Manual for streets 2

sustainable transport solutions Phil Jones Associates

Manual for Streets 2 Wider Application of

The Principles

Birmingham

18 April 2011

Phil Jones, PJA


Manual for Streets 2 - Why?  MfS only applicable to residential streets (?)

  Concerns over HGVs and bus braking characteristics/SSDs

  Fear of litigation

  Comfort of familiar standards

  Lack of confidence in applying MfS principles in busier locations


MfS1 MfS2


DMRB – National Guidance on Roads

•  Applicable to Trunk Roads

•  Highways Agency’s standard (Eng.)

•  Very detailed – covers •  Horizontal and Vertical Alignment •  Carriageway widths •  Design Speeds •  Junction geometry/detailing •  Checking and audit procedures

•  Often used by Local Highway Authorities

•  But they don’t have to!


What is DMRB for?

Use of the Manual for Trunk Roads 1.4 The documents in the manual have been prepared …

specifically for Trunk Road Works throughout the UK….

Use of the Manual by Other Highway Authorities 1.5 The manual sets a standard of good practice that has been

developed principally for Trunk Roads. It may also be applicable in part to other roads with similar characteristics. Where it is used for local road schemes, it is for the local highway authority to decide on the extent to which the documents in the manual are appropriate in any particular situation

Introduction to the DMRB, GD01/08 (our emphasis)


DMRB


MfS (1 and 2) Key Principles   Hierarchy – consider pedestrians first

  Strike a balance – traffic is not always paramount

  Respect pedestrian and cycle desire lines

  Permeable and connected networks are preferred

  Collaborative approaches work best

  Innovation is encouraged


Speed Limit 20mph 30mph 40mph 50+mph

User Hierarchy ● ● ● ● Quality Audits ● ● ● ● Community Function ● ● ● ● Inclusive Design ● ● ● ● Ped/Cycle Support ● ● ● ● Master Plans/Design Codes

● ● ● ●

Stopping Sight Distance ● ● ● ●

Frontage Access ● ● ● ●

Minimise Signs and Street Furniture

● ● ● ●

Connectivity/Permeability ● ● ● ●



Section A – Context and Process


  Two dimensional approach to Hierarchy – Movement and Place

  Design choices need to respect both functions

  Some Movement corridors are more important than others…

  Some Places are more important than others...

Motorway

High Street

Residential Street

Rural Lane

Place Status

Mov

emen

t Sta

tus


Movement

Place

Place

Place

Place

Place

What are streets for?

Movement

Pedestrians

Cyclists

Buses

Cars/HGVs

Deliveries

Parking

Place Shopping Playing Socialising Eating/drinking Sitting Events


Movement

Pedestrians

Cyclists

Buses

Cars

Deliveries

Parking



Movement

Pedestrians

Cyclists

Buses

Cars/HGVs

Deliveries

Parking



Movement

Pedestrians

Cyclists

Buses

Cars/HGVs

Deliveries

Parking



Context: Town and City Centres

Street Type: Multifunctional Streets and Spaces


Context: Town and City Centres

Street Type: Multifunctional Streets and Spaces


Context: Urban and Suburban Areas

Street Type: Arterial Routes and High Streets



Street Type: Arterial Routes and High Streets



Street Type: Relief Roads and Ring Roads



Street Type: Relief Roads and Ring Roads



Street Type: Boulevards



Street Type: Boulevards




Context: Urban Extensions

Street Type: High Streets, Residential Streets


Context: Interchanges


Context: Village Centres


Context: Village Centres



Context: Rural Areas

Street Type Rural Roads


Context: Rural Areas

Street Type Rural Lanes


Context: Shared Space


Context: Shared Space


What is Shared Space?

Shared Space: a street or place accessible to both pedestrians and vehicles that is designed to enable pedestrians to move more freely by reducing traffic management features that tend to encourage vehicles to assume priority.

Level surface: a street surface that is not physically divided by kerb or level differences into areas for particular uses. Level surface is a feature of some shared space schemes.

Shared Space Research Report, for DfT


Increasingly shared

Decreasingly segregated Guardrails Conventional

kerbs, different materials

Level Surface, Minimal/No delineation

Low kerbs, common material

Increasingly cooperative

When does a space become shared?


Business as usual


Sharing through Re-balancing


Shared Space - Link


Shared Space -

Junction


When does a space become shared?


Total Segregation


High Segregation


Everyday Segregation


Low Segregation


Minimal Segregation


No Segregation

sustainable transport solutions Phil Jones Associates Seven Dials, London


Casualty Data Seven Dials, Covent Garden






Ashford Ring Road






Shared Space DfT Research   Research being carried out by MVA

- Guidance out in Spring 2011

  Key findings:

  Shared Spaces are no less safe and can be safer

  Reducing the degree of segregation between users produces slower traffic, more pedestrians using whole of the space.

  Solutions are emerging that mitigate the impact of Level Surfaces on disabled people.


Aren’t we going to be liable if someone gets hurt?


What’s the Problem?

•  Persistent concerns over potential for highway authorities – and individual officers/members – to be held liable for design faults and innovations.

•  No evidence that this is actually a significant problem in practice.


Liability and Good Urban Design •  Designers often over-estimate their legal responsibilities

•  Designers may therefore be unwilling to consider non-conventional design initiatives (e.g. removing guard-rails)

•  Irrational fear of liability can be detrimental to good design

•   Need to be more informed about risk, safety & possible liability

•   Need to balance these concerns with the benefits of good urban design

•   Good urban design can be just as safe as traditional approaches and sometimes safer


Legislative duties and judgements

Highway Risk & Liability Claims A practical guide to Appendix C of ‘Well Maintained Highways’

•   Produced by UK Roads Board

•   Advice, case studies and judgements on liability


Legislative duties and judgements Three Principles: 1.   Court rulings repeatedly state that road

users are responsible for their own safety and have a duty to take the road as they find it. This defines the road user as an intelligent being, able and expected to exercise their own judgement.

2.   The highway authority should avoid creating a trap for road users.

3.   The highway authority should not act irrationally.


•  No duty to give warning or maintain warning of obvious hazards

•  No duty to erect of warning signs (including markings) for obvious hazards

•  Cases:

•  Gorringe v Calderdale

•  Stovin v Wise & Norfolk CC

Judgements


Gorringe (Appellant) v. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (2004) On 15 July 1996, on a country road in Yorkshire, Mrs Denise Gorringe drove her car head-on into a bus. It was hidden behind a sharp crest in the road until just before she reached the top.

She said that the council caused the accident by failing to give her proper warning of the danger involved in driving fast when you could not see what was coming. The ‘SLOW’ road marking on the approach to the crest had become worn.


Gorringe (Appellant) v. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (2004) The House of Lords

LORD STEYN

•   …the courts must not contribute to the creation of a society bent on litigation, which is premised on the illusion that for every misfortune there is a remedy.

LORD HOFFMANN

•   People must accept responsibility for their own actions and take the necessary care to avoid injuring themselves or others.

•   The users of the highway are expected to look after themselves.

•   Drivers of vehicles must take the highway network as they find it.

LORD RODGER •   I am satisfied that the duty to maintain the highway

does not include a duty to repaint warning signs on the surface.


Quality Audits

  Quality Audits introduced in MfS1 - a ‘Balanced Audit’ reviewing key aspects of a design against set objectives

  Some authorities (eg Kent, Solihull) have taken the concept further

Policy Review

Objective Setting

Design

Quality Auditing


Design and Implementation Process – LTN 1/08


Quality Audit process for large developments

Council sets out objectives/terms of reference for Quality Audit

Quality Audit to include:•mobility or access audit•cycling & pedestrian, equestrian audits•visual quality and place check audits•Stage F Road Safety Audit/ Road Safety

Assessment•maintenance regime audit•public transport audit•Transport Assessment•technical standards audit•how streets will be used/ community audit•construction audit

Information Gathering Stage

Facilitator involved to resolve simple conflicts between audits

Some audits carried out by qualified independent individuals/ teams,audit payments negotiated with developer

Draft Quality Audit Report including outstanding items and recommendations

Resolution of outstanding items

Developer input

Developer, Local Authority input

Agreed final Quality Audit Report

Subsequent stages of Road Safety Audit on approved option


Planning Approval by Council

Risk Assessment matrix used by Facilitator to help resolve outstanding issues

Quality Audit process for large developments

Council sets out objectives/terms of reference for Quality Audit

Quality Audit to include:•mobility or access audit•cycling & pedestrian, equestrian audits•visual quality and place check audits•Stage F Road Safety Audit/ Road Safety

Assessment•maintenance regime audit•public transport audit•Transport Assessment•technical standards audit•how streets will be used/ community audit•construction audit

Information Gathering Stage

Facilitator involved to resolve simple conflicts between audits

Some audits carried out by qualified independent individuals/ teams,audit payments negotiated with developer

Draft Quality Audit Report including outstanding items and recommendations

Resolution of outstanding items

Developer input


Agreed final Quality Audit Report

Subsequent stages of Road Safety Audit on approved option


Planning Approval by Council

Risk Assessment matrix used by Facilitator to help resolve outstanding issues


•   CIHT and DfT working towards guidance note (LTN) on Quality Audits

•   Current thinking:

•   Team leader for QA

•   Separate reports commissioned

•   Team review all reports leading to balanced recommendations

Quality Audits


sustainable transport solutions Phil Jones Associates Beechcroft Road, Oxford


Stages to Better Streets – London Mayor’s Strategy


Stage 1 – Tidy Up


Stage 2 – De-clutter


Stage 3 – Relocate/Merge Functions


Stage 4 – Rethink Traffic Management


Stage 5 – Re-create the Street


Some existing kit is plainly useless and can be removed without fear

Stratford-upon-Avon


Mare Street, Hackney


Maid Marian Way, Nottingham


Maid Marian Way, Nottingham


Exhibition Road


Exhibition Road


The Value of Better Streets

  Traditional economic evaluation relies on time saved

  How do we value time spent in better streets?

  Guidance on Urbandesignlondon.tfl.gov.uk


Section B – Detailed Design Issues


Application of the Detailed Guidance Two health warnings:

1. Although numerical values are given in this section, designers

are encouraged to take a flexible approach to its interpretation and

application, thinking through for themselves the likely outcome of

any course of action based on experience and local

circumstances.

2. In preparing schemes, designers should consider the layout in

totality, including the relationship of the highway to its

surroundings, both in urban and rural areas. The highway should

not be seen in isolation or simply as a piece of infrastructure.


And not forgetting

8.1.1 The design of carriageways...is often based on TD9/93 Highway

Link Design, part of DMRB, but that document has been prepared for

Trunk Roads and may not always be appropriate in other circumstances.

As noted in Chapter 1 it is recommended that designers bear in mind the

key principles of MfS when applying DMRB.

DMRB


Pedestrian Needs and Footways

It’s not exactly rocket science...!

  Pedestrians need direct, connected and clutter-free footways of adequate width along and across multi-functional highways

  Their needs must be considered when designing links and junctions

sustainable transport solutions Phil Jones Associates Newlands Avenue MPR Scheme


Newlands Avenue MPR Scheme:

Pinch point widened from 1.1m to 1.6m

Number of pedestrians increased by 59%


Cyclists’ Needs

  Cyclists should generally be accommodated on the carriageway – by making conditions suitable for them.

  Poor facilities are worse than no facilities – vehicles travel closer when lanes provided

  Where on-carriageway facilities are provided, they should be well designed.

  Off-carriageway facilities should be convenient and not put cyclists at danger at junctions


Design of Cycle Facilities

  MfS2 refers to LTN2/08 – Cycle Infrastructure Design

  Make space for cycle lanes by reducing traffic lane widths


Design of Cycle Facilities – cont’d

  Coloured surfacing – conspicuity or visual intrusion?

  Hybrid/protected lanes can be used

  Cycle symbol alone can be useful

  Off-highway shared cycle tracks – reduce pedestrian amenity, less favoured.

  Updated LTN on Shared Use Paths in course of preparation.


Cycle parking should be provided at key destinations –for example in local high streets


Bus Facilities

  Bus routes and stops form key elements in walkable neighbourhoods

  Routes should be direct and reasonably straight

  Bus stops should be high quality, accessible places with good information

  Bus priority lanes reduce journey times and benefit cyclists but disadvantage pedestrians

  Bus boarders preferred to laybys


Walworth Road - Before


Walworth Road - After


Carriageways

  Design Speed in urban areas should generally not exceed 30mph (50kph) – and can be less where necessary

  Both MfS1 and DMRB confirm that drivers respond to more generous geometry by increasing speed.


  Various means of reducing speed:

–  Physical features

–  Changes in priority

–  Street dimensions

–  Reduced forward visibility

–  Psychology and perception

Carriageways


Horizontal Alignment

  Can adopt curve radii well below DMRB Desirable Minima in urban areas.

  TD9/93 advises 4 steps below Des Min for speeds of 60kph and below:

Design Speed, kph Curve Radius, m

4 steps below TD 9/93 Desirable Min

30 16 40 28 48 41 50 44 60 64




Lane Widths   Lanes do not have to be 3.65m (12 feet) wide.

  Narrower lanes will reduce speeds and overall carriageway width, and require drivers to pull around cyclists.

  Lanes >3m not necessary in most urban situations catering for mixed traffic

  Wide (>4m) lanes allow large vehicles to pass cyclists more easily.


Central Medians   Helpful to pedestrians crossing the carriageway

  Should not fence off unless clear safety justification

  Overrun medians can be a useful feature


Kerb Heights   Typically 125mm – but...

  Lower kerb heights are easier for the mobility-impaired to cross and reduce vehicle dominance.

  Higher kerbs appropriate at bus stops.


Junctions, Crossings and Accesses

  Junctions often seen as problems – to be minimised

  But can also be seen as opportunities for ‘place’ functions

  Essential to consider pedestrian and cycle needs

  Grade separation almost always makes for poor environments



Crossings   Informal, Zebra, Signalised - all have

advantages and disadvantages

  Informal - minimal clutter, can encourage courtesy behaviour, little delay to traffic, but no absolute priority to pedestrians.

  Zebra – delays can be minimal unless pedestrian flows high, can be close to junctions, more clutter.

  Signalised – additional delay, more clutter, preferred by vulnerable pedestrians.


Crossings   Two stage signalised crossings can

be straight across.

  Staggered crossings don’t have to have guardrail.

  X-crossings are possible with simple all-red stages.


Queen Street, City of London








Priority Junctions   Advantages: Simple, legible, can have

low delays, particularly outside peaks

  Minimising number of approach lanes benefits pedestrians and cyclists. Ghost island not generally justified at 500 vpd.

  Crossroads have poor accident record at higher flows and speeds. Tabling a possible solution.

  Tight corner radii, footway crossovers should be considered in urban areas.


Squares   Major opportunity for placemaking

and as a traffic/parking solution

  Can be thought of as a series of displaced informal priority junctions


Conventional Roundabouts   Advantages: High capacity, good safety

record for vehicles, minimal delay outside peaks.

  Disadvantages - poor safety record for cyclists, barrier to pedestrians, high land take, visual impact.

  Particular problem for cyclists – left turn slip lanes

  Recommended approach – ‘compact’ geometry - as small as possible with narrow entries and exits.


Mini Roundabouts   Advantages: Small land take, slow

speeds, good safety record, minimal delay outside peaks, better for pedestrians and cyclists.

  Disadvantages – Limited traffic capacity, visual impact.

  No presumption against new mini-roundabouts on non-trunk roads

  ‘Informal’ mini-roundabouts can work well, minimal visual impact.


St Bride Street, City of London


Traffic Signals   Advantages: High capacity, can

incorporate pedestrian and cycle facilities

  Disadvantages – Clutter and visual impact, delays outside peaks

  Tight corner radii preferred – keep pedestrians on desire lines, reduce speed of turning vehicles.

  Advanced cycle lanes should usually be provided in urban areas.


Traffic Signals – Cont’d   Intervisibility requirements from TD 50/04

can significantly affect ability to place buildings close to corners – is this always appropriate?

  Left turn slip lanes increase clutter and pedestrian crossing complexity

  Traffic signal removal experiments – need to consider pedestrian needs.


Traffic Management Systems   Complex one-way systems often installed to maximise traffic capacity

  Significant disadvantage to cyclists and can cause pedestrian accidents

  Some towns have chosen to simplifying one-way systems.


Visibility Stopping Sight Distance   Guidance in MfS2 incorporates that of MfS1 –

effectively superseding it

  Based on further research carried out by TMS Consultancy, plus literature searches

  MfS1 parameters apply to all <60kph links:

  1.5s reaction time

  0.45g deceleration rate

  Except for buses and HGVs (>5% of flow typically)

  1.5s reaction time

  0.375g deceleration rate


TMS Consultancy Research

<120m visibility to right from kerb vs "visi" collisions

y = 0.0163x + 3.6442R2 = 0.0586

0123456789

10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Visibility

Col

lisio

ns


Design Speed Vehicle Type Reaction Time Deceleration Rate

60kph and below

Light vehicles 1.5s 0.45g

HGVs 1.5s 0.375g

Buses 1.5s 0.375g

Above 60kph

All vehicles 2s 0.375g (Absolute Min SSD)

All vehicles 2s 0.25g (Desirable Min SSD)


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


Forward Visibility   Apply SSD requirements in the horizontal and vertical

plane.

  But in some situations may be desirable to restrict forward visibility to help control traffic speed.


Visibility at Priority Junctions   X-distance of 2.4m generally appropriate, subject to

capacity considerations

  Y-distance based on SSD but:

It has often been assumed that a failure to provide visibility at priority junctions in accordance with the values recommended in MfS1 or DMRB (as appropriate) will result in an increased risk of injury collisions.

Research carried out by TMS Consultancy for MfS2 has found no evidence of this.

...unless there is local evidence to the contrary, a reduction in visibility below recommended levels will not necessarily lead to a significant problem.




Parking and Servicing   Positive and negative aspects of on-street parking set out in

MfS1

Positive   Common resource, efficient,

popular.

  Caters for varying demand

  Adds activity

  Well overlooked

Negative   Possible impact on

pedestrian safety

  Can be visually dominant

  May block footways and entrances

  Can be source of crime

  If done...should be done well!




Street Trees and Planting   Green infrastructure is important to the design of

places and trees are one of its most visible components

  Engineers and transport planners are well placed to help deliver street trees and their benefits.

•   Visual

•   Shade

•   Habitat

•   Drainage

•   Economic

  Practical difficulties (footway heave and restriction, leaf drop) can be overcome through careful design and maintenance


Street Lighting   Plan street lighting as an integral part of the

street, including any planting

  Lighting should be appropriate to context and street function

  Lighting levels do not have to be constant during the hours of darkness.

  Shadows and sudden changes in lighting level can be particularly problematic and should be avoided.

  Consideration should be given to attaching lighting units to buildings to reduce street clutter.


Street Furniture   Some street furniture is useful and

important...much is not

  Start with nothing – introduce only elements that are necessary

  Clutter removal can be done as part of ongoing maintenance

  Combine elements together where possible

  Street furniture should be arranged to keep pedestrian routes clear

sustainable transport solutions Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions Phil Jones Associates



Guardrail   Significant disbenefits - highly

intrusive, disadvantages pedestrians, unsightly, can increase traffic speeds and create risks for cyclists.

  May be necessary in some locations – but need better balanced use

  Many guardrail removal schemes have worked well in road safety terms, with careful assessment

  Look for alternative solutions before installing new guardrail


Traffic Signs and Markings   Add significantly to street clutter

  Signs must comply with Regulations, but Guidance (TSM) is just that.

  There is flexibility in both types of document


Signs may be mounted at any height


And on buildings


Yellow backing boards significantly increase visual impact


As do keep left signs on retroreflective bollards


Other mounting options are available


Or the keep left signs can be omitted completely


Ordinary bollards can also be overdone


As can centre line markings




Junction priority can be removed



Just two zig-zag markings is lawful at controlled crossings


Only the double-dash marking is necessary at Give-Ways


One no-entry sign is lawful if carriageway less than 5m wide


White borders to signals can be omitted


Roundabouts don’t have to have chevron signs


Coloured surfacing has no legal function


50mm ‘Primrose’ no waiting lines are lawful anywhere


And aren’t needed if carriageway and footway on same level


Section C – Case Studies


London Road, Southampton

•  Citycentre radial

•  9400 vehicles per day (before)

•  6000 vehicles per day (after)

•  5500 pedestrians per day

•  400 cyclists per day

•  31 collisions in 4 years (before)

•  3 collisions in 10 months (after)


Before




After








Walworth Road, South London

•  “A” class road

•  20,000 vehicles per day

•  180 buses per hour

•  20,000 pedestrians

•  250 accidents in 3 years


Before





After







Conclusions

 MfS2 provides detailed guidance on a wide range of technical issues...

  for a wide range of contexts and street types

  It provides a ‘way in’ to DMRB and other technical guidance

 While encouraging designers to...

  Think!

[email protected]

Twitter.com/Phil_PJA

0121 222 5422


Discussion!

Documents

Manual for streets 2