manual for streets evidence

The Manual for Streets: evidence andresearch

Prepared for Traffic Management Division, Department

for Transport

I York, A Bradbury, S Reid, T Ewings and R Paradise

TRL Report TRL661

ii

First Published 2007ISSN 0968-4107ISBN 1-84608-660-4Copyright Transport Research Laboratory, 2007.

This report has been produced by TRL Limited, under/as part ofa contract placed by the Department for Transport. Any viewsexpressed in it are not necessarily those of the Department.

TRL is committed to optimising energy efficiency, reducingwaste and promoting recycling and re-use. In support of theseenvironmental goals, this report has been printed on recycledpaper, comprising 100% post-consumer waste, manufacturedusing a TCF (totally chlorine free) process.

iii

CONTENTS

Page

Executive Summary 1

Acronyms 3

1 Introduction 5

1.1 Manual for Streets 5

1.2 Design Bulletin 32 6

1.3 Underlying research 6

1.4 Report structure 6

2 Review of existing literature 7

3 Site selection and measurement 9

3.1 Site selection 9

3.2 CAD measurements 9

3.3 Site surveys 11

4 Speeds and geometry data site ranges 11

4.1 Outliers 12

4.2 Variation within the data 13

5 Speed adaptation 15

5.1 Link speeds 15

5.2 Junction speeds 16

6 Modelled safety impacts 18

6.1 Braking modelling 18

6.2 Stopping distances on links 18

6.3 Stopping distances at junctions 19

6.4 Implications of modelled situations 20

7 Observed safety 21

7.1 Belgravia 21

7.2 Accidents at junctions 22

7.3 Accidents on links 23

8 Household survey 24

8.1 Sampling 24

8.2 Sample composition 25

iv

Page

9 Residents opinions 26

9.1 Streetscape 26

9.2 Parking 27

9.2.1 Car use and off-street parking 27

9.2.2 Parking problems 28

9.2.3 Parked vehicles 28

9.2.4 Respondents’ issues with parking in their street 29

9.3 Main safety concerns 30

9.4 Road safety 31

9.4.1 Walking and cycling safety 32

9.4.2 Safety of children 32

9.4.3 Improving road safety in residential streets 33

9.5 Accidents 33

9.6 Non-motorised vs. Motorised users: Access 34

9.7 Footways 34

9.8 Summary of household survey findings 34

10 Testing of network layout using SafeNet 35

10.1 Junction spacing 35

10.1.1 Analysis 36

10.1.2 Overall results 38

10.2 Crossroads analysis 38

11 Conclusions 38

12 Acknowledgements 40

13 References 40

Appendix A: Literature review 43

Appendix B: Case study sites 61

Appendix C: Braking distance matrix 82

Appendix D: Household survey questionnaire 85

Abstract 89

Related publications 89

1

Executive Summary

! Conflicting movements at junctions result in a highernumber of accidents, but geometry can lower speedswhich reduce both the likelihood and severity ofaccidents.

! Stopping distances on links and at junctions have amargin of safety down to a visibility of around 20 m inthe environments studied, unless other speed reductionfeatures are incorporated.

! The sites included roads with a range of surface types,varying use of speed restriction measures, differentlevels of on-street parking and a range of forwardvisibilities. The results are consequently applicable to awide range of developments throughout the UK.

! Parking was found to reduce speeds on links and atjunctions by 2 to 5 mph. That is, drivers react to theperceived danger by reducing their speed. The effect ofthis on safety is unclear. Reducing speed increasesrelative safety, but parked vehicles reduce lines of sightand can consequently obscure (crossing) pedestrians.There was no clear indication that this resulted in highernumbers of casualties from the accident statisticsanalysis. However, many of the reported accidents fromthe household survey were related to parked vehicles.

! The largest effect on speeds was found to be associatedwith reducing lines of sight. A reduction from 120 to 20metres reduced approach speeds by approximately 20 mphon links and 11 mph at junctions. Modelling has shownthe reduction in approach speed should result in sightdistances of 40 metres being safe, i.e. there is anacceptable safety margin to stop should a danger presentitself. However, the margin of safety becomes rapidlysmaller below 40 metres.

In addition, a household survey was undertaken toobtain the residents’ opinions of their streets at the twentycase study sites. This was to determine ‘user satisfaction’of a variety of residential street layouts, and to considerresidents’ transport needs alongside their perceptions ofsafety and sustainability of their streets. Three hundredhousehold questionnaires were returned for analysis toexplore the relationship between resident perceptions ofroad safety and highway geometries.

With respect to the perceptions of residents surveyed,the following can be concluded:

! Across the sites there were mixed reactions to whetherpersonal, or road, safety issues were of most concern.Residents at DB32 compliant sites considered personalsafety (in relation to crime) to be of the greatest concern,but this was not the case at other sites. It is unclearwhether this was owing to higher crime rates at theDB32 sites, the perception of road safety at other sites,or a combination of both these factors. However, overallnearly half the respondents considered road safety to bethe main issue, compared with nearly 30% whoconsidered personal safety to be the highest concern.

Demand for the Manual for Streets emerged from theGovernment research report Better Streets, Better Places(ODPM, 2003), which was commissioned to establishwhether there are any problems over the adoption of newhighways meeting the requirements of Planning PolicyGuidance Note 3, Housing (PPG3). This document focusedon new residential streets and identified highway standardsas a barrier to placemaking in the UK. The reportconcluded with a recommendation for development of aManual for Streets to replace Design Bulletin 32 (DB32)with an updated set of design guidelines for local roads toprovide a catalyst for innovative design that emphasisesplace over movement.

The resulting Manual for Streets is a guide to thedesign, construction, adoption and maintenance of newstreets whose aim is to deliver streets that help strengthencommunities, are pleasant and attractive, are cost-effective to construct and maintain, and are safe. TheManual for Streets has updated geometric guidelines forlow trafficked residential streets, examined the effect ofthe environment on road user behaviour, and drawn onpractice in other countries.

This research undertaken by TRL provides the evidencebase upon which the revised geometric guidelines in theManual for Streets are based, including:

! Link widths.

! Forward visibility.

! Visibility splays.

! Junction spacing.

In order to obtain primary data for examining therelationships between geometry, the environment, speed,and casualties, twenty survey sites were selectedthroughout the UK comprising a mixture of new build,Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment(CABE) good practice, DB32 compliant and historic(pre-war) street layouts, to produce a wide range ofdevelopment type to ensure the results were applicable tomany developments within the UK. Methods adopted tocollect data included measurement of X- and Y-distancesat junctions, visibility on links, road width, manual andautomated speed data readings and observations onparking, signing, lining, and traffic calming. 190 linksand 77 junctions were included in the research.

The headline findings from the site surveys can besummarised as follows:

! Lower vehicle speeds are associated with reduced roadwidth and reduced visibility, both on links and atjunctions.

! Site type (for example historic, new build, DB32compliant etc) is not a significant determinant of speed.Junction and link geometries are the important variables.

! Speed is known to be a key factor for road safety. Thefindings of this research are consistent with this fact,indicating that higher speeds on links increase thelikelihood of injury and its severity.

2

These results have been integrated into the Manual forStreets in the form of appropriate standards for residentialstreet design, and will become the focus for Governmentguidance on new residential streets.

3

Acronyms

ATC Automatic Traffic Count

CABE Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment

CAD Computer Aided Design

DB32 Design Bulletin 32

DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government

DEFRA Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

DETR Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

DfT Department for Transport

DPH Dwellings per hectare

HA Hectare

MfS Manual for streets

MPH Miles per hour

ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

PPG Planning Policy Guidance

SafeNet Software for Accident Frequency Estimation for Networks

5

1 Introduction

The Manual for Streets (MfS) is intended to consolidate thenecessary components for effective street design into asingle source of information. The MfS builds upon andupdates the guidance contained in Design Bulletin 32(DB32) and its companion guide ‘Places Streets andMovement: A Companion Guide To Design Bulletin 32,Residential Roads and Footpaths’. Its aim is to provideguidance for practitioners who will shape the developmentsof the future. It is therefore intended for:

! Developers.

! Local highway authorities.

! Local planning authorities.

! The emergency services.

! Utility and drainage companies.

! Access officers.

! Public transport providers.

! Architects.

! Highway engineers.

! Landscape architects.

! Town planners.

! Transport planners.

! Urban designers.

1.1 Manual for Streets

The Manual for Streets has been designed to recognise thefull range of design criteria necessary for the delivery ofmulti-functional streets, assisting practitioners in makinginformed decisions relating to appropriate street design. TheManual will initially cover the design considerations forresidential streets and other lightly trafficked local roads.

The Manual deals with underlying values that can becreatively deployed by practitioners in order to pursue theGovernment’s ‘placemaking’ agenda of individuallydistinctive localities, while ensuring streets remainfunctional and safe. The Manual for Streets was preparedagainst a backdrop of sustainable development guidanceand initiatives, including the Department for Communitiesand Local Government’s Communities Plan ‘SustainableCommunities: Building for the Future’ (ODPM, 2003b) toensure that it facilitates the long-term sustainability ofstreets, and contributes to an enhanced sense of place.

The Manual for Streets supports the objectives of theGovernment’s commitment to sustainable development asexpressed in ‘A Better Quality of Life: A Strategy forSustainable Development in the United Kingdom’ (DETR,1999) and in the latest document on delivering the UK’ssustainable development strategy ‘Securing the Regions’Futures: Strengthening Delivery of SustainableDevelopment in the English Regions’ (DEFRA, 2006).This will ensure that residential streets meet the needs ofall street users, not just motorised vehicles.

1.2 Design Bulletin 32

The document DB32 was used to assist in designing newhousing developments. It was created to remove the

restrictive criteria imposed in the post-war period thatresulted in a high degree of conformity between estateswithin the UK. Its purpose was to permit a more flexibleapproach to design that enabled developments to be bettertailored to the requirements of residents, for exampleHome Zones in which a variety of techniques (speedreductions and surface treatments) are used to create agreater impression of shared space.

However, a number of requirements are included toensure safety of pedestrians and road users within theestate. These include minimum sight distances in order thatvehicles travelling at a design speed are able to react to adanger and safely stop. The sight distances are specifiedfor an observer’s eye being between 1.05 and 2 metresabove ground level and in the case of a junction, the carbeing 4.5 metres from the stop line. The required visibilitydistances are summarised in Table 1.1, and Figure 1.1.

However, according to ‘Places Streets and Movement:A Companion Guide To Design Bulletin 32, ResidentialRoads and Footpaths’ these should be extended to 45 min a 20 mph zone and 90 m in a 30 mph zone to allowfor drivers exceeding the speed limit by up to 10 kph(Table 1.2). Also the Y-distance should be measured forvehicles at the following distances from the stop line onthe minor arm of the junction:

! 9.0 m: The normal requirement for major new junctionsand for the improvement of existing junctionsbetween access roads and district or local distributorroads - for instances where the minor road is busy.

! 4.5 m: For less busy minor roads and busy privateaccess points.

! 2.4 m: The minimum necessary for junctions withindevelopment to enable a driver who has stoppedat a junction to see down the major road withoutencroaching onto it.

! 2.0 m: For single dwellings or small groups of up to halfa dozen dwellings or thereabouts.

Table 1.1 DB32 visibility (Y) distances for differentdesign speeds

Speed ( mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30

Speed (kph) 8 16 24 32 40 48

Distance (metres) 6 14 23 33 45 60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Speed (mph)

Y D

ista

nce

(met

res)

Figure 1.1 DB32 visibility (Y) distances for differentdesign speeds

6

Consequently, consider a residential area with a 30 mphlimit. A driver on a minor road approaching a junctionshould be able to see vehicles at a distance of 60 to 90metres from the junction on the major road depending onwhether the drivers on the major road remain within thespeed limit. Further, they should have this field of view fora distance of 4.5 metres before the junction if showingcaution, or 2.4 metres if they are stopping at the junction.

These calculations assume a design speed and thestandard stopping model of a driver when presented with adanger: i.e. permitting a reaction time and then assumingthe driver will apply a constant braking force. However,the situation can be considered from the opposite direction.

If sight lines are reduced below the recommendation inthese guidelines, do drivers react to the lack of visibility?Suppose drivers reduce their speed when encounteringreduced lines of sight and therefore increased risk. Thiscould, in effect, result in the housing development being assafe as one with greater lines of sight and promote lowerspeeds. That is, the reduction in speed could still permitthem to stop the same distance before a hazard eventhough they see it when it is closer to them.

1.3 Underlying research

TRL has performed research into identifying andinvestigating design elements whose impact was not fullyunderstood, and in particular those not previously based onrigorous research. The study initially performed a literaturereview of local authority design guides: 32 were included.These indicated designs were constrained by the followingcritical aspects of highway geometry:

! Link widths.

! Forward visibility.

! Visibility splays.

! Junction spacing.

Little robust research supporting the DB32 standardswas found in the review. Furthermore, the identifiedresearch did not explore detailed design elements, such asgeometric dimensions.

The review revealed the majority of the localauthorities complied with, and recommended, the samestandards as DB32. Where standards differed, they weregenerally more stringent than those in DB32. Asexpected, road safety was the most significant barrier tothe adoption of standards with relaxed values of widthand visibility.

This research therefore aimed to assist in setting thedesign standards for MfS and to inform its developmentwith respect to road widths, visual splays, parking, andremoval of road markings. In particular, it aimed to:

! Examins the relationship between driver behaviour andhighway geometry.

! Establish the safety of roads which do not meet DB32standards in terms of casualty numbers, driver behaviourand resident perceptions.

! Investigate highway layouts to determine whether morepermeable layouts are associated with higher levels ofcasualties than spine and cul-de-sac layouts.

Three strands of research were included:

1 The first consisted of observations, conducted at twentyresidential developments, to examine links and junctionsthat were either at, or below, the limits specified in DB32.

Observations included detailed information on thegeometry and layout of each link and junction,observations of speed and obtaining accident statistics.Statistical analysis and predictive models based uponthese observations indicated whether relaxed geometricand visibility values could be incorporated into the MfS.The features also varied in relation to:

! Road width.

! Whether speed humps were present.

! Whether parking was permitted.

! Whether lines were present to indicate priorities e.g.give way line.

! The type of road surfacing used.

2 A household postal survey was conducted at the sametwenty sites. This explored residents’ opinions on anumber of aspects of their living environment. However,the emphasis of the questionnaire was to considerwhether they had any perceived safety or personalsecurity concerns. A comparison across the sites couldtherefore investigate if junction and road geometries thatdo not meet DB32 standards are perceived by residentsto be as safe as those that conformed to the standards.

3 Lastly, SafeNet, which can model a road network andconsider the effect of changes on safety, was used tostudy the effect of junction spacing on casualty rates,and the effect of changing the characteristics of aresidential area from a cul-de-sac approach to a moreconnected layout.

Within this report the following terminology is used:

! A site is a housing development that has been surveyedin this study.

! A feature is defined as being either a link or junctionwithin the site.

1.4 Report structure

Section 2 discusses the research methodology used, includinga rationale for selecting the research study sites and thevariety of methods used to collect and analyse the field data.

Section 3 provides a literature review and gap analysis thatsupports the development of the primary researchmethodology.

Table 1.2 Companion guide Y-distances

Speed (mph) 20 30 40 50 60 70

Speed (kph) 32 48 64 80 97 113

Distance (metres) 45 90 120 160 215 295

allowing speeding

Distance (metres) 33 60 120 160 215 295

7

Section 4 discusses the site surveys conducted, including adescription of the different sites and the results andanalysis of the surveys, particularly with regard tovisibility on links and at junctions in relation to trafficspeed and accident risk.

Section 5 describes the models used to consider whetherany observed speed reductions are sufficient for a link orjunction with limited visibility to be safe.

Section 6 considers the predicted effect of limited visibilityon speeds, and models a number of situations to ascertainwhether the speed reductions compensate for the lack ofvisibility.

Section 7 analyses road accidents statistics (STATS19data) for the research sites and the relationship betweenspeed and geometries on accidents.1

Sections 8 and 9 give an overview of results from thehousehold survey intended to assess residents’ opinions ofthe streets where they live and to identify particular issuesthat residents have about the design and layout of theirstreet and built environment.

Section 10 presents the results and analysis of the junctionspacing research using the Software for AccidentFrequency Estimation for Networks (SafeNet) to comparehypothetical networks based on DB32 compliant and‘organic’ street layouts.

Section 11 concludes with an overall summary of theresearch and a discussion about the proposed standardsthat will be included in the Manual for Streets.

The report concludes with a summary of results from theresearch, and how this affects the standards for residentialstreet design, to be revised for the MfS.

2 Review of existing literature

A literature review (see Appendix A) was performed as aninitial element of this research to collect togetherinformation relevant to the Manual for Streets. Its purposewas to perform a gap analysis. That is, to ascertain whereresearch could underpin the DB32 standards so they couldbe directly included in the Manual for Streets, and toidentify elements within the current guidance based uponlimited research (either needing validating or furtherresearch). Reports and articles on the following subjectswere sought:

! Policy, legal and technical frameworks.

! Objectives for streets.

! Sustainable communities.

! Quality places.

! Movement.

! Access.

! Parking.

! Materials, street furniture and planting.

! Lighting.

! Services and drainage works.

! Maintenance and management.

The literature evidence relating to each element is thenlisted, so that it may be cross-referenced to Appendix A.This gap analysis is shown in Table 2.1.

The review found few references concerned with theeffect of geometric dimensions within the contexts required.However, references were located on the theoretical aspectsof creating ‘liveable’ streets. The majority of elements wereassessed as partially covered by current knowledge butneeding validation before being used.

One element covered within a number of researchreports was road or carriageway width. However, furtherresearch was necessary to determine suitable carriagewaywidths within residential areas: i.e. those promoting lowtraffic speeds, create a safe environment and ensureadequate access.

Traffic calming measures also have adequate coveragewithin the literature, again with the objective of slowingspeeds and creating safer places. Whilst the majority of therobust evidence is concerned with physical traffic calmingmeasures (humps, pinch points etc), there is recentresearch examining psychological traffic calmingmeasures. These measures use the surroundings toinfluence driver behaviour (e.g. width of road, colouredsurfaces, location and height of buildings close to thecarriageway edge). However, this research was primarilyconducted in rural areas and hence its applicability toresidential areas requires further research.

There are a number of publications on Home Zones, orthe Dutch ‘Woonerven’. Research studies have also beenundertaken focusing on traffic volumes, accident levelsbefore and after implementation and the views of residents.However, there are some research gaps within the area ofHome Zones, such as the inclusion of disabled people(research has recently been commissioned on this topic)and robust research focusing on the safety implications ofHome Zones (as only limited ‘after’ data was analysed)and associated social impacts of schemes.

Parking research was fairly extensive, but not consideredrobust. Generally, research suggests parking should beincorporated within the design of residential streets as it canact as a traffic calming measure. However, its inclusion inresidential streets should not create danger for playingchildren or crossing residents, especially parking atjunctions, which may obstruct the vision of drivers.

Overall the research review highlighted a lack of robustresearch supporting DB32 standards and the information tobe incorporated in the Manual for Streets. Where researchhas been undertaken, detailed design elements, such asgeometric dimensions, have been neglected. Consequently,the following design aspects were investigated further:

! Road widths – which widths result in low speeds whilstmaintaining safety, access and ease of traffic flow?

! Visual splays – which sight lines result in preferreddriver behaviours, whilst maintaining safety?1 In this report, accidents are used to denote personal injury incidents.

8

Table 2.1 Gap analysis of research literature

Supported

Chapter content specifications Fully Partially Not Evidence source (see Appendix A for full details)

Street networks and types

Hierarchies of traffic and place functions "

Travel demand by mode "

Grids vs cul-de-sac "

Block dimensions – find / course grain "

Achieving appropriate speeds throughSee ‘Achieving appropriate speeds’ below

network / environmental effects

Public transport, walk and cycle networks "

Integration / segregation of cars / cycles / people "

Guard railing " English partnerships and Llewellyn

Davis (2002)

Mixed use streets "

Shared space "

Shared surfaces " Polus and Craus (1996)

Home Zones " Barrel and Whitehouse (2004); Tilly et al.

(2005); Layfield et al. (2005);

Webster et al. (2005)

Rural lanes / Quiet lanes " DfT (2004); Kennedy et al. (2004a and b)

Street dimensions

Design vehicles – dimensions, dynamic envelopes "

Widths – carriageways, cycleways, footways shared areas " Burrow (1977) Daisa & Peers (1997);

Gibbard et al. (2004); Oxley (2002);

Lawton et al. (2003)

Capacity for vehicle movement "

Street in cross-section – kerb height / crossfalls "

Absence of centre-line markings " Countryside Agency (2005)

Where streets meet

Place importance of junctions / squares "

Visibility splays "

Unmarked junctions "

Junction spacing "

X junctions "

T junctions "

Roundabouts " Lawton et al. (2003)

Signals "

Informal squares "

Footway crossings "

Pedestrian crossings- signal / zebra / refuge / courtesy "

Continued ....

9

! Parking – How can parking be best incorporated intoresidential design? Can it be successfully used as atraffic calming measure? What are the impacts onsafety? Can the quality of the area be retained?

! Removal of road markings – What effect does theremoval of road markings have on driver behaviour?

3 Site selection and measurement

3.1 Site selection

Twenty survey sites were selected throughout the UK; tenof the sites were ‘case study’ and ‘new build’ areasselected by CABE. The remaining 10 sites were a mix ofhistoric (pre-War), DB32 compliant and new build sitesselected to produce a wide range of development type to

ensure the results were applicable to many developmentswithin the UK. The full list of sites is shown in Table 3.1,and their distribution within the UK is shown in Figure 3.1(see Appendix B for a summary of each study site).

The sites were initially evaluated from CAD drawingsand then assessed in detail during a site visit.

3.2 CAD measurements

Detailed site characteristics were measured from site plans:technical drawings of the selected sites depicting allstructures in the area. Using AutoCAD it was possible totake accurate measurements of sight lines, as the drawingswere detailed, accurate and all obscuring features wererecorded (see Figure 3.2).

The X-distance was set at 2.4, 4.5 and 9 m from thejunction measured down the centre line of the road, in

Table 2.1 (Continued) Gap analysis of research literature

Supported

Chapter content specifications Fully Partially Not Evidence source (see Appendix A for full details)

Street alignments

Gradients "

Curve radii, horizontal and vertical "

Forward visibility " Kennedy et al. (1998); Layfield et al.

(1996); Summersgill and Layfield

(1996); Taylor et al. (1996)

Achieving appropriate speeds

Ideally through network (and natural traffic calming) " Scottish Executive (1999); Grayling et al.

(2002); Vis et al. (1990) Kennedy et al.

(2005); Hardy (2004); Elliott et al. (2003)

Traffic calming as fallback " Engel and Thomsen (1992)

Integration of TC with environment "

Access

Access requirements to buildings – people and vehicles "

Emergency access. References to building regulations "

Servicing: refuse collection, deliveries, removals "

DDA/disabled requirements – into buildings, along streets " Oxley (2002)

Need to balance the perceived conflict between accessibility " ODPM (2004)

and crime – permeability versus security

Parking

Layouts / design of on/off street parking " Noble and Jenks (1996); TRL (1992);

Noble et al. (1987);

Westdijk (2001);

Scottish Executive (2005)

Relationship with capacity and safety "

Motorcycle / cycle parking "

10

Table 3.1 Research study sites

Rural / Housing Land NetworkCharacteristic Town Ward Region urban period use Density type

Historic (pre-war) Reading New Town South East Urban Victorian Mixed High GridLavenham Suffolk South East Rural Medieval Residential Low OrganicOxford Jericho South East Urban Victorian Residential High GridBloxham Village Oxfordshire South East Rural Victorian Residential Low OrganicChichester West Sussex South East Urban Medieval Mixed High OrganicLondon Belgravia South East Urban Victorian Mixed High Grid

Case study Charlton Down West Dorset South West Rural Post 90s Residential High OrganicLichfield Darwin Park West Midlands Urban Post 90s Residential High OrganicEastleigh Former Pirelli site South East Urban Post 90s Residential High Atypical gridNewhall East Harlow East of England Suburban Post 90z Residential High OrganicGuildford Queen’s Park South East Urban Post 90s Residential Mid OrganicLondon Tower Hamlets South East Urban Post 90s Residential High GridGlasgow Crown St. Scotland Urban Post 90s Residential High OrganicChelmsford Windley Tye East of England Suburban Post 90s Residential Low Court layoutChelmsford Beaulieu Park East of England Urban Post 90s Residential Low GridManchester Hulme North West Urban 1990s Residential Low Grid

New build Ipswich Rapier St. South East Suburban Post 90s Residential High Atypical gridPortishead Port Marine South West Suburban Post 90s Residential Mid Organic

DB32 Compliant Leicester Syston East Midlands Urban 1980> Residential Mid Cul-de-sac with spineReading Lower Earley South East Urban 1980> Residential Mid Cul-de-sac with spine

Figure 3.1 Distribution of sites

1: New Town, Reading2: Lavenham, Suffolk3: Jericho, Oxford4: Bloxham Village, Oxfordshire5: Chichester, West Sussex6: Belgravia, London7: Charlton Down, West Dorset8: Darwin Park, Lichfield9: Former Pirelli Site, Eastleigh

10: Newhall, East Harlow11: Queens Park, Guildford12: Tower Hamlets, London13: Gorbals, Glasgow14: Windley Tye, Chelmsford15: Beaulieu Park, Chelmsford16: Hulme, Manchester17: Rapier Street, Ipswich18: Portmarine, Portishead19: Syston, Leicester20: Lower Earley, Reading

11

accordance with generally accepted practice. From thesethree distances the line of sight (Y-distance) is measuredleft and right looking out of the junction. The Y-distance isthe furthest point of visibility on the kerb (the blue line),taking into account any obscuring features, and ismeasured from the centre line of the side road.

Lines of sight on links were measured using a similarmethod. The driver’s (direct) sight line was used to findthe shortest distance ahead of the vehicle that is visiblewhen on the link. In addition, the width of the road, bothwith and without footways, was also measured from theCAD drawings.

This information gave a first indication of the range ofgeometries available across the chosen sites. However, thiscould not take account of all complications on site. Thereforethis information was validated and enhanced by site surveys.

3.3 Site surveys

All site surveys were conducted from January to March2006. Each survey comprised measurements of speed, roadgeometry and visibility, at a minimum of 10 junctions and2 links within the site, and speed readings at a minimum of5 junctions and 2 links. The purpose of the surveys was tovalidate the measurements taken from the CAD drawingsand obtain a sample of speeds from a wide range ofjunctions and links throughout the sites. The followingprocedures were undertaken at each junction and link:

Junction visibility (Y Distance)

1 The centre line of the main road was ascertained.

2 The three X values were measured and marked off usingchalk on the road.

3 Y-distances were measured at a height of 1.2 m fromeach X chalk mark to the left and right.

4 Where parking was explicitly marked on the road, asecond measurement, assuming a parked vehicle waspresent, was also recorded. Lines of sight also took intoaccount cars parked on the road, as these were assumed tobe the general conditions that drivers would encounter.

5 Any visible obstructions were noted down, theseincluded buildings, brow of a hill, phone boxes, hedges,parked cars etc.

Link forward visibility

1 A pre-defined place in the road calculated to haveminimum visibility from the CAD drawings was located.

2 All obstructions, including parking, were recorded.

3 Taking the obstructions into account the pre-definedpoint of minimum visibility was confirmed as correct, oradjusted and recorded.

4 The distance between the correct position and thefurthest point of visibility was measured: along the roadif considered safe, or along the kerb, and the road widthwas recorded.

Manual speed measurements (speed gun)

! Recorded vehicle speeds for 20 minutes at a sub-sampleof links and junctions.

Sample sizes

Estimates from CAD drawings and measurements fromsite surveys resulted in geometric information beingcollected for:

! 190 junctions, and

! 77 links.

A speed gun was used to record individual vehicleapproach speeds for approximately twenty minutes at asub-sample of the surveyed features. Exact speeds (to thenearest mph) were recorded above 10 mph, however,manually collected speeds at, or below, 10 mph wereclassified into one category. These observations werecollated into an analysable form for

! 57 junctions, and

! 23 links.

Also, automatic traffic counters (ATCs) were installedfor one week on:

! 18 links.

! The approach to 10 junctions.

The speed gun survey provided a snapshot of theapproach speeds of drivers across a wide range of differentjunctions and links, and therefore a wide range ofgeometries. In contrast, the ATC data was restricted to asmaller number of features, and therefore geometries, butgave a robust picture of the approach speeds used.

The purpose of the next section is to examine how thespeeds varied across the features studied and identify thecharacteristics that influenced those speeds.

4 Speeds and geometry data site ranges

A general understanding of the effect of road layout, andthe resulting visibilities, on drivers’ speeds can only be

x

y

Obscuring Feature

Centre Lines

Figure 3.2 Y-distance at junctions

12

200150100500Y distance measured at 4.5 metres from junction

(metres)

60

40

20

0

Freq

uenc

y

Mean = 30.97 Std. Dev. = 27.717

N =194

Figure 4.3 Range of observed junction visibilities

achieved if a wide range of different site conditions arestudied. The selected 20 sites were consequently chosen tobe representative of developments throughout the country.In terms of the type of sites studied there were:

! 6 historic (pre-war) sites.

! 6 sites conforming to CABE good practice guidelines.

! 2 sites conforming to DB32 specifications.

! 6 other (case study) sites.

Road surfacing within the sites varied from tarmac(12 sites), through to a mixture of tarmac and block paving(3 sites) to wide-scale use of block paving (5 sites). Halfthe sites had no speed restricting measures present (e.g.road humps or horizontal deflections), whilst some form ofspeed restricting measures were present in the others. Theextent of on-street parking also varied across the sites with7 sites having no parking near to junctions in evidenceduring the site visits, whilst some vehicles parked close tothe junctions at other sites. Also, parking on the linksvaried between no observed parked vehicles, to parking onone side of the road on some links and parking on bothsides of the road on others.

Forward visibilities on links, and visibility at junctions(Y-distance), were estimated from plans of thedevelopments and measured during the site visits. Often,the observed visibilities were less than those estimatedbefore the site visit (using AutoCAD). This was owing tothe presence of street furniture and other obstructions (forexample planting) that limited visibility. This study isconsidering the effect of actual visibility on drivers’speeds, therefore the visibilities measured on site havebeen used in assessing driver adaptive behaviour. Theobserved ranges of road width, forward visibility on linksand visibility at junctions are shown in Figures 4.1 to 4.3.

Road widths (excluding footways) generally varied from4 to 10 metres across the studied sites. Visibilities on links,and at junctions, varied from below 10 metres toapproximately 100 metres. The sites can therefore beconsidered to be representative of the majority of situationsoccurring within residential developments in the UK.

4.1 Outliers

Sites with abnormal characteristics can distort the findingsof any statistical analysis. Such sites can produceobservations that significantly differ from the trendspresent within, and across, other typical sites: suchobservations are referred to as outliers. These observationscan therefore affect the statistical models fitted to the data,referred to as points of high influence.

The accepted approach in these situations is to excludethese abnormalities from the analysis and produce modelsthat reflect the trends within the majority of situations. Theprevious section shows that nearly all the sites have roadwidths less than 10 metres (excluding footways) and linesof sight of less than 100 metres on links and at junctions.In addition, the average daily flows and average linkspeeds at each of the sites studied using ATCs aresummarised in Table 4.1.

Observations from Belgravia were anomalous. The roadwidth where the ATC was situated was 11.4 metres wide(excluding footways), and the average for all linkssurveyed in Belgravia was 10.5 metres. In addition, the

12.010.08.06.04.02.0

Road width without footways (metres)

40

30

20

10

0

Freq

uenc

y

Mean =6.285 Std. Dev. =1.641

N =145

Figure 4.1 Range of observed road widths

450400350300250200150100500

Forward visibility (metres)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Freq

uenc

y

Mean = 57.187 Std. Dev. = 69.7081

N = 99

Figure 4.2 Range of observed link forward visibilities

13

forward visibility on the link where an ATC was installedwas 446 metres and generally there was good visibility onthe links throughout the Belgravia site. These conditionsresulted in the highest average speed in any site. Inaddition, the daily vehicle flows were almost 30% higherthan on any other site. Thus the Belgravia observations aregenerally excluded from the analysis performed. As aconsequence, the results can be considered to be relevantfor developments such as shown in Figure 4.4 with roadwidths up to 10 metres and visibilities on links (and atjunctions) of up to 100 metres, and not for those with gridlayouts such as Belgravia (see Figure 4.5) with wide roadsand larger visibilities.

The site with the next highest average link speed wasLeicester where the forward visibility was 65 metres, andthe lowest average link speeds were at Beaulieu Park inChelmsford, where the forward visibility was 10 metres.The following sections consider the effect of forwardvisibility on links (and visibility at junctions) and otherrelevant influencing factors on speed.

4.2 Variation within the data

Ranges in geometry, parking, signing and speed reductionmethods present within the 20 studied sites have beenexplored. The sites (excluding Belgravia) provide a goodvariation in all these site dependent factors that mayinfluence speeds. However, it is important to be able toensure that these are the only factors affecting differencesobserved between the sites and features studied, in orderthat the results are not confounded by other differences.Other possible influences at a given feature include:

! Time of day, for example night driving.

! Day of week, weekend driving compared with weekdaydriving.

! Weather conditions.

! Age of driver.

! Driving style.

! Other vehicles present.

It is not possible to take account of all these factors withinthis type of analysis. However, the best consistency wassought between the manual speeds and loop speeds. Allmanual speeds were collected on weekdays in the daytime.Consequently, the speed loop analysis was also restricted toobservations on a weekday between 0700 and 1900.

Table 4.1 Average flows and speeds

Site Average daily flow Average speed (mph)

Lower Earley 70.4 11.3Guildford 481.9 18.2New Town, Reading 242.6 14.4Chichester 1372.8 19.4Eastleigh 427.7 17.3Belgravia 2029.5 25.7Tower Hamlets 627.0 19.1Ipswich 121.6 19.0Lavenham 221.4 11.7Newhall 482.9 15.6Windley Tye 294.9 16.9Beaulieu 83.8 10.2Bloxham 112.3 12.5Portishead 1161.1 15.8Leicester 528.9 23.5Manchester 1060.6 19.3Lichfield 362.6 16.7Glasgow 1575.4 10.3

A 461

27

19

127

86.0m

45

119a

89.3m

51

The

24

33

LEAMONSLEY

WALSALL ROAD

VIC

TOR

IA

12

14

2

32

8

117

129

Vicarage

127a

15

23

121

40

44

40

38

House

36

32

26

4

11

2119

2

57

23

7

9

Court

Leomansley Court

37

53

27

22

15

CHATTERTON AVE

7

189

Easter Hill

97

145

104

178

98

139

147

174

179

99

101

SAXO

N WAL

K

LEOMANSLEY VIE

W

Rookery

10

159

The Old

19

Vicarage

LANE

168a

25

105

9

5

168

2

BARDELL CLOSE

4187

El Sub Sta

192

25

21

52

16

2

ORMONDS CLOSE

6

1

3

1

6

4

2

8

5

ALESMORE MEADOW

11

59

17

194

CLO

SE

30

1

5

12

3

10

7

158

34

11

1

35

42

WALN

UT WALK

34

38

32

25

29

21

Headland

® Crown Copyright 2005. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449

92

1

146

138

5

106

CHRISTCHURCH

103

92.0m

165

14

PO

OLFIE

LD R

OA

D

4

2

177

14

12

10

170

WALSALL ROAD

191

BM 93.77m

= ATC Location

= Junctions Measured

= ATC I.D. = Links Measured

= Manual Speed Reading Locations

Lichfield

1

23

5

6

7

8

910

11

1

2

3

4

5

25

26

1

23

5

6

7

8

910

11

1

2

3

4

5

25

26

This organic layout is characterised by low link visibilities (see link 2 image). Jinction sight lines are also shorter compared to the grid layout of Belgravia.

23

22

25

213

0

3 4

3 2

Figure 4.4 Lichfield – non-grid layout (limited visibilities)

14

ECCLESTON

STREET

100

Bolivian

106

107

108

109

Embassy

8

6.9m

LB

7.8m

TCB

BM 7

.87m

Eaton

Squ

are

Garde

ns

6

24

SQUARE

26

7

36

11

32

103

102

EATON

95

98

Belgian Embassy

103

= ATC Location


= ATC I.D.

= Links Measured


Belgravia - London

The grid layout of Belgravia gives rise to high visibility levels at the majority of junctions, as can be seen in the image of junction 4. There were also clear views down the lengths of all measured links (link 1 = 122m, link 2 = 89m, link 3 = 194m, link 4 = 183m). This can be seen in the image of link 4.

46

7

5

LB

8

1 to 4

LB

14

12a

12

7.1m

EATON SQUARE

EATON S

QUARE

18

EATON S

QUARE

Eaton

Squ

are

Garde

ns

EATON S

QUARE

117

118 7.5m

12

UPPER BELGRAVE STREET

KN

IGH

TS

BR

IDG

E A

ND

BE

LGR

AV

IA W

AR

D

13

15

14

2

2

118

11

KN

IGH

TS

BR

IDG

E A

ND

BE

LGR

AV

IA W

AR

D

115

6

8

10

22

12

111

109

7.9m

22

21

23

LB

6.9m

Tennis

Court

98.0m

LB

4

11

1

BM 8

.12m

17

31

5

36

24

EATON S

QUARE

ECCLESTON

STREET

6.9m

100

Bolivian

106

107

108

109

31

33

34

Embassy

8

Eaton

Squ

are

Garde

ns

6.9m

LB

7.8m

TCB

BM 7

.87m

Eaton

Squ

are

Garde

ns

LB

34

6

93

BELGRAVE PLACE

ECCLESTO

N MEW

S

24

SQUARE

26

7

36

11

32

107

103

44 to 47

40

CITIES OF LONDON AND WESTMINSTER BORO CONST

38

39

41 to 43

EATON S

QUARE

90

46

102

EATON

95

98

32

19

Nuffield Club

Belgian Embassy

103

LONDON EER

19

43

37

35b

35

ItalianEm

bassy

Emba

ssy o

f the

Hunga

rian

People

's Rep

ublic

16

EATON M

EWS N

ORTH

54

56

14

15

86

38

83

LYALL STREET

84

BM 7

.00m

LB

69

BM 7

.75m

EATON P

LACE

68

8

57

45

CITY OF WESTMINSTER LB

WEST CENTRAL GL ASLY CONST

Club

82

The Irish

82

7

The Irish

Club

EATON S

QUARE

77

80

44

LYALL STREET

8

82

9

2

84

64

46

EATON M

EWS N

ORTH

48

47

62

6

48

EATON S

QUARE

51

EATON S

QUARE

57 to 60

53 to 56

6.9m

Eaton

Squ

are

Garde

ns

The F

ive F

ields

61

67

72

6189

91

55

EATON M

EWS N

ORTH

73

53

108

57

58

103

93

EATON PLACE

101

102

104

99

7.3m

71

94

86

90

87

79

7.4m

62

2

LB

EATON SQUARE

66

66a

63


LBPH

35

12

7

2

34

1

123

4

5

6

15

9

10

11

823

Figure 4.5 Belgravia – grid layout (large visibilities)

It was also possible that differences could be influencedby the type of site. That is speeds could depend on theintrinsic design present within a historical site comparedwith one conforming to the DB32 standards: similar to theeffect of the grid layout in Belgravia. If such variations werepresent the different type of sites would result in distinctdata clusters. The resulting ATC link speeds according tothe measured visibility are shown in Figure 4.6.

Observed speeds, and average speeds, on links withinthe sites increased with forward visibility. The type of siteappeared to have no effect. Therefore, all sites and featureswithin them were considered together and the effect of

geometries, speed restriction measures and surface typesexplored across all non-anomalous data. Figure 4.7 showsthe same link speeds according to forward visibility andthe sites on which they were measured.

80.070.060.050.040.030.020.010.0

Measured forward visibility

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Obs

erve

d sp

eed

(km

/h)

Site 85th percentileSite meanOtherHistoricDB32 compliant

Type of site

Figure 4.6 Speed ATC data for links (by site type)

80.070.060.050.040.030.020.010.0

Measured forward visibility

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Obs

erve

d sp

eed

(km

/h)

LichfieldManchesterLeicesterPortisheadBloxhamBeaulieuWindley TyeLavenhamIpswichTower HamletsEastleighChichesterNew Town, ReadingGuildfordLower Earley

Site Number

Figure 4.7 Speed ATC data for links

Even restricting observations to weekdays during thedaytime, it is clear there was a large variation in speeds ateach site and on any given link. The variation will havebeen affected by factors that cannot be accounted forwithin this study, for example, variations in driving styleand individual circumstances occurring on the link.

15

Interestingly, some drivers were observed at approximately10 mph at nearly all the sites though this could be owing toparticular circumstances encountered by the drivers, forexample, slowing to permit a vehicle through from theother direction.

Increasing variation with increases in an independentvariable can be accounted for by transforming the dependentvariable. However, even with this approach the size of theinherent variation at any one site and feature will ensure thatthe percentage of variation accounted for by a model will below. The statistical models therefore investigatedexplanatory variables whose coefficient was significant, andhence captured a significant trend within the data, withoutplacing any criteria on the overall model’s fit, therefore theregression (R2) value could be low.

5 Speed adaptation

It is probable that drivers adapt their speed according tothe perceived danger on the road. Initial investigation inthe previous sections supports this as the observed averagespeed on a link decreased with forward visibility. The aimof the analysis was therefore to find significant trends inspeeds explainable by the differences between thejunction, and link, layouts.

Speed is an indicator of safety on a road. If the averagespeed is lower, then arguably the road is safer and lessintimidating to vulnerable road users. There are two effectsthat make the road safer. Firstly, the stopping distance ofvehicles is less and therefore the probability that a driverwill be able to stop and avoid an accident is higher underthe same conditions. Secondly, should an accident occur,its severity could be less owing to reduced impact speed.

Reductions occurring through non-geometric treatments(including the type of road surface, speed humps andsigning) would be expected to increase safety comparedwith a similar road without the same measures. However,the situation is more complicated with respect to geometricdifferences where lines of sight are affected. On the onehand drivers may reduce their speeds owing to theperceived danger, but there is a potential increase indanger through drivers being unable to see hazards untilthey are closer to them. These two effects counteract each

other. So, this research considers whether any observedspeed reductions (through perceived danger) are sufficientfor a link, or junction, with limited visibility to be as(actually) safe as one with good visibility.

5.1 Link speeds

Drivers within a development generally negotiate anumber of links and junctions during their journey. Theywould be expected to have a highly variable drive cycle asthey can be stationary at junctions, and possibly on links,to give way to other traffic. They would be expected toadapt their speed to perceived dangers such as parking andhorizontal deflections that reduce their forward visibility.However, drivers will typically try to maintain themaximum speed to minimise their journey time.

Higher speeds, with greater variation, would be expectedon links as vehicles would not be expected to show thesame caution as at junctions. Therefore lines of sight areimportant on links because if lines of sight are reduced andspeeds remain high, an unexpected occurrence such as apedestrian stepping into the road, is more likely to result ina serious accident. For comparison the observed speeds onthe approach to a junction and on a link in Tower Hamletsare shown in Figure 5.1.

Two (multi-linear) regression models were fitted to theavailable data. One to the manual speed data from 23 linksand the other was fitted to the ATC data from 18 links. Theforms of the regressions were:

In( ) ( ) ( )speed a b road width c forward visibility= + + +

( ) ( )d parking e surface type+

The natural logarithm of speed (km/h) was found toproduce the best fit to the data. The results of the models areshown in Figures 5.2 and 5.3 respectively, and in Table 5.1.

The regressions explained only between 20 and 22% ofthe total variation in the data. However, all the variableswere significantly different from zero at the 95%confidence level.

The models imply that either permitting parking on alink, or the use of block paving, can reduce link speeds by2 to 5 mph which could improve safety, though there areclearly issues with pedestrians being obscured by parked

70605040302010

Observed speed (km/h)

400

300

200

100

0

Freq

uenc

y

Mean = 26.0118 Std. Dev. = 7.69201

N = 4,400

70605040302010

Observed speed (km/h)

400

300

200

100

0

Freq

uenc

y

Mean = 30.8089 Std. Dev. = 8.47612

N = 4,389

Figure 5.1a Junction speeds Figure 5.1b Link speeds

16

vehicles. Similarly, reducing road width also has the effect ofreducing vehicle speeds on the link. However, the two modelsdisagree about the extent of the reduction. The manual speeddata implies that a reduction from 10 to 5 metres could reducethe link speeds by between 9 to 20 mph, depending on theforward visibility on the link. In contrast, the ATC dataimplies the reduction is between 2 and 4 mph. It is theconservative estimate from the ATC data that is most likely tobe accurate given that the model included nearly as manysites and also given that the average number of manualobservations was 32 within any one site.

Both models agree that drivers do adapt their speedaccording to the forward visibility on the link. Accordingto the model based on the ATC data an average driver

Table 5.1 Predicted changes across roads with 5 metrewidths and forward visibilities between 5 and110 metres

Decrease ( mph)

No parking to parkingon both sides of link Tarmac to block paving

Link model Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Manual speeds with 2.8 4.8 2.5 4.4 average site features

Loop speeds 1.5 3.5 1.3 3.2

reduces their speeds by approximately 20 mph if the forwardvisibility on the link is reduced from 110 to 20 metres.

5.2 Junction speeds

Approach speeds at junctions were generally found to beless than link speeds, as drivers slowed and showed cautionon the approach in case they needed to give way to anotherdriver with priority. The requirement to assess a number offactors during their approach seems to have both heightenedawareness and also increased workload on the driver.Overall there appeared to be more accidents on the sites atjunctions than on links: 110 accidents at 187 junctionscompared with 21 accidents on 74 links. Hence reducingspeeds and accidents at junctions is clearly important.

Information was available on the visibility (Y-distance)at each junction for a vehicle positioned at 2.4, 4.5 and9 metres before the junction. Initial tests considered whichvisibility was the best predictor for the observed approachspeeds. This model indicated that a visibility of 4.5 metresshould be used within the regression modelling.

Regression models were formed on both the manuallycollected speed data and on the ATC data. In addition,whilst the ATC data recorded the speeds of all approachingvehicles, the manual data also classified the vehicles as towhether they turned at the junction. Therefore a separatemodel was also formed for all vehicles that did not turn atthe junction for this data set. A summary of the models isshown in Figures 5.4 to 5.6 and Table 5.2.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Forward visibility (m)

Spe

ed (

mph

)

Road Width = 5mRoad Width = 6mRoad Width = 7 Road Width = 8mRoad Width = 9mRoad Width = 10m

0

10

20

30

40

60

50

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


Spe

ed (

mph

)

Road Width = 5mRoad Width = 6mRoad Width = 7 Road Width = 8mRoad Width = 9mRoad Width = 10m

Figure 5.2 Link model – manual speeds with average site features

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


Spe

ed (

mph

)

Road Width = 5mRoad Width = 6mRoad Width = 7mRoad Width = 8mRoad Width = 9mRoad Width = 10m

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


Spe

ed (

mph

)


Figure 5.3 Link model – ATC speeds

17

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Y Distance (m)

Spe

ed (

mph

)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


Spe

ed (

mph

)


Figure 5.5 Junction model – manual speeds with average site features (non-turners only)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Y Distance (m)

Spe

ed (

mph

)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


Spe

ed (

mph

)


Figure 5.4 Junction model – manual speeds with average site features (all vehicles)

Table 5.2 Predicted changes across roads with 5 metre widths and Y-distances between 5 and 110 metres

Decrease (mph)

No parking No junctionto parking Tarmac to markings to

near junction block paving junction markings

Junction model Min Max Min Max Min Max

Manual speeds with average site features 1.5 2.1 3.7 5.2 -1.1 -0.8

Manual speeds with average site features (non-turners only) 1.8 2.5 3.9 5.5 -1.0 -0.7

ATC speeds 3.5 6.4 2.9 5.4 3.2 5.9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Y Distance (m)

Spe

ed (

mph

)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


Spe

ed (

mph

)


Figure 5.6 Junction model – ATC speeds

18

Parking and block paving were found to reduce vehiclespeeds by approximately 2 to 5 mph, though there is anindication from the ATC data that parking near junctionscould have a slightly stronger effect on speeds thanparking on a link. The models disagree as to the effect ofjunction markings. The manual data implies that withoutjunction markings, speeds were slightly greater. However,the ATC data indicates drivers reduced their speeds bybetween 3 and 6 mph when markings were absent.

The models agree on the order of magnitude of speedreductions through width reductions. For example at ajunction with Y-distance at 4.5 metres of 40 metres, areduction of road width from 10 to 5 metres would beexpected to reduce approach speeds by between 6 and 9 mph.

Both models also agree that drivers reduced theirapproach speed if the visibility at the junction (Y-distance)was less. The manual data predicts a reduction ofapproximately 5 mph if the Y-distance is reduced from110 to 20 metres at a junction where the road width is5 metres. However, the ATC data considers that drivers aremore sensitive to a lack of visibility. Under the sameconditions the resulting model predicts that drivers wouldreduce their speed by 11 mph.

6 Modelled safety impacts

Drivers have been shown to alter their speed according tothe conditions on the road. Reductions through the type ofroad surface and speed reduction measures (for examplespeed humps) almost certainly improve safety at a site.However, the implication of reduced speeds owing toreductions in forward visibility on links and visibility atjunctions is less clear. The reduced speed results in asmaller stopping distance requirement, but less distancewill generally be available for stopping when a hazardbecomes visible. So, it is a question of whether driversslow enough to make the junctions and links with limitedvisibility as safe as those with greater visibility.

This section considers the predicted effect of limitedvisibility on speeds, and models a number of criticalsituations to ascertain whether the speed reductionscompensate for the lack of visibility. The average speedspredicted by the regression models formed on the ATCdata are assumed within this modelling as they are basedupon the largest data set, and the predictions are inapproximate agreement with those formed on the manuallycollected data.

6.1 Braking modelling

It is possible to model relative safety of the schemes byconsidering the ability of the drivers to stop under differentconditions. In order to create these braking models thefollowing has been assumed (see Appendix C):

! The average perception-reaction time of a driver is 1.4seconds when stopping in response to a hazard. This is aconservative estimate for the average driver, for exampleOlson (1997) reviewed 27 driver perception-reaction timestudies and concludes ‘a great deal of data suggest thatmost drivers (i.e. about 85%) should begin to respond by

about 1.5 seconds after first possible visibility of theobject or condition of concern’. Guidance in DB32 isbased on an assumed time of 2 seconds.

! The average deceleration rate of drivers stopping is4.5 ms-2. This is approximately half the maximumdecelleration that can be achieved by cars under favourableconditions, and is consistent with firm braking (see, forexample, Auto Express, 2005). Guidance in DB32 is basedon an assumed rate of 2.5 ms-2, approximately equivalent tostopping on snow without skidding.

For example, consider a driver travelling at 30 mph(13.4 ms-1). If the driver reacts to a danger by stoppingthen they take 13.4 × 1.4 = 18.8 metres to react to thedanger. Using standard equations of motion the drivertakes (13.4 × 13.4)/(2 × 4.5) = 20 metres to becomestationary when travelling at a constant rate ofdeceleration. That is, it takes a driver a total distance of38.8 metres to stop from a speed of 30 mph.

6.2 Stopping distances on links

A range of links have been examined in which theforward visibility generally varied from less than 10 metresto approximately 100 metres. It was found that theaverage speed of drivers reduced with forward visibility.In addition, block paving and parking on the link werefound to affect speeds. To remove this complication,within this modelling it is assumed that the link has atarmac surface and no parking is permitted on the link.Furthermore, it was found that link width also influencesspeeds. It is therefore assumed that the link is either 5 or 9metres wide, i.e. a narrow or wide road.

The situation considered is if an event occurs, forexample a pedestrian stepping into the road at the limit ofthe driver’s forward visibility. It is assumed that the driverwill react as fast as possible and apply a fairly high averagedeceleration to stop their vehicle, as discussed in Section 6.1above. The distance required to stop is compared with thedistance available for road widths of 5 and 9 metres inFigures 6.1 and 6.2 respectively, and Table 6.1. Further, thedistance required to stop assuming drivers had not alteredtheir speeds owing to the reduced forward visibility isincluded for reference.

Initially it was assumed that drivers did not adapt theirspeeds as forward visibility reduced, i.e. that they did notperceive limited visibility as a danger and react to it. Thenthe model predicts that a collision would occur if visibilitywas less than 40 to 50 metres depending on the width ofthe road.

According to the regression modelling, drivers adaptedtheir speeds. However, the reduction does not fullycompensate for the reduction in forward visibility. That isthe margin for error is reduced as visibility falls. Forexample, with a forward visibility of 100 metres, should apedestrian appear at the limit of their vision a driver ismodelled as being able to stop at a distance ofapproximately 60 metres before the pedestrian. However,the model predicts that the driver would be able to stopwith just over 20 metres to spare under the sameconditions if the forward visibility was 40 metres. This

19

reduces to only 5 metres to spare with a forward visibilityof 20 metres.

Given the driver behaviour observed and the modellingassumptions, it would be expected that schemes in whichforward visibility is less than 40 metres could bereasonably safe for average drivers under these conditionsowing to the reduction in drivers’ approach speed.However, the margin for error decreases continually withforward visibility, and schemes with forward visibility onlinks of less than 20 metres are relatively unsafe, in theenvironments studied, unless other speed reductionfeatures are incorporated.

6.3 Stopping distances at junctions

A range of junctions has been examined in which theY-distance generally varied from less than 10 metres toapproximately 100 metres. It was found that the averagespeed of drivers reduced with Y-distance. Also, blockpaving, parking and the presence of lines to indicatepriority at the junction were found to affect speeds. Withinthis modelling it is assumed that the junction has a tarmacsurface, there is no parking at the junctions and no lines toindicate priority.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


Tota

l sto

ppin

g di

stan

ce (

met

res)

Total stopping distance (m)

Stopping distance if speeds not altered (m)

Available distance (m)

Figure 6.1 Modelled stopping distances on a link of width 5 metres

Table 6.1 Modelled stopping distances for links ofvarying width

Stoppingdistance Estimated

Forward Road if speeds stopping Distancevisibility width not altered distance remaining(m) (m) (m) (m) (m)

20 5 41.1 13.2 6.87 44.0 14.1 5.99 47.1 14.9 5.1

40 5 41.1 16.8 23.27 44.0 17.9 22.19 47.1 19.0 21.0

60 5 41.1 21.5 38.57 44.0 22.9 37.19 47.1 24.4 35.6

80 5 41.1 27.7 52.37 44.0 29.6 50.49 47.1 31.6 48.4

100 5 41.1 35.9 64.17 44.0 38.4 61.69 47.1 41.1 58.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


Tota

l sto

ppin

g di

stan

ce (

met

res)

Total stopping distance (m)

Stopping distance if speeds not altered (m)

Available distance (m)

Figure 6.2 Modelled stopping distances on a link of width 9 metres

20

The situation considered is when two vehicles approach ajunction. The first vehicle is on a minor arm of the junctionand the driver is assumed to show caution. They thereforedecrease speed from the modelled (regression) approachspeed (to 5 mph) as they approach over the 50 metres beforethe junction. The other vehicle has priority and the driverwill approach at the modelled approach speed.

Modelling has been used to consider the effect of thefirst driver seeing the second vehicle on its approach. Itconsiders the distance before the stop line at which theyneed to see the vehicle in order that the driver can react(taking 1.4 seconds) and then apply a higher deceleration(4.5 m/s-2) and be stationary at the stop line. These havebeen calculated using standard equations of motion, andare shown in Figure 6.3.

The driver approaching on the minor arm of the junctionand showing caution needs to see the vehicle approachingon the major arm when they are more than approximately4 and 6 metres from the junction in order to stop. Oncecloser to the junction they are committed to entering it.That is, drivers make a decision at or before 4 metres fromthe junction as to whether to stop or continue. This is inagreement with the regression modelling findings. Theregression models found that the visibilities measured at4.5 metres were the best predictors of approach speed, sodrivers appear to be making a decision on whether to stop

or continue at the junction based upon the information theyhave available at this distance.

Modelling has also been used to consider the effect ofthe second driver seeing the first vehicle on its approach. Itconsiders the deceleration required for the vehicle to stopbefore the junction if the driver sees the first vehicle whenat the ‘Y-distance’ before the junction and then deceleratesafter the reaction time of 1.4 seconds, Figure 6.4.

If the visibility at the junction is greater than 40 metresa driver travelling at 30 mph should easily be able tostop. Drivers have been shown to reduce their approachspeed as the Y-distance reduces. However, it isinsufficient to fully compensate for the potential reducedstopping distance available.

The predicted reduction in approach speed results indrivers being able to stop using reasonable deceleration rates(less than 4.5 ms-2) under the modelled conditions if theY-distance is between 20 and 40 metres. Below 20 metresthe model implies it is unlikely that the driver will be ableto stop before the junction, and an accident would be morelikely to occur.

6.4 Implications of modelled situations

DB32 guidelines indicate that the Y-distance at a junctionwhere the speeds are 25 to 30 mph should not be less than45 to 60 metres. Regression modelling on a road with a

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Y Distance (metres)

Dis

tanc

e fr

om s

top

line

(met

res)

Figure 6.3 Distance at which first vehicle must see second vehicle in order to stop

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Y Distance = Distance when driver decides to stop (metres)

Dec

eler

atio

n re

quire

d (m

/s/s

)

Figure 6.4 Deceleration rate required by second vehicle to stop if seeing first vehicle at ‘Y-distance’ metres from junction

21

width of 9 metres indicates that the average approachspeed of a vehicle travelling towards a junction with suchlines of sight would be 27 to 29 mph.

Modelling indicates that a vehicle approaching from aminor road has a decision point at approximately 4 to 6metres from the junction after which they are committedto entering the junction. However, a vehicle on the majorarm of the junction with a Y-distance of 45 to 60 metresshould be able to comfortably stop should such acircumstance occur.

With smaller Y-distances, down to approximately20 metres, the situation also appears relatively safe foraverage drivers. The extra caution shown by drivers on theminor road, and therefore the reduced approach speeds,result in them needing to decelerate at up to 3ms-2 in orderto stop safely: less than the usually acceptable limit.

Below Y-distances of 20 metres, the modelling indicatesthat the reduction in speed observed amongst drivers isinsufficient for the junction to be safe.

Observed standard deviations in approach speed implythat the 85th percentile of approach speeds could be4 to 6 mph greater than the average assuming a normaldistribution. Modelling implies drivers at these higherspeeds would be able to safely stop if the Y-distance is30 to 35 metres. Consequently, Y-distances between 20and 40 metres, and slightly below the recommended valuesmay be possible, but caution needs to be shown as thepercentage of drivers approaching at speeds that requirelarge decelerations if a conflict occurs quickly increases asY-distance decreases.

Considering links with a forward visibility of over40 metres, modelling indicates average drivers would beable to react to and stop safely before reaching a stationaryobject (say a pedestrian) appearing at the limit of theirvisibility. In fact the braking model indicates that anaverage driver would be able to stop with a margin forerror (i.e. expected distance between the resultingstationary vehicle and stationary object) of over 20 metres.

However, this margin of error reduces to approximately5 metres if the forward visibility reduces to 20 metres eventaking into account the reduction in speed observedamongst drivers in these situations. That is, the extent thatdrivers slow down as forward visibility reduces isinsufficient to result in geometries with a forward visibilityof less than 20 metres being safe. This modelling wasbased upon a tarmac surface and no parking on the link:both of which reduced link speeds. Therefore acombination of speed reducing measures may furtherreduce speeds to safely permit lower forward visibilities.

Observed standard deviations in link speeds indicate thatthe 85th percentile of link speeds could be 3 to 8 mphgreater than the average. Modelling implies drivers at thesehigher speeds would be able to stop with a margin of errorof 8 metres when the forward visibility is 40 metres and4 metres if the forward visibility was 35 metres.Consequently, forward visibilities of between 20 and 40metres might be considered, but again caution needs to beshown as the percentage of drivers approaching at speedswhere the margin of error is small quickly increase.

7 Observed safety

Road safety can be explored by observing behaviour andanalysing trends in accident statistics. An investigation intoobserved behaviour showed that drivers adapted theirspeed on links where forward visibility was low and inresponse to road width and other speed limiting factors.The same was also seen at junctions where visibility, theY-distance, was low. However, although these modelledresponses indicated relatively small visibilities could beconsidered, drivers adapted insufficiently for visibilitiesbelow 20 metres (and possibly higher) to be as safe aslinks and junctions with higher visibilities.

The actual effect on the number of accidents was alsoexplored by collecting information on the number ofaccidents each year between 1995 and 2005 on all the 20sites (excluding Ipswich). However, where sites were built,or modified, between these dates, only data from the yearssince the site was in its current form were considered.Within the 19 sites, 261 links and junctions were studied,and at these features there was an average of 8.6 years ofaccident data at the 187 junctions and 8.3 years of data onthe 74 links.

Over all junctions there was an average of 0.07 accidentsper year, whilst at links the average was 0.03 accidents peryear. Consequently, it would appear that accidents are moreprevalent at junctions than on links. For this reason,junctions can be considered the most important feature withrespect to the number of accidents occurring on theresidential sites studied.

The STATS19 database classifies all accidents accordingto the severity of the injury to each of the casualties. Thetotal number of accidents for all ten years at the 19 sites (i.e.including dates before the sites were inhabited) shows that98% of the casualties at junctions were slightly (and 2%were fatally) injured, but just over half the casualties onlinks were seriously injured and the others were slightlyinjured. It is possible that this difference in severity is due tothe lower speeds of vehicles approaching junctions. Overallonly 27 casualties were seriously, or fatally, injured. Henceall accidents are considered together.

7.1 Belgravia

Section 4.1 showed that Belgravia was anomalous. Thedevelopment had a grid layout which resulted in largevisibilities on the links and at junctions. This combinedwith wide roads resulted in high vehicle speeds. Inaddition, the vehicle flows within this site weresignificantly higher than those at the other sites.

Considering all these factors, it is not surprising thatBelgravia also has anomalous accident data (in that it hadmore accidents than the other sites). Of the 131 accidentsoccurring on all 19 sites, 65 occurred within Belgravia. Thehigh incidence of accidents is shown in Figure 7.1 (note thatthe stars indicate the location of the accidents, some ofwhich denote multiple accidents at the same location).

Excluding Belgravia, over all junctions there was anaverage of 0.034 accidents per year, whilst on links theaverage was 0.028 accidents per year. Consequently, onthe remaining sites there appears to be an approximatelyequal likelihood of an accident at a junction, or on a link.

22

Table 7.1 Accidents with respect to visibility

Total Average numberY Distance Number of accidents of accidents per(metres) junctions per year junction per year

0 to 25 107 2.7 0.0325 to 50 48 2.6 0.0550 to 80 14 0.3 0.02Over 80 15 0.3 0.02

46

7

5

LB

8

1 to 4

LB

14

12a

12

7.1m

EATON SQUARE

EATON S

QUARE

18

EATON S

QUARE

Eaton

Squ

are

Garde

ns

EATON S

QUARE

117

118 7.5m

12


KN

IGH

TS

BR

IDG

E A

ND

BE

LGR

AV

IA W

AR

D

13

15

14

2

2

118

11

KN

IGH

TS

BR

IDG

E A

ND

BE

LGR

AV

IA W

AR

D

115

6

8

10

22

12

111

109

7.9m

22

21

23

LB

6.9m

Tennis

Court

98.0m

LB

4

11

1

BM 8

.12m

17

31

5

36

24

EATON S

QUARE

ECCLESTON

STREET

6.9m

100

Bolivian

106

107

108

109

31

33

34

Embassy

8

Eaton

Squ

are

Garde

ns

6.9m

LB

7.8m

TCB

BM 7

.87m

Eaton

Squ

are

Garde

ns

LB

34

6

93

BELGRAVE PLACE

ECCLESTO

N MEW

S

24

SQUARE

26

7

36

11

32

107

103

44 to 47

40


38

39

41 to 43

EATON S

QUARE

90

46

102

EATON

95

98

32

19

Nuffield Club

Belgian Embassy

103

LONDON EER

19

43

37

35b

35

ItalianEm

bassy

Emba

ssy o

f the

Hunga

rian

People

's Rep

ublic

16

EATON M

EWS N

ORTH

54

56

14

15

86

38

83

LYALL STREET

84

BM 7

.00m

LB

69

BM 7

.75m

EATON P

LACE

68

8

57

45



Club

82

The Irish

82

7

The Irish

Club

EATON S

QUARE

77

80

44

LYALL STREET

8

82

9

2

84

64

46

EATON M

EWS N

ORTH

48

47

62

6

48

EATON S

QUARE

51

EATON S

QUARE

57 to 60

53 to 56

6.9m

Eaton

Squ

are

Garde

ns

The

Five

Fiel

ds

61

67

72

61

89

91

55

EATON M

EWS N

ORTH

73

53

108

57

58

103

93

EATON PLACE

101

102

104

99

7.3m

71

94

86

90

87

79

7.4m

62

2

LB

EATON SQUARE

66

66a

63


LBPH

35Accident locations

Figure 7.1 Accidents in Belgravia

ST ANDREWS WARD

13

1

3

WEST CHELMSFORD CO CONSTHouse

1 to 6

2a

32.3m

40

36

2b

Upleatham

10

1

2

8

2

8

31

Path (um)

32.6m

191 to 2

3

BM 32.56m

11

23

11

17

19

8

24

FIT

ZW

ALT

ER

PLA

CE

SACKVILLE CLOSE

WINDLEY TYE

9

Foremans

12

13 to 14

El S

ub S

ta

14

18

13

29

31

EASTERN EER

22 20

CHELMSFORD DISTRICTROXWELL ROAD

ESSEX COUNTY


54

Accident locations

Figure 7.3 Accidents in Windley Tye

7.2 Accidents at junctions

There are distinct variations in the number of accidentsoccurring at junctions in the sites, even when excludingBelgravia. For example, the number occurring in Glasgowis relatively high and the number in Windley Tye is low,see Figures 7.2 and 7.3 respectively.

Previous sections have shown that drivers alter their speedaccording to the junction’s geometry. An investigation wastherefore conducted into whether junction layout affectedthe number of accidents. Visibility would be expected to beone of the most important variables with respect to accidentsat junctions. The average number of accidents per year atsites with different Y-distances at 4.5 metres from thejunction is shown in Table 7.1.

Figure 7.4 Junction accidents – according to Y-distance

1501251007550250

Y distance at 4.5 metres

0.40

0.20

0.00

Acc

iden

ts p

er y

ear

(at j

unct

ions

)

There appears to be little correlation between thenumber of accidents and visibility. Figure 7.4 shows thehigh variability present in the data.

Although a trend in the number of accidents appear tobe present, the variation and sample size preclude anypossibility of these being significant. A number of testswere performed. These included examining the percentageof junctions where accidents were observed according todifferent ranges of Y-distances. The conclusion was thatthe observed accident trends could have occurred as part ofnatural variation and it is possible that the actual numberof accidents is independent of the junction geometry. This

258

159 to 167

PIN

E P

LAC

E

146 to 150

130 to 134

136 to 144

19 to 27

1115

17

7

175

169

45

45 to 49

16

2435 to 43

28 to

32

ERROL G

ARDENS

GLASGOW PER 29 to 33

19 to 27GLASGOW

36 to

40

34

8

238

147 to 151

BEN

NY

LYN

CH

CO

UR

T

16

11

ST

NIN

IAN

TE

RR

ACE

36

56

40

7

137 to 143

OLD RUTHERGLEN ROAD

125 to 129

131 to 135

113 to 117

119 to 123

20

15

17

6

PO

12 16

114 to 118

120 to 128

110

167

161

155

180-

154

61

PIN

E P

LAC

E

55

32

235

48

42 to

46

34

227

229

46

44

221 to 225

39

192190

184 to 188

215 to 219

CR

OW

N S

TRE

ET

ERROL G

ARDENS

22 to

26

18

181

207 to 211

197 to 201

191 to 195

27

9

11

15

203 to 207

166 to 170

4-8

5-7

197

209 to 213

Supermarket

50

CR

OW

N S

TRE

ET

9.1m

101

CA

MD

EN

TE

RR

ACE

CUMBERLAND STREET

164

10.0m

10-14

201 to 205

221 to 225

16-18

5557

45-49

42

9 to 11

235

37

39227 to 233

170

SAN

DIE

FIEL

D R

OAD

GLASGOW CITY

Supermarket

GORBALS

Play Area

Play Area

SA

ND

IEFI

ELD

RO

AD

SCOTLAND EER

El Sub Sta

170

200

El Sub

Sta

154

146 to 150

126 to 132

7 to 9

Play Area

NABURN GATE

KID

STO

N P

LAC

E

23

15 to 19

CRESCENT

230

224

19

KIDSTON TERRACE

15

21 to 2328

22 26

11

ALEXANDER

GLA

SG

OW

SH

ET

TLE

STO

N P

CO

NS

T

15

29

719 to 23

33

HA

ND

EL

PLA

CE

SOUTHSIDE CRESCENT

18

7

11

3

5 to 9

11 to 17

19 to 23

TCB


GLA

SG

OW

HU

TC

HE

SO

NTO

WN

WA

RD

6 to

10

TH

IST

LE T

ER

RA

CE

SOUTHSIDE CRESCENT

ALEXANDER

CRESCENT

25 to 27

11 to 1719 to 23

GO

RB

ALS

15

MA

LTA

TE

RR

AC

E

14

4

2

7

11

16

30

1921

12 to

16

18 to

22

24 to

28

3

Accident locations

Figure 7.2 Accidents in Glasgow

23

could have occurred because of the behaviouralmodifications explored in previous sections; alternatively,it is possible that the sample size was insufficient given thesize of the effect compared with the variation.

It would also be expected that the number of accidentsat a feature would be dependent on the traffic flow. Theobserved link flows were used to calculate the averagenumber of accidents per year for 1000 vehicles, these areshown in Figure 7.5.

Figure 7.5 Junction accidents weighted by flow – accordingto Y-distance

1501251007550250

Y distance at 4.5 metres

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

Acc

iden

ts p

er y

ear

per

1000

veh

icle

s (a

t jun

ctio

ns)

GlasgowLichfieldManchesterLeicesterPortisheadBloxhamJerichoBeaulieuWindley TyeNewhallLavenhamTower HamletsEastleighChichesterNew Town, ReadingGuildfordLower EarleySite Number

1 to

3

129

8.6m

2022

124 to 134112 to 122

30

11

86

12

SHAW C

RESCENT

3

4

6

2

1

2

18

BETHNAL GREEN AND BOW BORO CONST

8

15

CA

RR

ST

RE

ET

2741 1

3537

to 4

7

4953

78

78 92

100 to 110

94 to 9860 to 70

119 to 123

BE

TH

NA

L G

RE

EN

AN

D B

OW

BO

RO

CO

NS

T

ST

DU

NS

TAN

'S A

ND

ST

EP

NE

Y G

RE

EN

WA

RD

125

107 to117

EA

ST

FIE

LD S

TR

EE

T

2230

32

17

89 to 9395 to 105

1929

87

52 to 56

81

61

55 to 65

72 to 76

1

16

26

Playground

1

62

60

27 to 33

3634

BM

10.

56m

TCB10.1m

74

9.9m

182025

84

23

2426

7

Cau

ston

Cot

tage

s

Bailey Cottages

16

Batten Cottages

3

11

CA

RR

ST

RE

ET

7458

76

47

69

63

9498

96100

76

29 to

33

79

73

66

61

1

30

104

1 to

66

78

3

44

67 to 71

34

GA

LSW

OR

TH

Y A

VE

NU

E

23

Don

oghu

e C

otta

ges

121314

16 1517

20

HALLEY STREET

Elsa Cottages

7.9m

4632

34

GA

LSW

OR

TH

Y A

VE

NU

E

6

GA

LSW

OR

TH

Y A

VE

NU

E

Cau

ston

Cot

tage

s

2

9


6

LIMEHOUSE

REPTON STREET

10.4m

1713

6

1

Berry Cottages

Bradshaw Cottages

1

6

1

6

53

Burroughs Cottages

1

6

1

MAROON STREET

1

Limehouse

Fields Estate

41

16

1213 14

15 1617

9

2823

20

CO

LTM

AN

ST

RE

ET

Gre

aves

Cot

tage

s

13 to 3943

HE

AR

NS

HA

W S

TR

EE

T

4151

9

HE

AR

NS

HA

W S

TR

EE

T

TOWER HAMLETS LB

Am

esC

otta

ges

Am

es C

otta

ges

18


96

BM 9.12m

4

15 to 21

21286

AS

TON

ST

RE

ET

Posts 9.1m

Channel

House

Accident locations

Figure 7.6 Accidents in Tower Hamlets

Accident locations

24

10

16

7

MACE CLOSE

SA

GE

CLO

SE

ROAD

6

12

CARAWAY

HILLS

IDE

WA

RD

1

3

20

19

1

23

7

17

5

5

CH

IVE

RO

AD

FENNELCLOSE

21

7

CLO

SE

TH

YM

E

8

41

FENNELCLOSE

3

46

1

3

1

17

8

CA

RAW

AY

RO

AD

47

45

CA

RA

WAY

RD

10

DR

IVE

21

ROSEM

ARY AVENUE

1412

37

35

34

CA

SS

IA

614

11

27

16

20

28

1

ROSEMARY

AVENUE

19

15

6


CO

RIA

ND

ER

WAY

5

16

12

1

Figure 7.7 Accidents in Lower Earley

108642

Road width excluding footways (metres)

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

Acc

iden

ts p

er y

ear

per

100

met

res

(link

s)

GlasgowLichfieldManchesterLeicesterCharlton DownPortisheadBloxhamJericho

BeaulieuWindley TyeNewhall

LavenhamTower HamletsEastleighChichesterNew Town, ReadingGuildfordLower Earley

Site Number

Figure 7.8 Link accidents per 100 m – according to roadwidth

Once again there are no statistical relationships betweenY-distance and number of accidents. However, the sites withover 0.8 accidents per year per 1000 vehicles were LowerEarley, New Town, Lavenham and Bloxham. These foursites all had low flows of below 250 vehicles per day andlow average speeds, and Beaulieu was the only other sitewith such small flows. There is therefore an implication thatthere are other factors affecting junction safety.

7.3 Accidents on links

There were only a small number of accidents observed onlinks. The differences between sites with a relatively largenumber of accidents (e.g. Tower Hamlets) and those with asmall number of accidents is small (e.g. Lower Earley), asshown in Figures 7.6 and 7.7.

Strong statistical differences between accident ratesowing to the site characteristics would not be expectedgiven the small number of accidents. The accident ratesper 100 metres of link according to the road width isshown in Figure 7.8, and the accidents per 100 metres oflink and 1000 vehicles are shown in Figure 7.9.

Consequently, apart from the relatively high number ofaccidents given the flow in Lower Earley, there are nomajor differences between the sites. In agreement withthis, a statistical analysis could not find any significantrelationships between site characteristics and accidents.

However, one interesting relationship was identifiedbetween the percentage of links within a site having atleast one accident and the observed amount of parking onthe links (Table 7.2).

24

A test on the difference in the proportion of links withaccidents occurring was significantly greater on those linkswith parking on both sides of the road compared to linkswithout parking.

Modelling based upon site observations has shown thatdrivers adapt and reduce their speeds when sight lines androad widths are reduced. This in turn results in sites withlimited visibility being safer than if this behavioural changedid not occur. Therefore the analysis indicates developmentswith visibilities less than those considered in DB32 and itscompanion guide can be considered. The actual effect ofreduced visibilities on accidents is not fully resolved in thisstudy. There was no large and significant difference inaccidents on sites with limited visibility which againindicates that such designs can be considered, however,parking on links appears to be detrimental to safety.

Residents’ opinions were collected in addition to theseobservations. The next sections explore their opinions andinvestigate whether they perceive safety issues owing toreduced visibility or other geometric aspects of their livingenvironment.

8 Household survey

A household survey was undertaken to obtain theresidents’ opinions of their streets at the twenty case studysites (see Appendix D for the household questionnaire).This was to determine ‘user satisfaction’ of a variety ofresidential street layouts, and to consider residents’

transport needs alongside their perceptions of safety andsustainability of their streets.

The content, format and layout of the household surveywere derived from previous surveys that had beenconducted by TRL and by Leicestershire County Council.The TRL survey focused on a Home Zone site in Ealing. A‘Home Zone’ is a street or a group of streets designedprimarily to meet the interests of pedestrians and cyclistsrather than motorists, opening up the street for social use.The TRL survey tried to gain residents’ perceptions oftheir street and also how they used the street since theHome Zone had been built. The Home Zone survey hasbeen extensively developed and trialled because of its usein a previous project and as a result was used to developthe household survey for this research in terms of theformat and content of the questions used.

The Leicestershire County Council survey was againdesigned to address similar topics to this research. Itconcentrated on housing estate road design, focusing onthe layout of estates including road designs, housedriveway designs and car parking spaces. This survey wasintended to assist the council in preparing and developingnew design standards.

The topics surveyed were further developed, based onthe particular objectives and research questions for thisreport. Residents’ views were sought for the Manual forStreets research on the following topics:

! What they like and dislike about the street.

! How they spend their time in the street.

! Parked vehicles.

! Convenience of travel by a variety of transport methods.

! Road safety and personal safety issues.

! Behaviour of motorists.

! Safety of children.

! Whether they had been involved in an accident on theirstreet.

! The changes they would make to improve the street.

8.1 Sampling

Two thousand survey forms were distributed across thetwenty case study sites (100 questionnaires per site) in anattempt to obtain a statistically significant sample. Basedon previous experience, it was estimated that the responserate to the surveys would be approximately 15-30%. Anadded incentive to complete and return the survey wasprovided with residents being able to enter a free prizedraw to win £100 of shopping vouchers on the return ofthe survey in an attempt to improve response rates.

To ensure a representative sample across all twenty casestudy sites, one hundred households in each case study sitewere selected using purposive sampling, whereby thesample was limited to the geographical boundaries of thecase study sites (see Appendix B). The boundaries of thesites cut across postcodes, and so the addresses wereselected using maps of the case study sites. A spread ofhouseholds was selected to ensure the sample wasrepresentative of the site, and the addresses were obtained

Table 7.2 Personal injury incidents according to parking

Whether any Percentageaccidents on link of links with

Sample personal injuryLink parking No Yes size incidents

No parking 32 3 35 8.6Parking on one side 18 4 22 18.2Parking on both sides 9 5 14 35.7

108642

Road width excluding footways (metres)

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00Acc

iden

ts p

er y

ear

per

100

met

res

per

1000

veh

icle

s

GlasgowLichfieldManchesterLeicesterCharlton DownPortisheadBloxhamJerichoBeaulieuWindley TyeNewhallLavenhamTower HamletsEastleighChichesterNew Town, ReadingGuildfordLower EarleySite Number

Figure 7.9 Link accident rates per 100 m and per 1000vehicles – according to road width

25

using ‘Address Management Software’. Any addresses thatwere not present in this software package due to theirrelatively recent development (post-2003) were obtainedusing the Royal Mail’s online ‘Postcode Finder’ service.Addresses registered with the ‘Mail Preference Service’had to be excluded from the sample.

Due to the variation in the number of households at eachcase study site, for small villages and sites that had beenbuilt very recently, it was not feasible to sample 100households. To compensate, the shortfall in questionnaireswere posted to other larger and more populous sites.

8.2 Sample composition

Out of the 2000 questionnaires distributed, only 1948reached their destination (52 questionnaires were returnedunopened) and a total of 296 completed responses (15%)were received.2 Table 8.1 shows the distribution ofquestionnaires received from each site.

Of these respondents, 54% were female and 46% weremale. A breakdown of the respondents’ age groups is shownin Figure 8.1. This shows that most of the respondents wereaged 25 or over, with relatively even amounts responding ineach age group over 25. The highest proportion ofrespondents lived in detached and terraced properties andFigure 8.2 shows that the most common number of peopleresiding in a property was 2. Figure 8.3 indicates that mostrespondents (41%) have lived in their property for less than3 years, which is consistent with the number of new buildsites surveyed (five of the housing developments studied

Table 8.1 Distribution of questionnaires from each site

Site Frequency Percent

Lower Earley, Reading 29 9.8Chichester 29 9.8Guildford 26 8.8Lichfield 25 8.4Portishead 19 6.4Leicester 18 6.1Eastleigh 18 6.1Bloxham Village 18 6.1Glasgow 17 5.7Charlton Down, Dorset 16 5.4Manchester 15 5.1Beaulieu Park, Chelmsford 11 3.7Lavenham 10 3.4New Town, Reading 10 3.4Newhall, Harlow 10 3.4Jericho, Oxford 9 3.0Tower Hamlets 6 2.0Belgravia 3 1.0Ipswich 1 0.3Windley Tye, Chelmsford 1 0.3

87654321

No. people living in property

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Freq

uenc

y

Figure 8.2 Number of people living in property

65 or over55 to 6445 to 5435 to 4425 to 3419 to 24Under 18

Age

60

40

20

0

Freq

uenc

y

Figure 8.1 Age of respondents

were constructed in the last three years).The survey findings were categorised according to

aspects of:

! Streetscape.

! Parking.

! Main safety concerns.

! Road safety.

! Non-motorised road users.

! Accidents.

! Pavement.

These are discussed in the next section.

2 The household survey sample did not provide any statisticallysignificant responses because of the small number of questionnairescompleted at each site. For this reason, caution should be taken whenreferring to the percentage of responses in the analysis.

26

disliked about their streets with respect to the liveability ofthe streetscape. These are shown in Figures 9.1 and 9.2.

Over 120 (40%) of respondents liked their streetbecause it was quiet. Other aspects of their streets thatwere liked included friendly neighbours, pleasant locationand proximity to local amenities. Personal safety andsecurity issues were also cited as positive aspects, forexample ‘security awareness/safety’ was in ninth position,and ‘community spirit’ in sixteenth position whichincluded participation in ‘Neighbourhood Watch’ schemes.For example, one respondent suggested as a way toimprove safety:

‘A “homewatch” scheme should be introduced – it wouldget the neighbours talking’ (Manchester resident).

Figure 9.2 shows that parking issues were the mostfrequent issue disliked by 97 respondents. This includedhaving problems parking, other people parkinginconsiderately and problems with other residents usingdesignated parking spaces. Other stated concerns related toroad traffic, including high traffic speeds and throughtraffic. The design of streets was also frequently disliked,

9 Residents opinions

9.1 Streetscape

The Manual for Streets is intended to deliver safe andfunctional streets and meet the Government’s‘placemaking’ agenda, hence the respondents were askedto list the three things they liked and the three things they

41%

14%

16%

9%

7%

13%

Less than 3 years

3 to 4 years

5 to 9 years

10 to 14 years

15 to 19 years

20 years or over

Figure 8.3 Length of time lived in property

Figure 9.2 Respondents’ ‘dislikes’ about their streets

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

park

ing is

sues

high

traffic

spee

ds

desig

n

thro

ugh

traffic litt

er

traffic

othe

r

narro

w road

poor

pav

emen

ts/ro

ads

neigh

bour

s

traffic

nois

eno

ne

yout

hs

not e

noug

h gr

een/

poor

view

s

vand

alism

/crim

e

poor

am

enitie

s

stree

t ligh

ting

HGVs

child

ren

playin

g

dog

foulin

g

scho

ol tra

ffic/p

arkin

g

acce

ss is

sues

lack o

f com

mun

ity fe

el

Buildin

g/co

nstru

ction

site

incon

sider

ate

mot

orist

s

turn

ing p

oint fo

r car

s

dust/

pollu

tion

prox

imity

to ra

ilway

Dislike

Freq

uenc

y

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

quiet

frien

dly n

eighb

ours

pleas

ant e

nviro

nmen

t/loca

tion

conv

enien

ce to

loca

l am

enitie

s

Proxim

ity to

town/

city c

entre

cul-d

e-sa

c/no

thro

ugh

traffic

open

spac

e an

d gr

een

area

s

hous

ing

secu

rity a

waren

ess/s

afety

stree

t des

ign clean

new sc

hem

e/m

oder

n sc

hem

e

conv

enien

ce to

pub

lic tr

ansp

ort/t

rans

port

rout

es

not m

uch

traffic vie

w

com

mun

ity sp

irit

plent

iful p

arkin

g

gard

ens

priva

cy

good

upk

eep

child

frien

dly

conv

enien

ce to

wor

k

conn

ectio

n to

hou

se/a

rea

close

to fa

mily

wide st

reet

Likes

Freq

uenc

y

Figure 9.1 Respondents’ ‘likes’ about their streets

27

including issues such as house frontages opening out ontoroads, the design of isolated footpaths and houses beingtoo close to footpaths.

Personal safety and security were also stipulated asconcerns amongst residents. For example, the presence of‘youths’ was the thirteenth most stated dislike, crime thefifteenth, and street lighting the seventeenth.

Respondents were asked to what extent elements ofstreet design are a concern to them and their responses arereflected in Figure 9.3.

9.2 Parking

‘When designing new towns and streets, more consider-ation should be given to parking’ (Lower Earley resident).

The survey revealed that parked vehicles were majorconcerns for residents about their streets. This is notunsurprising given that 37% of respondents have two vehiclesper household, hence it is likely that parking facilities forresidents are stretched to capacity, especially at historic sites,where off-road parking is at a premium and the majority ofvehicles are parked on the street. Parking is a factor thatresidents believe should be incorporated into street design, asthe above quote illustrates.

9.2.1 Car use and off-street parkingThe survey revealed that 82% of residents have access to acar as the driver, with 90% of respondents having access toa car as either the driver or a passenger. Figure 9.4 showsthat over 125 respondents have one vehicle per householdand 110 respondents have two vehicles per household. Asignificant number of respondents therefore are motoristsand require parking for at least one or two cars.

Figure 9.5 indicates that over a third of respondentshave access to two off-street car park spaces. Over a fifthof respondents have access to one off-street parking space.As only 17.4% of respondents have no off-street parkingfacilities one might assume that parking is not a significantissue as the majority have one car and two car parkingspaces. However, the respondents’ comments suggest thatsome residents might not effectively use their allocatedparking spaces. For example:

! ‘People with garages or off-street parking that do not usethem and park on the street instead’ (Lavenham resident).

! ‘People do not use their allocated parking spaces’(Portishead resident).

Hence, the provision of allocated off-street parking spacesis not a guarantee that people will use them effectively.

0

20

40

60

80

100

vehic

le sp

eeds

Vehic

les p

arke

d on

road

Vehic

les o

bstru

cting

foot

way/ve

rge

large

vehic

les

lack o

f visi

bility

for d

river

s

lack o

f visi

bility

for p

edes

trian

s

lack o

f cyc

le pa

ths

no. v

ehicl

es

shar

ed p

arkin

g ar

eas

lack o

f foot

ways

poor

stre

et lig

hting

lack o

f ped

estri

an cr

ossin

gs

conf

ined

narro

w alle

yway

s

vege

tatio

n ob

struc

ting

footw

ays

isolat

ed fo

otway

s

Concern

Per

cent

age

of r

espo

nden

ts

Not at all concerned

Not very concerned

Quite concerned

Very concerned

Figure 9.3 Respondents’ road safety / personal safety concerns

543210

No. vehicles in household

125

100

75

50

25

0

Freq

uenc

y

Figure 9.4 Number of vehicles per household

28

Figure 9.5 further illustrates that over 50 respondents(17.4%) have no off-street parking at all, of whom 34reside in the ‘historic’ sites. This implies that parking ismore likely to be an issue at these sites, especially forhouseholds with multiple car ownership. However, 18% ofrespondents from the historic sites claimed not to haveaccess to a car, which could indicate that residents are lessreliant on cars and possibly that historic sites are closer totown centres and amenities.

9.2.2 Parking problemsFigure 9.6 shows that the majority of respondents (42%)claimed that being able to park outside their home was nota problem, with 31% stating there was ‘sometimes aproblem’ and 17% that there was ‘a big problem’.

Table 9.1 Parking problems at specific sites

Sites without parking problemsBelgravia 100% of respondents said there was no problem.

Beaulieu Park 73% of respondents said there was no problem.

Sites with parking problemsNew Town 90% of respondents said there was a problem, of

which 50% said it was a ‘big problem’.

Eastleigh 62% of respondents said there was a problem, ofwhich 40% said it was a big problem.

of respondents said that vehicles parked on the road neartheir home ‘a lot of the time’, 22.5% said ‘sometimes’ and14.5% said that drivers did not park near their home at all.

Figure 9.8 illustrates the extent of on-street parking, withvehicles parking on both sides of the street and parking onkerbs and pavements, reducing the width of footways.

Fifty five percent of respondents in new build sites and56% in historic sites said that people park their vehicles onthe road/footway near their home ‘a lot of the time’,compared with 36% of respondents at DB32 compliantsites (these are summarised for specific sites in Table 9.2).

In addition, when asked whether vehicles parked on theroad caused concern in terms of road safety or personalsecurity, 51% of all respondents said they were concernedwith vehicles parked on the road (see Figure 9.3). Newbuild sites were shown to be more concerned aboutvehicles parked on the road in comparison to other sites

129876543210

No. off street parking spaces on property

100

80

60

40

20

0

Freq

uenc

y

Figure 9.5 Number of off-street parking spaces on respondents’ properties

17%

31%42%

10%

Yes, a big problem

Yes, sometimes a problem

No

Not applicable

Figure 9.6 Is parking outside your home a problem?

52%

33%

15%

Yes, a lot of the time

Yes, sometimes

No

Figure 9.7 Do many vehicles park on the road/footwaynear your home?

There was found to be little variation between sites, 53%of residents at the historic sites stated that they have aproblem with parking compared with 46% and 47% fornew build and DB32 compliant sites respectively, whichcorrelates with the proportion of residents who have off-road parking. Residents at historic sites have less off-streetparking capacity and are therefore more likely toexperience problems parking in limited on-street parkingspaces. Table 9.1 summarises individual sites whereparking is and is not deemed to be a problem.

9.2.3 Parked vehiclesResidents were asked about whether many vehicles parkon the road outside their home. Figure 9.7 shows that 52%

29

Table 9.2 Sites with vehicles parked outside their home‘a lot of the time’ and ‘sometimes’

Site Percentage of respondents

Lichfield 100.0%New Town 90.0% Eastleigh 83.3%Jericho 66.7%Belgravia 66.7%Chichester 58.6%Manchester 57.1%Lavenham 55.6%Guildford 52.0%

Figure 9.8 Parking in New Town

Table 9.3 Case study sites with high proportions ofconcern over parked vehicles

Site Percentage of respondents concerned

Portishead 78.9% Lichfield 72.0%New Town 60.0% (50.0% ‘very concerned’)Chichester 60.7%Manchester 60.0%

(by a factor of 10%). Specific sites showed highproportions of concern over parked vehicles in the roadand are summarised in Table 9.3.

gave ‘plentiful parking’ as one of the factors they likedabout their street. In contrast, 19% of respondents gaveparking issues as a ‘dislike’ about their street.

9.2.4 Respondents’ issues with parking in their streetThe issues respondents have with parking relate to access,safety and aesthetics.

Firstly, parking is identified as a main culprit inrestricting access to streets. For example:

! ‘Access to my drive is often affected by cars parked onthe street’ (Lichfield resident).

! ‘There are not enough parking spaces, so carssometimes block drives’ (Guildford resident).

Respondents also refer to the reduced visibility that parkedcars cause, which both restricts access and has an effecton safety:

! ‘You can’t drive through. Cars park on bends and blockthe footpath’ (Beaulieu resident).

! ‘Cars parked on double yellow lines at street cornersobstruct the view of the driver’ (Chichester resident).

! ‘There is a slalom effect driving down the road andvision is obscured on the bend of the road’ (LowerEarley resident).

! ‘Cars are unable to drive straight through and wait totake their chance to pass’ (Chichester resident).

This implies that these streets are not functioning as theyshould because, according to the perceptions of residentsin these streets, on-street parking creates hazardous drivingconditions and impacts on access.

Respondents also commented on the impact of narrowroads. Respondents referred to how difficult it is tomanoeuvre in narrow roads and how narrow roads pluson-street parking leads to congestion. For example:

! ‘The streets are too narrow for the masses of peopleliving in the area and visitors have to park elsewhere’(Portishead resident).

! ‘The neighbours opposite have a terrible time, often havingdamage done to their cars by traffic squeezing by. Theypark on one side of the road, but traffic has to go up onpavements on our side of the road’ (Guildford resident).

Figure 9.9 reflects respondents’ concerns about narrowroads and parking, where parking has transformed the roadinto a single-traffic road and created hazards for driversattempting to negotiate the road.

These issues raised are supported by the accident andnear miss incidents reported by respondents in the survey.20 out of 66 of those respondents who provided details ofthe accident/near miss they were involved in were relatedto parking. When describing these accidents, respondentsreferred to street parking on blind bends, narrow roadsforcing one vehicle onto the other side of the road andwhere parked cars significantly reduce visibility.

Indeed, the primary research documented in Section 7suggests that, while parking on links appears to bedetrimental to safety, there is also a correlation betweenroads with no on-street parking and higher speeds,

Figure 9.3 also shows the following respondentconcerns with regard to parking:

! Over 50% of all respondents revealed concern aboutvehicles obstructing the footway. Residents in Lichfieldand Eastleigh showed most concern about vehiclesparked and obstructing footways (68% and 61.1% ofrespondents respectively).

! 27% of all respondents were concerned about sharedparking areas. In Eastleigh, 68% of respondents wereconcerned over shared parking areas.

Parking as a prime issue is also shown in respondents’comments about what they like and dislike about theirstreet (see Figures 9.1 and 9.2). Only 1.3% of respondents

30

indicating that drivers adapt and reduce their speeds whensight lines and road widths are reduced. Hence, for roadswhere sight lines and road widths are increased becausethere are no parked cars to reduce visibility, arguablydrivers will adapt and increase their speeds leading to amore risky environment.

Respondents also commented on the design of parkingin the street. Issues were raised about there not beingenough off-road parking:

! ‘There is not enough parking provided for houses, somehouses on the street are four bedroomed, with only oneoff-street parking space’ (Portishead resident).

! ‘With only having one parking space and two cars,I would like to park outside, but can’t’ (Manchesterresident).

However, some respondents note that it is people whohave too many cars that cause the problem and not thedesign:

! ‘People in executive houses use the road mainly to parkcars and some appear to have two or more’ (Manchesterresident).

! ‘Many old houses with single frontages own 2 or 3 cars,so they have to park in front of someone else’s house’(Lichfield resident).

A further issue raised about the lack of parking isresidents’ frustration at not having anywhere for visitors topark and others who are frustrated by non-residentsparking in their spaces:

! ‘Too many cars park here as there is no parkingrestriction, so other people from other streets come andpark there and leave it’ (Tower Hamlets resident).

School traffic is a particular issue:

! ‘School run parking causes double parking, pavementparking and blocks driveways’ (Lichfield resident).

! ‘School run mindless parking’ (Lichfield resident).

! ‘It is a school location and there is easy access throughthe close, but there should be better parking access forparents. When off loading and loading at school time,

parking is haphazard. All rules of the road are notadhered to’ (Chichester resident).

To resolve parking issues, residents highlighted twomain points. Firstly, parking should be restricted:

! ‘Lines to stop on street parking where dangerous to doso or where double parking may occur’ (Beaulieu Parkresident).

! ‘No more street parking at all. Cars could go in anunderground car park’ (resident’s location unknown).

! ‘Stop cars from parking on both sides of the road –encourage people to use driveways and garages’(Portishead resident).

! ‘Widen road or put double yellow lines down so twocars can pass on the road without having to drive onpathway’ (Portishead resident).

! ‘Council enforcement of parking regulations. Too manyhouseholders think they have a right to park as manyvehicles as they please, despite others having paid topark’ (Eastleigh resident).

These comments convey a desire to limit parking byusing road markings, better enforcement or alternativedesigns to deal with the problem. Secondly, to improvesafety, residents would like to see more off-street parkingdesignated, for example:

! ‘Allocate more off street parking for each home at timeof build. Why would any Local Authority think homesselling for £300K plus will attract purchasers with onlyone vehicle. Madness!’ (Portishead resident).

! ‘If parking was sorted, this would improve safety.Maybe a car park for residents would help’ (Guildfordresident).

This implies that residents feel that street design shouldaccommodate cars, rather than attempting to restrict carparking and promote more sustainable travel modes suchas provision for cyclists and bus routes.

Aesthetically, respondents highlight how parking,‘spoils the look’ (Bloxham resident) of their street and,‘makes it congested and looks very ugly’ (Guildfordresident). This further adds to respondents’ unpleasantexperiences of their streets due to parking issues.However, one resident commented:

! ‘Parking is provided away from road to improveaesthetics. Of course people don’t use it and park on thenarrow street. This is ridiculous, people want to parknear the door, especially when they have kids/shopping/elderly. Improving aesthetics has caused the problem inour street’ (Lichfield resident).

Street design therefore faces a dilemma: how to improveaesthetics by providing parking away from houses and yetstill allowing access for those who need it, especiallyvulnerable groups, notably elderly and disabled people.

9.3 Main safety concerns

Respondents were asked what they considered the mainsafety threat to be on their street. Figure 9.10 shows thatthe highest proportion of respondents (46%) considered

Figure 9.9 Parking on a narrow road in Jericho, Oxford

31

‘danger from road traffic’ to be the main safety threat intheir street. For example, one respondent commented:

‘Road safety is the main issue and with furtherdevelopment proposed within the immediatelocation it is sure to escalate further. We have hada number of street protests and we are petitioningas much as possible for a solution to this growingproblem’ (Guildford resident).

Table 9.4 illustrates the ‘other’ safety threats thatrespondents provided. Of these ‘other’ threats, poordriving, parked cars and narrow roads relate to road safetyissues. Hence, 48.2% of respondents considered roadsafety issues to be the main safety threat.

Road traffic as the main safety threat is supported byrespondents’ comments about what they dislike about theirstreets (Figure 9.2) including:

! High traffic speeds.

! Through traffic.

! Traffic volume.

! Narrow roads.

! Poor roads.

! School traffic.

! Inconsiderate motorists.

! Street being a turning point for cars.

Over half of respondents referred to road safety issues asa dislike about their street. The accident and near miss datashow that 26% of respondents said they had been involvedin an incident, which might be considered high consideringthe low trafficked streets surveyed.

Table 9.5 indicates new build sites had the highestproportion of reported accidents and near misses fromamongst the residents surveyed. However, this differenceis small and not statistically significant.

46%

29%

16%

9%

Danger from road traffic

Danger from crime

Both

Other

Figure 9.10 Main safety threat

9.4 Road safety

Residents generally considered that road safety was themain aspect of concern within their neighbourhood. Thequestionnaire explored the underlying reasons for theseconcerns. One of the key issues that arose was traffic speedin the residential area, and over half (52.8%) of respondentsclaimed to be either ‘very’ or ‘quite’ concerned aboutspeeds when asked about road and personal safety issues intheir street.

In New Town (Reading), this was of particularconcern: 80% of respondents were either ‘very’ or ‘quite’concerned about vehicle speeds. Other sites where higherpercentages of respondents indicated concern over highvehicle speeds include:

! Eastleigh (77.8% of respondents concerned).

! Lichfield (72% of respondents concerned).

Confirmation of the issue with speeds was obtainedfrom comments about how residents would improve safetyin their streets. Over 100 comments were receivedreferring directly to improving speed calming measuressuch as road humps, lower speed limits and enforcingspeed limits. For example, respondents requested:

! ‘More traffic calming schemes in the narrow streets onnew estates’ (Eastleigh resident).

Table 9.4 Main safety threat ‘other’ responses

Main safety threat ‘other’ responses Percentage

Poor driving 0.4%Parked cars 1.1%Drugs 0.7%Isolated cycle path 0.4%Poor street lighting 0.7%Narrow roads 0.7%Pavements 0.7%Children playing 0.4%None 4.3%

Given that the Manual for Streets is intended to deliversafe and functional streets and meet the Government’s‘place making’ agenda, personal safety and security issuesare an important part of the analysis:

! ‘In future, design out back alleys – I always refer tothem as ‘burglar paradise’ as it allows access via theside of the house’ (Eastleigh resident).

! ‘There is a bus that comes near to the area, but you haveto walk along a long lonely road or across a very lonelyfield to get to the local bus service’ (Newhall resident).

! ‘Street lighting is not very well placed for cut throughwalkway opposite. One street light could be moved asmall distance, which would make all the difference’(Lower Earley resident).

At DB32 compliant sites (Lower Earley, Reading andLeicester), the main threat is considered to be ‘danger fromcrime’ (45.7%), with 32% of respondents citing ‘dangerfrom road traffic’ as being the main threat to safety.

Table 9.5 Accidents / near misses recorded by sitecharacteristic

Numberof reported

Site No accidents/ Percentagecharacteristic respondents near misses of respondents

New build 162 56 34.6%Historic 79 25 31.6%DB32 compliant 47 10 21.3%

32

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Childrenwalking

Childrencycling

Adultswalking

Adultscycling

Street user

Per

cent

age Very safe

Fairly safe

Fairly unsafe

Very unsafe

Figure 9.11 Safety of different street users with regards todanger from road traffic

! ‘Road humps or speed signs that light up on excessspeed’ (Lichfield resident).

! ‘Clear signs and well enforced 10 mph speed limit’(Eastleigh resident).

! ‘Advance warning to motorists that the area is a 20 mphzone’ (Leicester resident).

Another lesser impact that influenced residents’perception of traffic safety was flow: 27.3% of respondentsexpressed concern over the number of vehicles passingthrough the street. This appeared to be a particular issuefor residents in the historic sites. This could be a result ofthe lack of off-street parking spaces at historic sites and thenarrow road widths, leading to congestion. Specific siteswith notable concerns about the number of vehicles intheir street include:

! New Town (50% of respondents concerned).

! Eastleigh (44.4% of respondents concerned).

! Bloxham village (44.4% respondents concerned).

Two of these were historic sites, and the other was anew development. Furthermore, none of these sites hadparticularly high flows (see Section 4), particularly inrelation to the other sites. Residential perception of highflows must therefore be influenced by other factors in thestreet design.

Other concerns relating to road safety include:

! 38% of all respondents were concerned about the lack ofvisibility for drivers.

! 15% of all respondents were concerned about the lack offootways.

! Over 33% of all respondents were concerned about largevehicles.

! 28% of all respondents were concerned about the lack ofcycle paths.

! 29% of all respondents were concerned about the lack ofvisibility for pedestrians.

! 19% of all respondents were concerned about the lack ofpedestrian crossings.

Once more the greatest other safety concern forresidents was over traffic, in this case the lack of visibilityfor drivers. All main aspects of traffic that result in higheraccident rates (flow, speed and visibility) were citedamongst the highest concerns.

9.4.1 Walking and cycling safetyThe Manual for Streets is intended to act as a guide toensure streets are functional and safe for all road users. Ithas also been prepared against a backdrop of sustainabledevelopment initiatives and guidance. As a result, the issuesand experiences of non-motorised users (comprising 9.5%of the sample) are vital components and are now discussed.

Respondents were asked to comment on how safe theyconsidered their street to be, with regards to danger fromroad traffic for both children and adults to walk and cycle.Figure 9.11 shows that 12% of respondents consider theirstreets unsafe for adults walking due to road traffic (thisincludes both ‘very’ and ‘quite’ unsafe responses). The

same proportion also considered adults to be unsafe whilstcycling. Twenty seven percent of respondents considertheir streets to be unsafe for children walking and 41% ofrespondents considered children cycling to be unsafe as aresult of road traffic.

DB32 compliant sites reported the lowest amount of‘unsafe’ responses to this question. 8.5% of respondentsconsidered it unsafe for adults to cycle, compared to25.5% for new build and 15.6% for historic sites.

Over 50% of respondents were either ‘very’ or ‘quite’concerned about ‘vehicles parked obstructing footways’(see Figure 9.3). Vehicles obstructing footways was also acommon theme that emerged from the respondents’comments, for example:

! ‘Cars park fully on the pavement so you have no choicebut to walk in the road, others park on bends so youcannot see what is coming’ (Charlton Down resident).

! ‘Children have to walk on the road to get round carsparked on the pavement’ (Leicester resident).

Figure 9.3 illustrates respondents’ concerns relating tonon-motorised road users. These are summarised as follows:

! 15.2% of all respondents were concerned about the lackof footways.

! 28.0% of all respondents were concerned about the lackof cycle paths.

! 29.0% of all respondents were concerned about the lackof visibility for pedestrians.

! 18.6% of all respondents were concerned about the lackof pedestrian crossings.

In terms of concern over the lack of cycle paths, over afifth of respondents consider this question ‘not applicable’indicating that cycle use is minimal among the residentsample.

9.4.2 Safety of childrenThe survey also considered the safety of children ofdifferent ages. Figure 9.12 shows that 70.8% ofrespondents consider it unsafe for pre-school children toplay unsupervised. Many respondents criticised thisquestion, suggesting that pre-school children should neverbe left unsupervised. Over half (54.1%) of respondentsbelieved their street is unsafe for primary age pupils to

33

play unsupervised, while 27% of respondents consideredtheir streets to be unsafe for secondary school age children.

Respondents were asked to provide reasons if they gave‘unsafe’ as a response. These are summarised in Table 9.6.The main reason given for ‘unsafe’ responses across allage groups was the speed of traffic. This correlates withrespondents’ concerns about road safety in their street.Respondents were most concerned about high trafficspeeds (as previously discussed).

Eighty percent of New Town respondents consideredtheir streets unsafe for pre-school age children, with 70%providing speed of traffic as the reason.

9.4.3 Improving road safety in residential streets

In addition to improving road safety by the speed calmingmeasures discussed in section 9.4, other common themeswere cited by respondents. These include:

! Making the street ‘one-way’: ‘A solution would be toadopt a one way system in part of the area. This wouldallow an element of on street parking withoutcompromising traffic safety and flow’ (Portisheadresident).

! Better road maintenance: potholes in the road aredangerous for all road users.

! Prohibiting large vehicles, including buses: ‘Stop busesentering estates – roads are not wide enough and are toowinding to accommodate large single-decker buses’(Leicester resident).

! Restricting access to the street: ‘Removal of all vehicleswould considerably improve safety, access andaesthetics’ (Newhall resident).

! Road safety issues related to parking.

9.5 Accidents

Respondents’ perceptions about the safety of non-motorisedusers in their street is reflected in the accident/near missincidents reported in the survey. 13.3% of accidents/nearmisses recorded involved non-motorised road users(pedestrians or cyclists). All of the non-motorised incidentsrecorded involved a motorised road user. For example:

! ‘My daughter was riding her bike on the pavement anda car reversed out of the drive and did not see her’(Lichfield resident).

! ‘Leaving my car on foot and a car travelling on thepavement at speed. I had to pull my children back’(Guildford resident).

Non-motorised users are shown to be vulnerable tomotorised users. Clearly, there are issues with regard tosharing the street space.

Figure 9.13 conveys how considerate respondentsbelieve motorists are to non-motorised street users.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pre-school age Primary schoolage

Secondaryschool age

Age grouping

Per

cent

age

Very safe

Fairly safe

Fairly unsafe

Very unsafe

Figure 9.12 Safety of children spending time in their streetunsupervised by an adult

Table 9.6 Reasons for ‘unsafe’ responses

Pre-school age Primary school age Secondary school age

Reason for unsafe response Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Speed of traffic 135 46.7% 105 36.6% 53 18.5%Amount of traffic 80 27.7% 56 19.5% 29 10.1%Stranger danger 62 21.5% 47 16.4% 18 6.3%Crime/mugging/physical assault 23 8.0% 24 8.4% 25 8.7%Bullying from other children 19 6.6% 20 7.0% 19 6.6%

Table 9.7 How considerate are motorists towards non-motorised road users by site type?

DB32 compliant New build Historic

Children walking 76.6% 70.0% 68.4%Children cycling 74.5% 63.1% 61.8%Children playing in the street 72.3% 57.5% 53.9%Adults walking 83.0% 73.1% 76.6%Adults cycling 72.3% 66.9% 64.9%

0

20

40

60

80

100

Childrenwalking

Childrencycling

Childrenplaying in

street

Adultswalking

Adultscycling

Non-motorised road user

Per

cent

age Very considerate

Fairly considerate

Fairly inconsiderate

Very inconsiderate

Figure 9.13 How considerate respondents perceive motoriststo be towards non-motorised road users

Approximately three quarters of respondents consideredmotorists to be considerate to children walking, cyclingand playing in the street. Three quarters of respondentsalso considered motorists to be considerate towards adultswalking and cycling. Respondents who cited motorists asbeing considerate to non-motorised users are summarisedby site type in Table 9.7.

34

9.6 Non-motorised vs. Motorised users: Access

An overwhelming majority of the sample consideredtravelling on foot or by bicycle to be easy and convenient.Figure 9.14 illustrates that only 5% of respondentsconsider the ease and convenience of travelling aroundtheir street by foot to be either ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’.Equally, 7% of respondents consider cycling to be ‘bad’ or‘very bad’. A surprising 29.1% of respondents consideredthis question not applicable, which might indicate that theydo not regularly use these modes of travel around thestreets in which they live.

! ‘Pavement on both sides is grassed, therefore peopletend to walk in the middle of the road, which is veryunsafe’ (Lichfield resident).

! ‘The council should get rid of grass pavements andprovide a proper tarmac style pavement all around theroad. These grass pavements force pedestrians into theroad because it is impossible to push prams etc in thesoft surface – more pedestrians in the road willeventually result in an accident’ (Lichfield resident).

Figure 9.15 shows the grass verges in Lichfield.Some respondents criticised pedestrian and cycle access

routes for encouraging crime:

! ‘Due to the cycle path, kids have thrown stones andeggs, and broken fences as well as damaging trees andshrubs’ (Lower Earley resident).

! ‘Our small set of local streets for a cul-de-sac with apathway through which is not needed at the end.Closing this off would virtually eliminate crime’ (LowerEarley resident).

0

20

40

60

80

100

By foot By bike By car

Transport mode

Per

cent

age

N/A

Very good

Good

Reasonable

Bad

Very bad

Figure 9.14 Ease and convenience of travelling around thestreet by different transport modes

Figure 9.15 Grass verges as pedestrian walkways inLichfield

The design of pedestrian and cycle access routes fornon-motorised users could be exacerbating personal safetyfears for residents. This might particularly be the case forDB32 compliant sites in Reading and Leicester, whichhave spine and cul-de-sac road layouts. These layouts aremore likely to have isolated pedestrian and cycle routescompared to more permeable and shared use streets, suchas Charlton Down.

9.8 Summary of household survey findings

The primary objective of this household survey was toexplore residents’ perceiptions. Results of the attitudinalsurvey provide a better understanding of how highwaylayouts that are considered successful, in terms ofcasualties and driver behaviour (for instance sitesconsidered to be best practice by CABE) perform from theperspective of street users and residents.

Conversely, 15% of respondents said that the ease andconvenience of travelling by car around their streets is‘bad’ and ‘very bad’. An additional third of respondentssaid that travelling around their street by car was‘reasonable’.

Respondents also highlighted how hard it was to travelaround the street using ‘other’ modes of transport. Theseincluded travelling by wheelchair and with a pram/buggy.This is reflected in the respondents’ comments:

! ‘People in wheelchairs have their right of way blockedby parked cars’ (Lavenham resident).

! ‘I can’t get past with a double buggy and can’t seeproperly when crossing the road’ (Leicester resident).

Non-motorised users with specific needs therefore needconsidering in street design, in particular those withmobility constraints and vulnerable groups (people withchildren and buggies, wheelchair users, deaf, blind andpartially sighted people, and older people).

9.7 Footways

Figure 9.2 conveys respondents’ dislikes about their street.This shows that respondents considered poor footways andpoor amenities as pertinent issues after parking and traffic.Poor footways affect pedestrian use and how safepedestrians feel using the footway. Poor amenities meanthat people without motorised transport can feel excluded.

The need for better pedestrian and cycle routes emergedas an issue from respondents’ comments. Respondentswould like ‘more cycle friendly facilities’ and also criticisethe design of ‘grass verges’ as pavements, for example:

35

The headline concern from the survey is that the majorityof residents have little appreciation for the attributes thatmake streetscapes liveable, desirable and safe places to live(for example, reduced clutter, public areas to encouragechildren’s play, neighbourly interaction, reduced congestionand sustainable travel).

Many respondents take particular issue with parking,which reflects the bias in the sample of residents who owna car, and in particular, households with multiple carownership. Other key findings are listed as follows:

! Danger from road traffic is considered to be the mainsafety threat in the streets sampled.

! The main concern for respondents is high traffic speedsin their streets. High traffic speeds are also given as themain reason why roads are considered unsafe forchildren of all ages.

! Non-motorised road users are vulnerable to motorvehicles. Accidents and near misses reported by non-motorised users all involve a motorised user. Childrencycling are perceived to be the most vulnerable.However, the findings suggest that cycling as a mode oftransport is not widespread amongst respondents.

! In terms of personal safety and security, respondents areparticularly concerned about poor street lighting andpedestrian walkways. Poor street lighting and desertedwalkways increase insecurity, encourage crime andprevent residents from using their streets effectively andusing more sustainable modes of transport.

! The presence of parked vehicles in their street is a majorissue of concern for residents. On-street parking reducessafety, access and the aesthetic qualities of streets butconversely encourages lower speeds. The respondentswould prefer more off-street parking or for parking to berestricted. The dilemma is how to respond to residents’needs whilst attempting to prioritise non-motorised usersand more sustainable modes of transport.

! DB32 compliant sites performed consistently well in thehousehold survey with regard to road safety andparking. These sites were viewed as safer from traffic byrespondents compared to historic sites and new buildsites but generated more negative responses with regardto personal security. In fact, the hypothetical analysis ofjunction spacing in Section 10 of this report indicatesthat there are only small differences in the effect onaccidents using different road network layouts (whencomparing DB32 compliant spine and cul-de-sac layoutswith organic layouts that have more junctions andgreater permeability for pedestrians and cyclists).

! Specific case study sites that stand out are New Town,Eastleigh and Lichfield. Respondents from these sitesconsidered them to be consistently unsafe, showingconcerns over vehicle speeds, the number of vehicles intheir street, the lack of footways, the lack of cycle paths,the lack of visibility for drivers and the lack of visibility forpedestrians. Both adults and children were considered to beunsafe at these sites as a result of road traffic. Parking andthe resultant safety issues were also major concerns for ahigh proportion of respondents at these sites.

Arguably, the Manual for Streets, which is aimed attransport practitioners in their various capacities, willreflect the user needs. However, it may be necessary toinform the public of advancements in street designcontained within the Manual for Streets, in order tomanage their expectations about street function over form.

The next section explores the effect of crossroads andjunction spacing on predicted accident risk using a softwaremodel to predict accidents on urban road networks.

10 Testing of network layout using SafeNet

10.1 Junction spacing

It has been identified by work carried out to date that the formof highway layouts is to a significant degree shaped byhighway safety concerns, with some engineers keen tomaximise junction spacing and concentrate vehicle flows ontolinks higher in the road hierarchy. The negative consequenceof this approach however can be to reduce permeability topedestrians and to concentrate the negative impacts of traffic.

A secondary element of research will therefore be to testdifferent highway layouts to determine whether, makingreasonable assumptions about the distribution of trafficwithin those hypothetical networks, more casualties onaggregate could be expected. This test was carried outusing SafeNet (TRL, 2006).

SafeNet (Software for Accident Frequency Estimationfor Networks) was originally developed in 1999 with thesupport of the Department for Transport and was primarilydesigned to predict the number of accidents per year thatwould occur on an urban road network. SafeNet2 has beendeveloped over the past six years with the support of theHighways Agency and extends the capability of SafeNet tocover the trunk road network.

SafeNet is based on extensively researched accident-riskmodels which started in the 1980s with the study ofroundabouts (see Maycock and Hall, 1984) and continuedwith most of the junction and link types found on UKroads, and in particular urban priority junctions and linksections used here (Summersgill et al., 1996; Summersgilland Layfield, 1996; Layfield et al., 1996). The studiesrelated accidents to traffic flow and to road geometry andcontrol variables.

SafeNet2 can be used to model road networks whichinclude:

! Urban single carriageway roads.

! Urban roads including minor junctions.

! Roundabouts and mini-roundabouts.

! Traffic signal junctions.

! Traffic calming measures.

It can be used to determine the safety implication ofchanges to a network or the effect on safety of increased ordecreased traffic flows.

SafeNet2 uses vehicle flow, pedestrian flow and geometricdata for each junction and road link within the road network.There are 4 levels at which the model can be used, rangingfrom simple inflow data (Level 0) to vehicle turning flows,

36

pedestrian flows, and geometrical data (Level 3). The analysishere uses Level 1 models. The number of expected accidentsand casualties (fatal, serious, slight) can then be calculated fora given junction or link. These values can then be summed togive an estimate of the number of accidents that would beexpected to occur across the network as a whole.

10.1.1 AnalysisThe area chosen for analysis was Thorpe Astley inLeicester. This site is a typical DB32 layout with cul-de-sacsand roundabouts onto the highway network. Flows were

estimated by Phil Jones Associates for all the junctions andlinks within the given network, based on trip rates of 3journeys inward bound and 3 journeys outward bound fromeach house (see Figure 10.1). These values were thenentered into SafeNet2 together with the length of each link.Pedestrian flows were not included in the analysis.Geometric data was not included. The results showed thatthe total vehicle casualties per year expected would be 0.03(fatal), 0.40 (serious) and 1.89 (slight) giving an estimatedtotal of 2.32 casualties per year or 1.78 accidents per year.

Personal accident data was supplied by Leicestershire

Figure 10.1 DB32 network for SafeNet analysis

37

County Council for 5 years which showed that there had been3 slight accidents on the residential estate road junctions ontothe highway network and 2 slight accidents on the residentialestate roads giving an average of 1 accident per year overall.

Unconnected network (1)

Estimated by SafeNet 1.78 accidents per year (1)Actual recorded 1 accident per year

These results show good agreement with the observedaccidents. It should be noted that the accident data suppliedby Leicestershire County Council stated that Thorpe Astley

is ‘an on-going settlement’ and the effect of this on the 5 yearaccident data was unknown.

Connected network (2)The roads in the DB32 compliant network (1) (see Figure10.1) were connected so that the area was made morepermeable and the street layout more organic. The flowsthrough each line and junction were estimated, using thesame assumptions as in the original network, for the newconnected network (see Figure 10.2) and the SafeNetanalysis was repeated.

Estimated by SafeNet 1.85 accidents per year (2)

Figure 10.2 Connected network for SafeNet analysis (organic)

38

Table 10.1 Results of SafeNet analysis compared withactual accidents

Accidents per year

Network type Links Junctions Total Actual 0.40 0.60 1.00Estimated DB32 (1) 1.08 0.70 1.78Estimated organic (2) 0.92 0.92 1.85Estimated organic (3) 0.92 0.76 1.69

Table 10.2 Effect of varying major and minor flows onaccidents per year predicted by SafeNet

Accidents per year for givenpercentage flow on minor arm

Flow on major arm(vehicles per day) 50% 25% 10%

5000 3.31 1.93 0.994000 2.48 1.45 0.753000 1.72 1.01 0.522000 1.03 0.61 0.321000 0.44 0.26 0.14500 0.19 0.12 0.07250 0.09 0.05 0.03125 0.04 0.02 0.02

Accidents per year at crossroads

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Vehicle flow (1000s per day each direction)

Acc

iden

ts p

er y

ear

Accs/year (50% flow on minor arm)



Figure 10.3 Effect of varying major and minor flows onaccidents per year predicted by SafeNet

Connected network (3)It was noted that two crossroads in the connected network(2) (marked as solid black circles in Figure 10.2) had arelatively high number of accidents per year. These twocrossroads were replaced by two roundabouts and theSafeNet analysis was repeated.

Estimated by SafeNet 1.69 accidents per year (3)

10.1.2 Overall resultsThe overall link and junction results for the various networksestimated by SafeNet are summarised in Table 10.1, togetherwith the average number of actual accidents recorded peryear over a 5 year period.

of 1000 vehicles per day the predicted accidents are lessthan 0.5 per year.

In summary, the hypothetical analysis exercise,undertaken using SafeNet, found that these types ofnetwork (DB32 compliant versus organic) appear toproduce only small differences in the effect on accidents,except when crossroads were substituted for roundabouts.In support of this, an analysis of crossroad data found thataccidents markedly increase to over one per year whenflows on the minor arm exceed 1000 vehicles per day.However, it should be noted that the number of accidentsoverall was very low, no geometric or pedestrian flowvariables were included, and only one sample networkwas tested.

The next section summarises the conclusions from thisresearch and offers some possible recommendations.

11 Conclusions

This report constitutes the evidence base for the standardsproposed in the Manual for Streets. Arguably, its radicalfindings are ground breaking because they demonstratethat residential street design can indeed be innovative, asevidenced by the headline findings:

The SafeNet analysis showed that some of the data usedwas outside the lower limits of the validated working rangeof SafeNet (See Figures 10.1 and 10.2). The lower limit for‘T’ junctions in SafeNet is 200 vehicles per day for themain road and the lower limit for circulating flows forroundabouts in SafeNet is 276 vehicles per day and for theentry/exit to an arm is 305 vehicles per day.

There were slightly more accidents predicted by SafeNetfor the DB32 network (1) compared with the connectedorganic network (2), but it should be noted that some ofthe data used was outside the lower limits of the normalworking range of SafeNet.

Substituting two roundabouts for two crossroads, theorganic network (3) was predicted to have fewer accidentsthan the original DB32 network (1).

Bearing in mind that, for these networks, SafeNet isbeing used outside its normal working range (for somejunctions) there appear to be only small differences in theeffect on accidents using the different networks. However,it is encouraging that the actual numbers of accidents peryear are below those predicted by SafeNet.

10.2 Crossroads analysis

SafeNet was used to study the effect of varying the vehicleflows on the major and minor arms of a hypotheticalcrossroads to see how the predicted accidents per yearvaried, based on speeds of up to and including 40 mph.

Major road flows were varied from 125 to 5000 vehiclesper day in each direction and the flows on the minor armwere varied from 10% to 50% of the major road flow. Allmovements were across the junction only i.e. no turning.

Pedestrian flows were set to zero for the analysis.The results of the analysis are given in Table 10.2 and

Figure 10.3. The results show that for the major road flows

39

is an acceptable safety margin to stop should a dangerpresent itself. However, the margin of safety becomesrapidly smaller below 40 metres, and sight distances of 20metres are predicted to be unsafe unless other features areemployed to further reduce vehicle speed.

! Other factors that can affect speeds at junctions werefound to be block paving and junction markings. Blockpaving was found to reduce approach speeds byapproximately 5 mph. The effect of having no junctionmarkings was less clear with the models disagreeing asto whether removing them reduces speeds. The modelbased upon ATC data, and therefore the most robustdataset, predicted that removing junction markingreduced approach speeds by between 3 and 6 mph.

Residents’ concerns

With respect to the perceptions of residents surveyed, thefollowing can be concluded:

! Residents’ opinions of their area, in particular withrespect to safety, were investigated in twenty housingestates. The estates covered a mixture of historic sites,new build sites and ones that were DB32 compliant.

! The main reasons for residents choosing to live in theseestates were because of the ambiance (quietness,friendly neighbours) and the location of the houses inrelation to amenities.

! Across the sites there were mixed reactions to whetherpersonal, or road, safety issues were of most concern.Residents at DB32 compliant sites considered personalsafety (in relation to crime) to be of the greatest concern,but this was not the case at other sites. It is unclearwhether this was owing to higher crime rates at theDB32 sites, the perception of road safety at other sites,or a combination of both these factors. However, overallnearly half the respondents considered road safety to bethe main issue, compared with nearly 30% whoconsidered personal safety to be the highest concern.

! One consistent comment stemming from this research inrelation to crime was the association of youth crime withpedestrian and cycle routes. It was considered that theseresulted in various forms of vandalism, presumably ifthese were off the main thoroughfares whereperpetrators are less likely to be observed.

! Generally, respondents considered their street to be safefor adults walking, but less so for children. As would beexpected, they considered the danger to children playingincreased as age decreased. They also consideredcyclists to be at risk, with over 40% considering childcyclists unsafe.

! Residents’ strongest dislikes about their area wererelated to parking, in particular, inconsiderate parkingcausing difficulties of access, or the misuse ofdesignated parking spaces. Inconsiderate parkingincluded parking on the footway and therefore impedingpedestrians, parking on corners and reducing lines ofsight and parking resulting in difficulty for othervehicles passing. Furthermore, respondents considered

! Lower speeds are associated with reduced road widthand reduced visibility, on both links and junctions.

! Site type (for example historic, new build, DB32compliant etc) is not a significant determinant of speed.Junction and link geometries (width and forwardvisibility) are the important variables.

! Speed is known to be a key factor for road safety. Thefindings of this research are consistent with this fact,indicating that higher speeds on links increase thelikelihood of injury and its severity.

! Conflicting movements at junctions result in a highernumber of accidents, but geometry can lower speedswhich reduce both the chance and severity of accidents.

! Stopping distances on links and at junctions have amargin of safety down to a visibility of a round 20 m inthe environments study, unless other speed reductionfeatures are incorporated.

! The sites included roads with a range of surface types,varying use of speed restriction measures, differentlevels of on-street parking and a range of forwardvisibilities. The results are consequently applicable to awide range of estates throughout the UK. However, thestudy could not encompass all situations. One site(Belgravia) was significantly different from the others,with wide road widths, large forward visibilities andhigh traffic speeds. This site had to be excluded from theanalysis and therefore other exceptions could exist.

! Parking was found to reduce speeds on links and atjunctions by in the region of 2 to 5 mph. That is, driversreact to the perceived danger by reducing their speed.The effect of this on safety is unclear. Reducing speedincreases relative safety, but parked vehicles reducelines of sight and can consequently obscure (crossing)pedestrians. Double parking was associated with highernumbers of casualties in the STATS19 analysis.Moreover, many of the reported near misses from thehousehold survey were related to parked vehicles. Onbalance it would appear prudent to manage parkingwithin an estate design. The household surveyconfirmed the importance to residents of havingadequate provision close to their home, but thatunmanaged on-street parking can cause issues andpossibly dangers. Design could therefore aim to eitheruse off-street parking, or reduce the interaction ofpedestrians with parked vehicles near to a thoroughfare.

! Reducing road width reduces drivers approach speeds, areduction from 10 to 5 metres was predicted to reducespeeds on links by up to 4 mph and speeds approachingjunctions by up to 10 mph. Though these were absolutewidth measurements, it is possible that the same resultsmay be achievable using psychological measures to givethe appearance of reduced width.

! The largest effect on speeds was found to be associatedwith reducing lines of sight. A reduction from 120 to 20metres reduced approach speeds by approximately20 mph on links and 11 mph at junctions. Modelling hasshown the reduction in approach speed should result insight distances of 40 metres being relatively safe, i.e. there

40

that available off-street parking was not often optimallyutilised, and nearly half of them had difficulties parkingoutside their home.

! Parking on-street can result in streets not functioning inthe way they were designed, and this can createhazardous driving conditions. Twenty of the sixty-sixincidents reported by respondents, who gave details ofaccidents and near-misses, were related to parking.

! Through traffic, particularly the high speeds of vehicles,was another major concern for residents: second only toparking. Overall approximately half the respondentswere concerned about speeds, and in New Town(Reading) 80% expressed a concern over speeds.

These results have been integrated into the Manual forStreets in the form of appropriate standards for residentialstreet design, and will become the focus for Governmentguidance on new residential streets.

12 Acknowledgements

The work described in this report was carried out in theSustainable Communities Group of TRL Limited. Theauthors are grateful to Janet Kennedy, the TechnicalReferee who carried out the quality review and auditingof this report. We would also like to acknowledge thecontribution of Phil Jones.

13 References

Aburahmah A E and Al Assar R. (1998). Evaluation ofneighborhood traffic calming techniques in residentialareas. ITE Annual Meeting Compendium. Washington DC:Institute of Transportation Engineers.

ACPO (2004). Secured by design. Retrieved: December2006, from www.securedbydesign.com.

Auto Express, 9-15 November 2005, Issue 883.

Barrel J and Whitehouse J (2004). Home Zones - Anevolving approach to community streets. Proceedings ofthe Institution of Civil Engineers, 157, pp. 257-265

Ben-Joseph E (1995). Changing the residential streetscene: adapting the shared streets concept to the suburbanenvironment. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation, 61 (4)

Boulter P G, Hickman A J, Latham S, Layfield R,Davison P and Whiteman P (2001). The impacts of trafficcalming measures on vehicle exhaust emissions. TRLReport TRL482. Wokingham: TRL.

Brindle R E (1996). Designing for moderate speeds innew neighbourhoods. ARRB Special Report No. 53.Australia: Australian Road Research Board

Burrow I J (1977). Delays on single-lane roads withpassing places. Working Paper WP/TSN/29R.Wokingham: TRL. (Unpublished report available ondirect personal application only)

Chinn L and Elliott M (2002). The effect of roadappearance on perceived safe travel speed: Final report.Papers & Articles PA3827/20. Wokingham: TRL.

Chorlton E (2000). Just whose street is it anyway?Surveyor, 20th July 2000, pp.15-18

Countryside Agency (2005). Mini guide to rural roadsafety and traffic calming. St. Albans: Faber Maunsell.

Daisa J M and Peers J B (1997). Narrow residentialstreets: do they really slow down speeds? ITE 6th AnnualMeeting Compendium of Technical Papers.

Department for Communities and Local Government(DCLG) (2006). Tree roots in the built environment. London:Department for Communities and Local Government.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs(DEFRA (2006). Securing the Regions’ futures:strengthening delivery of sustainable development in theEnglish regions. London: Department for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs.

DeRobertis M and Wachtel A (1996). Traffic calmingdos and don'ts to encourage bicycling. ITE AnnualMeeting Compendium. Washington DC: Institute ofTransportation Engineers.

Department for the Environment, Transport and theRegions (DETR) and Commission for Architecture andthe Built Environment (CABE) (2000). By design: urbandesign in the planning system: towards better practice.London: Department for the Environment, Transport andthe Regions and Commission for Architecture and theBuilt Environment.

Department of the Environment, Transport and theRegions (DETR) (1999). A better quality of life: astrategy for sustainable development in the UnitedKingdom. London: Department of the Environment,Transport and the Regions.

Department for Transport (DfT) (2004). Quiet lanes.Traffic Advisory Leaflet 3/04. London: Department forTransport.

Department of Transport (DOT) (1993). Pavementparking. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 04/93. London:Department of Transport.

Department for Transport, Local Government and theRegions (DTLR) (2002). Green spaces, better places:Final report of the Urban Green Spaces Taskforce.London: Department for Transport, Local Government andthe Regions.

41

Department for Transport, Local Government and theRegions (DTLR) and Commission for Architecture andthe Built Environment (CABE) (2001). By design: betterplaces to live. London: Department for Transport, LocalGovernment and the Regions and Commission forArchitecture and the Built Environment.

