Centre for Transport Studies From Urban Roads to Living Streets: Making the Change Peter Jones...

Centre for Transport Studies

From Urban Roads to Living Streets: Making the Change

Peter JonesProfessor of Transport and Sustainable Development

Keynote Speech: Living Streets Annual Supporters Conference, June 2013


Contents

• My role and aims• Roads Task Force Report – a great opportunity• Some recent research findings:

– Traffic signal removal and pedestrians– Streets as interchanges– Street activities– Mapping furniture footprints

• Taking stock– Gaps in knowledge– Opportunities and allies


My role and aims

• Role: the EC’s ‘critical friend’ model• Aims:

– Highlight opportunities created by forthcoming RTF report

– Show examples of wealth of research to draw on, alongside practical experience

– Encourage closer working between activists and academics

– Propose a future challenge


Roads Task Force (RTF) report

• Set up by the Mayor to take a long-term look at the needs of London’s roads – independent panel

• Report due to be launched on 10th July• Key messages:

– Most London roads are ‘streets’, with multiple functions– This is MUCH more than just about vehicle movement– Quality of public realm and street experience crucial to

continuing success of London as a global leading city– Can’t continue to ‘compromise’ all the time

The RTF has identified six road/street functions

6

A Family of ‘Street types’

Bringing them together: London’s street family

ARTERIAL ROAD

CONNECTOR

CITY HUB / BOULEVARD

CITY STREET

MO

VEM

ENT

PLACE

HIGH STREET

HIGH ROAD

TOWN SQUARE/STREET

CITY PLACELOCAL STREET

Local s

ignifi

cance

Str

ate

gic

sig

nifi

cance

Local significance Strategic significance

LOCAL DISTRICT SPECIALIST


Implications

• This is important because:– It recognises that streets have multiple functions,

emphasising many things that Living Streets has been promoting for a long time

– It gets way from the ‘one size fits all’ mentality: vehicle traffic is NOT always the first priority

– It gives full weight to Place/Living street functions– This requires new approaches to sensitive street design

and community engagement – again, where Living Streets has much to offer


Workshop 1: Local Stakeholders


‘Conventional’ approach to street design

Residential area

District shopping centre


‘Balanced’ approach to street design

Residential area

District shopping centre


Sample of research findings

• Impacts of traffic signal removal on pedestrians (Clare Woodcock)

• Streets as interchanges (Ian James)

• Street activities (Lucy Godfrey)

• Mapping street furniture footprints (Rachel Palfreeman)


Signal removal: four case study sites

Wyndham Way junction with High Street


Changes in pedestrian behaviour

Cabstand/ Wyndham Way

Wyndham Way/ High Street

Jermyn Street/ Duke Street Saint James

Ruislip Road East/ Greenford Avenue

Pedestrian Flow

The same Increased Increased Decreased

Composition Changed by a small amount, not statistically significant.

Formal and informal crossing

Informal crossing increased.



Informal crossing decreased by significant percentage (-16%).

Delay Decreased in HPHV and LPHV, increased in LPLV.

Decreased during LPHV and HPHV conditions, and remained the same during LPLV.

Increased during two conditions: HPHV, LPLV and remained the same during LPHV.

Increased during all four conditions.

Crossing Speed

Decreased during all conditions

Increased during LPLV, remained the same during HPHV and LPHV.

Increased during all conditions

Increased during all conditions.


Junction safetyCabstand/ Wyndham Way

Wyndham Way/ High Street

Jermyn Street/ Duke Street Saint James

Ruislip Road East/ Greenford Avenue

Accident Statistics

No accidents before or after.

Number of accidents increased after the signals were removed. - No pedestrian accidents.

One accident before, one accident after. No pedestrian accidents.

Six accidents before, two were pedestrian/ vehicle collisions. No accident information available after signal removal.

Pedestrian perceptions: Ealing


Conclusions

• Clear benefits to vehicles from removing signals

• Junction layout key influence on pedestrian impacts

• Traffic signal removal is most appropriate where there are equal numbers of pedestrians and vehicles, and where vehicle speed is relatively slow.

• Least appropriate at junctions where there are dominant vehicle movements in which removing control might encourage increased vehicle speeds.

• Removal of signalised control should be considered alongside traffic calming measures such as chicanes, raised tables, speed bumps or lower speed limits.

• Provision for vulnerable pedestrians, particularly for the mobility impaired remains a key concern because without signal facilities, vulnerable pedestrians may be unable to cross the junction.


Streets as ‘interchanges’

Overground Rail

Bus

Tube

Walk

Other

Public Transport Usage After Alighting a Bus

Tooting Broadway, South London


Levels of bus-to-bus interchange, Route 333


Asymmetrical bus passenger flows, Tooting Broadway


Range of footway users….

Striders – ‘traffic’

Traders

Customers

Browsers

Queuers

Entertainers

Socialisers

Observers

Waiters

Resters

Inhabiters


The Variety of Street Activities…


Street activities: Great George Street


Range of footway services

• Retail services (stalls, paper sellers, etc.)

• Communications (phone & post boxes)

• Cash point machines

• Public transport services (shelters, info.)

• Public amenity (seating, toilets, bins,…)

• Public art and greenery

• Wayfinding and traffic regulation


What is a street furniture ‘footprint’?

Bus shelter and footprint

Bin and footprint

Street space available is therefore reduced


Some street furniture ‘footprints’

Size of Furniture

(width x length)

Total Footprint

Cycle stand 0.10m x 0.60 m 0.60m x 1.30m

Bench 0.48m x 1.06m 1.18m x 1.18m

Rubbish bin 0.50m x 0.50m 1.20m x 1.50m

Bus stop area 1.30m x 3.25m 2.40m x 3.90m


Taking Stock: Gaps in knowledge

• Vehicle movement is well research and applied:– Full design standards– Quantitative performance measures– Comprehensive modelling capability– Extensive appraisal of benefits

• Less is understood about pedestrian movement• Virtually NOTHING is known about street activity:

– No established design standards– No robust ‘performance measures’– No modelling and appraisal


Taking Stock: Where do we stand?

• “Living streets” chimes with the times, so a good start! But, this is about much more than ‘pedestrians’!

• Most work on streets still on a modal basis, not holistic, and

• General reference to ‘encouraging walking and cycling’

• And the balance of attention??– 80% cycling– 15% walking– 5% street activity


Opportunities and Allies

• Scope for academics, practitioners and activists to work closer together – while recognising each others’ agendas

• RTF report provides a good basis for moving forward – putting the ‘living’ back into streets!

• It recognises the key importance of streets as ‘places’ and the need to raise street quality and foster street activity

• Many powerful groups support this change of emphasis – health, developers, retailers, etc.

• But streets need ‘champions’ and ‘custodians’, who cherish the diversity of urban streets and their functions


Opportunities and Allies

• Scope for academics, practitioners and activists to work closer together – while recognising each others’ agendas

• RTF report provides a good basis for moving forward – putting the ‘living’ back into streets!

• It recognises the key importance of streets as ‘places’ and the need to raise street quality and foster street activity

• Many powerful groups support this change of emphasis – health, developers, retailers, etc.

• But streets need ‘champions’ and ‘custodians’, who cherish the diversity of urban streets and their functions

….is this where YOU come in?

Centre for Transport Studies From Urban Roads to Living Streets: Making the Change Peter Jones...

Documents

Transcript of Centre for Transport Studies From Urban Roads to Living Streets: Making the Change Peter Jones...