Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this presentation? Why not share!

Manual for streets 2

on

  • 2,537 views

Presentation by Phil Jones

Presentation by Phil Jones

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,537
Views on SlideShare
2,470
Embed Views
67

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
82
Comments
0

1 Embed 67

http://www.made.org.uk 67

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Manual for streets 2 Manual for streets 2 Presentation Transcript

  • Manual for Streets 2 Wider Application of The Principles Birmingham 18 April 2011 Phil Jones, PJAPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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 locationsPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • MfS1 MfS2Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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!Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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)Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • DMRBPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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 Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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 ● ● ● ●Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Section A – Context and ProcessPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  •    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... High Street Movement Status Motorway Rural Lane Residential StreetPhil Jones Associates Place Status sustainable transport solutions
  • Place Place Place Place Place MovementPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • What are streets for?MovementPedestriansCyclistsBusesCars/HGVsDeliveriesParking Place Shopping Playing Socialising Eating/drinking Sitting Events
  • What are streets for?MovementPedestriansCyclistsBusesCarsDeliveriesParking Place Shopping Playing Socialising Eating/drinking Sitting Events
  • What are streets for?MovementPedestriansCyclistsBusesCars/HGVsDeliveriesParking Place Shopping Playing Socialising Eating/drinking Sitting Events
  • What are streets for?MovementPedestriansCyclistsBusesCars/HGVsDeliveriesParking Place Shopping Playing Socialising Eating/drinking Sitting Events
  • Context: Town and City CentresStreet Type: Multifunctional Streets and SpacesPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Context: Town and City CentresStreet Type: Multifunctional Streets and SpacesPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Context: Urban and Suburban AreasStreet Type: Arterial Routes and High StreetsPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Context: Urban and Suburban AreasStreet Type: Arterial Routes and High StreetsPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Context: Urban and Suburban AreasStreet Type: Relief Roads and Ring RoadsPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Context: Urban and Suburban AreasStreet Type: Relief Roads and Ring RoadsPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Context: Urban and Suburban AreasStreet Type: BoulevardsPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Context: Urban and Suburban AreasStreet Type: BoulevardsPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Context: Urban ExtensionsStreet Type: High Streets, Residential StreetsPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Context: InterchangesPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Context: Village CentresPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Context: Village CentresPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Context: Rural AreasStreet Type Rural RoadsPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Context: Rural AreasStreet Type Rural LanesPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Context: Shared SpacePhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Context: Shared SpacePhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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 DfTPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • When does a space become shared? Decreasingly segregatedGuardrails Conventional Low kerbs, Level Surface, kerbs, different common material Minimal/No materials delineation Increasingly shared Increasingly cooperativePhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Business as usualPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Sharing through Re-balancingPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Shared Space - LinkPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Shared Space -JunctionPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • When does a space become shared?Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Total SegregationPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • High SegregationPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Everyday SegregationPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Low SegregationPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Minimal SegregationPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • No SegregationPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Seven Dials, LondonPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Casualty Data Seven Dials, Covent GardenPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Ashford Ring RoadPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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.Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Aren’t we going to be liable if someone gets hurt?Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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.Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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 saferPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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 liabilityPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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.Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Judgements •  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 CCPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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.Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Gorringe (Appellant) v. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough The House of Lords Council (2004) 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 RODGER •   I am satisfied that the duty to maintain the highway does not include a duty to repaint warning signs on the surface. 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.Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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 AuditingPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Design and Implementation Process – LTN 1/08Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Quality Audit process for large developments Council sets out objectives/terms of reference for Quality Audit Information Gathering Stage Quality Audit to include: •mobility or access audit •cycling & pedestrian, equestrian audits Facilitator involved to resolve •visual quality and place check audits simple conflicts between audits •Stage F Road Safety Audit/ Road Safety Assessment •maintenance regime audit Some audits carried out by qualified •public transport audit independent individuals/ teams, •Transport Assessment audit payments negotiated with developer •technical standards audit •how streets will be used/ community audit •construction audit Draft Quality Audit Report including outstanding Developer input items and recommendations Risk Assessment matrix used by Developer, Local Facilitator to help Resolution of outstanding items Authority input resolve outstanding issues Developer, Local Agreed final Quality Audit Report Authority input Subsequent stages of Road Safety Audit on Planning Approval by approved option CouncilPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Quality Audits •   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 recommendationsPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones AssociatesBeechcroft Road, Oxford sustainable transport solutions
