam

ple

of s

heep

-pen

sty

le tr

affi

c cr

ossi

ngs

whi

ch p

rovi

de f

ree

flow

for

tra

ffic

, whi

le i

mpe

ding

ped

estr

ian

mov

emen

t.

The

y m

ake

four

spe

cifi

c re

com

men

datio

ns in

rel

atio

n to

str

eet

clut

ter:

1

Rem

ove

supe

rflu

ous

and

obso

lete

ele

men

ts –

est

ablis

h vi

sual

logi

c w

ith c

lear

mes

sage

s fo

r dr

iver

s, c

yclis

ts &

ped

estr

ians

.2

Des

ign

spac

e so

fun

ctio

ns a

re c

lear

and

so

need

for

sig

ns is

min

imis

ed.

3H

ide

it or

fla

unt i

t – s

ome

elem

ents

are

nec

essa

ry e

vils

–w

here

they

can

not b

e hi

dden

they

sho

uld

be tr

eate

d as

a f

or o

fpu

blic

art

and

hig

hlig

hted

tai

lore

d to

the

spe

cifi

c co

ntex

t.4

Prod

ucin

g a

com

preh

ensi

ve a

nd c

oord

inat

ed s

trat

egy

ofel

emen

ts f

or e

ach

spac

e –

agai

n co

ntex

t dri

ven.

Eng

lish

Part

ners

hips

/ L

lew

elyn

UK

In r

elat

ion

to s

igna

ge, t

he C

ompe

ndiu

m s

ugge

sts

that

sig

nage

for

Dav

ies

(200

0). U

rban

Des

ign

pede

stri

ans

and

cycl

ists

is a

s im

port

ant a

s th

at f

or m

otor

ists

.C

ompe

ndiu

m.

The

y su

gges

t fou

r con

side

ratio

ns:

1C

onsi

sten

t an

d co

-ord

inat

ed d

esig

n.2

Mak

ing

the

stru

ctur

e of

the

plac

e le

gibl

e so

as

to m

inim

ise

the

need

for s

igns

. 3

Con

cent

ratin

g pe

dest

rian

sig

nage

at

key

noda

l po

ints

.4

Impl

icit

rout

ing

defi

ned

by t

he p

avin

g ty

pe a

nd o

ther

met

hods

to

ease

ori

enta

tion.

OD

PM (

2004

). Sa

fer

plac

es:

Safe

r Pl

aces

is in

tend

ed a

s a

gene

ral g

uide

to th

e br

oad

UK

The

pla

cing

of

stre

et f

urni

ture

, esp

ecia

lly b

y ut

ility

com

pani

es,

the

plan

ning

sys

tem

and

cri

me

plan

ning

pri

ncip

les

outli

ned

in P

PS1.

The

gui

de is

not

shou

ld b

e ca

refu

lly c

onsi

dere

d so

as

to m

inim

ise

the

likel

ihoo

dpr

even

tion.

only

abo

ut d

esig

ning

out

cri

me,

but

als

o ab

out

prom

otin

gof

ant

i-so

cial

beh

avio

ur s

uch

as v

anda

lism

. Eac

h el

emen

t of

the

good

des

ign

lead

ing

to s

afe,

sus

tain

able

and

attr

activ

est

reet

scap

e ne

eds

to b

e co

nsid

ered

as

part

of

a to

tal w

hole

.en

viro

nmen

ts th

at m

eet t

he f

ull s

et o

f pl

anni

ngIn

sens

itive

ly p

lace

d ad

ditio

ns a

re a

pro

blem

in m

any

requ

irem

ents

. The

gui

de c

once

ntra

tes

on h

ow t

he p

lann

ing

stre

etsc

apes

and

nee

ded

to b

e ta

ckle

d on

a c

oord

inat

ed b

asis

.sy

stem

can

del

iver

sus

tain

able

env

iron

men

ts.

49

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

iptio

n of

sou

rce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

datio

ns /

Key

con

clus

ions

Qua

lity

plac

es (

Con

tinue

d)

Dim

ensi

ons

stre

ets

and

squa

res,

Noo

rdzi

j P C

and

Inve

stig

atio

n in

to th

e ef

fect

s of

traf

fic

sign

s an

d ro

adN

ethe

rlan

dsT

he a

utho

rs in

vest

igat

e th

e ef

fect

s of

traf

fic

sign

s an

d ro

adre

latio

nshi

p to

bui

ldin

g he

ight

sH

agen

ziek

er M

P (

1996

).m

arki

ngs

on s

afet

y.m

arki

ngs

on s

afet

y. T

he f

ollo

win

g m

easu

res

have

bee

n id

entif

ied

and

mas

sing

(co

ntin

ued)

.V

erke

ersb

orde

n, b

ebak

enin

gto

impr

ove

the

cont

ribu

tion

of tr

affi

c si

gns

and

road

saf

ety:

en v

erke

ersv

eilig

heid

. SW

OV

,M

ake

a di

stin

ctio

n be

twee

n im

port

ant

and

less

im

port

ant

traf

fic

Lei

dsch

enda

m.

sign

s; I

mpr

ovin

g th

e de

sign

of

thes

e si

gns

to m

ake

them

mor

eno

ticea

ble,

rec

ogni

sabl

e an

d un

ders

tand

able

(fo

r ex

ampl

e,in

trod

ucin

g ne

w s

igns

to in

dica

te w

hat t

ype

of r

oad

a us

er is

on)

;Pl

acin

g sp

eed

limit

sign

s ev

eryw

here

at t

he e

ntra

nce

to a

(se

ctio

nof

) ca

rria

gew

ay o

r to

an

area

, and

rep

eatin

g th

em w

here

nece

ssar

y; R

einf

orci

ng th

e m

essa

ge o

n th

e si

gns

of o

ther

, mor

ena

tura

l ind

icat

ors;

Rep

laci

ng s

ome

of th

e ro

ad m

akin

gs w

hose

mes

sage

is in

tend

ed to

be

read

at d

iffe

rent

tim

es o

f th

e da

y or

nigh

t.

Mov

emen

t

Stre

et n

etw

orks

and

typ

es.

Eng

lish

Part

ners

hips

/ L

lew

elyn

The

Urb

an D

esig

n C

ompe

ndiu

m o

ffer

s an

ove

rvie

w o

fU

KSe

e co

mm

ents

und

er S

igni

ng/C

lutte

r –

it ar

gues

tha

t m

inim

isin

gD

avie

s (2

000)

. Urb

an D

esig

nur

ban

desi

gn b

est p

ract

ice

in th

e U

K a

nd I

nter

natio

nally

.pe

dest

rian

bar

rier

s ca

n he

lp to

cre

ate

a m

ore

wal

king

fri

endl

yC

ompe

ndiu

m.

It c

over

s a

wid

e ra

nge

of in

terr

elat

ed to

pics

whi

ch p

rovi

deen

viro

nmen

t. G

uard

Rai

ling

in p

artic

ular

tho

ugh

som

etim

espr

actit

ione

rs w

ith a

ref

eren

ce g

uide

of

wha

t wor

ks w

ell

bille

d as

ped

estr

ian

impr

ovem

ents

can

act

ually

spe

ed u

pan

d w

hy.

impe

ding

mov

emen

t on

foo

t an

d ra

ther

rei

nfor

ce v

ehic

ular

mov

emen

t. T

he g

uide

als

o of

fers

an

exam

ple

of C

anni

ng S

tree

tin

Liv

erpo

ol w

here

sel

ectiv

e st

reet

clo

sure

in a

his

tori

cal l

ayou

tha

s be

en u

sed

to a

chie

ve a

bet

ter

bala

nce

betw

een

vehi

cles

and

othe

r us

ers.

Thi

s is

a u

sefu

l met

hod

as th

e ba

rrie

rs to

veh

icle

mov

emen

t are

not

act

ually

‘de

ad-e

nds’

as

they

are

rem

ain

perm

eabl

e to

cyc

lists

and

ped

estr

ians

- a

nd p

oten

tially

emer

genc

y se

rvic

e ve

hicl

es a

nd d

isab

led

driv

ers

depe

ndin

g on

the

trea

tmen

t us

ed.

DeR

ober

tis M

and

Wac

htel

AT

his

pape

r ex

amin

es th

e ef

fect

s of

var

ious

traf

fic

calm

ing

USA

Tho

se tr

affi

c ca

lmin

g m

easu

res

that

are

NO

T r

ecom

men

ded

(199

6). T

raffi

c ca

lmin

g do

sm

easu

res

on c

yclis

ts, i

nclu

ding

dis

com

fort

, fee

lings

of

incl

ude

mea

nder

ing

road

way

s (c

ause

err

atic

mov

emen

ts b

yan

d do

n’ts

to

enco

urag

esa

fety

and

inc

onve

nien

ce.

mot

oris

ts a

nd i

ncre

ased

dis

tanc

es f

or c

yclis

ts);

chi

cane

s (c

yclis

tsbi

cycl

ing.

IT

E A

nnua

l M

eetin

gar

e fo

rced

clo

ser

to v

ehic

les)

; ST

OP

sign

s (i

ncre

ase

dela

y to

Com

pend

ium

.cy

clis

ts);

and

rum

ble

stri

ps (

caus

ing

disc

omfo

rt to

cyc

lists

, and

poss

ibly

ste

erin

g di

ffic

ulty

/loss

of

cont

rol)

.

Ken

nedy

J V

, Whe

eler

A H

Qui

et la

nes

are

rura

l roa

ds th

at m

ostly

sat

isfy

the

follo

win

gU

KM

ean

spee

ds in

Ken

t red

uced

fro

m 2

9.2

mph

to 2

6.9

mph

aan

d In

woo

d C

M (

2004

b).

crite

ria:

nar

row

sin

gle-

trac

k ro

ad; v

ery

low

flo

w; n

ot a

redu

ctio

n of

-2.

3 m

ph. S

peed

s at

the

85th

per

cent

ile r

educ

ed f

rom

Ken

t qu

iet

lane

s sc

hem

e.m

ain

acce

ss r

oute

; no

str

eet

light

ing;

nat

iona

l sp

eed

limit.

35.2

to 3

2.6,

-2.

6 m

ph. H

owev

er, g

reat

er r

educ

tions

, -2.

8 m

phT

RL

Rep

ort T

RL

603.

Thi

s st

udy

focu

ses

on a

pilo

t und

erta

ken

on r

oads

in K

ent.

(mea

n sp

eed)

and

-3.

2 (8

5th

perc

entil

e) w

ere

reco

rded

on

cont

rol

Wok

ingh

am:

TR

L.

The

Qui

et L

ane

netw

ork

was

impl

emen

ted

betw

een

road

s, s

how

ing

negl

igib

le c

hang

es in

spe

ed .

Tra

ffic

flo

ws

wer

eA

ugus

t 200

0 an

d M

ay 2

001.

The

net

wor

k w

as d

esig

ned

redu

ced

slig

htly

whe

n co

mpa

red

to th

e co

ntro

l roa

ds, f

rom

2,1

37to

link

tow

ns, v

illag

es, p

ublic

rig

hts

of w

ay a

nd th

e ex

istin

gto

2,1

22 o

n w

eekd

ays

and

1,57

7 to

1,4

53 a

t the

wee

kend

scy

cle

rout

es. T

raff

ic c

alm

ing

on b

usie

r st

retc

hes

of r

oad

(Con

trol

roa

d vo

lum

es i

ncre

ased

). Su

ppor

t re

mai

ned

stro

ng i

nin

clud

e fa

lse

cattl

e gr

ids

(5 r

umbl

e st

rips

) an

d co

lour

ing

both

the

befo

re a

nd a

fter

atti

tudi

nal s

urve

ys, w

ith o

ver

75%

of

of th

e ce

ntre

sec

tion

of th

e ro

ad, l

eavi

ng e

dges

of

the

road

resp

onde

nts

in fa

vour

of t

he s

chem

es.

50

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

iptio

n of

sou

rce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

datio

ns /

Key

con

clus

ions

Mov

emen

t (C

ontin

ued)

Stre

et n

etw

orks

and

type

sun

chan

ged

(nar

row

ing

effe

ct).

Foot

way

s ha

ve b

een

(con

tinue

d).

wid

ened

and

Qui

et L

anes

sig

ns w

ere

erec

ted.

Ext

ensi

vem

onito

ring

was

und

erta

ken,

inc

ludi

ng b

efor

e tr

affi

c an

dsp

eed

surv

eys

and

befo

re a

nd a

fter

atti

tudi

nal a

ndvi

deo

surv

eys.

Ken

nedy

J V

, Whe

eler

A H

,T

his

stud

y fo

cuse

s on

a p

ilot u

nder

take

n on

roa

ds in

UK

Mea

n sp

eeds

in N

orfo

lk in

the

July

red

uced

fro

m 3

0.2

mph

toan

d In

woo

d C

M (

2004

a).

Nor

folk

. The

Qui

et L

ane

netw

ork

was

impl

emen

ted

in30

.1 m

ph a

red

uctio

n of

-0.

1 m

ph. S

peed

s at

the

85th

per

cent

ileN

orfo

lk q

uiet

lan

es S

chem

e.M

arch

200

0, w

ith s

mal

l m

odif

icat

ions

unt

il N

ovem

ber

redu

ced

from

36.

8 to

36,

-0.

8 m

ph. H

owev

er, g

reat

er r

educ

tions

,T

RL

Rep

ort T

RL

603.

2000

. E

xten

sive

mon

itori

ng w

as u

nder

take

n, i

nclu

ding

-1.1

(85

th p

erce

ntile

), w

ere

reco

rded

on

cont

rol r

oads

(+0

.1 f

orW

okin

gham

: T

RL

.be

fore

traf

fic

and

spee

d su

rvey

s an

d be

fore

and

aft

erth

e m

ean

spee

d), s

how

ing

negl

igib

le c

hang

es in

spe

ed. M

ean

attit

udin

al a

nd v

ideo

sur

veys

. sp

eeds

in N

orfo

lk in

the

Nov

embe

r re

duce

d fr

om 3

0.5

mph

to30

.2 m

ph a

red

uctio

n of

-0.

3 m

ph. S

peed

s at

the

85th

per

cent

ilere

duce

d fr

om 3

6.4

to 3

6.2,

-0.

2 m

ph. H

owev

er, g

reat

erre

duct

ions

, -0.

8 m

ph (

mea

n sp

eed)

and

-1.

5 (8

5th

perc

entil

e)w

ere

reco

rded

on

cont

rol r

oads

, sho

win

g ne

glig

ible

cha

nges

insp

eed.

Tra

ffic

flo

ws

wer

e re

duce

d sl

ight

ly w

hen

com

pare

d to

the

cont

rol r

oads

, fro

m 1

,943

to 1

,879

on

wee

kday

s an

d 1,

245

to1,

091

at th

e w

eeke

nds

(Con

trol

roa

d vo

lum

es in

crea

sed

by10

.1%

in b

oth

case

s). S

uppo

rt r

emai

ned

stro

ng in

bot

h th

e be

fore

and

afte

r at

titud

inal

sur

veys

, with

ove

r 75

% o

f re

spon

dent

s in

favo

ur o

f the

sch

emes

.

DfT

(20

04).

Qui

et la

nes.

Tra

ffic

Thi

s T

raff

ic A

dvis

ory

Lea

flet

sum

mar

ises

the

rese

arch

UK

Rec

omm

enda

tions

are

mad

e fo

r lo

cal

auth

oriti

es o

n th

eA

dvis

ory

Lea

flet

3/0

4, U

K.

unde

rtak

en b

y T

RL

(K

enne

dy e

t al.,

200

4 a

and

b) o

n th

eim

plem

enta

tion

and

mon

itori

ng o

f qu

iet

lane

s.im

plem

enta

tion

and

mon

itori

ng o

f Q

uiet

Lan

es i

n K

ent

and

Nor

folk

.

Stre

et d

imen

sion

s.D

aisa

J M

and

Pee

rs J

B (

1997

).R

oad

narr

owin

g as

a m

eans

of

calm

ing

or s

low

ing

traf

fic

USA

Key

con

clus

ions

inc

lude

d: w

ider

res

iden

tial

stre

ets

expe

rien

ced

Nar

row

res

iden

tial

stre

ets:

do

is in

vest

igat

ed w

ithin

this

pap

er. S

peed

dat

a w

as c

olle

cted

high

er s

peed

s fo

r bo

th th

e av

erag

e an

d 85

th p

erce

ntile

spe

eds;

they

rea

lly s

low

dow

n sp

eeds

?fr

om a

lmos

t 50

stre

ets

in th

e Sa

n Fr

anci

sco

Bay

are

a w

here

on-s

tree

t par

king

den

sity

sig

nifi

cant

ly a

ffec

ts s

peed

s (w

here

it is

kerb

wid

ths

vari

ed f

rom

25

ft (

7.62

m)

to 5

0ft (

15.2

4 m

).pr

esen

t, it

redu

ces

spee

ds);

traf

fic

volu

mes

and

veh

icle

hea

dway

Park

ing

dens

ity w

as a

lso

surv

eyed

. the

sel

ecte

d st

reet

s ha

daf

fect

spe

eds;

and

sig

nifi

cant

red

uctio

ns i

n ef

fect

ive

stre

et w

idth

sim

ilar

char

acte

rist

ics

to a

llow

com

pari

son.

ar

e re

quir

ed to

dra

mat

ical

ly r

educ

e sp

eeds

.

DT

LR

and

CA

BE

(20

01).

‘Bet

ter

plac

es to

live

’ is

a c

ompa

nion

gui

de to

PPG

3 an

d is

UK

The

gui

de s

ugge

sts

that

les

sons

fro

m c

ount

less

tra

ditio

nal

tow

nsB

y D

esig

n: B

ette

r pl

aces

to li

ve.

inte

nded

to a

id p

ract

ition

ers

in th

e de

liver

y of

the

chan

ges

poin

t to

the

impa

ct th

at th

e ov

eral

l arr

ange

men

t of

build

ings

and

outli

ned

in P

PG3.

It f

ocus

es o

n ur

ban

desi

gn p

rinc

iple

s as

spac

es c

an h

ave

on d

rive

r's b

ehav

iour

. It a

rgue

s th

at b

uild

ings

they

rel

ate

to t

he r

esid

entia

l en

viro

nmen

t, bu

ildin

g on

the

whi

ch o

bstr

uct d

rive

rs’

forw

ard

visi

on c

an r

esul

t in

driv

ers

prin

cipl

es o

utlin

ed in

the

Urb

an T

ask

Forc

e R

epor

t and

the

adop

ting

a m

ore

caut

ious

and

slo

wer

app

roac

h. A

ctiv

e tr

affi

cU

rban

Whi

te P

aper

.co

ntro

l ele

men

ts s

uch

as c

hica

nes,

ram

ps e

tc a

re o

nly

nece

ssar

yif

the

desi

gn h

as f

aile

d an

d co

rrec

tive

mea

sure

s ar

e re

quir

ed.

Bet

ter

desi

gn r

educ

es th

e ne

ed f

or c

orre

ctiv

e m

easu

res.

Polu

s A

and

Cra

us J

(19

96).

The

con

cept

of

shar

ed s

tree

ts, i

n pa

rtic

ular

the

plan

ning

Pla

nnin

g an

d ge

omet

ric

aspe

cts

and

geom

etri

c as

pect

s, a

re e

xplo

red.

Whe

re n

arro

w w

idth

sof

sha

red

stre

ets.

are

pres

ent,

only

one

veh

icle

can

pas

s al

ong

a st

raig

ht

51

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

iptio

n of

sou

rce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

datio

ns /

Key

con

clus

ions

Mov

emen

t (C

ontin

ued)

Stre

et d

imen

sion

s (c

ontin

ued)

.se

ctio

n of

roa

d, w

here

as a

t dia

gona

l sec

tions

, veh

icle

s ca

nIs

rael

Rec

omm

enda

tions

reg

ardi

ng s

hare

d st

reet

s in

clud

e: t

rans

ition

spa

ss e

ach

othe

r in

opp

osite

dir

ectio

ns. t

he a

ngle

of

the

betw

een

stre

ets

shou

ld b

e m

ade

clea

r th

roug

h an

ele

vate

d or

diag

onal

sec

tion,

rel

ativ

e to

a s

trai

ght l

ine,

and

its

wid

th a

rete

xtur

ed s

urfa

ce; a

saf

ety

zone

of

0.90

m to

1.5

0 m

is d

esir

able

sign

ific

ant i

n de

term

inin

g th

e ra

dius

of

the

path

of

vehi

cles

eith

er s

ide

of th

e tr

avel

lane

to p

rovi

de f

urth

er c

omfo

rt w

hen

two

alon

g th

is s

ectio

n.

oppo

sing

veh

icle

s m

eet;

suff

icie

nt p

arki

ng s

houl

d be

pro

vide

d to

acco

mm

odat

e vi

sito

rs/g

uest

s (i

nsuf

fici

ent

park

ing

is f

ound

to

besi

gnif

ican

t in

faile

d de

sign

s).

Bar

rel

and

Whi

teho

use

(200

4).

The

impa

cts

of th

e D

fT’s

pilo

t Hom

e Z

one

sche

mes

are

UK

To

achi

eve

the

tight

est v

ehic

le p

ath

for

cars

will

oft

en r

esul

t in

aH

ome

Zone

s –

an e

volv

ing

disc

usse

d by

Bar

rel a

nd W

hite

hous

e (2

004)

. The

mai

ncl

ear

wid

th o

f on

ly 3

m in

pla

ces,

and

late

ral s

hift

s of

up

to 4

map

proa

ch t

o co

mm

unity

str

eets

.ou

tcom

e of

the

sche

mes

see

ms

to b

e th

e de

velo

pmen

t of

over

a le

ngth

of

less

than

10

m h

ave

been

rec

omm

ende

d. T

his

isPr

ocee

ding

s of

the

Ins

titut

ion

ofst

rong

er a

nd m

ore

inte

grat

ed l

ocal

com

mun

ities

thr

ough

on tw

o-w

ay s

tree

ts w

ith f

low

s of

less

than

100

veh

icle

s pe

r ho

urC

ivil

Eng

inee

rs,

157,

the

activ

e in

volv

emen

t of

resi

dent

s in

all

leve

ls o

f th

e–

grea

ter

wid

ths

need

to b

e pr

ovid

ed in

ord

er f

or v

ehic

les

to p

ass

pp.

257-

265

cont

inue

d so

cial

opp

ortu

nitie

s cr

eate

d as

a r

esul

t of

Hom

eea

ch o

ther

.Z

one

impl

emen

tatio

n. H

owev

er, t

here

are

cer

tain

con

cern

sre

gard

ing

som

e de

sign

asp

ects

of

Hom

e Z

ones

, suc

h a

s ca

teri

ng f

or le

ss a

ble-

bodi

ed m

embe

rs o

f th

e co

mm

unity

.Si

ngle

sur

face

are

as h

ave

bene

fite

d th

ose

with

mob

ility

prob

lem

s, b

ut t

his

desi

gn c

an d

isad

vant

age

the

part

ially

sigh

ted,

whe

re n

o gu

idan

ce i

s gi

ven.

The

refo

re, b

ound

ary

feat

ures

hav

e ha

d to

be

inco

rpor

ated

into

the

desi

gn to

prov

ide

som

e gu

idan

ce f

or th

ose

with

sig

ht p

robl

ems.

Till

y et

al.

(200

5). P

ilot

hom

eA

num

ber

of H

ome

Zon

e m

easu

res

wer

e ap

plie

d in

UK

Pa

rkin

g ha

s be

en r

educ

ed f

rom

56

kerb

sid

e sp

aces

to ju

st 2

6zo

ne s

chem

es:

eval

uatio

n of

Nor

thm

oor,

a re

side

ntia

l are

a 3

mile

s so

uth-

east

of

eche

lon

spac

es; r

esid

ents

in th

e af

ter

surv

ey r

egar

ded

park

ing

asN

orth

moo

r, M

anch

este

r.M

anch

este

r C

ity C

entr

e. T

hese

mea

sure

s in

clud

edan

‘un

reso

lved

’ is

sue.

Ove

r ha

lf o

f th

e re

spon

dent

s th

ough

t tha

tT

RL

Rep

ort T

RL

625.

repl

acin

g pa

ralle

l pa

rkin

g w

ith e

chel

on p

arki

ng o

nth

e ho

me

zone

had

incr

ease

d pa

rkin

g pr

oble

ms

outs

ide

thei

rW

okin

gham

: T

RL

. al

tern

ate

side

s of

the

road

, slo

win

g ve

hicl

es u

sing

chi

cane

s,ho

use.

On

thre

e of

the

stre

ets,

the

mea

n sp

eed

was

red

uced

to in

trod

ucin

g ‘g

reen

str

eets

’ be

twee

n th

e pa

ralle

l str

eets

,11

.5, 9

.4 a

nd 1

2.6

mph

, with

85t

h pe

rcen

tile

spee

ds o

f 14

.2, 1

3.9

intr

oduc

ing

part

icul

ar f

eatu

res

such

as

smal

l ga

rden

s an

dan

d 16

.1 m

ph. T

he s

peed

on

the

dist

ribu

tor

road

just

out

side

of

wal

l mou

nted

pot

s ou

tsid

e th

e ho

uses

, pla

ntin

g tr

ees

in th

eth

e ar

ea, 8

5th

perc

entil

e sp

eeds

incr

ease

d sl

ight

ly to

21.

3 m

ph.

stre

ets,

and

ren

ewin

g an

d up

grad

ing

stre

et l

ight

ing.

To

On

the

road

s w

ithou

t any

mea

sure

s, s

peed

s re

mai

ned

sim

ilar

inas

sess

the

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

the

sche

mes

, TR

L c

arri

ed o

utbo

th th

e be

fore

and

aft

er (

18 m

ph a

nd 2

3 m

ph).

Stre

ets

with

befo

re a

nd a

fter

mon

itori

ng, i

nclu

ding

int

ervi

ew s

urve

ysm

easu

res

redu

ced

traf

fic

flow

s by

19

to 3

4%. o

n un

trea

ted

with

adu

lts a

nd c

hild

ren,

col

lect

ion

of tr

affi

c fl

ow, s

peed

stre

ets,

traf

fic

redu

ced

by 1

7%. 3

9% o

f re

spon

dent

s th

ough

t tha

tan

d ac

cide

nt d

ata

and

vide

o re

cord

ing.

dr

iver

s w

ere

mor

e co

nsid

erat

e to

chi

ldre

n pl

ayin

g in

the

stre

et,

whe

reas

53%

thou

ght t

hey

wer

e ab

out t

he s

ame.

72%

thou

ght i

tw

as v

ery

safe

or

quite

saf

e fo

r ad

ults

wal

king

or

cycl

ing

in th

eH

ome

Zon

e.

Of

the

28%

who

thou

ght i

t was

not

ver

y sa

fe o

r no

t at a

ll sa

fe,

reas

ons

give

n in

clud

ed to

o m

any

park

ed c

ars

(19%

), ve

hicl

estr

avel

ling

too

fast

(20

%)

and

lack

of

pave

men

t wid

th (

16%

).T

here

was

5 y

ears

of

‘bef

ore’

acc

iden

t dat

a an

d 23

mon

ths

of‘a

fter

’ ac

cide

nt d

ata.

Alth

ough

the

sam

ple

was

ver

y sm

all,

the

data

sho

wed

that

the

num

ber

of a

ccid

ents

per

yea

r re

duce

d fr

om1.

0 be

fore

to 0

.5 a

ccid

ents

per

yea

r af

ter.

52

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

iptio

n of

sou

rce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

datio

ns /

Key

con

clus

ions

Mov

emen

t (C

ontin

ued)

Stre

et d

imen

sion

s (c

ontin

ued)

.L

ayfi

eld

et a

l. (2

005)

. Pilo

tA

num

ber

of H

ome

Zon

e m

easu

res

wer

e ap

plie

d in

Mag

orU

KL

ittle

cha

nge

to th

e ov

eral

l num

ber

of p

arki

ng s

pace

s oc

curr

ed.

hom

e zo

ne s

chem

es:

eval

uatio

nvi

llage

, 5 m

iles

east

of

New

port

. The

se m

easu

res

incl

uded

How

ever

, res

iden

ts in

the

afte

r su

rvey

reg

arde

d pa

rkin

g as

an

of M

agor

Vill

age,

Gat

eway

tre

atm

ents

, fla

t to

p hu

mps

, ext

ensi

ve p

lant

ing

,‘u

nres

olve

d’ is

sue.

Ove

r ha

lf o

f th

e re

spon

dent

s th

ough

t tha

t the

Mon

mou

thsh

ire.

TR

L R

epor

tbo

llard

s an

d ‘S

tone

mas

ter

Flag

s’, 2

0 m

ph z

one

outs

ide

the

Hom

e Z

one

had

incr

ease

d pa

rkin

g pr

oble

ms.

On

Syca

mor

eT

RL

633.

Wok

ingh

am:

TR

L.

boun

dary

of

the

zone

, nar

row

ing

of th

e ro

ad. T

o as

sess

the

Ter

race

, spe

ed h

umps

had

as

smal

l eff

ect o

n th

e m

ean

spee

def

fect

iven

ess

of th

e sc

hem

es, T

RL

car

ried

out

bef

ore

and

whi

ch r

educ

ed b

y 2.

5 m

ph to

13.

9 m

ph. (

85 p

erce

ntile

–af

ter

mon

itori

ng, i

nclu

ding

int

ervi

ew s

urve

ys w

ith a

dults

16.8

mph

). T

he s

peed

hum

ps n

orth

of

The

Squ

are

redu

ced

the

and

child

ren,

col

lect

ion

of tr

affi

c fl

ow, s

peed

and

acc

iden

tm

ean

spee

d sl

ight

ly b

y 1.

7 m

ph to

12.

2 m

ph (

85 p

erce

ntile

–da

ta a

nd v

ideo

reco

rdin

g.

14.8

mph

). Ju

st o

utsi

de o

f th

e H

ome

Zon

e, m

ean

and

85th

perc

entil

e sp

eeds

red

uced

by

4 m

ph to

22

mph

and

28

mph

resp

ectiv

ely.

Flo

ws

on S

ycam

ore

Ter

race

incr

ease

d by

15%

,w

here

as th

ose

on T

he S

quar

e re

duce

d by

50%

– m

ainl

y du

e to

itbe

com

ing

one-

way

aft

er i

nsta

llatio

n. 1

9% o

f re

spon

dent

sth

ough

t tha

t dri

vers

wer

e m

ore

cons

ider

ate

to c

hild

ren

play

ing

inth

e st

reet

, whe

reas

61%

thou

ght t

hey

wer

e ab

out t

he s

ame.

55%

thou

ght i

t was

ver

y sa

fe o

r qu

ite s

afe

for

adul

ts w

alki

ng o

rcy

clin

g in

the

Hom

e Z

one.

L

ayfi

eld

et a

l. (2

005)

. Pilo

tU

KO

f th

e 28

% w

ho th

ough

t it w

as n

ot v

ery

safe

or

not a

t all

safe

,ho

me

zone

sch

emes

:re

ason

s gi

ven

incl

uded

too

man

y pa

rked

car

s (1

7%),

vehi

cles

eval

uatio

n of

Mag

ortr

avel

ling

too

fast

(8%

), pr

oble

ms

at th

e sc

hool

ent

ranc

e 96

%)

Vill

age,

Mon

mou

thsh

ire.

and

lack

of

pave

men

ts (

6%).

Onl

y on

e sl

ight

inju

ry a

ccid

ent

TR

L R

epor

t TR

L63

3.oc

curr

ed in

the

befo

re p

erio

d of

7 y

ears

giv

ing

an a

ccid

ent r

ate

Wok

ingh

am:

TR

L.

of 0

.14

acci

dent

s pe

r ye

ar (

a ca

r an

d a

mot

orcy

clis

ts tr

avel

ling

in o

ppos

ite d

irec

tions

nor

th o

f T

he S

quar

e –

this

type

of

acci

dent

shou

ld n

o lo

nger

occ

ur d

ue to

the

new

one

-way

sys

tem

). T

heaf

ter

peri

od, o

f ju

st 9

mon

ths

show

s th

at th

ere

have

bee

n no

acci

dent

s in

the

Hom

e Z

one.

Junc

tions

.L

awto

n B

J, W

ebb

P J,

Thi

s st

udy

focu

ses

on th

e us

e of

‘co

ntin

enta

l’ s

tyle

UK

Due

to th

e lo

w n

umbe

r of

cyc

lists

in b

oth

surv

ey ty

pes,

it w

asW

all G

T a

nd D

avie

s D

Gro

unda

bout

s, w

hich

fea

ture

nar

row

er c

ircu

latin

gdi

ffic

ult t

o co

me

to a

ny f

irm

con

clus

ions

reg

ardi

ng c

hang

es th

at(2

003)

. Cyc

lists

at

carr

iage

way

s th

an t

ypic

al B

ritis

hrou

ndab

outs

and

typ

ical

lyco

uld

be m

ade

to in

crea

se s

afet

y fo

r cy

clis

ts a

t rou

ndab

outs

. A‘c

ontin

enta

l’ s

tyle

rou

nd-

have

few

er e

ntry

and

exi

t lan

es o

n ea

ch a

rm, a

nd th

eir

num

ber

of p

ositi

ve m

easu

res

wer

e id

entif

ied

that

app

ear

to h

ave

abou

ts:

repo

rt o

n fo

ur t

rial

effe

cts

on th

e sa

fety

of

cycl

ists

. Thi

s st

yle

of r

ound

abou

t is

an e

ffec

t on

safe

ty o

f cy

clis

ts a

t geo

met

ry o

n ap

proa

ches

; asi

tes.

TR

L R

epor

t TR

L58

4.ty

pica

lly u

sed

on r

oads

whe

re th

ere

are

low

er tr

affi

c fl

ows,

redu

ctio

n in

the

num

ber

of e

ntry

and

exi

t lan

es; a

n en

larg

edW

okin

gham

: T

RL

.as

they

are

not

des

igne

d w

ith th

e ai

m o

f m

axim

isin

g ve

hicl

ece

ntra

l isl

and;

the

intr

oduc

tion

of to

ucan

cro

ssin

gs o

n th

e ar

ms

flow

s. B

ecau

se o

f th

e de

sign

, ‘co

ntin

enta

l’ s

tyle

of r

ound

abou

ts; a

nd th

e ad

ditio

n of

cyc

le s

trip

s at

the

giv

e-w

ayro

unda

bout

s ap

pear

to b

e ea

sier

for

cyc

lists

to n

egot

iate

,lin

es.

and

it is

sug

gest

ed th

at th

ey a

re th

eref

ore

safe

r. T

he s

tudy

used

a s

erie

s of

‘be

fore

’ an

d ‘a

fter

’ vi

deo

and

inte

rvie

wsu

rvey

s, a

stu

dy o

f ro

unda

bout

flo

ws

usin

g A

RC

AD

Y, a

ndan

ana

lysi

s of

acc

iden

t sta

tistic

s at

the

roun

dabo

uts

befo

rean

d af

ter

inst

alla

tion.

53

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

iptio

n of

sou

rce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

datio

ns /

Key

con

clus

ions

Mov

emen

t (C

ontin

ued)

Junc

tions

(co

ntin

ued)

.E

nglis

h Pa

rtne

rshi

ps /

Lle

wel

ynA

pplie

s w

orke

d ex

ampl

e of

the

trac

king

pri

ncip

le to

the

UK

Und

er th

e ar

gum

ent k

eep

it tig

ht th

e co

mpe

ndiu

m s

ugge

sts

that

Dav

ies

(200

0). U

rban

Des

ign

desi

gn a

nd l

ayou

t of

jun

ctio

ns. W

hile

jun

ctio

ns w

ill a

lway

stig

ht c

orne

rs h

ave

a m

ajor

traf

fic

calm

ing

effe

ct.

Com

pend

ium

.be

pla

ce s

peci

fic,

it s

ugge

sts

that

junc

tions

be

kept

as

tight

as p

ossi

ble.

Som

e tig

ht c

orne

rs h

ave

a tr

affi

c ca

lmin

g ef

fect

.It

sug

gest

s th

at ju

nctio

ns s

houl

d be

wei

ghte

d in

fav

our

ofpe

dest

rian

s in

the

maj

ority

of

case

s. S

hare

d sp

aces

(ca

rs,

cycl

es, p

edes

tria

ns o

n th

e sa

me

rout

e) a

re a

lso

advo

cate

d.

DE

TR

and

CA

BE

(20

00).

Som

e br

ief

refe

renc

es to

junc

tions

, whi

ch it

arg

ues

can

be U

K A

s ab

ove.

By

Des

ign:

Urb

an d

esig

n in

the

trea

ted

as s

pace

s in

thei

r ow

n ri

ght a

nd/o

r as

a p

oint

of

plan

ning

sys

tem

: to

war

dsen

try,

whi

ch c

an i

mpr

ove

legi

bilit

y by

hel

ping

to

iden

tify

bette

r pr

actic

e.pl

aces

and

to b

ette

r de

fine

rou

tes.

DT

LR

and

CA

BE

(20

01).

Giv

es e

xam

ple

of ti

ght j

unct

ions

and

pin

ch p

oint

s in

UK

As

abov

e.B

y D

esig

n: b

ette

r pl

aces

to li

ve.

Poun

dbur

y w

hich

enc

oura

ge d

rive

rs to

take

cor

ners

mor

eca

refu

lly.

Ach

ievi

ng a

ppro

pria

te s

peed

s.D

TL

R a

nd C

AB

E (

2001

).‘B

ette

r pl

ace

to li

ve’

is a

com

pani

on g

uide

to P

PG3

and

isU

KB

y D

esig

n su

gges

ts th

at d

evel

opm

ents

can

be

laid

out

in s

uch

aB

y D

esig

n: b

ette

r pl

aces

to li

ve.

inte

nded

to a

id p

ract

ition

ers

in th

e de

liver

y of

the

chan

ges

man

ner

as to

enc

oura

ge lo

w(e

r) tr

affi

c sp

eeds

. The

y m

ake

four

outli

ned

in P

PG3.

It f

ocus

es o

n ur

ban

desi

gn p

rinc

iple

s as

sugg

estio

ns:

they

rel

ate

to t

he r

esid

entia

l en

viro

nmen

t, bu

ildin

g on

the

1D

evel

opm

ents

sho

uld

be d

esig

ned

with

reg

ard

to th

eir

effe

ctpr

inci

ples

out

lined

in th

e U

rban

Tas

k Fo

rce

Rep

ort a

nd th

eon

traf

fic

spee

ds.

Urb

an W

hite

Pap

er.

2T

raff

ic s

peed

s ca

n be

man

aged

by

the

arra

ngem

ent o

fbu

ildin

gs a

nd s

pace

s –

phys

ical

tra

ffic

-cal

min

g m

easu

res

shou

ld b

e se

cond

ary,

but

con

side

red

as in

tegr

al a

s pa

rt o

f th

ede

sign

pro

cess

and

not

as

an a

fter

thou

ght.

3C

hang

es in

mat

eria

ls o

r ‘g

atew

ays’

at t

he e

ntra

nce

to lo

wsp

eed

area

s ca

n al

ert m

otor

ists

to th

e ne

ed to

red

uce

spee

d.4

Smal

ler

corn

er r

adii

will

enc

oura

ge m

ore

care

ful v

ehic

lem

ovem

ent.

The

layo

ut a

nd d

esig

n of

bui

ldin

gs a

nd th

e sp

aces

betw

een

them

hav

e th

e po

tent

ial i

n th

emse

lves

to r

educ

e th

esp

eed

of tr

affi

c. W

here

add

ition

al r

emed

ial m

easu

res

are

deem

ed n

eces

sary

, the

y sh

ould

ide

ally

be

inte

grat

ed i

nto

the

initi

al d

esig

n of

the

publ

ic r

ealm

. Whe

re th

is is

not

pos

sibl

e,ne

w a

dditi

ons

shou

ld b

e ‘d

esig

ned

in’

rath

er th

an m

erel

yco

nfor

min

g to

eng

inee

ring

sta

ndar

ds.

Bri

ndle

R E

(19

96).

Des

igni

ngR

oad

wid

th –

as

a m

easu

re to

red

uce

spee

ds. S

tree

t sec

tion

UK

A U

K r

esea

rch

repo

rt b

y N

obel

(19

84)

foun

d th

at m

inor

for

mod

erat

e sp

eeds

in n

ewle

ngth

. re

duct

ions

in a

vaila

ble

carr

iage

way

wid

th a

ppea

r to

mak

e ve

ryne

ighb

ourh

oods

. A

RR

B,

little

dif

fere

nce

to s

peed

s. D

rast

ic o

nes,

like

thos

e pr

oduc

ed b

ySp

ecia

l Rep

ort N

o. 5

3.lin

es o

f pa

rked

car

s, h

ad o

nly

a lim

ited

effe

ct.

Nob

el (

1987

) ci

tes

that

on

stra

ight

roa

ds m

ore

than

200

m lo

ng,

mea

n sp

eeds

will

be

clos

e to

50

km/h

(31

mph

); b

elow

200

m,

mea

n sp

eeds

will

be p

rogr

essi

vely

low

er, r

educ

ing

to a

bout

30

km/h

(19

mph

) at

60

m. B

enne

tt (1

983)

sta

ted

that

it w

ould

be

poss

ible

to a

chie

ve lo

w s

peed

s on

str

eets

of

trad

ition

al c

ross

-se

ctio

n an

d vi

sibi

lity

stan

dard

s, u

sing

sho

rt l

engt

hs o

f st

reet

s an

d

54

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

iptio

n of

sou

rce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

datio

ns /

Key

con

clus

ions

Mov

emen

t (C

ontin

ued)

Ach

ievi

ng a

ppro

pria

te s

peed

sfr

eque

nt 9

0 de

gree

ben

ds –

alth

ough

suc

h co

nfig

urat

ions

wou

ld(c

ontin

ued)

.be

far

fro

m c

onve

ntio

nal

Avo

id lo

ng a

nd w

ide

sigh

t lin

es, w

hils

t bei

ng c

aref

ul th

atst

oppi

ng s

ight

dis

tanc

es a

re b

eing

obs

erve

d. T

he d

esig

n sp

eed

for

vert

ical

sig

ht d

ista

nce

shou

ld n

ot b

e le

ss th

an th

at f

orho

rizo

ntal

sig

ht d

ista

nce,

and

sho

uld

be g

reat

er i

f ho

rizo

ntal

sigh

t dis

tanc

e is

at a

min

imum

.

Use

occ

asio

nal i

nter

rupt

ions

to th

e pa

rkin

g la

nes

(suc

h as

plan

ting

area

s) to

con

stra

in th

e ‘o

ptic

al w

idth

’ of

the

stre

et, b

eing

care

ful

to p

rote

ct s

ight

sto

ppin

g di

stan

ces

Bri

ndle

R E

(19

96).

Des

igni

ngU

KA

t the

sm

all s

cale

, enc

oura

ge in

nova

tive

tota

l des

ign

to p

rodu

cefo

r m

oder

ate

spee

ds in

new

spee

ds w

ell b

elow

thos

e in

con

vent

iona

l est

ates

. Tot

al d

esig

n of

neig

hbou

rhoo

ds.

AR

RB

Spe

cial

the

stre

et, c

ombi

ning

con

side

ratio

ns o

f le

ngth

, vis

ibili

ty, t

extu

reR

epor

t No.

53.

an

d m

ater

ials

, cro

ss-s

ectio

n, e

dge

trea

tmen

ts, a

ctiv

ity, r

oads

ide

deve

lopm

ent a

nd p

lant

ing

is r

equi

red

to m

ake

sure

that

all

the

varia

bles

wor

k in

con

cert

to p

rodu

ce a

saf

e, lo

w-s

peed

env

ironm

ent.

Scot

tish

Exe

cutiv

e (1

999)

.T

his

repo

rt f

or th

e Sc

ottis

h E

xecu

tive

expl

ores

roa

dSc

otla

nd, U

K

Scen

ario

s w

hich

pro

duce

the

low

est

spee

ds (

ques

tionn

aire

Nat

ural

tra

ffic

calm

ing:

envi

ronm

ent f

acto

rs w

hich

may

hav

e an

eff

ect o

n dr

iver

resp

onse

s) w

ere

reve

aled

to b

e pe

dest

rian

s cr

ossi

ng (

20 m

ph),

guid

ance

and

res

earc

h re

port

. be

havi

our,

focu

sing

on

‘nat

ural

tra

ffic

cal

min

g’. T

he s

tudy

child

ren

pres

ent (

23 m

ph),

lorr

ies

unlo

adin

g (2

4 m

ph)

and

cars

is b

ased

on

a co

mbi

natio

n of

rea

l-lif

e ex

ampl

es a

ndpa

rked

on

both

sid

es o

f th

e ro

ad. T

hese

res

ults

sug

gest

that

the

beha

viou

ral

or p

sych

omet

ric

test

ing.

Loc

al a

utho

ritie

s in

perc

eive

d ri

sk o

f co

llisi

on w

ith p

edes

tria

ns is

one

of

the

mos

tSc

otla

nd w

ere

cont

acte

d w

hich

res

ulte

d in

the

ide

ntif

icat

ion

pow

erfu

l inf

luen

ces

on p

eopl

e's

aver

age

spee

ds. T

he n

ext l

owes

tof

ten

loca

tions

whe

re tr

affi

c ap

pear

ed to

be

‘nat

ural

lyav

erag

e re

spon

se s

peed

s re

late

mor

e to

roa

d an

d tr

affi

cca

lmed

’. Ph

ysic

al s

urve

ys w

ere

unde

rtak

en o

f ea

ch o

f th

eco

nditi

ons;

the

road

sur

face

is c

obbl

ed (

26 m

ph),

traf

fic

is h

eavy

road

s, i

nclu

ding

tra

ffic

sur

veys

(co

mpo

sitio

n), s

peed

s(2

7 m

ph),

seve

ral s

tree

t int

erse

ctio

ns (

28 m

ph)

and

high

(bef

ore

and

afte

r). I

n fi

ve o

f th

e lo

catio

ns, t

hese

wer

ebu

ildin

gs lo

cate

d cl

ose

to th

e ro

ad (

29 m

ph).

The

cas

e st

udie

sco

mpl

emen

ted

with

mor

e de

taile

d da

ta c

olle

ctio

n, i

nclu

ding

reve

aled

that

it is

a c

ombi

natio

n of

dif

fere

nt f

eatu

res

whi

ch h

ave

ques

tionn

aire

sur

veys

of

driv

ers

and

pede

stri

ans.

th

e m

ost

infl

uent

ial

effe

ct o

n dr

iver

beh

avio

ur. T

rans

ition

was

high

light

ed a

s be

ing

impo

rtan

t: he

lpin

g dr

iver

s ad

just

the

irpe

rcep

tions

and

thei

r sp

eed

to th

e en

viro

nmen

t whi

ch th

ey a

reen

terin

g us

ing

a ra

nge

of d

iffer

ent p

hysi

cal a

nd p

erce

ptua

l fac

tors

.

Tra

nsiti

on c

an i

nclu

de:

sequ

entia

l ch

ange

s in

lan

dsca

pe a

ndto

wns

cape

; ch

ange

s in

phy

sica

l co

nditi

ons

of t

he r

oad

itsel

f;ac

tivity

and

fea

ture

s w

ithin

the

roa

d en

viro

nmen

t an

d as

soci

ated

'ow

ners

hip'

of

the

stre

et e

nvir

onm

ent;

and

chan

ges

in d

rive

rpe

rcep

tions

of

risk

and

unc

erta

inty

. One

of

the

mos

t im

port

ant

vari

able

s th

at n

eeds

to b

e ta

ken

into

con

side

ratio

n is

‘ri

skho

meo

stas

is’

– th

e w

ay in

whi

ch d

rive

rs a

djus

t the

ir b

ehav

iour

tom

aint

ain

a co

nsis

tent

leve

l of

risk

. As

driv

ers

feel

saf

er, t

hey

begi

n to

take

mor

e ri

sks

whe

reas

con

vers

ely,

if r

oad

cond

ition

sm

ake

them

fee

l uns

afe,

dri

vers

are

like

ly to

adj

ust t

heir

beha

viou

r to

take

few

er ri

sks.

55

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

iptio

n of

sou

rce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

datio

ns /

Key

con

clus

ions

Mov

emen

t (C

ontin

ued)

Ach

ievi

ng a

ppro

pria

te s

peed

sG

rayl

ing

et a

l. (2

002)

. T

he s

tudy

exa

min

ed t

he r

elat

ions

hip

betw

een

depr

ivat

ion

UK

The

mai

n re

com

men

datio

n fr

om th

e re

port

is th

at a

max

imum

(con

tinue

d).

and

child

ped

estr

ian

casu

altie

s in

Bri

tain

and

the

use

of20

mph

spe

ed li

mit

com

bine

d w

ith tr

affi

c ca

lmin

g sh

ould

20 m

ph z

ones

to r

educ

e in

juri

es a

nd in

equa

litie

s. A

sur

vey

beco

me

the

norm

in r

esid

entia

l and

bui

lt up

are

as a

nd th

atw

as u

nder

take

n of

traf

fic-

calm

ed 2

0 m

ph z

ones

in E

ngla

ndpr

iori

ty s

houl

d be

giv

en to

traf

fic

calm

ed 2

0 m

ph z

ones

inan

d W

ales

. Of

the

171

coun

ty a

nd u

nita

ry d

istr

ict c

ounc

ils,

depr

ived

are

as w

ith h

igh

casu

alty

rat

es.

119

ques

tionn

aire

res

pons

es w

ere

rece

ived

. 80%

had

impl

emen

ted

at le

ast o

ne tr

affi

c-ca

lmed

20

mph

zon

e, to

tal

of 6

84 z

ones

, and

ther

e w

ere

a fu

rthe

r 44

1 zo

nes

plan

ned.

Hul

l was

fou

nd to

hav

e ex

tens

ive

20 m

ph z

one

cove

rage

,ab

out 1

00 z

ones

cov

erin

g 25

% o

f its

roa

d le

ngth

. It w

ases

timat

ed th

at H

ull’

s pr

ogra

mm

e of

20

mph

zon

es s

ince

1994

has

alr

eady

sav

ed a

bout

200

ser

ious

inju

ries

and

1,00

0 m

inor

inju

ries

.

Vis

A A

, Dijk

stra

A a

nd S

lop

MT

his

stud

y lo

oks

at th

e re

ason

30

kph

(18.

5 m

ph)

zone

s w

ere

Net

herl

ands

Key

res

ults

wer

e as

fol

low

s: s

peed

; hum

ps, n

arro

win

g of

the

(199

2). S

afet

y ef

fect

s of

30

mph

intr

oduc

ed, a

nd th

e ef

fect

s th

at th

ese

zone

s ha

ve in

15

area

sro

ad, (

part

ial)

bar

rica

des,

elo

ngat

ed h

umps

and

ent

ranc

ezo

nes

in t

he N

ethe

rlan

ds.

with

in th

e N

ethe

rlan

ds. T

he e

valu

atio

n of

zon

es u

sed

thre

eco

nstr

uctio

ns a

lmos

t al

way

s ac

hiev

ed a

85t

h pe

rcen

tile

valu

ety

pes

of s

tudy

; tra

ffic

stu

dies

(m

ode

split

, tra

ffic

vol

ume,

(V85

) of

abo

ut 3

0 kp

h. T

he e

ffec

t is

muc

h le

ss f

or r

efug

es a

ndsp

eed,

pla

cem

ent o

n th

e ro

ad, c

onfl

icts

and

beh

avio

ur a

thu

mps

with

cyc

le la

nes.

Tra

ffic

vol

ume:

traf

fic

inte

nsity

inte

rsec

tions

); o

pini

on r

esea

rch

proj

ects

(re

side

nt’s

vie

ws)

;ge

nera

lly f

ell b

y 5

to 3

0%, w

hich

was

par

ticul

arly

pre

vale

nt in

and

an a

ccid

ent s

tudy

(be

fore

and

aft

er –

the

zone

,ar

eas

whe

re m

easu

res

affe

ctin

g ci

rcul

atio

n w

ere

intr

oduc

edsu

rrou

ndin

g ar

teri

al r

oads

and

con

trol

are

as).

Four

type

s of

whi

ch r

esul

ted

in a

con

side

rabl

e ‘l

oss

of ti

me’

for

thro

ugh

traf

fic.

engi

neer

ing

mea

sure

wer

e ev

alua

ted:

inf

orm

ativ

e m

easu

res;

traf

fic

nuis

ance

gen

eral

ly d

eclin

ed (

prob

lem

s ex

ist

rega

rdin

g th

esu

gges

tive

mea

sure

s (r

oad

narr

owin

g);

pers

uasi

ve m

easu

res;

com

para

bilit

y of

bef

ore

and

afte

r pe

riod

s an

d in

terp

reta

tions

).an

d ob

stru

ctiv

e m

easu

res.

Res

iden

t’s

opin

ions

: in

terv

iew

s w

ere

cond

ucte

d w

ith a

ran

dom

sam

ple

of th

e po

pula

tion

show

ed th

at th

ere

was

a h

igh

leve

l of

acce

ptan

ce o

f th

e 30

kph

reg

ulat

ion.

Res

iden

ts g

ener

ally

pre

fer

the

new

situ

atio

n ov

er th

e ol

d on

e, f

eel s

afer

as

the

spee

d an

din

tens

ity o

f th

e tr

affi

c is

low

er. A

mar

ked

chan

ge in

the

actu

alus

e of

the

area

was

not

rep

orte

d, e

ven

thou

gh p

rese

nt c

ondi

tions

wou

ld fa

vour

suc

h a

chan

ge.

Eng

el U

and

Tho

mse

n L

KT

he a

utho

rs e

valu

ate

the

safe

ty e

ffec

ts o

f sp

eed

redu

cing

Den

mar

kA

ccid

ents

per

km

of

road

: 10

km o

f 15

kph

(9

mph

) an

d 22

3 km

(199

2). S

afet

y ef

fect

s of

spe

edm

easu

res,

usi

ng s

tudi

es b

ased

on

acci

dent

s an

d ve

hicl

eof

30

kph

(18.

5 m

ph)

stre

ets

wer

e us

ed. N

o si

gnif

ican

t cha

nges

redu

cing

mea

sure

s in

Dan

ish

spee

ds (

acci

dent

s –

all

polic

e re

port

ed a

ccid

ents

; pe

rson

alw

ere

foun

d in

the

15kp

h st

reet

s, a

lthou

gh th

ere

wer

e si

gnif

ican

tre

side

ntia

l ar

eas.

Acc

iden

tin

jury

and

dam

age

only

; and

cas

ualty

– p

erso

nal i

njur

ych

ange

s in

the

30 k

ph s

tree

ts; a

cha

nge

in a

ccid

ents

of

24%

(77

Ana

lysi

s an

d P

reve

ntio

n,on

ly).

Bef

ore

and

afte

r pe

riod

s w

ere

3 ye

ars

each

in th

efe

wer

acc

iden

ts in

3 y

ear)

Red

uctio

ns in

cas

ualti

es in

the

sam

e24

(1)

pp.

17-

28.

acci

dent

stud

ies.

st

reet

type

wer

e 45

% (

88 f

ewer

cas

ualti

es in

3 y

ears

). in

the

stre

ets

adjo

inin

g th

e 30

kph

str

eets

, acc

iden

ts r

educ

ed 1

8% (

150

few

er a

ccid

ents

) an

d ca

sual

ties

redu

ced

21%

(10

6 fe

wer

casu

altie

s). A

ccid

ents

per

roa

d km

: The

re w

as a

sig

nifi

cant

chan

ge in

the

num

ber

of c

asua

lties

per

roa

d us

er k

m o

f 72

%,

with

con

fide

nce

limits

ran

ging

fro

m 4

to 2

9% d

ue to

the

chan

gein

str

eet s

tatu

s. T

here

was

als

o a

chan

ge in

the

num

ber

ofse

riou

sly

inju

red

of 7

8% (

Con

fide

nce

26-9

3%).

Mot

or v

ehic

lesp

eeds

: Spe

ed r

educ

ing

mea

sure

s w

ere

impl

emen

ted

with

adi

stan

ce o

f a

max

of

100

m. T

he g

reat

est c

hang

e in

spe

ed w

asac

hiev

ed th

roug

h th

e us

e of

hum

ps (

up to

-13

kph

).

56

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

iptio

n of

sou

rce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

datio

ns /

Key

con

clus

ions

Mov

emen

t (C

ontin

ued)

Ach

ievi

ng a

ppro

pria

te s

peed

sC

ount

rysi

de A

genc

y (2

005)

.T

his

guid

ance

pre

pare

d fo

r th

e C

ount

rysi

de A

genc

y lo

oks

UK

Nat

ural

tra

ffic

cal

min

g is

rec

omm

ende

d; u

sing

tre

es, h

edge

s,(c

ontin

ued)

.M

ini

guid

e to

rur

al r

oad

safe

tyat

rur

al r

oad

safe

ty a

nd tr

affi

c ca

lmin

g.w

alls

and

bui

ldin

gs to

slo

w s

peed

s. E

xam

ples

are

giv

en o

f w

here

and

traf

fic c

alm

ing.

Fab

erth

is h

as b

een

impl

emen

ted,

inc

ludi

ng S

uffo

lk, w

here

hed

ges

Mau

nsel

l.ha

ve b

een

crea

ted

to g

ive

the

perc

eptio

n of

a n

arro

wed

carr

iage

way

with

out

phys

ical

alte

ratio

ns. B

ends

, nar

row

roa

dsan

d ro

ugh

surf

aces

are

als

o va

rian

ces

of r

ural

traf

fic

calm

ing.

Wilt

shir

e C

ount

y C

ounc

il ha

ve t

aken

an

inno

vativ

e ap

proa

ch t

ore

duci

ng s

peed

s th

roug

h re

mov

ing

whi

te c

entr

e la

ne li

nes

from

road

s th

at a

re li

t and

are

sub

ject

to a

30

mph

spe

ed li

mit.

12

site

sw

ere

asse

ssed

whe

n re

surf

acin

g w

orks

wer

e un

dert

aken

in th

ela

st th

ree

year

s. I

n th

e vi

llage

of

Seen

d, th

e co

unci

l hav

e no

ticed

a re

duct

ion

of 5

% in

spe

ed. t

he lo

ng te

rm r

emov

al o

f w

hite

cent

re li

nes

on e

ffec

tiven

ess

is s

till t

o be

see

n.

Abu

rahm

ah a

nd A

l Ass

ar (

1998

).T

his

stud

y in

vest

igat

es w

heth

er t

he i

nsta

llatio

n of

phy

sica

lU

SAT

he p

erce

ntag

e re

duct

ion

in s

peed

(at

the

85th

per

cent

ile)

vari

edE

valu

atio

n of

nei

ghbo

rhoo

dm

easu

res

such

as

spee

d hu

mps

red

uce

the

oper

atin

g sp

eeds

from

-6.

9% to

36.

7%, w

here

was

the

perc

enta

ge r

educ

tion

intr

affic

cal

min

g te

chni

ques

in

and

volu

mes

of

traf

fic

in r

esid

entia

l are

as. T

he s

tudy

aver

age

daily

traf

fic

flow

s ra

nged

fro

m -

200.

5% to

30%

. The

resi

dent

ial

area

s. I

TE

Ann

ual

focu

ses

on f

our

resi

dent

ial

loca

tions

in

Man

atee

Cou

nty

over

all

conc

lusi

ons

incl

uded

tha

t th

e sp

eed

at m

idpo

ints

bet

wee

nM

eetin

g C

ompe

ndiu

m,

whe

re s

peed

hum

ps h

ave

been

impl

emen

ted

to r

educ

e tr

affi

cth

e hu

mps

and

ove

rall

spee

d re

duct

ion

was

aff

ecte

d by

the

Was

hing

ton

DC

: In

stitu

te o

fsp

eeds

. Spe

ed a

nd tr

affi

c vo

lum

e da

ta w

as c

olle

cted

bef

ore

hum

ps, a

nd th

at tr

affi

c vo

lum

es w

ere

also

red

uced

in s

ome

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Eng

inee

rs.

and

afte

r in

stal

latio

n of

the

spe

ed h

umps

. Sig

nifi

canc

elo

catio

ns. H

owev

er, t

raff

ic v

olum

es r

emai

ned

the

sam

e or

test

ing

was

als

o un

dert

aken

usi

ng th

e ‘t

’ te

st.

slig

htly

inc

reas

ed i

n ot

her

loca

tions

.

Har

dy S

(20

04).

Push

ing

Har

dy i

nves

tigat

es t

he u

se o

f ph

ysic

al s

urro

undi

ngs

inU

KIn

timid

atio

n ha

s an

im

pact

on

driv

ers

thro

ugh

the

perc

eive

d th

rat

the

boun

dari

es.

Surv

eyor

,cr

eatin

g tr

affi

c ca

lmin

g ef

fect

s, a

nd t

here

fore

, pot

entia

llyth

ey h

old

to t

he d

rive

r. Po

sitiv

e in

timid

atio

n is

ach

ieve

d th

roug

h1s

t Ju

ly 2

004.

safe

r en

viro

nmen

ts. A

lthou

gh t

he p

ositi

onin

g of

key

the

repe

rcus

sion

s of

col

lisio

n w

ith th

e bu

ilt o

r na

tura

l for

mbu

ildin

gs o

r st

ruct

ures

is

impo

rtan

t in

for

min

g ‘p

lace

’,im

med

iate

ly a

djac

ent

to t

he v

ehic

le p

ath,

whe

reas

neg

ativ

eth

ere

are

also

oth

er c

onsi

dera

tions

, suc

h as

fro

m a

traf

fic

intim

idat

ion

is a

chie

ved

thro

ugh

the

repe

rcus

sion

s of

fal

ling

into

mov

emen

t poi

nt o

f vi

ew. H

ardy

exp

lore

s th

e co

ncep

t tha

tth

e vo

id i

mm

edia

tely

adj

acen

t to

the

veh

icle

pat

h. t

he p

ositi

veth

e pl

acem

ent o

f st

ruct

ures

can

be

used

as

a po

sitiv

ein

timid

atio

n ca

n re

sult

in th

e re

duct

ion

of s

peed

s as

the

driv

er is

infl

uenc

e to

red

uce

vehi

cle

spee

ds b

y vi

rtue

of

thei

r bu

lkre

quir

ed to

rec

ogni

se a

nd n

avig

ate

a fo

rwar

d ro

ute.

Bui

ld f

orm

san

d/or

form

. pl

aced

dir

ectly

in f

ront

of

the

driv

er’s

pat

h of

trav

el w

ill in

hibi

tdi

rect

iona

l leg

ibili

ty a

s th

e ro

ute

ahea

d ha

s to

be

the

subj

ect o

fde

liber

ate,

sel

ectiv

e th

ough

t pr

oces

s.

Ken

nedy

J V

, Gor

ell R

,T

his

pape

r ex

amin

es th

e us

e of

psy

chol

ogic

al m

eans

of

UK

Bui

ld-o

uts

wer

e us

ed to

def

ine

park

ing

bays

to n

arro

w th

e ro

adC

rins

on L

, Whe

eler

A a

ndtr

affi

c ca

lmin

g as

an

alte

rnat

ive

to p

hysi

cal

vert

ical

and

give

a g

entle

chi

cane

eff

ect (

alth

ough

roa

d re

mai

ned

5.5

mE

lliot

t M

(20

05).

Psy

chol

ogic

alm

easu

res,

whi

ch c

an h

ave

a nu

mbe

r of

neg

ativ

e ef

fect

s.w

ide)

. Pla

ntin

g on

the

build

-out

s an

d pa

rked

veh

icle

s w

ere

traf

fic c

alm

ing.

TR

L R

epor

tA

cas

e st

udy

exam

ple

of th

e vi

llage

of

Lat

tern

, Wilt

shir

e,in

tend

ed to

lim

it th

e fo

rwar

d vi

sibi

lity

and

brea

k up

the

TR

L64

1. W

okin

gham

: TR

L.

whe

re v

ario

us p

sych

olog

ical

mea

sure

s w

ere

impl

emen

ted

sigh

tline

s. G

atew

ays

wer

e in

trod

uced

at e

ach

end

of th

e vi

llage

.on

a f

orm

er tr

unk

road

. The

sch

eme

area

is th

e m

ain

road

Inbo

und

mea

n sp

eeds

fel

l by

8 m

ph a

nd 4

mph

at t

he n

orth

and

thro

ugh

the

villa

ge w

hich

car

ried

app

roxi

mat

ely

2,00

0so

uth

gate

way

res

pect

ivel

y, to

37

mph

at b

oth

(47

mph

85t

hve

hicl

es a

day

. The

spe

ed li

mit

was

40

mph

with

in a

nd ju

stpe

rcen

tile

spee

ds).

In th

e vi

llage

, tw

o-w

ay tr

affi

c sp

eeds

fel

l by

outs

ide

the

built

up

area

and

was

ext

ende

d fo

r ab

out 1

km

.7-

8 m

ph to

31

mph

and

85t

h pe

rcen

tile

spee

ds f

ell b

y 8-

10 m

ph to

85th

per

cent

ile s

peed

s w

ere

in e

xces

s of

the

limit.

The

new

37-3

8 m

ph. T

his

was

des

pite

und

er u

se o

f pa

rkin

g pa

ys

57

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

iptio

n of

sou

rce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

datio

ns /

Key

con

clus

ions

Mov

emen

t (C

ontin

ued)

Ach

ievi

ng a

ppro

pria

te s

peed

ssc

hem

e co

nsis

ted

of s

tone

gat

eway

s w

ith v

illag

e na

mep

late

(allo

win

g ve

hicl

es to

pas

s ea

ch o

ther

with

eas

e th

roug

h(c

ontin

ued)

.an

d 30

mph

sig

ns (

new

lim

it); b

uild

out

s w

ith p

lant

ing

tost

radd

ling

the

empt

y pa

rkin

g ba

y) a

nd th

e fo

rwar

d vi

sibi

lity

not

narr

ow th

e ro

ad a

nd c

reat

e pa

rkin

g ba

ys o

n al

tern

ate

side

sbe

ing

redu

ced

as m

uch

as in

tend

ed (

part

icul

arly

due

to im

mat

ure

of th

e ca

rria

gew

ay; r

emov

al o

f ce

ntre

whi

te li

ne; a

ndpl

antin

g on

bui

ld-o

uts)

. lo

wer

ing

of li

ghtin

g co

lum

ns to

a h

eigh

t mor

e ap

prop

riat

efo

r a m

inor

road

.

Elli

ott M

A, M

cCol

l V A

and

Thi

s lit

erat

ure

revi

ew c

onsi

ders

the

rel

evan

t ps

ycho

logi

cal

UK

!

Psyc

holo

gica

l m

easu

res

to d

ate

have

gen

eral

ly p

rodu

ced

Ken

nedy

J V

(20

03).

Roa

dth

eori

es to

pro

vide

an

insi

ght i

nto

how

spe

cifi

c ro

ad d

esig

nsm

alle

r sp

eed

redu

ctio

ns th

an th

ose

from

phy

sica

l mea

sure

sde

sign

mea

sure

s to

red

uce

mea

sure

s m

ight

redu

ce d

rivi

ng s

peed

s.

and

thei

r ef

fect

may

less

en o

ver

time.

How

ever

, the

y m

ay b

edr

iver

s’ s

peed

via

‘ps

ycho

logi

cal’

mor

e ac

cept

able

to d

rive

rs.

proc

esse

s: a

lite

ratu

re r

evie

w.

TR

L R

epor

t TR

L56

4.!

In g

ener

al, m

ore

com

plex

env

iron

men

ts te

nd to

be

asso

ciat

edW

okin

gham

: T

RL

. w

ith s

low

er d

rivi

ng s

peed

s, th

e lik

ely

mec

hani

sms

bein

gin

crea

ses

in c

ogni

tive

load

and

per

ceiv

ed r

isk.

!R

oads

ide

activ

ity e

.g. o

n-st

reet

par

king

or

the

pres

ence

of

pede

stri

ans

tend

s to

red

uce

spee

d. B

us o

r cy

cle

lane

s ar

e m

ore

likel

y to

red

uce

spee

ds w

hen

they

are

in u

se.

!C

ombi

natio

ns o

f fe

atur

es te

nd to

be

mor

e ef

fect

ive

than

indi

vidu

al m

easu

res.

Scot

tish

Exe

cutiv

e (1

999)

.T

he s

tudy

atte

mpt

ed t

o id

entif

y th

e un

derl

ying

pri

ncip

les

Scot

land

, UK

The

res

earc

h su

gges

ted

that

traf

fic

calm

ing

shou

ld b

e de

fine

d as

Nat

ural

tra

ffic

calm

ing:

behi

nd n

atur

al tr

affi

c ca

lmin

g. T

en s

mal

l or

med

ium

tow

nsa

proc

ess

of h

elpi

ng d

rive

rs a

djus

t to

the

envi

ronm

ent.

It w

asgu

idan

ce a

nd r

esea

rch

repo

rt.

on th

roug

h ro

utes

in S

cotla

nd th

at a

ppea

red

to b

e na

tura

llyco

nclu

ded

that

dri

vers

are

infl

uenc

ed b

y a

larg

e nu

mbe

r of

Scot

tish

Exe

cutiv

e D

evel

opm

ent

traf

fic-

calm

ed w

ere

sele

cted

as

case

stu

dies

. Psy

chom

etri

cdi

ffer

ent c

ues.

D

epar

tmen

tw

ork,

des

igne

d to

hig

hlig

ht t

he r

elat

ive

impo

rtan

ce o

fdi

ffer

ent f

eatu

res

or s

ituat

ions

, was

und

erta

ken.

Chi

nn L

and

Elli

ott M

(20

02).

The

res

earc

h by

TR

L f

or th

e H

ighw

ays

Age

ncy

on th

eU

KT

he d

esig

n el

emen

ts i

dent

ifie

d w

ere:

The

effe

ct o

f ro

ad a

ppea

ranc

eef

fect

of

road

app

eara

nce

on p

erce

ived

saf

e tr

avel

spe

ed!

Con

text

e.g

. roa

dsid

e ty

pe.

on p

erce

ived

saf

e tr

avel

spe

ed:

cons

ider

ed th

e de

sign

ele

men

ts th

at c

an b

e us

ed in

!Sc

ale

e.g.

roa

d w

idth

and

com

plex

ity.

Fin

al r

epor

t. PA

3827

/20.

infl

uenc

ing

driv

er s

peed

. A r

epre

sent

ativ

e su

rvey

of

350

!Pr

opor

tion

(hei

ght

of e

nclo

sing

fea

ture

s su

ch a

s bu

ildin

gs o

rW

okin

gham

: T

RL

.dr

iver

s w

as in

terv

iew

ed to

ass

ess

the

effe

ct o

f a

num

ber

oftr

ees)

.ro

ad d

esig

n in

terv

entio

ns o

n re

spon

dent

s' ra

tings

of

spee

d!

Hor

izon

tal

and

vert

ical

alig

nmen

t.us

ing

sket

ches

. !

Act

ivity

e.g

. pre

senc

e of

ped

estr

ians

, par

ked

cars

.!

Obj

ects

in th

e ro

ad c

orri

dor

e.g.

str

eet f

urni

ture

, lan

dsca

pe.

!C

olou

r an

d m

ater

ial

of s

urfa

cing

.!

His

tori

c ch

arac

ter.

Gib

bard

et a

l. (2

004)

. The

effe

ctT

his

repo

rt c

onsi

ders

the

effe

cts

of r

oad

narr

owin

gs o

nU

KT

he s

tudy

rev

eale

d th

at n

egot

iatin

g na

rrow

ings

con

stitu

ted

to a

of r

oad

narr

owin

gs o

n cy

clis

ts.

cycl

ists

the

stu

dy c

onsi

sted

of

cons

ulta

tion

with

cyc

list

sour

ce o

f st

ress

to c

ycle

use

rs.

TR

L R

epor

t TR

L62

1.us

er g

roup

s, v

ideo

sur

veys

of

site

s w

ith f

eatu

res

inst

alle

dW

okin

gham

: T

RL

.by

hig

hway

aut

hori

ties

to a

ssis

t cy

clis

ts i

n ne

gotia

ting

road

narr

owin

gs, a

nd v

irtu

al r

ealit

y si

mul

atio

ns o

f en

coun

ters

betw

een

driv

ers

and

cycl

ists

, mea

suri

ng th

e re

actio

ns o

fdr

iver

s to

be

mea

sure

d un

der

a ra

nge

of c

ircu

mst

ance

s.

58

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

iptio

n of

sou

rce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

datio

ns /

Key

con

clus

ions

Mov

emen

t (C

ontin

ued)

Ach

ievi

ng a

ppro

pria

te s

peed

sK

allb

erg

V a

nd R

anta

S (

2000

).T

his

rese

arch

ed i

dent

ifie

d st

udie

s fr

om d

iffe

rent

cou

ntri

es G

erm

any

(con

tinue

d).

Impa

cts

of u

rban

spe

ed-r

educ

ing

over

the

last

25

year

s w

here

initi

al s

peed

leve

ls a

nd th

em

easu

res.

2nd

Int

erna

tiona

lef

fect

s on

spe

eds

wer

e m

easu

red

of v

ario

us u

rban

spe

ed-

Sym

posi

um o

n H

ighw

ayre

duci

ng m

easu

res.

Geo

met

ric

Des

ign,

Mai

nz,

Ger

man

y Ju

ne 1

4-17

, 200

0, p

p. 9

3-10

9.

Em

erge

ncy

acce

ss.

Bou

lter

et a

l. (2

001)

. The

impa

cts

Thi

s st

udy

inve

stig

ated

the

emis

sion

impa

cts

of n

ine

type

sU

KT

he e

xper

imen

t con

sist

ed o

f a

fire

tend

er a

nd d

rive

r tr

avel

ling

of t

raffi

c ca

lmin

g m

easu

res

onof

traf

fic

calm

ing

mea

sure

s; 7

5 m

m-h

igh

flat

top

road

thro

ugh

a re

side

ntia

l ci

rcui

t fe

atur

ing

vari

ous

traf

fic

calm

ing

vehi

cle

exha

ust

emis

sion

s.hu

mps

, 80

mm

-hig

h ro

und-

top

road

hum

ps, 1

.7 m

wid

em

easu

res.

The

spe

ed r

educ

tion

caus

ed b

y th

e sp

eed

cush

ions

was

TR

L R

epor

t TR

L48

2.sp

eed

cush

ions

, com

bine

d pi

nch

poin

t an

d sp

eed

cush

ion,

sign

ific

antly

sm

alle

r th

an th

at c

ause

d by

the

flat

top

hum

ps.

Wok

ingh

am:

TR

L.

100

mm

-hig

h ra

ised

jun

ctio

ns, c

hica

ne, b

uild

out

, min

i-H

owev

er, t

he ti

me

dela

y pe

r m

easu

re w

as r

elat

ivel

y sm

all a

nd,

roun

dabo

ut a

nd 1

.9 m

wid

e sp

eed

cush

ion.

As

part

of

the

unle

ss la

rge

num

bers

of

traf

fic

calm

ing

mea

sure

s ar

est

udy,

the

acce

ss o

f em

erge

ncy

vehi

cles

and

pos

sibl

e de

lays

enco

unte

red,

it

is u

nlik

ely

that

em

erge

ncy

fire

ten

der

resp

onse

wer

e in

vest

igat

ed a

s a

resu

lt of

traf

fic

calm

ing

inst

alla

tion.

tim

es w

ould

incr

ease

sig

nifi

cant

ly.

Eng

wic

ht D

(20

03).

Intr

igue

and

Eng

wic

ht i

nves

tigat

es t

he u

se o

f in

trig

ue a

nd u

ncer

tain

tyU

K6

desi

gn p

rinc

iple

s ar

e di

scus

sed;

cre

atin

g ro

oms

rath

er th

anun

cert

aint

y: t

owar

ds n

ew t

raffi

c-as

a m

eans

of

calm

ing

traf

fic

with

out t

he n

eed

for

corr

idor

s (u

se o

f w

alls

and

ent

ry/g

atew

ays,

fur

nitu

re a

nd a

rt);

tam

ing

tool

s, v

ersi

on 2

.1.

impl

emen

ting

phys

ical

mea

sure

s. I

t is

sug

gest

ed t

hat

redu

cing

tra

ffic

ori

ente

d de

vice

s (v

isua

l cl

ues

rath

er t

han

Cre

ativ

e C

omm

uniti

esth

roug

h in

crea

sed

stre

et a

ctiv

ity a

nd u

se b

y re

side

nts,

exce

ssiv

e si

gnag

e);

evol

ving

a u

niqu

e pe

rson

ality

for

eac

h st

reet

Inte

rnat

iona

l.dr

iver

s be

gin

to e

xpec

t th

e un

expe

cted

, the

refo

re d

rive

(les

s st

anda

rdis

atio

n of

des

ign

acro

ss a

num

ber

of s

tree

ts; c

reat

esl

ower

and

incr

ease

saf

ety.

ev

er-c

hang

ing

stre

etsc

apes

; bu

ild a

mbi

guity

and

leg

ibili

ty;

desi

gn a

fter

use

.

Scot

tish

Exe

cutiv

e (2

005)

.T

his

PAN

foc

uses

on

the

desi

gn o

f be

tter

qual

itySc

otla

ndT

he n

eeds

of

refu

se, f

ire

and

othe

r se

rvic

e ve

hicl

es s

houl

d be

Res

iden

tial

stre

ets,

pla

nnin

g.re

side

ntia

l str

eets

, in

part

icul

ar, f

acto

rs w

hich

can

cre

ate

cons

ider

ed in

the

plan

ning

of

the

stre

et n

etw

ork

– th

e si

ze o

fA

dvic

e N

ote

74.

good

qua

lity

stre

ets

desi

gn.

vehi

cles

to

be a

ccom

mod

ated

sho

uld

be e

stab

lishe

d th

roug

hdi

alog

ue w

ith lo

cal a

genc

ies.

DD

A/D

isab

led

requ

irem

ents

.O

xley

(20

02).

Incl

usiv

e m

obili

ty:

The

DfT

(20

02)

have

pub

lishe

d ‘I

nclu

sive

Mob

ility

’,U

KPr

ovid

es s

peci

fic

guid

ance

(in

clud

ing

mea

sure

men

ts)

for

a gu

ide

to b

est p

ract

ice

on a

cces

sw

hich

is b

est p

ract

ice

guid

ance

on

acce

ss to

ped

estr

ian

foot

way

s (w

idth

s), g

radi

ents

, fen

ces

and

guar

drai

ls, s

eatin

g,to

ped

estr

ian

and

tran

spor

tan

d tr

ansp

ort

infr

astr

uctu

re. A

lthou

gh p

rim

arily

aim

ed a

tba

rrie

rs o

n fo

otw

ays,

ram

ps a

nd s

teps

, str

eet f

urni

ture

, str

eet

infr

astr

uctu

re.

impr

ovin

g ac

cess

for

dis

able

d pe

ople

, man

y of

the

desi

gns

wor

ks, c

olou

r co

ntra

st, s

urfa

ces

(inc

ludi

ng t

actil

e pa

ving

), ro

adw

ill m

eet t

he n

eeds

of

othe

r pe

ople

, inc

ludi

ng th

ose

cros

sing

s, d

ropp

ed k

erbs

and

rai

sed

cros

sing

s.tr

avel

ling

with

sm

all

child

ren

or a

re c

arry

ing

lugg

age/

heav

ysh

oppi

ng, a

nd th

ose

with

tem

pora

ry m

obili

ty p

robl

ems.

Will

iam

s K

, Sav

ill T

and

Thi

s st

udy

prov

ided

a r

evie

w o

f th

e in

form

atio

n av

aila

ble

UK

Lea

rnin

g D

iffi

culti

es -

Pro

visi

on o

f gu

ard-

raili

ng o

utsi

de s

choo

lsW

heel

er A

(20

02).

Rev

iew

of

on th

e ro

ad s

afet

y of

chi

ldre

n an

d ad

ults

with

dis

abili

ties.

to g

uide

lear

ning

dis

able

d ch

ildre

n to

a c

ross

ing,

or

prev

ent

the

road

saf

ety

of d

isab

led

The

rev

iew

look

ed a

t a v

arie

ty o

f gr

oups

, inc

ludi

ng th

ose

runn

ing

into

traf

fic.

Phy

sica

lly d

isab

led

– fo

llow

ing

of I

HT

child

ren

and

adul

ts.

with

lea

rnin

g di

ffic

ultie

s, A

DH

D, A

utis

m, p

hysi

cally

guid

ance

. Hea

ring

Im

pair

men

t –

pelic

an c

ross

ing

with

vis

ual

TR

L R

epor

t TR

L55

9.di

sabl

ed, h

eari

ng i

mpa

irm

ent,

visu

ally

im

pair

ed a

nd m

ulti-

clue

s, P

UFF

IN c

ross

ings

are

ben

efic

ial a

s gr

een/

red

man

sig

nsW

okin

gham

: T

RL

.se

nsor

y im

pair

ed. T

he im

pact

on

mob

ility

and

saf

ety,

are

on s

ame

side

as

pede

stri

ans.

Vis

ually

impa

ired

– w

ides

prea

dac

cide

nt r

isk,

and

rem

edia

l m

easu

res,

inc

ludi

ng e

ngin

eeri

ngus

e of

tac

tile

pavi

ng t

o in

dica

te c

ross

ing

poin

ts, a

dopt

ing

mea

sure

s, w

ere

iden

tifie

d fo

r eac

h gr

oup.

st

anda

rds

for

foot

way

s w

hich

inc

orpo

rate

'uno

bstr

ucte

d w

idth

s',

59

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

iptio

n of

sou

rce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

datio

ns /

Key

con

clus

ions

Mov

emen

t (C

ontin

ued)

DD

A/D

isab

led

requ

irem

ents

.co

lour

ed p

ave

(suc

h as

in h

ome

zone

s) s

houl

d be

avo

ided

as

it(c

ontin

ued)

.ca

n be

dif

ficu

lt to

see

whe

re th

e ca

rria

gew

ay s

tart

s or

cre

ate

anill

usio

n of

obs

tacl

es in

pat

h (D

unca

n Jo

nes,

200

1), a

nd s

tree

tco

rner

s w

ith k

erb

flus

h w

ith th

e ca

rria

gew

ay o

n th

e ra

dius

can

be

haza

rdou

s, p

eopl

e m

ay f

ind

it di

ffic

ult t

o lin

e th

emse

lves

up

with

the

oppo

site

car

riag

eway

.

It is

rec

omm

ende

d th

at f

or th

e be

nefi

t of

thos

e w

ith le

arni

ngdi

ffic

ultie

s, o

r th

ose

who

suf

fer

from

AD

HD

, gua

rd r

ailin

gsh

ould

be

posi

tione

d ou

tsid

e sc

hool

s to

gui

de l

earn

ing

disa

bled

child

ren

to a

cro

ssin

g, o

r pr

even

t run

ning

into

traf

fic.

Par

king

PPG

3.O

DPM

(20

03c)

. Del

iver

ing

PPG

3 st

ates

that

par

king

can

be

used

as

a m

echa

nism

toU

Kpl

anni

ng p

olic

y fo

r ho

usin

g:sl

ow tr

affi

c, w

ith th

e in

tens

ion

of in

crea

sing

saf

ety.

P

PG

3 im

plem

enta

tion

stud

y.

Lay

outs

/des

igns

on/

off-

stre

etD

OT

(19

93).

Pav

emen

t pa

rkin

g.T

his

traf

fic

advi

sory

leaf

let l

ooks

at t

he c

onse

quen

ces

ofU

KD

OT

sta

tes

that

It [

pave

men

t par

king

] ca

n cr

eate

haz

ards

for

park

ing.

Tra

ffic

Adv

isor

y L

eafl

et 0

4/93

.pa

vem

ent p

arki

ng w

here

ther

e is

a la

ck o

f fo

rmal

par

king

visu

ally

im

pair

ed, d

isab

led

and

elde

rly

peop

le o

r th

ose

with

prov

isio

n. T

he c

onse

quen

ces

shou

ld b

e co

nsid

ered

whe

npr

ams

or p

ushc

hair

s. I

t may

als

o ca

use

dam

age

to th

e ke

rb, t

hepa

rkin

g pr

ovis

ion

is li

mite

d.

pave

men

t or

the

ser

vice

s un

dern

eath

.

Nob

le a

nd J

enks

(19

96).

Par

king

:A

stu

dy in

volv

ing

1,52

6 dw

ellin

gs s

erve

d by

47

road

s in

UK

Obs

erva

tions

sho

wed

that

on-

stre

et p

arki

ng m

ade

it di

ffic

ult f

orde

man

d an

d pr

ovis

ion

of p

riva

teL

ower

Ear

ley

and

Woo

dley

, Rea

ding

.dr

iver

s in

som

e pl

aces

to s

ee b

eyon

d th

e pa

rked

car

s, th

ereb

yse

ctor

hou

sing

dev

elop

men

ts.

appe

arin

g to

mak

e ov

erta

king

haz

ardo

us. V

ehic

les

park

ed o

n th

eO

xfor

d B

rook

s U

nive

rsity

foot

way

wer

e se

en to

for

ce p

edes

tria

ns to

wal

k in

the

road

, and

park

ing

on s

hare

d su

rfac

es m

ade

acce

ss in

conv

enie

nt f

orpe

dest

rian

s us

ing

thes

e su

rfac

es a

nd a

ppea

red

to c

reat

e ha

zard

s.

Nob

le e

t al.

(198

7). R

oads

and

Nob

le e

t al.,

has

iden

tifie

d a

num

ber

of s

afet

y re

late

dU

KIt

was

fou

nd th

at v

ery

few

acc

iden

ts o

ccur

in c

ul-d

e-sa

cs a

ndpa

rkin

g in

pri

vate

sec

tor

hous

ing

obje

ctiv

es to

be

purs

ued

whe

n de

sign

ing

layo

ut a

s a

who

le.

shor

t loo

p ro

ads

whi

ch f

unct

ion

as r

esid

entia

l onl

y ro

ads,

sche

mes

: st

udie

s of

acc

iden

tsu

gges

ting

that

traf

fic

flow

, rat

her

than

par

king

, is

a m

ajor

reco

rds,

inn

ovat

ive

layo

uts

and

cont

ribu

tor

to a

ccid

ents

. Cul

-de-

sacs

ser

ving

up

to 8

0 dw

ellin

gspa

rkin

g pr

ovis

ion.

Hou

sing

wer

e in

clud

ed in

the

surv

eys

and

ther

e w

ere

no s

tatis

tical

lyR

esea

rch

Foun

datio

n.si

gnif

ican

t in

crea

se i

n th

e ac

cide

nt r

ate

per

dwel

lings

ass

ocia

ted

with

the

size

of

cul-

de-s

acs

at le

ast u

p to

that

siz

e. E

nsur

e th

atno

n-ac

cess

veh

icul

ar t

raff

ic i

s ex

clud

ed o

r di

scou

rage

d fr

omen

teri

ng th

e si

te; e

nsur

e th

at th

e sh

orte

st p

edes

tria

n ro

utes

tolo

cal a

men

ities

are

alo

ng f

ootw

ays

or s

epar

ated

foo

tpat

hs; u

seth

e lo

wes

t cat

egor

ies

of r

oads

whe

reve

r po

ssib

le f

or a

cces

s to

dwel

lings

by

road

s ca

rryi

ng th

e le

ast t

raff

ic; a

nd e

nsur

e th

at th

ero

ad la

yout

enc

oura

ges

low

dri

ving

spe

eds:

e.g

. by

rest

rict

ing

the

leng

ths

of s

trai

ght r

oads

and

usi

ng ti

ghte

r ra

dii o

n be

nds.

60

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

iptio

n of

sou

rce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

datio

ns /

Key

con

clus

ions

Par

king

(C

ontin

ued)

Lay

outs

/des

igns

on/

off-

stre

etW

estd

ijk (

2001

). D

esig

ning

aW

estd

ijk m

akes

rec

omm

enda

tions

as

to h

ow to

ach

ieve

aN

ethe

rlan

dsA

void

long

row

s of

par

ked

cars

; cre

ate

com

mun

al p

arki

ng a

reas

park

ing

(con

tinue

d).

safe

res

iden

tial

envi

ronm

ent

safe

str

eet e

nvir

onm

ent.

One

suc

h ap

proa

ch is

to c

reat

e a

away

fro

m h

omes

; are

as o

f ch

ild p

lay

(pla

y ar

ea)

mus

t hav

e an

for

child

ren.

Pro

ceed

ings

of

the

tran

spar

ent

lay

out.

unin

terr

upte

d lin

e of

sig

ht o

f 30

to 4

0 m

eith

er s

ide;

use

of

traf

fic

Con

fere

nce

on T

raff

ic S

afet

y on

calm

ing

mea

sure

s to

cou

nter

act t

he s

peed

ing

that

may

res

ult

Thr

ee C

ontin

ents

.fr

om g

ood

visi

bilit

y.

Scot

tish

Exe

cutiv

e (2

005)

.T

his

PAN

foc

uses

on

the

desi

gn o

f be

tter

qual

itySc

otla

ndO

n-st

reet

par

king

is

reco

mm

ende

d to

hel

p re

duce

spe

edin

gR

esid

entia

l st

reet

s, p

lann

ing.

resi

dent

ial s

tree

ts, i

n pa

rtic

ular

, fac

tors

whi

ch c

an c

reat

etr

affi

c. R

athe

r th

an r

igid

ly d

efin

ed p

arki

ng b

ays,

pro

visi

onA

dvic

e N

ote

74.

good

qua

lity

stre

ets

desi

gn.

shou

ld b

e m

ore

info

rmal

, thr

ough

eith

er s

ubtle

wid

enin

g of

the

road

, or

end-

on o

r an

gled

par

king

sho

uld

be e

ncou

rage

d, u

sing

tree

s, p

lant

s or

oth

er s

tree

t fu

rnitu

re t

o di

scou

rage

ind

iscr

imin

ate

park

ing.

Whe

re o

ff-s

tree

t par

king

is p

rovi

ded,

car

e m

ust b

e ta

ken

to e

nsur

e na

tura

l sur

veill

ance

.

Env

iron

men

t

Air

Qua

lity/

Noi

se.

Bou

lter

et a

l. (2

001)

The

im

pact

sT

his

stud

y in

vest

igat

ed th

e em

issi

on im

pact

s of

nin

e ty

pes

UK

The

res

ults

cle

arly

indi

cate

d th

at tr

affi

c ca

lmin

g m

easu

res

of t

raffi

c ca

lmin

g m

easu

res

onof

traf

fic

calm

ing

mea

sure

s; 7

5 m

m-h

igh

flat

top

road

incr

ease

the

emis

sion

s of

som

e po

lluta

nts

from

pas

seng

er c

ars.

vehi

cle

exha

ust

emis

sion

s.hu

mps

, 80

mm

-hig

h ro

und-

top

road

hum

ps, 1

.7 m

wid

eM

ean

emis

sion

s of

CO

per

veh

icle

-km

was

incr

ease

d by

34%

,T

RL

Rep

ort T

RL

482.

spee

d cu

shio

ns, c

ombi

ned

pinc

h po

int

and

spee

d cu

shio

n,59

% a

nd 3

9% f

or p

etro

l non

-cat

alys

t, pe

trol

cat

alys

t and

die

sel

Wok

ingh

am:

TR

L.

100

mm

-hig

h ra

ised

jun

ctio

ns, c

hica

ne, b

uild

out

, min

i-ca

rs r

espe

ctiv

ely.

Em

issi

ons

of N

Ox f

rom

pet

rol o

nly

incr

ease

dro

unda

bout

and

1.9

m w

ide

spee

d cu

shio

n.

slig

htly

whe

reas

NO

x fro

m d

iese

l inc

reas

ed b

y ar

ound

30%

.C

O2 e

mis

sion

s fo

r th

e th

ree

vehi

cle

type

s in

crea

sed

betw

een

20an

d 26

%, a

nd e

mis

sion

s of

par

ticul

ate

mat

ter

from

die

sel

incr

ease

d by

30%

. Alth

ough

tra

ffic

cal

min

g ge

nera

lly i

ncre

ases

emis

sion

s, it

is u

nlik

ely

to r

esul

t in

poor

loca

l air

qua

lity.

Har

ris

G J

, Sta

it R

E, A

bbot

t P G

As

the

max

imum

noi

se a

nd g

roun

d-bo

rne

vibr

atio

nU

KT

he o

vera

ll re

sults

of

the

stud

y in

dica

ted

that

the

flat

-top

ped

and

Wat

ts G

R (

1999

). T

raffi

cal

ongs

ide

traf

fic-

hum

ps d

epen

ds o

n th

e pr

ofile

sha

pe a

shu

mps

wou

ld p

rodu

ce h

ighe

r no

ise

and

vibr

atio

n le

vels

tha

nca

lmin

g: v

ehic

le g

ener

ated

noi

sew

ell a

s th

e ty

pe, l

oad

and

spee

d of

the

vehi

cle

cros

sing

the

othe

r de

sign

s. E

ven

on r

oads

whe

re f

ew h

eavy

veh

icle

s pa

ssan

d gr

ound

-bor

ne v

ibra

tion

prof

ile, T

RL

inve

stig

ated

thre

e ty

pes

of h

umps

and

thro

ugh,

ben

efits

will

be

gain

ed f

or lo

cal r

esid

ents

, as

even

alon

gsid

e si

nuso

idal

, ro

und-

top

thei

r eff

ects

. in

freq

uent

hig

h no

ise

leve

ls c

an c

ause

ann

oyan

ce.

and

flat-

top

road

hum

psT

RL

Rep

ort T

RL

416.

Wok

ingh

am:

TR

L.

Mat

eria

ls a

nd p

lant

ing

Eng

lish

Part

ners

hips

/ L

lew

elyn

Bri

ef r

efer

ence

to d

iffe

rent

mat

eria

ls w

hich

can

be

used

,U

KM

ater

ials

can

hel

p to

def

ine

spac

e an

d fu

nctio

n an

d ca

n im

pact

Dav

ies

(200

0). U

rban

Des

ign

for

exam

ple

to in

dica

te p

edes

tria

n ro

utes

and

sha

red

on h

ow d

rive

rs r

espo

nd.

Com

pend

ium

.su

rfac

e ar

eas.

DC

LG

(20

06).

Tree

roo

ts in

the

Prov

ides

a r

evie

w o

f cu

rren

t res

earc

h an

d kn

owle

dge

onU

K!

Plan

ting

shou

ld b

e in

tegr

ated

int

o st

reet

des

igns

whe

rebu

ilt e

nvir

onm

ent.

tree

roo

ts a

nd th

eir

inte

ract

ion

with

the

built

env

iron

men

t. po

ssib

le.

!R

ecom

men

ded

sigh

tline

s fo

r ve

hicl

es s

houl

d be

mai

ntai

ned

arou

nd p

lant

ed a

reas

unl

ess

visi

bilit

y is

bei

ng d

elib

erat

ely

kept

sho

rt in

ord

er to

lim

it tr

affi

c sp

eeds

.

61

Appendix B: Case study sites

B.1 Research site characteristics

Rural / Housing Land NetworkCharacteristic Town Ward Region urban period use Density type

Historic (pre-war) Reading New Town South East Urban Victorian Mixed High GridLavenham Suffolk South East Rural Medieval Residential Low OrganicOxford Jericho South East Urban Victorian Residential High GridBloxham Village Oxfordshire South East Rural Victorian Residential Low OrganicChichester West Sussex South East Urban Medieval Mixed High OrganicLondon Belgravia South East Urban Victorian Mixed High Grid

Case study Charlton Down West Dorset South West Rural Post 90s Residential High OrganicLichfield Darwin Park West Midlands Urban Post 90s Residential High OrganicEastleigh Former Pirelli site South East Urban Post 90s Residential High Atypical gridNewhall East Harlow East of England Suburban Post 90z Residential High OrganicGuildford Queen’s Park South East Urban Post 90s Residential Mid OrganicLondon Tower Hamlets South East Urban Post 90s Residential High GridGlasgow Crown St. Scotland Urban Post 90s Residential High OrganicChelmsford Windley Tye East of England Suburban Post 90s Residential Low Court layoutChelmsford Beaulieu Park East of England Urban Post 90s Residential Low GridManchester Hulme North West Urban 1990s Residential Low Grid

New build Ipswich Rapier St. South East Suburban Post 90s Residential High Atypical gridPortishead Port Marine South West Suburban Post 90s Residential Mid Organic

DB32 Compliant Leicester Syston East Midlands Urban 1980> Residential Mid Cul-de-sac with spineReading Lower Earley South East Urban 1980> Residential Mid Cul-de-sac with spine

62

B.1.1 New Town, Reading

! Site approximately 1.5 km from Reading Town Centre. Bus route on nearby London Road.

! Site area: 12.6 ha.

! Approximately 623 housing dwellings.

! Housing density: approximately 49 dwellings per hectare (dph)

! Predominantly residential. One school nearby.

! Residential mix: mostly terraces. Some conversions into flats.

! Housing tenure: None assigned, although prices in this area are probably lower than the average amount in Reading.

! 20 mph speed limit throughout area introduced in mid nineties as a road safety scheme.

! Parking: oversubscribed. Most of the houses in New Town were built for the workers of the old Huntley and PalmerBiscuit factory on King’s Road to live in and work. They were never intended to accommodate on street parking,especially not on both sides of the road as occurs.

! Local planning authority and highway authority: Reading Borough Council.M

AN

CH

ES

TER

RO

AD

37

43.3m

MA

NC

HE

STE

R R

OA

D2

341

337

MA

NC

HE

STE

R R

OA

D

11

14

PAR

K W

AR

D

TCBs

1

9

43.4m

301

277

289

325

19

33

29

60

63

27

2

38

50

77

60

70

49

313

26

PARK WARD

50

38

49

63

37

52

62

2

14

RADSTOCK ROAD13

25

FILEY ROAD

26

37

40

14

25

13

45

93

NORTON ROAD

86

78

65

7051

79

42

1

15

27

2

30

READING 16

68

28

12

14

22

1

31

1

42.5m

2

30

Surgery

NORTON ROAD

16

32

40

48

17

57

47

80

68

56

89

39

29a

92

65

77

50

38

El

PO

41

31

Sub Sta

42.5m

BM 42.44m

41.1m

51

49

61

59

COVENTRY ROAD39

41.9m

BM 42.38m

42.2m

41.0mTCB

6

15

26

98

1

29

1

34

2

5

FRESHWATER ROAD

14

2

86

42.7m

CO

UR

T

RIVERS DALE

CHOLMELEY ROAD

LIVERPOOL ROAD

144

145

135

125

113

101

97

85

73

8

7

9

10

12

11

110

132

120

3

4

CHOLM

ELEY ROAD

READING EAST BORO CONST

NEW TOWN

82

66

58

42.3m

50


New Town - Reading = ATC Location




3

4

5

10

2

1

6

7

8

9

1 2

1

The 1946 New Towns Act was implemented to rapidly replace housing stock lost during the war. Reading’s New Town is a good example of the principles used, with its grid layout and long rows of terraced houses. The picture from the site survey shows permit parking on both sides of the road, greatly altering link widths that could be predicted from the adjacent CAD image. The narrowing that can be seen in the foreground is the only one on the site, and little is known about when and why it was introduced here in particular.

3

4

5

10

2

1

6

7

8

9

1 2

1

63

B.1.2 Lavenham, Suffolk

! 30 mph speed limit in place.

! Organic network type.

! Local planning authority: Suffolk County Council.

FB

Path (um)

Ford

BR

EN

T ELE

IGH

RO

AD

Gasholder 40

HopeDrovers

That

ched

Cot

tage

CottageHouse

LB

50.2m

16

17

19

River

11

Cottage

Sunny Side

37

18

34

52.5m

32

Granary

Cottages

Barnsdale

19d

STR

EE

T

SH

ILLING

Shilling

Orchard

14

12

19

19a

BOLTON STREET

28

29

1

5

4a4b

3026

23 24

PRENTICE STREET13

14

22

WATER

STREET

118

LOW

ER

RO

AD

49.24m

5

Prospect

View

BM

1

The

Cot

tage

Hol

mew

ood

PW

The Common

49.7m

BM 61.90m

44 4245

39

49

47

5154

25

24

10

to15

9

8

7

6

Bakers

Mill

5

Lingmell

Southview

Bonnieburn

Turners

52

Old

Brooke

House

65

61

47

42

CLO

SE

1 to 4

2

LOW

ER

RO

AD

1

TRINITY GILD

Daisy Chain

RyeCottage

Cottage

1

2

Mayes Farm

3

Prospect House

Maelands

The OldChapeI

Well House

LAVENHAM

40

38

4

Tudor

Cottage

BARN

STREET

5

1

6

Shilling Grange

Shilling Grange Cottage

Constable

2

1 to

8

13

15

The Maltings

1

Court

55.6m

5658

BM

55.02m

Lavenham

Chapel

County

Primary

School

1

4-5

6

24

3

BM 67.59m

Little Hall

46

PC

60

62

64

66

15

1011

9

7

12-14

59.0m

PH

2

Great House

1213

9

Market

Place

Market

Cross

LAD

Y S

TRE

ET

3

1

Liby

Market

House Guildhall

12

69

5

10

Hotel

70

3

PU

MP

CO

UR

T

Car Park

38 39

5

The Hayloft

3637

Swan

9798 to 99

100

42LA

The Stables

TCB

74

B 1

071

1292

Wr T

67.0m

GP

MARKET

9193

95

1

1a

65.7

m

69.0

m

FB

Byes

Barn

21

31

29

27

21

25

WoolstaplersBungalow

10

9

12

12

6

23

El

Sub

Sta

14

16

1

61

60e

69.0m

4

67

HIG

H S

TRE

ET

70-71

42

45

48

40

14a

1413

SPRING

2

El Sub Sta

1

SPRING

LANE

9

12

18

SPRING STREET

45

26

11

19

35

54

57.6m

55

28

37

25

17

23

15

LB


37

38

40B

M 6

7.94

m41

2

44

1

45

16

4

1

7

2

17

15

14

80

7

6

3

8986

1

81

84

83

3133

34

5

6

PH

PO

23

24 25

26

1518

20

21

3-4

10

57

56e

56a

56

53f

53d

60a58

53b

53a

52

49

51

1

DEACON'S CLOSE

48a

PRESTON ROAD

Rushbrooke

3

Lavers

2

Mortlocks

2

Normans 1

45

House

End

Preston

1

5

1

CLOSE

6

Brookside

WEAVERS

16

20

Foxes

3

Little

11

GP

Path

(um

)

Lavenham - Suffolk

67

8

10

12

15

16

17

1819

1

2

3

4

20

Lavenham is situated in rural Suffolk and dates back to the medieval period. The street layout is organic and highly varied. The picture shows a junction with relatively low visibility on approach, caused by building frontages being characteristically close to the carriageway. Parking also restricts the road to single file in this instance, but on other sections narrow streets are signed as one-way.

67

8

10

12

15

16

17

1819

1

2

3

4

20

= ATC Location




64

B.1.3 Jericho, Oxford

! Site located outside Oxford’s old city walls in a historic area, north of the city.


! Approximately 693 dwellings.

! Housing development began in the nineteenth century.

! Residential mix: mostly two-up two-down terraced housing, some semi-detached and flats.

! Housing tenure: 25% of people live in owner-occupied property, 57% rent from private landlords and 18% rent fromsocial landlords, mostly the council.

! 30 mph speed limit on site.

! Grid network type with mostly on-street parking.

! Local planning authority: Oxford City Council.

! Local highways authority: Oxfordshire County Council.

= ATC Location




101

55

The Je

richo

Tave

rn

(PH)

Ward Bdy

Cinema

118

59

61.2m

WALTON STREET

111

112

106

62.1m

TCB105

60

71

72

BM 62.83m

61.2m

The Radcliffe Infirmary

24

34

25

96

HART STREET

27

24a

31

28

21

LB

83

8277

84

80

20

19

Post

JERICHO

25a

21

8176

26

17

GREAT C

LARENDON STREET

ALBERT STREET

42

37

36

85

80

87

1

8

75

80

18

31

Chapel

22

24a

25

35

Baptist

St Paul'sHouse

Health C

entre

67

40

JERIC

HO STREET

38

1a

73

42

3739

4132

36

Sub Sta

7

10

8

El

33

31

35

TCB

CRANHAM STREET

BLOMFIELD PLACE

Grantha

m Hou

se

1

2

3

1 to 3

6

VENABLES C

LOSE

68

4

5

7

9

6

Shirley P

lace

3

2

5

1

4

11

12

9

68

PH

PH

3

JERIC

HO

SCHOO

L COURT

30

30a

1

CARDIGAN S

TREET

28

58

CRANHAM STREET

29

27

35

34

26

2422

VICTOR STREET

CANAL STREET

74

STREET

18

15

CRANHAM TERRACE

JUXON STREET

22

30

ALLAM

STREET

PH

30

ALLUM STREET

MOUNT

STREET

ALLAM STREET

OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY

JERICHO AND OSNEY WARD

MOUNT STREET

4

5

JUXON STREET

12

MOUNT

PLAC

E

21

PH

67

18

8

1

10

42

42a

2

9

6

5

6463

67

70

36

37

PH

62

65

38

Posts

66a

19

15

9

66

12

7

16a

16b

59.2m

2328

26

2927

21

25

62

19

17

16

57.8m

43

6

43a

44

57.6m

2

34

38

45

to

44a

44b

45

46

Hall

33

51

55

9

47

34a

PH

57.5m

BM 57.75m

16

19 to 25

26

11

6

1

19

13

16c

16d

3

BM 59.16m

51

37

26

50

PH

12

7

24

JER

ICH

OJE

RIC

HO

9

CAN

AL STREET

CRANHAM

STREET

15

19

43

44

48

24

PH

40

57.6m

56

52

66

60

68

48

1

47


ST BARNABAS STREET

6

10

5

14

Jericho - Oxford

15

10

9

65

2

3

7

11

14

3

21 Jericho, just outside the centre of Oxford, is a Victorian

development with a grid layout typical of the era and location. The rows of terraced houses, narrow streets (with permit parking bays) and frontages in close proximity to the carriageway create many junctions like the one shown in the picture. Visibility is poor on approach due to buildings, but when on the junction it is usually a parked vehicle that restricts visibility down the straight roads.

176

174

65

B.1.4 Bloxham Village, Oxfordshire

! Local planning authority: Oxfordshire County Council.

! 30 mph speed limit.

Rid

gew

ay

Sta

Conacre

Rid

gecr

oft

El Sub

HOGG END

Barnstone

BARLEY CROFT

Hor

elia

Faw

n H

ouse

BARLEY CLOSE

BR

ICK

LE L

AN

E

SOUTH EAST EER

The

Coa

chH

ouse

Kirinyaga

CHAPEL STREET

Hor

nton

Hou

se

ManorFarmhouse

Colgrae

WAT

ER

LA

NE

TheShippon

WatersCourt

Lightbread

CHERWELL DISTRICTTHE RIDGEWAY

1

3

6

RO

SE

BA

NK

Bennetts

BennettsLittle

Tall TreesEl Sub Sta

Bank

Rose

RoseCott

15

Eton

OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY

HouseEton

Cottage

A 3

61

STONE HILL

Ellen Hind

Memorial HallBloxham

13

ViewWest14

8

HIG

H S

TRE

ET

ST

EE

PLE

5

The

CLO

SE


111.3m

ROSE

BANK

4

2

1

HUMBER STREET

111.4m

HumberHouseA

361

Bloxham Village - Oxfordshire

3

5 4

2

1

9

8

6

7

4

1

3

2

Bloxham is a low density rural community, and the street network represents the low flow levels one would expect. There are numerous single-track links, as shown above, with low visibility levels. It could be reasonably assumed that cars pass by mounting the low-level kerbs onto the pavement.

14

3

5 4

2

1

9

8

6

7

4

1

3

2

-

-

14

= ATC Location




66

B.1.5 Chichester, West Sussex

! Site located approximately 500 metres south west from Chichester town centre and approximately 1 km from therail / bus stations located to the west of the site.


! Approximately 278 dwellings.

! Site is residential and affords a mix of detached and terrace houses, ranging in age and condition.

! Housing tenure: not known.


! Some houses benefit from on-site parking whilst many rely on parking within the highway. Dwellings that benefitfrom onsite parking provision do not normally exceed two spaces.

! Local planning authority: Chichester District Council.

! Highways authority: West Sussex County Council.

ETTRICK CLOSE

12.7m

RO

AD

Lyndhurst House

21

ETTR

ICK

25

30a30

29

26

12

14

20

12.5m

CALEDONIAN ROAD

WEST SUSSEX COUNTY

48

41

3032

50

12.1m

60

55BM

12.31m

LYNDHURST ROAD

16

23

BARFORD

ROAD

63

CHICHESTER CO CONST

72 12.6m

69

CLYDESDALE AVENUE

13

31 5 7

CLY

DE

SD

ALE

AVENUE7

4

8

5

CourtElgin

1 to 11

3

17

STIR

LING

RO

AD

157

Forum House

8

Posts

6

11

CHICHESTER SOUTH WARD

3

WHYKE

16

24

LABURNUM G

ROVE

20

Scyros

BARFORDROAD

2

7

25

1 5

19

30

STIRLING ROAD

36

32

JUXON CLOSE

22

42

1

LYN

DH

UR

ST

RO

AD

33

LB

14

12.5m

CALEDONIAN ROAD

44a 87

1

Forum House

STIR

LING

RO

AD

45

Market House

2

13.1m

Old Market House

CHICHESTER SOUTH ED

Oakshade

Tempe

2

12.7m

1

LABURNUM GROVE

MARKET AVENUE

40 39

BM 12.91m

84

44

CLY

DE

SD

ALE

AVE

NU

E

12.8m

2

34

11

CHICHESTER SOUTH WARD1

4

19

4

ETTRICK ROAD

FB


= ATC Location




Chichester - West Sussex

2

7

3

1

4

5

8

6

3

2

4

1

7 The Chichester site dates back to medieval times, and the organic layout of the residential area has produced a mix of junction types. The picture shows a narrow side street with low visibility on approach to the stop line, but other junctions have relatively high visibility levels. This trend of inconsistency is also apparent on links. Some are clear views while others bend relatively sharply, as can be seen on the site map.

2

7

3

1

4

5

8

6

3

2

4

1

7

67

B.1.6 Belgravia, London


! Local planning authority: Westminster City Council.

ECCLESTON

STREET

100

Bolivian

106

107

108

109

Embassy

8

6.9m

LB

7.8m

TCB

BM 7.87

m

Eaton S

quar

e Gar

dens

6

24

SQUARE

26

7

36

11

32

103

102

EATON

95

98

Belgian Embassy

103

= ATC Location


= ATC I.D.

= Links Measured


Belgravia - London

The grid layout of Belgravia gives rise to high visibility levels at the majority of junctions, as can be seen in the image of junction 4. There were also clear views down the lengths of all measured links (link 1 = 122m, link 2 = 89m, link 3 = 194m, link 4 = 183m). This can be seen in the image of link 4.

46

7

5

LB

8

1 to 4

LB

14

12a

12

7.1m

EATON SQUARE

EATON S

QUARE

18

EATON S

QUARE

Eaton S

quar

e Gar

dens

EATON S

QUARE

117

118 7.5m

12


KN

IGH

TS

BR

IDG

E A

ND

BE

LGR

AVIA

WA

RD

13

15

14

2

2

118

11

KN

IGH

TS

BR

IDG

E A

ND

BE

LGR

AVIA

WA

RD

115

6

8

10

22

12

111

109

7.9m

22

21

23

LB

6.9m

Tennis

Court

98.0m

LB

4

11

1

BM 8.12

m

17

31

5

36

24

EATON S

QUARE

ECCLESTON

STREET

6.9m

100

Bolivian

106

107

108

109

31

33

34

Embassy

8

Eaton S

quar

e Gar

dens

6.9m

LB

7.8m

TCB

BM 7.87

m

Eaton S

quar

e Gar

dens

LB

34

6

93

BELGRAVE PLACE

ECCLESTO

N MEW

S

24

SQUARE

26

7

36

11

32

107

103

44 to 47

40


38

39

41 to 43

EATON S

QUARE

90

46

102

EATON

95

98

32

19

Nuffield Club

Belgian Embassy

103

LONDON EER

19

43

37

35b

35

ItalianEmbassy

Embass

y of th

e

Hunga

rian

People

's Rep

ublic

16

EATON M

EWS N

ORTH

54

56

14

15

86

38

83

LYALL STREET

84

BM 7.00

m

LB

69

BM 7.75

m

EATON P

LACE

68

8

57

45



Club

82

The Irish

82

7

The Irish

Club

EATON S

QUARE

77

80

44

LYALL STREET

8

82

9

2

84

64

46

EATON M

EWS N

ORTH

48

47

62

6

48

EATON S

QUARE

51

EATON S

QUARE

57 to 60

53 to 56

6.9m

Eaton S

quar

e Gar

dens

The F

ive F

ields

61

67

72

6189

91

55

EATON M

EWS N

ORTH

73

53

108

57

58

103

93

EATON PLACE

101

102

104

99

7.3m

71

94

86

90

87

79

7.4m

62

2

LB

EATON SQUARE

66

66a

63


LBPH

35

12

7

2

34

1

123

4

5

6

15

9

10

11

823

68

B.1.7 Charlton Down, West Dorset

! Charlton Down is mostly housing development on the site of a former mental hospital 5 km north of Dorchester, Dorset.A self-contained rural (village) development.

! When complete, the overall scheme will have 546 units, with a mix of apartments, terraced and detached units on a sitearea of 48ha.

! The case study phase has a density of 30 dph net.

! Initial development phase: 1998 – 2005.

! Developer: Bellway.

! DB32 was not used specifically and the designers felt that they had pushed the boundaries in terms of streetspecifications.

! Curvilinear layout of streets including cul-de-sac.

! Maximum vehicle speeds: 20 mph.

! Local Planning authority: West Dorset District Council.

! Highways authority: Dorset County Council.

27

114.0m

Herrison Cottages

112.2m

21

12

15

11

14

31

7

ASH ROAD

DEVER

EL R

OAD

24f

5

20

14

12

ROAD

112.2m

HER

RIS

ON

RO

AD

5

15

22

30

2

ASPE

N R

D

24e

ASPE

N R

D

10

8

12

9

16

1

19

30

17

1

22

2622

28

32

189

1115

3

24

32

7

MA

GN

OLI

AD

RIV

E

1416

18

4

16

20

22

7

5

Gre

ville

Cou

rt

MEECH WAY

7

12

21

6

9

1223

Greenwood House

1to54

8

SHERREN AVENUE

2

STRODES LANE

19

10

STRODES LANE

11

2

6

26

Herrison

2

Hall

SHERREN AVENUE

11

House

Deverel

3

20

1

5

12

6

14

1

24a

4

24b

29

28

7

9

36

3

1

5

3

Track

6

7

8

4

12

Alder

1to63

3

1

ROAD

11

3

LANE

ELM

4

6

HORNBEAM ROAD

2

LAB

UR

NU

M R

OA

D

3028

8

26

14

33

2

810

MAPLE

DRIV

E

2

1

6

19

OAK ROAD

26

1

4

11

Redwood House

17

Architects House

15

10

2

2

STRODES LANE

10

15

4

CY

PR

ES

S R

OA

D

3

5

1

ACACIA

8

9 2

1

HAWTHORN

15

6

1to54

3

5

14

27

23

17

25

1to7

Court

The

15

11

DE

VE

RE

L

37

14

14

4

4

CEDAR ROAD

BM 109.74m

67

6

17

19

4

15

19

11

8

7

112.8m

1

31

1

1

1to7

House

Cherry

Tree

12

23

Posts

VIEW

P

P

CHESTNUT ROAD

WILLOW

GDNSMULBERRY

4

Posts

2

8

OAK ROAD

1618

8

MULBERRY GARDENS

24

29

2

ROWAN W

ALK

7

ASH

RO

AD

1

12

5

2

1

3

2

10

16

12

5

DEV

EREL

3

RO

AD 39

3430

1 38

8

8

DRIVE

5

7


2

21

= ATC Location




Charlton Down - West Dorset

Charlton Down is a recently completed development situated in rural west Dorset. The picture shows one of several unconventional junctions on the site. Low flows allow for these informal squares to be created, though there could be confusion if vehicles were crossing paths. The bollards beyond the junction are also typical of the site. They are used widely to demarcate the pavement and road, as an alternative to kerbs.

1

24

6

7

9

10

11 13

15

1

3

4

2

15

16

69

B.1.8 Darwin Park, Lichfield

! Suburban area situated less than 2 miles south of Lichfield city centre, near to M6 toll road.

! Site area: approximately 33 ha.

! 1100 housing units when completed, supermarket, retail space.

! Housing density: approximately 33 dph.

! Residential mix: mixed apartments, terraced, semi-detached, detached.

! Housing tenure: 25% affordable housing.


! Parking ratio: believed to be approximately 1 or 1.5 per dwelling.

! Greenfield site.

! Development period: 1998 onwards (60% built). Due for completion in 2008/2009.

! Developer: Taylor Woodrow and Bryant Homes.

! Adopted Urban Design considerations. Curvilinear street layout. Some non-DB32 layouts used.

! Local planning authority: Lichfield District Council.

! Local highway authority: Staffordshire County Council.

A 461

27

19

127

86.0m

45

119a

89.3m

51

The

24

33

LEAMONSLEY

WALSALL ROAD

VIC

TOR

IA

12

14

2

32

8

117

129

Vicarage

127a

15

23

121

40

44

40

38

House

36

32

26

4

11

2119

2

57

23

7

9

Court

Leomansley Court

37

53

27

22

15

CHATTERTON AVE

7

189

Easter Hill

97

145

104

178

98

139

147

174

179

99

101

SAXO

N WAL

K

LEOMANSLEY VIEW

Rookery

10

159

The Old

19

Vicarage

LANE

168a

25

105

9

5

168

2

BARDELL CLOSE

4

187

El Sub Sta

192

25

21

52

16

2

ORMONDS CLOSE

6

1

3

1

6

4

2

8

5

ALESMORE MEADOW

11

59

17

194

CLO

SE

30

1

5

12

3

10

7

158

34

11

1

35

42

WALN

UT WALK

34

38

32

25

29

21

Headland


92

1

146

138

5

106

CHRISTCHURCH

103

92.0m

165

14

PO

OLFIE

LD R

OA

D

4

2

177

14

12

10

170

WALSALL ROAD

191

BM 93.77m

= ATC Location




Lichfield

1

23

5

6

7

8

910

11

1

2

3

4

5

25

26

The Darwin Park development near Lichfield has some design elements which make it distinct from any other site included in the research. The photograph shows how grass has been used in some areas to make up the pedestrian surface. This may have aesthetic value but the practicalities, especially for a wheelchair user, can be challenged.

Another key characteristic of this site is the relatively low visibility levels on links (as shown in the picture) and junctions.

1

23

5

6

7

8

910

11

1

2

3

4

5

25

26

70

B.1.9 Former Pirelli Site, Eastleigh

! Location: 0.5 km to the west of Eastleigh town centre, 0.5 km from junction 13 of the M3, south of Leigh road.Proximity to town centre.

! Site area 11.7ha.

! 710 units (when complete).

! Density 60 dph gross.

! Mix of housing types, plus live work units and offices.

! Housing tenure: 17% affordable.


! Average residential parking to be no more than 1.5 spaces per unit. 33% of total parking to be shared on-street parking.

! Development period 2002-2006.

! Developers: Barratts and Kingsoak.

! DB32 loosely adhered to, design also influenced by Hampshire’s advice ‘Movement, access, streets and spaces’ adoptedin 2001.

! Local planning authority: Eastleigh Borough Council.

! Highways authority: Hampshire County Council.

109

17

NU

TBE

EM

RO

AD

31

4

117

111

1 to

22

Will

iam

Pan

ter C

ourt

The

Good Companions

(PH)

32

81 to 91

24

34

40

Telephone Exchange

80 79

31

14.9m

CA

BLE

STR

EE

T

70

60

61

69

27 29

8799

111

52 to

68

DR

UM

RO

AD

53 to 69

ROAD

BLENHEIM

STRANDING STREET42

3

15.5m

35 to 40

41 to 52

BM 15.40m

SO

PW

ITH

RO

AD

17 to 28

1 to 16

1 to 25

53

BENNY HILL CLOSE

12

29

9

30

34

14

17

7

STRANDING STREET

1 ESS

3 to 8

HEINZ BURT CLOSE

12

2 to

12

31

1

PLU

TO R

OA

D

1

1716

15

2

30

9

3749

63

Cha

rlie

Soa

r Cou

rt

1 to

16

18

42

Church

4438

3634 40

3022

PIRELLI WAY

9

3

1

17

15

11

13

15

CA

BLE

STR

EE

T

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY

2

11

10

CA

BLE

STR

EE

T

25

42 to

58

29

27

24 to

40

22

SOPWITH ROAD

24

1 to 19

1820

3741

42

35

12

DR

UM

RO

AD

EASTLEIGH CENTRAL WARD

28

3129

2 to

18

STR

AN

DIN

G S

TRE

ET

BR

IGH

T W

IRE

CR

ES

CE

NT

41 to 57

29

32

59 to 75

25

28

39

16 to 24

32

CRESCENT

SOUTH EAST EER

34

14

22

9 to 27

6

7

11

12

BR

IGH

T W

IRE

2

92

15.2m


1 to 11

TOMMY GREEN WALK

8

GREAT FARM ROAD

6

EASTLEIGH WEST ED

1

= ATC Location




Former Pirelli Site - Eastleigh

3

8

6

5

2

1

7

4

4

2 3

1

9

8

This site is a brownfield development in Eastleigh, to the northeast of Southampton. The atypical grid layout is characterised in this instance by built-in parking provision in the form of roadside bays. As the image shows, these act to drastically alter the visibility on links. A brick road surface has been widely used on the site, with some raised brick junctions. The site remains to be finished.

3

8

6

5

2

1

7

4

4

2 3

1

9

8

71

B.1.10 Newhall, East Harlow

! Large urban extension east of Harlow, Essex.

! Site area is 81ha.

! Population expected to reach 6000 in 2800 dwellings by 2018.

! Density 35 dph gross.

! Mixed land use. Residential mix of detached, terraced, semi-detached and flats plus community buildings, shops,services, pubs. Site includes district centre.

! Housing tenure: 25% lower cost dwellings.


! Parking ratio of 1.7 per dwelling plus 15 visitor spaces for the ‘Abode’ parcel.

! Different parcels within each phase (50-100 units per parcel) built out by different developers. Overall developers:Roger Evans Associates. Proctor Matthews Architects / Copthorn Homes, PCKO / Cala Homes also contributed.

! Development period started 2003. Not yet completed.

! Urban edge car-based Greenfield development.

! Street layout is deformed lattice shape.

! Local planning authority: Harlow District Council.

! Highways authority: Essex County Council.7

THE CHASE

3935

1

13

2

HOLLAND WAY

4

5 to 9

REGINALD MEWS

9

3

51

2

1

ST.NICHOLAS GREEN

1

161

to 1

0

11

51

RA

MB

LER

S LA

NE

4

44

1

3

18

CROSS WAY

10

5

1

38

SIMPLICITY LANE

4

GR

EE

N S

TR

EE

T

3

6

18

HO

NO

R S

TRE

ET

ST.NICHOLAS GREEN

Playground

5

REGINALD MEWS

36

56 to 62

12

7

2

5

15

ST

NIC

HO

LAS

GR

EE

N

10

211

25 to 33

5

6

STR

EE

T

1

TAT

TON

7


1

28

5

1

16

1 to 12

12

ST NICHOLAS GREEN

14

25

6 to 13

21

CA

NO

PY

LA

NE

13 to

23

1

BASIL MEWS

2

MAY

PO

LE S

TR

EE

T

THE CHASE

2

26

SOPER

SQUAR

E

10

6

3

Sub

4

El

ALBA ROAD

Sta

1

5

ALLIS MEWS

2

HARROWBAND ROAD

1

SQ

UA

RE

ST

RE

ET

4

1

3

9

1

19

18

8

4

1

= ATC Location




Newhall - East Harlow

7

9

5

3

8

6

1

4

3

1

4

2

1819

This recently developed site has an organic layout and has adopted numerous modern design elements. The picture gives an example of the shared spaces, planting in the carriageway and green public recreational areas. These wide junctions require care from drivers, but the plantings act to funnel vehicles and separate them from pedestrians.

7

9

5

3

8

6

1

4

3

1

4

2

1819

72

B.1.11 Queen Elizabeth Park, Guildford

! Located 2 miles north of Guildford, 30 miles west of London with close proximity to local bus routes and mainlinerailway route into London. Easy access to M25 via A3.

! Site area 23 hectares including open space and commercial uses.

! 525 units mix of houses and flats.

! Housing density 23 dph.

! Mix of uses: community centre, crèche, health and fitness centre, supermarket, doctor’s surgery, 25 small business unitsand 4550 sqm offices.

! Housing tenure: high income (mostly), 35% affordable.


! Average parking ratio: 1.5 spaces per dwelling.

! Date of development 2003-2005.

! Developers: Laing and Linden.

! Former barracks site on suburban Brownfield site.

! Relaxation of DB32 highway design standards and innovative measures to control speed.

! Local planning authority: Guildford Borough Council.

! Highways authority: Surrey County Council.

STOUGHTON WARD

STOUGHTON

1 to 6

RAILTON ROAD1

5

1

HAL

LOW

ES C

LOSE

18

3

10

2

6

9

9

GR

AN

GE

RO

AD

7 to 14

AVE

NU

E

17

45

HE

ND

ER

SO

N

35

10

4

15 to 16

Vaughan Court

19

RAILTON ROAD

RIV

ETT-

DR

AKE

CLO

SE

15 to 23

11

6

10

12

2

8

5

1

1 to 6

MACDO

WALL RO

AD

7

Posts

GUILDFORD DISTRICT

12

WHATELEY CLOSE

21

Wha

tele

y Te

rrace

1

2

HENDERSON AVENUE

18

10

8

1

7

19 to 33

1

3

FOR

ES

TER

RO

AD

4

3

FORESTER ROAD

12 to 20

28

1929

33

22

26

10

GUILDFORD NORTH ED

11

36

17

MIC

HA

EL

LAN

E

9

1

SURREY COUNTY

44

38

2

1

KENT CLOSE

DUCHESS OF

4

8

Elizabeth Park

1

46

Queen

WA

KE

CLO

SE

1519

5

2

KN

OX

RO

AD

3541

1

8

48

31

1 to 6

TYR

WH

ITT

CO

UR

T

34

7 to 14

CROWCROFT CLOSE

6

7 to 14

3

HO

PK

IN C

LOS

E

1

32

25

24

38

1

RAI

LTO

N R

OAD

24

20

33

15

11

23

26

17

1

9

Queen Elizabeth Park

11

15

CLO

SEAND

ERSO

N

AND

ERSO

N CLO

SE

3

12

8

1

7

5

PRIN

CES

S M

ARY

CLO

SE

268

267

264


274

TYLEHOST

280

2

273

1

1

4

GO

DD

AR

D C

LOS

E

2

= ATC Location




Queen Elizabeth Park - Guildford

12

1312

9

6

4

3

5

11

8

7

10

14

15

2

1

33

4

Guildford’s Queen Elizabeth Park has an organic street layout, with an extensive network of footways linking green spaces and recreational areas. The picture shows an example of aesthetic considerations combining with link geometry, as the obelisk acts to reduce visibility on the link. Vegetation has been maintained so as to not reduce visibility further.

12

1312

9

6

4

3

5

11

8

7

10

14

15

2

1

33

4

73

B.1.12 Tower Hamlets, London

! Location: Central Stepney, inner East London housing area. The site is north of the river Thames, within close proximityto Canary Wharf and the Tower of London.

! Site area: 6 ha.

! 240 habitable rooms per hectare (up to 74 dph).

! 136 housing units developed (total development 445).

! Residential mix: terraces and flats.

! Housing tenure: almost all Registered Social Landlord (RSL).


! On-street parking except some in-curtilage for disabled.

! Development period: 1998-2004.

! Developer: John Laing Partnership. PRP Architects worked with local residents, the housing associations, Laing and theFree Form Arts Trust to develop the master plan.

! Residential development on site of a demolished 60s estate.

! Reproduction of Victorian terraced streets. Design based on DB32 and Section 38.

! Local planning authority and highways authority: London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

1 to

3

129

8.6m

2022

124 to 134112 to 122

30

11

86

12

SHAW C

RESCENT

3

4

6

2

1

2

18


8

15

CA

RR

ST

RE

ET

2741 1

3537

to 47

4953

78

78 92

100 to 110

94 to 9860 to 70

119 to 123

BE

TH

NA

L G

RE

EN

AN

D B

OW

BO

RO

CO

NS

T

ST

DU

NS

TAN

'S A

ND

ST

EP

NE

Y G

RE

EN

WA

RD

125

107 to117

EA

ST

FIE

LD S

TR

EE

T

2230

32

17

89 to 9395 to 105

1929

87

52 to 56

81

61

55 to 65

72 to 76

1

16

26

Playground

1

62

60

27 to 33

3634

BM

10.

56m

TCB10.1m

74

9.9m

182025

84

23

2426

7

Cau

ston

Cot

tage

s

Bailey Cottages

16

Batten Cottages

311

CA

RR

ST

RE

ET 74

5876

47

69

63

9498

96100

76

29 to

33

79

73

66

61

1

30

104

1 to

66

78

3

44

67 to 71

34

GA

LSW

OR

TH

Y A

VE

NU

E

23

Don

oghu

e C

otta

ges

121314

16 1517

20

HALLEY STREET

Elsa Cottages

7.9m

4632

34

GA

LSW

OR

TH

Y A

VE

NU

E

6

GA

LSW

OR

TH

Y A

VE

NU

E

Cau

ston

Cot

tage

s

2

9


6

LIMEHOUSE

REPTON STREET

10.4m

1713

6

1

Berry Cottages

Bradshaw Cottages

1

6

1

6

53

Burroughs Cottages

1

6

1

MAROON STREET

1

Limehouse

Fields Estate

41

16

1213 14

15 1617

9

2823

20

CO

LTM

AN

ST

RE

ET

Gre

aves

Cot

tage

s

13 to 3943

HE

AR

NS

HA

W S

TR

EE

T

4151

9

HE

AR

NS

HA

W S

TR

EE

T

TOWER HAMLETS LB

Am

esC

otta

ges

Am

es C

otta

ges

18


96

BM 9.12m

4

15 to 21

21286

AS

TON

ST

RE

ET

Posts 9.1m

Channel

House

= ATC Location




Tower Hamlets - London

3

13

16

1

4

5

17

7

1

2

3

5

Tower Hamlets saw extensive redevelopment during the 1990s, and is characterised by its grid layout with on-street parking provision. The image shows a typically wide carriageway to accommodate this parking. The major arm at this junction is one-way traffic, with the central reserve turned into a recreational area.

3

13

16

1

4

5

17

7

1

2

3

5

74

B.1.13 Crown Street, Glasgow

! Location: site within walking distance (20 minutes) of Glasgow city centre on the south bank of the river Clyde.


! 832 dwellings.

! Gross density 48 dph.

! Residential development along wider boulevards with retail and mixed use provision laid out along the narrowest street.Residential mix of town houses, flats and duplex apartments (four-storey urban blocks).

! Housing tenure: 659 owner occupied, 173 social rented homes.

! Mainly 30 mph speed limits, with some streets 20 mph.

! Parking ratio is less than 1:1 overall.

! Former site: poor quality 1960s high rise residential tower blocks.


! Planner / Developer: Piers Gough.

! Strongly linear layout.

! Local planning and highways authority: Glasgow City Council.

258

159 to 167

PIN

E PL

ACE

146 to 150

130 to 134

136 to 144

19 to 27

1115

17

7

175

169

45

45 to 49

16

2435 to 43

28 to

32

ERROL GARDENS

GLASGOW PER

29 to 33

19 to 27

GLASGOW

36 to

40

34

8

238

147 to 151

BENN

Y LY

NCH

COUR

T

16

11

ST N

INIA

N T

ERR

ACE

36

56

40

7

137 to 143

OLD RUTHERGLEN ROAD

125 to 129

131 to 135

113 to 117

119 to 123

20

15

17

6

PO

12 16

114 to 118

120 to 128

110

167

161

155

180-

154

61

PIN

E PL

ACE

55

32

235

48

42 to

46

34

227

229

46

44

221 to 225

39

192190

184 to 188

215 to 219

CR

OW

N S

TREE

T

ERROL GARDENS

22 to

26

18

181

207 to 211

197 to 201

191 to 195

27

9

11

15

203 to 207

166 to 170

4-8

5-7

197

209 to 213

Supermarket

50

CR

OW

N S

TREE

T

9.1m

101

CAM

DEN

TER

RAC

E

CUMBERLAND STREET

164

10.0m

10-14

201 to 205

221 to 225

16-18

5557

45-49

42

9 to 11

235

37

39227 to 233

170

SAN

DIE

FIEL

D R

OAD

GLASGOW CITY

Supermarket

GORBALS

Play Area

Play Area

SAN

DIE

FIEL

D R

OAD

SCOTLAND EER

El Sub Sta

170

200

El Sub

Sta

154

146 to 150

126 to 132

7 to 9

Play Area

NABURN GATE

KID

STO

N P

LAC

E

23

15 to 19

CRESCENT

230

224

19

KIDSTON TERRACE

15

21 to 2328

22 26

11

ALEXANDER

GLA

SG

OW

SH

ET

TLE

STO

N P

CO

NS

T

15

29

719 to 23

33

HAN

DEL

PLA

CE

SOUTHSIDE CRESCENT

18

7

11

3

5 to 9

11 to 17

19 to 23

TCB


GLA

SG

OW

HU

TC

HE

SO

NTO

WN

WA

RD

6 to

10

THIS

TLE

TE

RR

AC

E

SOUTHSIDE CRESCENT

ALEXANDER

CRESCENT

25 to 27

11 to 1719 to 23

GO

RB

ALS

15

MA

LTA

TE

RR

AC

E

14

4

2

7

11

16

30

1921

12 to

16

18 to

22

24 to

28

3

= ATC Location




The Gorbals - Glasgow

1

2 3

6

4

8

7

5

10

9

41

3

2

29

30

This site is a redevelopment based around Crown Street in the Gorbals area of Glasgow. Brick tables are used extensively at junctions, and parking provision is situated between the carriageways with a one -way system in operation. This is evident in the picture above, as is an apparent degradation in the quality of road markings on the brick surface.

1

2 3

6

4

8

7

5

10

9

41

3

2

29

30

-

75

B.1.14 Windley Tye, Chelmsford

! Located on town centre fringe to the west of Chelmsford.

! 4.3 ha site.

! 23 housing units (Willow Court development).

! Overall density 25 dph (Willow Court Development).

! Residential mix: 3 and 4 bedroom detached, semi-detached and terraced houses.



! Car parking: generally behind the building line.

! Brownfield site. Former industrial site.

! Development period: 2002-2004 (Willow Court).

! Developer: Bellway Homes (Willow Court).

! Local planning authority: Chelmsford Borough Council.

! Highway Authority: Essex County Council.

ST ANDREWS

13

1

3

WEST CHELMSFORD CO CONSTHouse

1 to 6

2a

32.3m

40

36

2b

Upleatham

10

1

2

8

2

8

31

Path (um)

32.6m

191 to 2

3

BM 32.56m

11

23

11

17

19

8

24

FIT

ZWA

LTE

R P

LAC

E

SACKVILLE CLOSE

WINDLEY TYE

9

Foremans

12

13 to 14

El S

ub S

ta

14

18

13

29

31

EASTERN EER

22 20

CHELMSFORD DISTRICTROXWELL ROAD

ESSEX COUNTY


54

= ATC Location




Windley Tye - Chelmsford

1

2

346

5

1

2

3

11

10

Windley Tye is a small, low density development with a court-style layout. The rumble strip in the photograph marks the entrance to the newer courtyard area of the site and signifies to drivers that care should be taken. Visibilities at junctions in this section are relatively low, but the curved link actually has good visibility as the central section consists of low-level grass and flowers.

1

2

346

5

1

2

3

11

10

76

B.1.15 Beaulieu Park, Chelmsford

! Part of the Beaulieu Park urban extension on the north east edge of Chelmsford, Essex. Linked to town centre via A130.


! 91 dwellings.

! Gross density within the site of 25.6 dwellings per hectare.

! Residential mix: three-bedroom townhouses to six-bedroom detached homes, terraces.

! Housing tenure: development aimed at high-income earners. 20% affordable.


! Greenfield site.


! Developer: George Wimpy with local architect Ken Philpot.

! Non-standard street layout that goes beyond DB32 criteria. The Essex Design Guide had an influence on the design andarchitecture. DB32 sightline standards were avoided in the shared surface streets.

! Local planning authority: Chelmsford Borough Council.

! Highway authority: Chelmsford Borough Council acting as agents for Essex County Council.

50

30

38

46

29

22

14

34

2

21

WHARTO

N

12

11

17

Posts

Ppg Sta

56

3

ESS

101

103

5

14

17

15

24

28

2

10

19

16

8

6

64

76

51

70

BILLERS CHASE

14

2

48

52

17

15

43

60

25

to

89

87

to

77

99

74

55 to 61

75to

63

54

90

20

2226

24 42

16

96

94

28

86

84


8

1

14

SID

NE

Y P

LAC

E

15

29

19

2

7

BEAU

LIEU

BO

ULE

VAR

D

16

53

45

57

55

Posts

18

20

11

14

13

18

5

7

18

12

11

10

17

DRIVE

15

97

1

2123

39 to 53

24

35

MU

LTO

N L

EA

1

1

8

5

6

31

27

Sta

10

9

12

7

GREEN

FRANCES

1 6

2

13

3

1

252

1

Playground

21

ANJOU G

REEN

BE

AULI

EU

BO

ULE

VAR

D

6

4

31

6

37

11

19

7

10

El Sub

4

8

5

2

1

HONOR LINK

166

68

BURNELL GATE

44

20

18

3

2

= ATC Location




Beaulieu Park - Chelmsford

10 4

6

8

59

32

7

121

3

2

46

5

12

13

Beaulieu Park is notable for its use of wide ranging materials within the streetscape. There are some shared surfaces where vehicle flows are relatively low, mixed with traditional asphalt on some access roads. The image shows innovative use of a brick surface, with a pattern created to denote the edge of one carriageway and the stopping point for vehicles on the minor arm.

10 4

6

8

59

32

7

121

3

2

46

5

12

13

77

B.1.16 Rapier Street, Ipswich

! Lies between main Wherstead Road (A137) and a route designated for a future strategic link into town centre. Situatedon the west side of the docks.

! 35 houses, 139 flats.

! Residential development, consisting of high rise flats and four-storey town houses are arranged around the perimeter ofthe site. Terraces, detached and semi-detached properties.


! Brownfield site.


! Developer: Bidwells.

! ‘Homezone’ design standards applied.

! Local planning authority: Ipswich Borough Council.

! Highways authority: Suffolk County Council.

= ATC Location




Rapier Street Home Zone - Ipswich

At the time of writing there were no CAD images available of Rapier Street due to it being a recent redevelopment. The adjacent site plans do at least give an impression of the layout. There are shared surfaces throughout, with a children’s play area at the centre of the site. Raised flats straddle the paved surface, with some parking provided underneath. A wide variety of materials were used to create a pedestrian focused streetscape.

78

Und

FF

FFFW

Def

EAST

CLLFF

EAST

CLLF

F

LOCKS

IDE

Hou

se

Mar

ine

Dock Masters House

ESS

Und

FF

EASTCLL

FF

LOCKSIDE SQUARE

LOW

ER B

URLING

TON R

OAD

WAT

CH HOUSE P

LACE

Ward Bdy

CR

PIER ROAD

Statues

El Sub Sta

Pond

PIER CLOSE

31.8m

Court

EASTCLIFF

Burlington

LOWER BURLINGTON ROAD

33.0m

SA

LLY

HIL

L

WOODACRE

El Sub Sta

Centre Quay

WOODACRE

45

ESS

Statue

WO

OD

ACR

E

40.4m


Sta

SEVILLE ROAD

SEVI

LLE

CO

UR

T

BURLINGTON ROAD

= ATC Location




Port Marine - Portishead

1

3

2

64

7

10

5

9

8

1

2

3

22

Port Marine is a new build with an organic layout. The site is notable for its wide open grassed areas for recreation, along with prominent pieces of public art. There is little consistency in street design. The picture shows a wide link with a block paved surface and bollards to demarcate the carriageway, both of which are used only partially. The narrow courtyard entrance in the distance contrasts with the majority of junctions at the site .

1

3

2

64

7

10

5

9

8

1

2

3

22

B.1.17 Port Marine, Portishead

! Located north west of Bristol where the river Avon meets the Severn estuary.

! Site area: 18 ha

! Urban village of 920 dwellings.

! Approximately 45 dph.

! Residential mix of terraces, crescents, individual houses and apartment blocks. Properties range from two-storey mewshouses to eight-storey blocks facing the marina.



! Parking ratio: 1 per dwelling.

! Former power station site.

! Development period: 1999-2003. Further development expected to be completed in 2006.

! Developer: Crest Nicholson.

! Local planning authority: North Somerset Council.

! Highways authority: North Somerset Council.

79

ROLLS CRESCENT

2

TOM

LINS

ON

STR

EE

T

1

18H

ULM

E

TOM

LINS

ON

STR

EE

T

11

1

DUNHAM STREET

30

112

120

2

19

2

55

13

20

10

ELLIS

STR

EE

T

HULME WARD

El Sub Sta

1239

1

122

134

2

6

1

ROLLS

CRESCENT

Rolls Crescent Primary School

133

53

HA

LSTO

N S

TRE

ET

135

8

12

STRETFORD ROAD

7

WARDE STREET

9

20

12

31

33

2

12

9

13

14

4

5

136

21

150

2

149

10

1

152

9

151

29

2

MANCHESTER, CENTRAL BORO CONST

HULME

162

19

8

163

ROLLS CRESCENT

2

1

164

SP

RU

CE

STR

EE

T

165 5

3

1

35

17

28

167

168

170

33

AVE

NH

AM

CLO

SE

1

3

MANCHESTER DISTRICT

35

36

39

19

43

45

ANCROFT STREET

Zion

Church

Theatre

and Offices

4

26

17

23

19

to

21

15

22 to 24

341

Zion Medical Centre

337

339

11

13

11

292 to 296

23 to 29 53 to

71

37 to

51

21 to

35

27

1

25

22

24

26

345

310

306

300

304

20

349

298

21

343

10

1

3

2

4

CULMING

TON CLO

SE

2


ROLLS CRESCENT

11

13

18

16

312

= ATC Location




Hulme - Manchester

1

3 4

5

7

9

10

12

13

1

2

3

27

28

The Hulme area of Manchester has a grid layout with two main 30mph access roads around the perimeter of the survey site. Within these roads there is a 20mph limit and extensive calming at junctions (brick tables), as can be seen in the image. The majority of vehicles park on the road, but there are some small residents-only car parks.

1

3 4

5

7

9

10

12

13

1

2

3

27

28

B.1.18 Hulme, Manchester

! Hulme regeneration area south of Manchester city centre – replacement of unsuccessful 1960s comprehensiveredevelopment. Site within walking distance (about 20 minutes) of city centre.

! Wider regeneration area is 121 ha. Site area: 6.6 ha.

! Density on average given as 90 dph. High density development.

! Mixed used development site. Resident mix: mainly flats.

! Housing tenure: dwellings are mostly social rented.

! Intended maximum traffic speed of 20 mph.

! Parking ratio 0.8-1.0 per dwelling.

! Replacement of 1960s comprehensive development. Brownfield site.


! Traditional grid street pattern.

! Highway safety not an overriding objective, though personal safety was an important consideration.

! Local planning authority and Highways authority: Manchester City Council.

80

27

21

6

2

6

4

MALLARD DRIVE

HE

RO

N W

AY

7

1

KESTREL

CLOSE

1

4

4

2

GLEBE

WAY

5

El Sub Sta

2

1

CLOSE

2

7

6

11

KINGFISHER

SWALLOW DRIVE15

25

22

23

6

1

11

1214

WILLOW WALK

7

23

1

28

37

33

31

34

PART

RIDG

E

15

CLO

SE

CURLEW CL

2

12

24

17

34

16

20

9

11

33

12

HO

LLY

BU

SH

CLO

SE

BLACKTH

OR

N D

RIVE

27

20

19

LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY

8

9

HEATH AVENUE

HE

ATH

AV

EN

UE

2

21

6

24

SWIF

T CLO

SE

32

37

24

29

MARTIN D

RIVE

21

7

14

38

10

1

TEA

L W

AY2

CURLEW

CLO

SE

8

12

2

SWALLOW DRIVE

5

19

7

11 15

25

GO

RSE

LAN

E

12

5

17


PADDOCK VIEW

41

37

5

2

43 2

45

SE

DG

EFI

ELD

DR

IVE

THE

PA

STU

RE

S

27

34

15

25

38

42

1

24

Field View

CY

GN

ET

CLO

SE

SEDGEFIELD DRIVE

BLACKTHORN DR2

12

WREN CLOSE

17

22

El Sub Sta

28

20

1

8

57

SE

DG

EFI

ELD

DR

IVE

2

74

11

18a

MARTIN DRIVE

18

12

9

32

61

48

12

5

SYSTON WEST WARD

56

20

8

6a8a

10

SWAN WAY

4

3

6

2a4a

60

2

15

62

79

4

SE

DG

EFIE

LD D

RIV

E

1

SPINNEY CLOSE

1

MO

OR

LAN

D R

OA

D

31

33

RO

AD

2

21

6

27

COVERT CLOSE

CHARNWOOD CO CONST 52

15

2430

MO

OR

LAN

D

14

= ATC Location




Syston - Leicester

3

7

16 20

13

6

22

12

11

21

1

5

2

4

3

24

Syston is a spine and cul-de-sac residential estate typical of 1980s suburban developments. Junction markings are only used on the entrance/exits of the study area, and other road markings are sparse. The picture shows a long and sweeping link, along with a characteristically wide junction aperture. There is very little on-street parking as the vast majority of houses have driveways.3

7

16 20

13

6

22

12

11

21

1

5

2

4

3

24

B.1.19 Syston, Leicester

! Around 7 km from Leicester City centre and 1 km from Syston town centre. Regular bus service runs through estate,linking to Syston, Thurmaston and Leicester. Around 0.5 km – 1 km to railway station on Midland mainline.

! Previous greenfield site.

! Type of development: residential.

! Developer: Jelson Limited.

! Area of site: 24 ha (approximately).

! Number of dwellings: 678.

! Housing density: 28 houses/ha (approximately).


! Local planning authority: Charnwood Borough Council.

! Highways authority: Leicestershire County Council.

! Development period: 1988-mid 1990s.

! Residential mix: detached and semi detached 2, 3 and 4 bed houses.

! Housing tenure: not known for certain, believed to be 100% private.

! Parking ratios: dwellings with 4 or more bedrooms – minimum 3 spaces, dwellings with 3 or less bedrooms – minimum2 spaces (as per the then current Leicestershire County Council design guide).

81

24

10

16

7

MACE CLOSE

SAG

EC

LOS

E

ROAD

6

12

CARAWAY

HILLS

IDE

WA

RD

1

3

20

19

1

23

7

17

5

5

CH

IVE

RO

AD

FENNELCLOSE

21

7

CLO

SE

THY

ME

8

41

FENNELCLOSE

3

46

1

3

1

17

8

CAR

AWAY

RO

AD

47

45

CA

RA

WAY

RD

10

DR

IVE

21

ROSEMARY AVENUE

1412

37

35

34

CA

SS

IA

6

14

11

27

16

20

28

1

ROSEMARY

AVENUE

19

15

6


CO

RIA

ND

ER

WAY

5

16

12

1

= ATC Location




Lower Earley - Reading

1

6

3

52

10

4

87

91

2

3

4

5

2

Lower Earley, to the south of Reading town centre, has a spine and cul-de-sac layout in compliance with DB32 recommendations. There are shared surfaces on some cul-de-sacs, as can be seen in the picture. It can also be noted that driveways have the potential to alter sight lines at junctions when they are occupied.

1

6

3

52

10

4

87

91

2

3

4

5

2

B.1.20 Lower Earley, Reading

! DB32 compliant.


! Local planning authority: Reading Borough Council.

82

85%

Driv

ers R

eact

ion

to “

Cle

ar

and

obvi

ous s

timul

us”

[Ols

on

1997

]

Fast

Rea

ctio

n Ti

me

Slow

er d

river

reac

tion

time

Poss

ible

nig

ht ti

me

reac

tion

times

Hea

vy

Ave

rage

Ligh

t

Emer

genc

y

Hig

hway

Cod

e

Dry

surf

ace:

Unc

hang

ed

Wet

Sur

face

: add

0.2

g to

dec

eler

atio

n A

lcoh

ol (L

ow le

vel):

Unc

hang

ed

Can

nabi

s: a

dd 0

.2s t

o re

actio

n tim

e

Rea

ctio

n T

ime

(s)

App

endi

x C

: Bra

king

dis

tanc

e m

atri

x

83

85%

Driv

ers R

eact

ion

to “

Cle

ar

and

obvi

ous s

timul

us”

[Olso

n 19

97]

Fast

Reac

tion

Tim

e

Slow

er d

river

reac

tion

time

Poss

ible

nig

ht ti

me

reac

tion

times

Hea

vy

Ave

rage

Ligh

t

Emer

genc

y

Hig

hway

Co

de

Dry

surfa

ce: U

ncha

nged

Wet

Sur

face

: add

0.2

g to

dec

eler

atio

nA

lcoh

ol (L

ow le

vel):

Unc

hang

edCa

nnab

is: a

dd 0

.2s t

o re

actio

n tim

e

Rea

ctio

n Ti

me

(s)

84

85%

Driv

ers R

eact

ion

to “

C

lear

and

obv

ious

stim

ulus

” [O

lson

199

7]

Fast

Rea

ctio

n Ti

me

Slow

er d

river

reac

tion

time

Poss

ible

nig

ht ti

me

reac

tion

times

Hea

vy

Ave

rage

Ligh

t

Emer

genc

y

Hig

hway

C

ode

Dry

surf

ace:

Unc

hang

ed

Wet

Sur

face

: add

0.2

g to

dec

eler

atio

n A

lcoh

ol (L

ow le

vel):

Unc

hang

ed

Can

nabi

s: a

dd 0

.2s t

o re

actio

n tim

e

Rea

ctio

n T

ime

(s)

85

Appendix D: Household survey questionnaire

89

Abstract

The Department for Transport and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister commissioned WSP, TRL, LlewelynDavies Yeang and Phil Jones Associates to develop the Manual for Streets (MfS), which shall supersede DesignBulletin 32 (DB32) and its companion guide, Places, Streets & Movement in 2007.

The manual will deal with underlying values that can be creatively deployed by practitioners to pursue theGovernment’s ‘placemaking’ agenda of individually distinctive localities while ensuring that streets remainfunctional and safe. It will be based around key elements of good design in residential streets and other lightlytrafficked roads.

The development of the MfS has involved some primary research to establish the relationships between differentlink and junction characteristics and road safety. The research examines the limits of design practice as currentlyspecified in DB32, to consider whether more liberal geometric and visibility values may be incorporated into themanual.

A review of literature and the contributions of industry stakeholders have indicated that, in terms of constraints ondesign, the critical dimensions for highway geometry are link widths, forward visibility, visibility splays andjunction spacing. The most significant barrier to the adoption of standards which use reduced values for width andvisibility is highway authority concern over road safety. The indicators of safety being considered in this researchare recorded casualties and vehicle speeds. In addition, residents’ perceptions of safety, sought through a householdsurvey, have been relevant as a qualitative response to different geometries.

The research has been undertaken at twenty sites across England. In the context of residential highway layouts,the research considers:

! Are junction geometries and road widths that do not meet DB32 standards safe in terms of recorded casualties?

! Are more permeable highway layouts such as grids associated with higher levels of casualties than spine and cul-de-sac layouts?

! Does there appear to be a relationship between design/environmental quality and driver behaviour?

The Manual for Streets has been prepared against a backdrop of sustainable development guidance and initiativesto ensure that it facilitates the long-term sustainability of streets, and contributes to an enhanced sense of place. Thisresearch provides an evidence base for redefining residential street design in the Manual for Streets.

Related publications

TRL641 Psychological traffic calming by J V Kennedy, R Gorell, L Crinson, A Wheeler and M Elliott.2005 (price £50, code HX)

TRL633 Pilot home zone schemes: evaluation of Magor Village, Monmouthshire by R Layfield, D Webster andS Buttress. 2005 (price £10 (special price))

TRL626 Pilot home zone schemes: evaluation of Cavell Way, Sittingbourne by D Webster, A Tilly and S Buttress.2005 (price £10 (special price))

TRL625 Pilot home zone schemes: evaluation of Northmoor, Manchester by A Tilly, D Webster and S Buttress.2005 (price £10 (special price))

TRL621 The effect of road narrowings on cyclists by A Gibbard, S Reid, J Mitchell, B Lawton, E Brown andH Harper. 2004 (price £50, code HX)

TRL603 Norfolk Quiet Lanes Scheme by J V Kennedy, A H Wheeler and C M Inwood. 2004a(price £40, code EX)

TRL602 Kent Quiet Lanes Scheme by J V Kennedy, A H Wheeler and C M Inwood. 2004b (price £40, code EX)

TRL584 Cyclists at ‘Continental’ style roundabouts: report on four trial sites by B J Lawton, P J Webb, G T Walland D G Davies. 2003 (price £50, code HX)

TRL564 Road design measures to reduce drivers’ speed via ‘psychological’ processes: a literature reviewby M A Elliott, V A McColl and J V Kennedy. 2003 (price £35, code E)

Prices current at May 2007

For further details of these and all other TRL publications, telephone Publication Sales on 01344 770783, email:[email protected], or visit TRL on the Internet at www.trl.co.uk.

The Manual for Streets: evidence and research · 2013-12-26 · iii CONTENTS Page Executive Summary...

Documents

Transcript of The Manual for Streets: evidence and research · 2013-12-26 · iii CONTENTS Page Executive Summary...