Link And Place A Guide To Street Planning And Design By Prof Peter Jones


Published on

Published in: Technology, Real Estate

Link And Place A Guide To Street Planning And Design By Prof Peter Jones

  1. 1. Link and Place: A Guide to Street Planning and Design Prof. Peter Jones Centre for Transport Studies, UCL, London Engineers Australia, 6th October 2009
  2. 2. Introduction • For decades, the primary concern on urban streets has been to design for traffic movement, often resulting in poor street environments for pedestrians • Growing recognition that streets contribute in many ways to economic, environmental and social life – which has been neglected: – “Sharing the Main Street” (NSW, RTA) – “Transitioning urban arterial roads to activity corridors” (Curtis & Tiwari, Perth) – “Manual for Streets” (DfT, UK)
  3. 3. •‘Manual for Streets’, •Department for Transport, 2007 [and others] • Recognises current problems • Advocates greater emphasis on Place • Concentrates on residential streets
  4. 4. Introduction ‘Link & Place: A Guide to Street Planning and Design’, Peter Jones, Natalya Boujenko and Stephen Marshall, 2007 • Advocates an approach based on streets as movement conduits (Links) and destinations in their own right (Places) • Can be applied to any street within a city or a town
  5. 5. PRINCIPLES: Dual functions of streets LINK PLACE street as a street as a movement conduit destination in its own right
  6. 6. PRINCIPLES: Dual functions of streets LINK PLACE street as a street as a movement conduit destination in its own right Design objective: Design objective: save time spend time
  7. 7. PRINCIPLES: Dual functions of streets LINK PLACE street as a street as a movement conduit destination in its own right Design objective: Design objective: save time spend time
  8. 8. LINK and PLACE activities LINK: PLACE: Through movement by: • People standing, • Private cars, vans, sitting, sightseeing, goods vehicles shopping, trading • Public transport • Public performances, parades, • Cycles demonstrations, etc. • Pedestrians • Parking (including cycle parking) • Loading / servicing
  9. 9. PLACE Levels A B C • Places of national, city, local significance, etc. • Based on catchment area, cultural significance, etc. • These form a spatial scatter – not contiguous
  10. 10. LINK Levels I II III • Spectrum of types, from strategic to local routes • Strategic routes all connect up to form a single contiguous network • May have several transport networks: trucks, PT, …
  11. 11. The Link/Place Matrix Place status High Low High Link status Low Each cell represents a particular type of street with a specific combination of a Link and Place status level
  12. 12. Street types in a ‘5 x 5’ Matrix
  13. 13. Link & Place applied to street network • Link levels based on existing road classification, but with modifications: – To reflect change in de facto function – To allow for priority for public transport or cyclists • Place levels based on: – Catchment areas of premises alongside – Cultural importance of adjoining buildings – Cultural importance of the street space itself
  14. 14. Link & Place applied to street network
  15. 15. Uses of the Matrix • Identifies set of street types (cells) with unique balance of Link/Place functions • Further sub-division based on main land use and mode priorities • A street may change its cell by time of day, day of week or time of year • Design standards differ by cell – Performance standards – Design requirements – Speed limits for a given Link status may vary by Place status and land use type
  16. 16. …Leads to different design solutions I-A I-B I-C I-D I-E I-A I-B I-C I-D I-E II-A II-B II-C II-D II-E • Two urban streets II-A II-B II-C II-D II-E • Same width III-A III-B III-C III-D III-E III-A III-B III-C III-D III-E • Different Link/Place status IV-A IV-B IV-C IV-D IV-E • Different designs IV-A IV-B IV-C IV-D IV-E V-A V-B V-C V-D V-E V-A V-B V-C V-D V-E
  17. 17. Using Link & Place in Design • Identify relevant street user groups and their desired activities • Determine infrastructure requirements – ‘street design elements’ • Decide on level of provision: – Minimum – Desirable • Use Link and Place status to determine balance of space/capacity allocation • Where no acceptable design solution: downgrade Link or Place status (e.g. Trafalgar Square)
  18. 18. Allocating ‘Discretionary’ Space Pdes Pdes Place status Pmin Pmin Link status Lmin Ldes Link E Available space of nve between op lo tio pe desirable and ns minimum levels Ldes Lmin Pmin Pdes Place
  19. 19. Case study: Freiburg • Population = 210,000 • Disruption from trams from congestion • Poor accessibility at tram stops • Poor pedestrian environment • High traffic volumes • High traffic speed Two design sections: • Same Link status • Place status higher in the second design section
  20. 20. Different balance along a route Design section 1 • Central carriageway portion to be converted to a dedicated tramway • Cycle lanes added • Segregated tram, cycle and traffic provision
  21. 21. Different balance along a route Design section 2 • Higher Place status, district shopping centre • The design offers greater street provision to pedestrians, cyclists and street scene improvements • Tram not specially segregated, but shares the carriageway with general traffic (separation in time through traffic signals only)
  22. 22. Different balance along a route Link status is the same Place status is higher on design section 2 Relative Link status to Place status is lower on design section 2
  23. 23. Lower Link status to achieve Place Streets around Place Trafalgar Square nal Link Natio ry Before I-A I-B I-C I-D I-E I-F Galle reconstruction – II-A II-B II-C II-D II-E II-F rrace After construction – rt h Te No III-A III-B III-C III-D III-E III-F gar Trafal e r Squa IV-A IV-B IV-C IV-D IV-E IV-F North Terrace V-A V-B V-C V-D V-E V-F After construction – VI-A VI-B VI-C VI-D VI-E VI-F
  24. 24. Flow Reductions: Approaches to Trafalgar Square 1250 1150 1400 1150 1350 550 450 1350 800 450 750 750 850 467 Existing AM Flows 800 1350 467 Existing 900 400 PM Flows 850 World Square 750 500 400 AM Target Flows 1050 500 800 World Square 750 PM Target Flows 550
  25. 25. Stakeholder Engagement: Background • Traditionally, traffic engineers develop street scheme solution(s) and then ‘consult’ residents and local businesses, by asking for ‘objections’ • Local people have very little input into the design process, so that: – Their concerns and ideas are not incorporated – They have little understanding of the limitations faced by traffic engineers when designing streets – They have little ownership of the final scheme • This can lead to public apathy, or major high profile disputes in areas with many competing street uses
  26. 26. Aims of the Study • To develop tools that enable local people to contribute meaningfully to the street space design process, through an understanding of options and constraints • Two tools developed (‘block’s and ‘bytes’): – Tool 1: Physical blocks representing space use – Tool 2: Computer program – bytes - (LineMap) to record, edit and analyse data
  27. 27. Tool 1 - Blocks • Use scale blocks to represent different space uses, in conjunction with detailed maps of the high street: – Users are made aware of many of the component options (’street design elements’) for allocating street space – They then generate their own options, by combining blocks in different ways and at different locations – Maps to scale allow users to work within the constraints that the engineers face, without having to have detailed knowledge.
  28. 28. Blocks – Colour and Size • Use of colour to Feature Colour denote different types Vehicle Lane Grey of space usage. Bus Lane Red • Some of these based Cycle Lane Green on current street General Parking Yellow colour categories, e.g. Disabled Parking Blue blue denotes disabled Loading Brown parking (blue badge) Bus Stop Orange • Size is based on size Traffic Island Cyan of space actually Signal Crossing/ Magenta Zebra Approach needed to fit facility in
  29. 29. Box contents
  30. 30. Example of loading bay block 60mm 1:250
  31. 31. Bloxwich High Street
  32. 32. Existing conditions Bloxwich High Street: • 89 shops, 5 pubs, 2 large supermarkets, 1 school, 2 churches and a prosperous market • 20,000 vehicles, 2-way in 12 hours • 20 bus routes pass through area • Pressures on parking/loading • Concentration of accidents along the High Street
  33. 33. Local Council Interests • Original proposals developed by consultants and put out to public consultation in 2003 - with strong opposition from local traders and residents – and was withdrawn • Council decided to try again, using a more participatory approach, involving local businesses, residents and politicians • Resulted in a two-stage workshop-based exercise, followed by ‘formal’ public consultation
  34. 34. Public Engagement Process • Workshop 1 – Describes the background to and reasons for the exercise – Allows groups of stakeholders to use the Blocks to propose their own solutions. • Workshop 2 – Stakeholders are shown their own plans in GIS, along with the planners solution, in LineMap. – The aspects of each plan can be discussed on screen, and combined into a new plan.
  35. 35. Design Considerations Place status LINK Function: Link status national city highway boulevard district high street local streets PLACE: Minimum Function: spaces Parking Bays 13 Loading Bays 12 Disabled Bays 4 Bus Stops 8 Crossings 3
  36. 36. Workshop 1: Local Stakeholders
  37. 37. Feedback and sharing ideas
  38. 38. Workshop One - Reactions • Participants were enthusiastic about the task • They were divided into two design groups • This method of design was liked by previously ‘council sceptical’ people. – They felt it was “their schemes” and felt that the council may pay more attention to them than they had to their concerns in the past. • Council found that both schemes were broadly feasible – blocks had built in basic constraints
  39. 39. Workshop Two • Previous participants were invited back and other participants also attended • The two schemes designed at the first workshop were presented in road marking form and block form on maps plotted using LineMap and on screen • Participants worked together, and agreed on a combination of both schemes to be put to public consultation, based on on- screen editing of the GIS format
  40. 40. Scheme comparison
  41. 41. Workshop Two - Reactions • A consensus was reached • Participants were very satisfied with the process • One combined scheme was agreed to be put out to public consultation: – with some minor changes to its design – With some sub-options (e.g. 20 mph zone?)
  42. 42. Display Bus on Bloxwich High Street The display includes the full plan, information about the area, and a description of the design process
  43. 43. Conclusions • This time high level of public/business support at the formal consultation stage, and very little opposition • Using scale blocks and maps makes the design process as simple as possible to understand, and highlights opportunities and constraints • LineMap provides a bridge between outline design and professional drawings – suitable for use in larger public meetings for scheme editing • Process enables councils to regain confidence of local people and plan with a wider understanding of the needs of an area. • Allows members of the public to participate in street design and encourages innovative solutions • Council very pleased with outcome – removes normal confrontational approach – and is now using method in other contentious areas
  44. 44. Conclusions • Link & Place provides a new way of addressing problems on urban streets • It is intuitive and understood and supported by stakeholders • Gives due weight to both movement and non-movement functions of streets • Encourages strategic view and comprehensive performance assessment • Results in site-sensitive designs – not uniform solutions along a corridor
  45. 45. Role of Different Professionals Link Place Planning Transport Urban planners planners Traffic Urban Design engineers designers .
  46. 46. A shift in Design Philosophy ‘Rooms & Corridors’ (Buchanan, 1963)
  47. 47. A Shift in Design Philosophy ‘Rooms & Corridors’ (Buchanan, 1963) Open-plan Office (Link & Place)
  48. 48. Methodological Imbalances LINK: PLACE: • Full design standards • Partial design standards • Quantitative PIs • Qualitative PIs • Modelling flows, etc • Modelling - ????? • Evaluation of user • Evaluation of features; benefits: no direct measures of – VoT savings user benefit: – NOT value of bus lane! – VoT SPENT – Quality of experience
  49. 49. Thank you