Elliott M A, McColl V A and Kennedy J V (2003). Roaddesign measures to reduce drivers' speed via ‘psychological’processes: a literature review. TRL Report TRL564.Wokingham: TRL.

Engel U and Thomsen L K (1992). Safety effects of speedreducing measures in Danish residential areas. AccidentAnalysis and Prevention, 24 (1), pp. 17-28

English Partnerships and Llewelyn Davies (2000). UrbanDesign Compendium. London: English Partnerships.

Engwicht D (2003). Intrigue and uncertainty: towardsnew traffic-taming tools. Version 2.1. CreativeCommunities International.

Gibbard A, Reid S, Mitchell J, Lawton B, Brown E andHarper H (2004). The effect of road narrowings oncyclists. TRL Report TRL621. Wokingham: TRL.

Grayling T, Hallam K, Graham D, Anderson R andGlaister S (2002). Streets ahead: safe and liveable streetsfor children. Institute for Public Policy Research

Hardy S (2004). Pushing the boundaries. Surveyor, 1stJuly 2004.

Harris G J, Stait R E, Abbott P G and Watts G R(1999). Traffic calming: vehicle generated noise andground-borne vibration alongside sinusoidal, round-topand flat-top road humps. TRL Report TRL416.Wokingham: TRL.

Home Office (2000). An evaluation of secured by designhousing within West Yorkshire. Briefing Note 7/00.London: Home Office

Kallberg V and Ranta S (2000). Impacts of urban speed-reducing measures. 2nd International Symposium onHighway Geometric Design, Mainz, Germany, June 14-172000, pp. 93-109

Kennedy J V, Gorell R, Crinson L, Wheeler A andElliott M (2005). Psychological traffic calming. TRLReport TRL641. Wokingham: TRL.

Kennedy J V, Wheeler A H and Inwood C M (2004a).Norfolk Quiet Lanes Scheme. TRL Report TRL603.Wokingham: TRL.

Kennedy J V, Wheeler A H and Inwood C M (2004b).Kent Quiet Lanes Scheme. TRL Report TRL602.Wokingham: TRL.

Kennedy J V, Hall R D and Barnard S R (1998).Accidents at urban mini-roundabouts. TRL Report TRL281.Wokingham: TRL.

Lawton B J, Webb P J, Wall G T and Davies D G (2003).Cyclists at ‘Continental’ style roundabouts: report on fourtrial sites. TRL Report TRL584. Wokingham: TRL.

Layfield R, Webster D and Buttress S (2005). Pilothome zone schemes: evaluation of Magor Village,Monmouthshire. TRL Report TRL633. Wokingham: TRL.

Layfield R, Summersgill I and Chatterjee K (1996).Accidents at urban priority crossroads and staggeredjunctions. TRL Report TRL185. Wokingham: TRL.

Maycock G and Hall R D (1984). Accidents at 4-armroundabouts. Laboratory Report LR1120. Wokingham: TRL.

Noble J and Jenks M (1996). Parking: demand andprovision of private sector housing developments. Oxford:School of Architecture, Oxford Brooks University.

Noble J, Bennett G and Jenks M (1987). Roads andparking in private sector housing schemes: studies ofaccident records, innovative layouts and parkingprovision. UK: Housing Research Foundation.

Noordzij P C and Hagenzieker M P (1996).Verkeersborden, bebakening en verkeersveiligheid.Leidschendam: SWOV.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2003a).Better streets, better places: delivering sustainableresidential environments. London: Office of the DeputyPrime Minister.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2003b).Sustainable communities: building for the future. London:Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2003c).Delivering planning policy for housing: PPG3Implementation Study. London: Office of the DeputyPrime Minister

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2004).Safer places: the planning system and crime prevention.London: The Stationery Office.

Olson P (1997). Driver perception-response time. Instituteof Traffic Accident Investigators. Proceedings of the 3rdNational Conference, Telford, 14 - 16 November 1997.

Oxley P R (2002). Inclusive mobility: a guide to bestpractice on access to pedestrian and transportinfrastructure. London: Department for Transport.

Polus A and Craus J (1996). Planning and geometricaspects of shared streets. Washington DC: TransportationResearch Board.

42

Scottish Executive (2005). Residential streets. PlanningAdvice Note 74. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Planningand Building.

Scottish Executive (1999). Natural traffic calming:guidance and research report. Edinburgh: ScottishExecutive Development Department.

Summersgill I and Layfield R (1996). Non-junctionaccidents on urban single-carriageway roads. TRL ReportTRL183. Wokingham: TRL.

Summersgill I, Kennedy J V, Baynes D (1996).Accidents at 3-arm priority junctions on urban single-carriageway roads. TRL Report TRL184. Wokingham: TRL.

Svensson T (2000). Balancing car accessibility and goodurban environment, transport systems organisation andplanning. Proceedings of 3rd KFB Research Conference,Stockholm, June 2000

Taylor M, Hall R and Chatterjee K (1996). Accidents at3-arm traffic signals on urban single-carriageway roads.TRL Report TRL135. Wokingham: TRL.

Tilly A, Webster D and Buttress S (2005). Pilot homezone schemes: evaluation of Northmoor, Manchester. TRLReport TRL625. Wokingham: TRL.

Vis A A, Dijkstra A and Slop M (1992). Safety effects of30 km/h zones in the Netherlands. Accidents Analysis andPrevention, 24, pp. 75-86.

Webster D, Tilly A and Buttress S (2005). Pilot homezone schemes: evaluation of Cavell Way, Sittingbourne.TRL Report TRL626. Wokingham: TRL.

Westdijk E (2001). Designing a safe residentialenvironment for children. Proceedings of the Conferenceon Traffic Safety on Three Continents. Moscow, Russia,19-21 September 2001

43

App

endi

x A

: L

iter

atur

e re

view

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

ipti

on o

f so

urce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

dati

ons

/ K

ey c

oncl

usio

ns

Obj

ectiv

es f

or s

tree

ts

Wha

t m

akes

for

goo

d st

reet

sE

nglis

h Pa

rtne

rshi

ps /

Has

sam

ples

of

mod

el s

tree

ts b

ased

on

thei

r po

sitio

n in

aE

ngla

nd,

UK

The

cur

rent

hig

hway

/eng

inee

ring

app

roac

h to

roa

d hi

erar

chie

s is

and

netw

orks

.L

lew

elyn

Dav

ies

(200

0).

hier

arch

y co

veri

ng t

he f

ollo

win

g cl

assi

fica

tions

:in

appr

opri

ate.

It

sugg

ests

ins

tead

an

alte

rnat

ive

hier

arch

y of

Urb

an D

esig

n C

ompe

ndiu

m.

Mai

n R

oad;

Ave

nue

or B

oule

vard

; H

igh

Stre

et;

Stre

et o

rst

reet

s an

d sp

aces

.Sq

uare

; an

d M

ews

or C

ourt

yard

(p.

75)

. It

sets

thi

s in

dire

ct c

ontr

ast

to t

he e

ngin

eeri

ng o

rien

ted

pers

pect

ive

whi

ch s

ees

stre

ets

sole

ly i

n te

rms

of v

ehic

le c

arry

ing

capa

city

and

ign

ores

the

mul

ti-fu

nctio

nal

role

of

stre

ets.

Loc

al d

istin

ctiv

enes

s.Sc

ottis

h E

xecu

tive

(200

5).

Thi

s PA

N f

ocus

es o

n th

e de

sign

of

bette

r qu

ality

Scot

land

, U

KC

onte

xt,

whe

n co

nsid

erin

g de

sign

, is

ver

y im

port

ant.

Res

iden

tial

str

eets

, pl

anni

ng.

resi

dent

ial

stre

ets,

in

part

icul

ar,

fact

ors

whi

ch c

an c

reat

eR

ecom

men

datio

ns a

re m

ade

rega

rdin

g fi

tting

in

with

the

loc

alA

dvic

e N

ote

74.

good

qua

lity

stre

ets

desi

gn.

char

acte

r, l

inki

ng d

esig

n to

the

sur

roun

ding

are

a, a

ndco

nsid

erin

g th

e m

ovem

ent

thro

ugh

and

with

in a

site

. C

reat

ing

anid

entit

y fo

r a

stre

et i

s al

so i

mpo

rtan

t, w

hich

will

inv

olve

defi

ning

a s

tree

t ch

arac

ter

type

, se

lect

ing

appr

opri

ate

stre

etfu

rnitu

re, m

ater

ials

and

sig

nage

.

Hie

rarc

hy o

f m

odes

.C

horl

ton,

E (

2000

). J

ust

who

seC

horl

ton

(200

0) q

uest

ions

str

eet

uses

and

whe

ther

all

UK

Stre

ets

are

dom

inat

ed b

y ex

cess

ive

sign

age,

util

ity i

nsta

llatio

ns,

stre

et i

s it

anyw

ay?

Surv

eyor

,st

reet

s ha

ve t

o be

mad

e ac

cess

ible

to

all.

Prog

ress

on

the

barr

iers

and

clu

tter,

whi

le t

he h

ighw

ay s

pace

bet

wee

n bu

ildin

gs20

th J

uly

2000

, pp

. 15

-18.

‘Des

igni

ng S

tree

ts f

or P

eopl

e’ d

ocum

ent i

s di

scus

sed.

is

giv

en p

rim

arily

to

mot

oris

ed m

odes

of

traf

fic.

Vas

t ac

res

ofsu

rfac

ing

have

bee

n la

id t

o en

sure

tha

t th

e bi

gges

t ar

ticul

ated

vehi

cles

in

the

coun

try

can

nego

tiate

eac

h be

nd a

nd j

unct

ion,

whi

le p

edes

tria

ns,

visi

tors

, sh

oppe

rs a

nd r

esid

ents

mak

e do

with

wha

t is

left

.

Sust

aina

ble

com

mun

ities

Secu

rity

iss

ues.

OD

PM (

2004

). S

afer

pla

ces:

The

gui

de s

tres

ses

the

impo

rtan

ce o

f st

ruct

ure

and

UK

Cre

atin

g de

fens

ible

spa

ces

and

clea

r vi

sibi

lity

are

esse

ntia

lth

e pl

anni

ng s

yste

m a

nd c

rim

ebu

ildin

g bl

ock

layo

ut i

n or

der

to m

inim

ise

the

likel

ihoo

dco

nsid

erat

ions

.pr

even

tion

.of

cri

me.

A s

afe

urba

n st

ruct

ure

is c

hara

cter

ised

by

build

ings

with

lim

ited

expo

sure

to

the

publ

ic r

ealm

, w

ithac

tive

fron

tage

s lo

okin

g on

to s

tree

ts,

com

plem

ente

d by

are

gula

r m

ovem

ent f

ram

ewor

k.

OD

PM (

2004

). S

afer

pla

ces:

The

gui

de a

rgue

s th

at c

ar p

arki

ng i

s id

eally

loc

ated

in

UK

!Pa

rkin

g ne

eds

to b

e pr

ovid

ed i

n a

man

ner

whi

ch a

llow

s fo

rth

e pl

anni

ng s

yste

m a

ndho

me

gara

ges

or d

rive

way

s be

hind

cur

taila

ge. T

his

is o

fna

tura

l su

rvei

llanc

e an

d re

duce

s th

e lik

elih

ood

of t

heft

or

crim

e pr

even

tion

.co

urse

not

alw

ays

poss

ible

and

not

alw

ays

desi

rabl

e in

vand

alis

m.

desi

gn t

erm

s. T

he r

ecen

t pr

efer

ence

for

cou

rtya

rd p

arki

ngne

eds

to b

e ca

refu

lly d

esig

ned

to m

axim

ise

natu

ral

!Pe

rmea

bilit

y is

not

onl

y ab

out

acce

ss, b

ut a

lso

abou

t vi

sual

surv

eilla

nce.

Ide

ally

onl

y on

e en

tran

ce s

houl

d be

allo

wed

.pe

rmea

bilit

y w

hich

im

prov

es s

urve

illan

ce a

nd s

afet

y.O

n st

reet

par

king

whi

ch i

s w

ell

supe

rvis

ed f

rom

neig

hbou

ring

hou

ses

may

act

ually

be

bette

r th

an!

Tac

klin

g fe

ar o

f cr

ime

is m

ulti-

face

ted

and

depe

nden

t on

cour

tyar

d pa

rkin

g in

saf

ety

term

s in

man

y ca

ses.

man

y fa

ctor

s, n

ot a

ll of

whi

ch c

an b

e ta

ckle

d by

the

desi

gn p

rinc

iple

s an

d ef

fect

ive

man

agem

ent

and

polic

ing

can

help

to

redu

ce f

ear

of c

rim

e.

44

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

ipti

on o

f so

urce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

dati

ons

/ K

ey c

oncl

usio

ns

Sust

aina

ble

com

mun

ities

(C

ontin

ued)

Secu

rity

iss

ues

(con

tinu

ed).

Stre

ets

shou

ld b

e pa

rt o

f a

clea

r an

d le

gibl

e m

ovem

ent

!Pl

anne

rs s

houl

d ta

rget

an

appr

opri

ate

leve

l of

hum

anfr

amew

ork.

The

re s

houl

d be

a c

lear

dis

tinct

ion

betw

een

activ

ity f

or e

ach

loca

tion

in o

rder

to

redu

ce t

he r

isk

of c

rim

epl

anni

ng s

yste

m a

lone

. H

owev

er a

com

bina

tion

of g

ood

and

crea

te a

sen

se o

f sa

fety

at

all

times

.pu

blic

, se

mi-

priv

ate

and

priv

ate

spac

es.

Thi

s de

fini

tion

need

not

be

achi

eved

by

intr

oduc

ing

obst

acle

s to

vis

ual

perm

eabi

lity

and

henc

e re

duci

ng s

urve

illan

ce a

nd p

assi

veob

serv

atio

n.

Red

ucin

g fe

ar o

f cr

ime

is a

cro

ss-c

uttin

g th

eme

thro

ugho

ut t

he r

epor

t. Fe

ar c

an b

e re

duce

d ef

fect

ivel

y by

adhe

ring

to

the

prin

cipl

es o

utlin

ed i

n th

e re

port

. A

mon

gth

e m

ost

impo

rtan

t w

hich

can

mak

e pe

ople

‘fe

el’

safe

r ar

e:ha

ving

cle

ar a

nd i

dent

ifia

ble

rout

es;

havi

ng u

rban

stru

ctur

es w

hich

pro

vide

for

nat

ural

sur

veill

ance

of

publ

ic s

pace

s an

d ‘d

efen

sibl

e’ p

riva

te s

pace

s; h

avin

gap

prop

riat

e pu

blic

lig

htin

g in

dar

ker

area

s at

nig

ht a

ndin

cer

tain

loc

atio

ns (

e.g.

dar

k, e

nclo

sed

lane

way

s, u

nder

brid

ges

etc.

) du

ring

the

day

; C

CT

V a

nd o

ther

man

agem

ent

mea

sure

s in

cer

tain

ext

rem

e ca

ses;

and

havi

ng a

ctiv

e sp

aces

.

Cri

me

can

be d

eter

red

by t

he p

rese

nce

of o

nloo

kers

. On

the

othe

r ha

nd t

oo m

any

peop

le p

rese

nt o

ppor

tuni

ties

for

cert

ain

type

s of

cri

me

such

as

pick

-poc

ketin

g.

AC

PO (

2004

). S

ecur

edT

he S

ecur

ed B

y D

esig

n sc

hem

e is

run

by

the

Ass

ocia

tion

UK

!C

ar p

arki

ng –

in-

curt

aila

ge p

arki

ng a

rran

gem

ents

are

By

Des

ign.

of C

hief

Pol

ice

Off

icer

s (A

CPO

) w

hich

aim

s to

enc

oura

gepr

efer

red.

Com

mun

al p

arki

ng s

houl

d be

in

smal

l gr

oups

,ho

usin

g de

velo

pers

to

desi

gn o

ut c

rim

e, w

ith p

artic

ular

clos

e to

or

adja

cent

to th

e re

side

nt's

pro

pert

y.

emph

asis

on

dom

estic

bur

glar

y, a

t th

e pl

anni

ng s

tage

.H

owev

er,

rese

arch

beh

ind

the

reco

mm

enda

tions

is

not

!St

reet

lig

htin

g –

all

light

ing

mus

t co

mpl

y w

ith B

S 54

89.

clea

r, a

nd c

erta

in s

ugge

stio

ns c

ontr

adic

t m

easu

res

sugg

este

d in

oth

er k

ey a

reas

(e.

g. t

raff

ic c

alm

ing)

.

Hom

e O

ffic

e (2

000)

. An

Thi

s br

iefi

ng n

ote

expl

ores

the

im

plem

enta

tion

ofU

KC

ompa

riso

ns o

f ne

w b

uild

site

s re

veal

ed t

hat

ther

e w

ere

26%

eval

uati

on o

f se

cure

d B

ySe

cure

d B

y D

esig

n (S

BD

) pr

inci

ples

and

its

eff

ects

on

few

er c

rim

e ev

ents

per

dw

ellin

g (u

sing

rec

orde

d cr

ime

figu

res)

Des

ign

hous

ing

wit

hin

Wes

tac

tual

lev

els

of C

rim

e. A

n ev

alua

tion

of S

BD

hou

sing

per

dwel

ling

in t

he S

BD

sam

ple.

For

veh

icle

cri

me

(The

ft o

fY

orks

hire

. B

rief

ing

Not

e 7/

00.

took

pla

ce i

n th

e W

est

Yor

kshi

re A

rea

betw

een

Apr

ilM

otor

Veh

icle

, The

ft f

rom

Mot

or V

ehic

le a

nd T

WO

C)

ther

ean

d O

ctob

er 1

999.

wer

e 42

% f

ewer

off

ence

s w

ithin

the

SB

D s

ampl

e. A

ttitu

des

tow

ards

saf

ety

wer

e al

so f

ound

to

be p

ositi

ve o

n th

e SB

Dho

usin

g es

tate

s. 1

1.4%

of

SBD

res

pond

ents

in

a su

rvey

sta

ted

that

the

y fe

lt 'v

ery

unsa

fe' o

n th

e st

reet

s su

rrou

ndin

g th

eir

hom

e,al

one,

at

nigh

t, co

mpa

red

to 1

9% o

f no

n-SB

D r

espo

nden

ts.

Mix

ing

uses

.B

en-J

osep

h E

(19

95).

Cha

ngin

gB

en-J

osep

h (1

995)

inv

estig

ates

the

ele

men

ts o

f sh

ared

USA

Stat

es t

hat

mor

e tim

e sp

ent

play

ing

in s

tree

ts i

ncre

ases

cha

nces

the

resi

dent

ial

stre

et s

cene

:st

reet

s, i

nclu

ding

soc

ial

bene

fits

, re

side

nts

satis

fact

ion,

for

soci

al i

nter

actio

n. G

erm

an s

tudy

fou

nd t

hat

stre

et r

e-de

sign

adap

ting

the

shar

ed s

tree

tsco

sts,

loca

l con

trol

s an

d de

sign

initi

ativ

es.

led

to a

20%

inc

reas

e in

pla

y ac

tivity

(E

uban

k, 1

987)

. Stu

dies

in

45

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

ipti

on o

f so

urce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

dati

ons

/ K

ey c

oncl

usio

ns

Sust

aina

ble

com

mun

ities

(C

ontin

ued)

Mix

ing

uses

(co

ntin

ued)

.co

ncep

t to

the

sub

urba

nJa

pan

repo

rted

tha

t 90

% s

urve

yed

said

tha

t sh

ared

str

eets

are

for

envi

ronm

ent.

Jour

nal

of t

hepe

ople

rat

her

than

aut

omob

iles,

67%

sai

d th

eir

child

ren

play

on

Am

eric

an P

lann

ing

Ass

ocia

tion

,th

e st

reet

and

it

is a

saf

e pl

ace

to p

lay.

66%

fel

t th

at t

he s

hare

dV

olum

e 61

, Iss

ue:

4.st

reet

s en

cour

ages

soc

ial

inte

ract

ion

and

conv

ersa

tion

betw

een

neig

hbou

rs (

Ichi

kaw

a, 1

984)

.

Eng

lish

Part

ners

hips

/ L

lew

elyn

The

Com

pend

ium

has

a s

ectio

n w

hich

con

cent

rate

s on

UK

Roa

ds s

houl

d be

und

erst

ood

as s

tree

ts a

nd s

tree

ts i

n tu

rn a

sD

avie

s (2

000)

. Urb

an D

esig

nde

velo

ping

a t

hriv

ing

publ

ic r

ealm

. T

he s

ectio

n on

plac

es. I

n th

is l

ight

the

fun

ctio

n of

and

act

ivity

with

in t

he s

pace

Com

pend

ium

.cr

eatin

g so

cial

spa

ces

is o

f re

leva

nce

here

and

sug

gest

sis

impo

rtan

t. fo

cusi

ng a

ctiv

ity a

reas

on

node

s of

act

ivity

alo

ng w

ithqu

iet

area

s to

res

t an

d re

lax.

It

also

sep

arat

ely

emph

asis

esth

e im

port

ance

act

ive

fron

tage

s in

ter

ms

of g

ener

atin

gac

tivity

and

enc

oura

ging

pas

sive

obs

erva

tion.

It

sugg

ests

that

roa

ds s

houl

d be

tter

be u

nder

stoo

d as

str

eets

lin

king

a ne

twor

k of

pla

ces,

rat

her

than

as

a hi

erar

chy

of r

oads

.

Prov

isio

n fo

r pl

ay,

AC

PO (

2004

). S

ecur

edH

ome

Zon

es.

By

Des

ign.

The

Sec

ured

By

Des

ign

sche

me

is r

un b

y th

e A

ssoc

iatio

nU

KC

omm

unal

are

as –

pla

ying

and

sea

ting

area

s sh

ould

be

with

inof

Chi

ef P

olic

e O

ffic

ers

(AC

PO)

whi

ch a

ims

to e

ncou

rage

view

of

resi

dent

ial

prop

ertie

s.ho

usin

g de

velo

pers

to

desi

gn o

ut c

rim

e, w

ith p

artic

ular

emph

asis

on

dom

estic

bur

glar

y, a

t th

e pl

anni

ng s

tage

.H

owev

er,

rese

arch

beh

ind

the

reco

mm

enda

tions

is

not

clea

r, a

nd c

erta

in s

ugge

stio

ns c

ontr

adic

t m

easu

res

sugg

este

d in

oth

er k

ey a

reas

(e.

g. t

raff

ic c

alm

ing)

.