  • Stages to Better Streets – London Mayor’s StrategyPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Stage 1 – Tidy UpPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Stage 2 – De-clutterPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Stage 3 – Relocate/Merge FunctionsPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Stage 4 – Rethink Traffic ManagementPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Stage 5 – Re-create the StreetPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Stratford-upon-AvonSome existing kit is plainly useless and can be removed without fearPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Mare Street, HackneyPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Maid Marian Way, NottinghamPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Maid Marian Way, NottinghamPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Exhibition RoadPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Exhibition RoadPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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.ukPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Section B – Detailed Design IssuesPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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.Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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. DMRBPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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 junctionsPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • NewlandsAssociatesMPR Scheme Phil Jones Avenue sustainable transport solutions
  • Newlands Avenue MPR Scheme:Pinch point widened from 1.1m to 1.6mNumber of pedestrians increased by 59% Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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 Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Design of Cycle Facilities   MfS2 refers to LTN2/08 – Cycle Infrastructure Design   Make space for cycle lanes by reducing traffic lane widthsPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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.Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Cycle parking should be provided at key destinations –for example in local high streetsPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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 laybysPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Walworth Road - BeforePhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Walworth Road - AfterPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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.Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Carriageways   Various means of reducing speed: –  Physical features –  Changes in priority –  Street dimensions –  Reduced forward visibility –  Psychology and perceptionPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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: Curve Radius, m Design Speed, kph 4 steps below TD 9/93 Desirable Min 30 16 40 28 48 41 50 44 60 64Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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.Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Central Medians    Helpful to pedestrians crossing the carriageway    Should not fence off unless clear safety justification    Overrun medians can be a useful featurePhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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.Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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 environmentsPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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.Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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.Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Queen Street, City of LondonPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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.Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Squares    Major opportunity for placemaking and as a traffic/parking solution    Can be thought of as a series of displaced informal priority junctionsPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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.Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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.Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • St Bride Street, City of London Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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.Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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.Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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.Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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 ratePhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • TMS Consultancy Research <120m visibility to right from kerb vs "visi" collisions 10 9 8 7 Collisions 6 y = 0.0163x + 3.6442 5 R2 = 0.0586 4 3 2 1 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 VisibilityPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Design Speed Vehicle Type Reaction Time Deceleration Rate Light vehicles 1.5s 0.45g 60kph and below HGVs 1.5s 0.375g Buses 1.5s 0.375g 0.375g All vehicles 2s (Absolute Min SSD) Above 60kph 0.25g All vehicles 2s (Desirable Min SSD)Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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) Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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.Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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.Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Parking and Servicing    Positive and negative aspects of on-street parking set out in MfS1 Positive Negative   Common resource, efficient,   Possible impact on popular. pedestrian safety   Caters for varying demand   Can be visually dominant   Adds activity   May block footways and entrances   Well overlooked   Can be source of crime    If done...should be done well!Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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 Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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. Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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 clearPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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 guardrailPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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 documentPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Signs may be mounted at any heightPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • And on buildingsPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Yellow backing boards significantly increase visual impactPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • As do keep left signs on retroreflective bollardsPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Other mounting options are availablePhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Or the keep left signs can be omitted completelyPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Ordinary bollards can also be overdonePhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • As can centre line markingsPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Junction priority can be removedPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Just two zig-zag markings is lawful at controlled crossingsPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Only the double-dash marking is necessary at Give-WaysPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • One no-entry sign is lawful if carriageway less than 5m widePhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • White borders to signals can be omittedPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Roundabouts don’t have to have chevron signsPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Coloured surfacing has no legal functionPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 50mm ‘Primrose’ no waiting lines are lawful anywherePhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • And aren’t needed if carriageway and footway on same levelPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Section C – Case StudiesPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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)Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • BeforePhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • AfterPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Walworth Road, South London •  “A” class road •  20,000 vehicles per day •  180 buses per hour •  20,000 pedestrians •  250 accidents in 3 yearsPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • BeforePhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • AfterPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • 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! pj@philjonesassociates.co.uk Twitter.com/Phil_PJA 0121 222 5422Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions
  • Discussion!Phil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions