Manual for streets 2

sustainable transport solutionsPhil 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
MovementStatus

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
Place Shopping Playing Socialising Eating/drinking Sitting Events

Movement
Pedestrians
Cyclists
Buses
Cars/HGVs
Deliveries
Parking
Place Shopping Playing Socialising Eating/drinking Sitting Events

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: Relief Roads and Ring Roads

Street Type: Boulevards

Context: Urban Extensions
Street Type: High Streets, Residential Streets

Context: Interchanges

Context: Village Centres

Context: Rural Areas
Street Type Rural Roads

Context: Rural Areas
Street Type Rural Lanes

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

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
Developer, Local
Authority input
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
Developer, Local
Authority input
Agreed final Quality Audit Report
Subsequent stages of Road Safety Audit on
approved option
Developer, Local
Authority input
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 solutionsPhil Jones AssociatesBeechcroft 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

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 solutionsPhil Jones AssociatesNewlands 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 + 3.6442
R2
= 0.0586
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Visibility
Collisions

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 solutionsPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutionsPhil 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

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 5422

Discussion!

Manual for streets 2

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Manual for streets 2

More from Design South East

Manual for streets 2