Gre

en s

pace

s.D

TL

R (

2002

). G

reen

spa

ces,

Thi

s re

port

sug

gest

s th

at u

rban

par

ks a

nd g

reen

s sp

aces

UK

An

esse

ntia

l el

emen

t of

pro

vidi

ng h

igh

qual

ity u

rban

par

ks a

ndbe

tter

pla

ces:

fin

al r

epor

t of

the

have

a c

ruci

al r

ole

to p

lay

in i

nvol

ving

the

com

mun

ity i

ngr

een

spac

es i

n de

sign

ing

them

with

a w

ide

rang

e of

use

rs i

nU

rban

Gre

en S

pace

Tas

kfor

ce.

prov

idin

g th

e vi

sion

for

and

get

ting

invo

lved

in

thei

rm

ind,

suc

h as

chi

ldre

n, B

ME

gro

ups

and

peop

le w

ithlo

cal

envi

ronm

ent.

Var

iety

of

func

tion

is a

n im

port

ant

disa

bili

ties

.as

pect

in

enco

urag

ing

the

com

mun

ity t

o m

ake

bette

r us

eof

suc

h pl

aces

and

spa

ces.

DT

LR

(20

02).

Gre

en s

pace

s,Po

sitiv

e G

reen

Spa

ces

can

impr

ove

the

imag

e of

the

UK

Des

ign

revi

ews

and

bette

r m

anag

emen

t ca

n re

sult

in a

nbe

tter

pla

ces:

fin

al r

epor

t of

the

loca

lity

and

help

to

inst

il a

sens

e of

loc

al p

ride

. Cre

atin

gim

prov

ed u

rban

par

k an

d gr

een

spac

e pr

oduc

t. L

ands

cape

des

ign

Urb

an G

reen

Spa

ce T

askf

orce

.at

trac

tive

urba

n pa

rks

and

gree

n sp

aces

doe

s no

t ha

ppen

shou

ld m

eet

the

need

s of

eff

icie

nt m

aint

enan

ce a

nd c

ost

by c

hanc

e. T

he r

epor

t su

gges

ts m

akin

g us

e of

des

ign

effe

ctiv

enes

s w

ithou

t co

mpr

omis

ing

vari

ety.

revi

ews

for

faili

ng p

arks

and

gre

en s

pace

s. I

t ar

gues

stro

ngly

aga

inst

usi

ng g

ener

ic b

luep

rint

s an

d in

stea

dar

gues

tha

t ev

ery

spac

e is

con

text

ualis

ed.

Bet

ter

man

agem

ent

of p

arks

and

ope

n sp

aces

is

urge

ntly

req

uire

din

ord

er. T

he r

epor

t ad

voca

tes

a be

tter

focu

s on

par

ksam

ong

loca

l au

thor

ities

, in

par

tner

ship

with

the

loc

alco

mm

unity

in

orde

r to

est

ablis

h ag

reed

pri

oriti

es f

orm

aint

enan

ce a

nd i

nves

tmen

t.

46

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

ipti

on o

f so

urce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

dati

ons

/ K

ey c

oncl

usio

ns

Sust

aina

ble

com

mun

ities

(C

ontin

ued)

Mix

ing

uses

(co

ntin

ued)

.E

nglis

h Pa

rtne

rshi

ps /

Lle

wel

ynIt

sug

gest

s us

ing

a va

riet

y of

met

hods

to

mak

e th

e ur

ban

UK

Car

eful

lan

dsca

ping

can

be

used

to

stim

ulat

e th

e se

nses

and

Dav

ies

(200

0). U

rban

Des

ign

envi

ronm

ent

mor

e st

imul

atin

g; i

t su

gges

ts t

hat

desi

gner

sm

ake

the

urba

n en

viro

nmen

t m

ore

appe

alin

g.C

ompe

ndiu

m.

shou

ld c

onsi

der

the

sens

es i

n te

rms

of h

ow t

hey

desi

gnsp

aces

and

pla

ces.

Asi

de f

rom

the

vis

ual

elem

ents

whi

chca

n ai

d liv

eabi

lity

and

tast

eful

sig

nage

whe

re n

eces

sary

,th

ere

is a

lso

touc

h, s

ound

and

sm

ell.

Qua

lity

plac

es

Lay

out,

geom

etri

c an

dSt

ewar

t (2

000)

. R

ecla

imin

gSt

ewar

t (2

000)

dis

cuss

es t

he d

esig

n of

Ing

ress

Par

k ho

usin

gU

K!

Cha

lleng

ing

the

dom

inat

ion

of t

he c

ar b

y pr

iori

tisin

g ot

her

mat

eria

l ch

oice

s.th

e st

reet

s. S

urve

yor,

deve

lopm

ent,

the

site

of

950

new

hom

es i

n G

reen

hith

e,fo

rms

of tr

ansp

ort.

20th

Jul

y 20

00.

sout

h ba

nk o

f th

e T

ham

es i

n K

ent.

The

roa

ds w

ithin

the

deve

lopm

ent

have

bee

n de

sign

ed t

o re

duce

the

im

pact

of

!U

sing

bui

ldin

gs t

o cr

eate

str

ong

pinc

h po

ints

on

stre

ets.

the

car

on t

he e

nvir

onm

ent.

The

des

ign

feat

ures

dep

loye

dto

ach

ieve

thi

s ha

ve c

halle

nged

and

str

etch

ed t

he c

urre

nt!

‘Thr

eadi

ng’

the

spin

e ro

ad t

hrou

gh t

he s

ite.

guid

elin

es a

nd a

ccep

ted

norm

s. T

here

is

a m

ain

spin

e ro

adru

nnin

g th

roug

h th

e de

velo

pmen

t, bu

t it

rang

es f

rom

onl

y!

Cre

atin

g co

ntin

uous

fro

ntag

e to

spi

ne r

oad.

5 to

6 m

wid

e at

the

nar

row

est

poin

t, 1.

25 m

bel

ow t

hede

sign

gui

de m

inim

um. T

he s

pine

roa

d al

so r

uns

past

the

!D

esig

ning

-in

bus

prio

rity

and

inc

ludi

ng d

esig

nate

d bu

s ro

utes

fron

t of

hom

es,

enco

urag

ing

safe

r dr

ivin

g an

d pe

dest

rian

Cre

atin

g ‘H

ome

Zon

es’

whe

re p

edes

tria

ns, n

ot c

ars,

hav

eus

e of

spa

ce. T

he s

pine

roa

d al

so e

ncom

pass

es 9

0o ben

ds,

prio

rity

Per

mea

ting

the

site

with

foo

tpat

hs a

nd c

ycle

net

wor

ks.

cros

sroa

d ju

nctio

ns a

nd p

inch

poi

nts,

and

dri

vers

hav

eto

pas

s si

de e

leva

tions

of

build

ings

onl

y a

foot

path

’s!

Dev

elop

ing

a st

rong

car

par

king

str

ateg

y.w

idth

aw

ay. I

t is

env

isag

ed t

hat

thes

e de

sign

fea

ture

s w

illen

cour

age

vehi

cles

to s

low

and

incr

ease

ped

estr

ian

safe

ty.

!R

estr

aini

ng v

ehic

ular

spe

ed t

o 20

mph

and

bel

ow.

Pede

stri

ans

and

cycl

ists

are

pro

vide

d w

ith d

irec

t st

raig

htlin

e ro

utes

acr

oss

the

site

, whe

reas

dri

vers

are

for

ced

tofo

llow

the

spi

ne r

oad

as i

t sn

akes

aro

und

the

hous

es e

ither

in s

harp

or

swee

ping

cur

ves.

Par

king

pro

visi

on n

orm

sha

ve a

lso

been

cha

lleng

ed, w

ith a

max

imum

of

2 sp

aces

per

hous

e, r

egar

dles

s of

the

num

ber

of b

edro

oms,

prov

ided

. To

enco

urag

e th

e us

e of

pub

lic t

rans

port

, no

hom

e is

mor

e th

an 3

00 m

fro

m a

bus

sto

p. H

owev

er, n

ola

ybys

are

pro

vide

d an

d th

ere

are

land

scap

ed c

entr

alro

ad i

slan

ds a

djac

ent

to b

us s

tops

, ens

urin

g th

at o

ther

vehi

cles

hav

e to

rem

ain

behi

nd b

uses

unt

il al

l pa

ssen

gers

have

boa

rded

.

Stre

et c

hara

cter

. Sv

enss

on T

(20

00).

Bal

anci

ngT

he p

urpo

se o

f th

e re

sear

ch w

as t

o in

vest

igat

e an

d an

alys

eS

wed

en44

% (

the

maj

ority

) of

all

resp

onde

nts

stat

ed t

hat

they

wou

ldca

r ac

cess

ibil

ity

and

good

the

bala

nce

betw

een

the

bene

fits

to

an i

ndiv

idua

l of

fere

dpr

efer

the

low

er s

peed

lim

it sc

enar

io. H

owev

er, t

he s

cena

rio

urba

n en

viro

nmen

t, tr

ansp

ort

by u

nlim

ited

car

acce

ss a

nd t

he r

elat

ed c

onse

quen

ces

ofst

ress

es t

he i

mpo

rtan

ce t

hat

car

acce

ss d

oes

not

jeop

ardi

se t

hesy

stem

s or

gani

sati

on a

ndov

eral

l tr

affi

c vo

lum

es t

hat

indi

vidu

als

wou

ld c

hoos

e if

safe

ty a

nd c

omfo

rt o

f cy

clis

ts a

nd p

edes

tria

ns. T

he s

cena

rio

plan

ning

. Pr

ocee

ding

s of

conn

ectio

ns b

etw

een

thes

e va

riab

les

was

mad

e cl

ear.

advo

cate

s sp

ace

shar

ing

for

the

use

of t

he e

ntir

e st

reet

in

3rd

KFB

Res

earc

h C

onfe

renc

e,In

divi

dual

s w

ere

pres

ente

d w

ith a

que

stio

nnai

re,

aski

ng t

ore

side

ntia

l ar

eas.

The

ove

rall

resu

lts o

f th

e st

udy

reve

aled

tha

tSt

ockh

olm

, Ju

ne 2

000.

choo

se a

num

ber

of d

iffe

rent

sce

nari

os, p

rese

nted

by

indi

vidu

als

pref

er s

cena

rios

whe

re a

ll ki

nds

of r

oad

user

sdi

ffer

ent,

but

com

plem

enta

ry,

tech

niqu

es.

Four

dif

fere

ntre

lativ

ely

coex

ist

on s

tree

ts a

nd r

oads

in

tow

ns a

nd c

ities

whe

re

47

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

ipti

on o

f so

urce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

dati

ons

/ K

ey c

oncl

usio

ns

Qua

lity

plac

es (

Con

tinue

d)

Stre

et c

hara

cter

(co

ntin

ued)

.sc

enar

ios

of r

esid

entia

l ar

eas

with

in a

n ur

ban

setti

ng a

reth

is s

ituat

ion

has

been

rea

ched

by

traf

fic

calm

ing

mea

sure

s.de

scri

bed.

The

cha

ract

eris

tics

that

var

y be

twee

n sc

enar

ios

are

the

cond

ition

s fo

r ca

rs a

nd p

arki

ng, w

hich

will

hav

eco

nseq

uenc

es f

or p

ublic

tra

nspo

rt,

pede

stri

ans,

cyc

lists

and

child

ren’

s pl

ay o

n th

e st

reet

s.

DfT

(20

05).

Att

itud

es t

oT

his

repo

rt f

ocus

es o

n th

e re

sults

of

the

DfT

’s O

NS

omni

bus

UK

One

qua

rter

of

resp

onde

nts

stat

ed t

hat

the

impa

ct o

f tr

affi

c on

stre

etsc

ape

and

stre

et u

ses.

surv

ey (

unde

rtak

en i

n O

ctob

er 2

004)

reg

ardi

ng p

eopl

e’s

thei

r qu

ality

of

life

was

ser

ious

. 55%

of

all

resp

onde

nts

thou

ght

attit

udes

to

stre

ets

as p

art

of t

he b

uilt

envi

ronm

ent,

that

tra

ffic

in

thei

r ar

ea w

as d

ange

rous

to

pede

stri

ans

and

othe

rin

clud

ing

publ

ic o

pini

on o

n re

side

ntia

l st

reet

s.

road

use

rs. O

f th

ose

that

tho

ught

tra

ffic

was

dan

gero

us i

n th

eir

area

, hal

f th

ough

t th

at t

raff

ic c

alm

ing

wou

ld b

e a

solu

tion.

Whe

nas

ked

to r

ate

the

qual

ity o

f th

eir

stre

et i

n te

rms

of h

ow i

t is

lai

dou

t or

bui

lt, 8

0% o

f re

spon

dent

s ag

reed

it

was

ple

asan

t. Pe

ople

wer

e as

ked

whi

ch u

sers

sho

uld

have

pri

ority

in

thei

r st

reet

or

road

if

it w

ere

to b

e re

desi

gned

. Par

king

for

res

iden

ts (

46%

),ch

ildre

n pl

ayin

g (4

35)

and

wal

king

(42

%)

wer

e th

e th

ree

mos

tpo

pula

r re

spon

ses.

67%

of

resp

onde

nts

agre

ed t

hat

it w

asim

port

ant

for

them

tha

t th

eir

stre

et s

houl

d ha

ve m

ore

‘sof

tla

ndsc

apin

g’ s

uch

as t

rees

and

gre

en a

reas

. The

maj

ority

(71

%)

thou

ght

that

it

was

im

port

ant

for

ever

yone

to

have

a p

arki

ngsp

ace

outs

ide

thei

r ho

use.

Peo

ple

gene

rally

tho

ught

tha

t it

was

impo

rtan

t fo

r th

e st

reet

to

be a

goo

d pl

ace

to s

top

and

talk

to

neig

hbou

rs (8

1%).

Res

pond

ents

wer

e as

ked

whi

ch p

hysi

cal

qual

ity t

hey

look

ed f

orw

hen

choo

sing

a p

lace

to

live.

80%

sta

ted

feel

ing

safe

whe

nw

alki

ng a

roun

d, 7

5% t

houg

ht t

hat

a go

od g

ener

al e

nvir

onm

ent

was

im

port

ant,

whi

le 6

6% l

ooke

d fo

r a

wel

l-m

aint

aine

d st

reet

.80

% o

f re

spon

dent

s th

ough

t th

at i

t w

as i

mpo

rtan

t fo

r th

eir

stre

etto

be

a hi

gh q

ualit

y en

viro

nmen

t (e

.g.

qual

ity p

avin

g, g

reen

area

s, s

tree

t ar

t).

Dim

ensi

ons

stre

ets

and

squa

res,

Scot

tish

Exe

cutiv

e (2

005)

.T

his

PAN

foc

uses

on

the

desi

gn o

f be

tter

qual

ity r

esid

entia

lS

cotl

and

Dor

set

Cou

nty

Cou

ncil’

s ‘H

ighw

ay G

uida

nce

for

Est

ate

Roa

ds’

rela

tions

hip

to b

uild

ing

heig

hts

Res

iden

tial

str

eets

, pl

anni

ng.

stre

ets,

in

part

icul

ar, f

acto

rs w

hich

can

cre

ate

good

qua

lity

(200

2) w

as p

rodu

ced

to e

nsur

e th

at e

stat

es w

ere

no l

onge

ran

d m

assi

ng.

Adv

ice

Not

e 74

.st

reet

s de

sign

.in

dist

ingu

isha

ble

from

eac

h ot

her

and

not

rela

ted

to t

heir

loc

ale.

The

doc

umen

t su

ppor

ts s

peed

res

trai

nt t

hat

is d

esig

ned

into

the

deve

lopm

ent

from

the

beg

inni

ng a

nd i

s no

t bo

lted

on a

s an

afte

rtho

ught

. Sp

eed

hum

ps a

nd c

hica

nes

are

not

acce

ptab

le,

and

spee

ds a

re k

ept

low

thr

ough

the

pos

ition

ing

of k

ey b

uild

ings

and

spac

es, a

nd r

educ

ing

the

effe

ctiv

e le

ngth

of

road

sec

tions

to 6

0 m

– sp

eeds

sho

uld

ther

efor

e re

mai

n be

low

20

mph

. Jun

ctio

ns w

ithre

duce

d ra

dii

are

enco

urag

ed, a

s ar

e sp

eed

rest

rain

ing

bend

s(w

hich

lim

it fo

rwar

d vi

sibi

lity)

and

var

ying

the

wid

th o

f th

eho

rizo

ntal

alig

nmen

t. O

n-st

reet

par

king

is a

llow

ed.

48

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

ipti

on o

f so

urce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

dati

ons

/ K

ey c

oncl

usio

ns

Qua

lity

plac

es (

Con

tinue

d)

Dim

ensi

ons

stre

ets

and

squa

res,

DT

LR

and

CA

BE

(20

01).

Bri

ef r

efer

ence

to

four

pos

sibl

e ra

tios

of s

tree

t w

idth

to

UK

The

key

iss

ue i

s th

e sp

ace

betw

een

the

build

ings

in

rela

tion

tore

latio

nshi

p to

bui

ldin

g he

ight

sB

y D

esig

n: b

ette

r pl

aces

to

live

.bu

ildin

g he

ight

(re

side

ntia

l ar

eas

only

). T

here

is

also

ath

e sc

ale

of t

he b

uild

ings

and

the

act

iviti

es t

akin

g pl

ace

in t

hean

d m

assi

ng (

cont

inue

d).

disc

ussi

on a

bout

‘se

tbac

ks’

agai

n in

rel

atio

n to

the

mod

elst

reet

. Spe

cifi

c ra

tios

shou

ld b

e ta

ken

as a

gui

de o

nly

and

prov

ided

by

Poun

dbur

y.ad

apte

d to

the

lev

el o

f ac

tivity

and

the

con

text

.

Min

imis

ing

clut

ter

/ si

gnag

e /

Eng

lish

Part

ners

hips

/ L

lew

elyn

The

Urb

an D

esig

n C

ompe

ndiu

m o

ffer

s an

ove

rvie

w o

fU

KB

rief

ref

eren

ce t

o pr

eval

ence

of

slop

pily

dra

wn

lines

and

nee

d to

mar

king

s.D

avie

s (2

000)

. Urb

an D

esig

nur

ban

desi

gn b

est

prac

tice

in t

he U

K a

nd I

nter

natio

nally

.co

nsid

er r

oads

/str

eets

mor

e se

nsiti

vely

.C

ompe

ndiu

m.

It c

over

s a

wid

e ra

nge

of i

nter

rela

ted

topi

cs w

hich

pro

vide

prac

titio

ners

with

a r

efer

ence

gui

de o

f w

hat

wor

ks w

ell

Publ

ic R

ealm

con

tain

s m

any

diff

eren

t el

emen

ts w

hich

nee

dan

d w

hy.

care

ful

cons

ider

atio

n. T

he d

esig

n co

mpe

ndiu

m a

rgue

s th

at t

his

isno

t of

ten

achi

eved

wel

l w

ith t

oo m

any

orga

nisa

tions

put

ting

into

o m

any

diff

eren

t el

emen

ts t

o th

e pu

blic

rea

lm i

n an

unco

ordi

nate

d m

anne

r. T

his

can

lead

to

exce

ssiv

e cl

utte

r w

hich

can

have

neg

ativ

e ef

fect

s on

non

-car

use

rs. T

hey

cite

the

exam

ple

of s

heep

-pen

sty

le t

raff

ic c

ross

ings

whi

ch p

rovi

de f

ree

flow

for

tra

ffic

, w

hile

im

pedi

ng p

edes

tria

n m

ovem

ent.

The

y m

ake

four

spe

cifi

c re

com

men

datio

ns i

n re

latio

n to

str

eet

clut

ter:

1

Rem

ove

supe

rflu

ous

and

obso

lete

ele

men

ts –

est

ablis

h vi

sual

logi

c w

ith c

lear

mes

sage

s fo

r dr

iver

s, c

yclis

ts &

ped

estr

ians

.2

Des

ign

spac

e so

fun

ctio

ns a

re c

lear

and

so

need

for

sig

ns i

sm

inim

ised

.3

Hid

e it

or f

laun

t it

– so

me

elem

ents

are

nec

essa

ry e

vils

–w

here

the

y ca

nnot

be

hidd

en t

hey

shou

ld b

e tr

eate

d as

a f

or o

fpu

blic

art

and

hig

hlig

hted

tai

lore

d to

the

spe

cifi

c co

ntex

t.4

Prod

ucin

g a

com

preh

ensi

ve a

nd c

oord

inat

ed s

trat

egy

ofel

emen

ts f

or e

ach

spac

e –

agai

n co

ntex

t dri

ven.

Eng

lish

Part

ners

hips

/ L

lew

elyn

UK

In r

elat

ion

to s

igna

ge,

the

Com

pend

ium

sug

gest

s th

at s

igna

ge f

orD

avie

s (2

000)

. Urb

an D

esig

npe

dest

rian

s an

d cy

clis

ts i

s as

im

port

ant

as t

hat

for

mot

oris

ts.

Com

pend

ium

.T

hey

sugg

est f

our

cons

ider

atio

ns:

1C

onsi

sten

t an

d co

-ord

inat

ed d

esig

n.2

Mak

ing

the

stru

ctur

e of

the

pla

ce l

egib

le s

o as

to

min

imis

eth

e ne

ed fo

r sig

ns.

3C

once

ntra

ting

pede

stri

an s

igna

ge a

t ke

y no

dal

poin

ts.

4Im

plic

it ro

utin

g de

fine

d by

the

pav

ing

type

and

oth

erm

etho

ds t

o ea

se o

rien

tatio

n.

OD

PM (

2004

). S

afer

pla

ces:

Safe

r Pl

aces

is

inte

nded

as

a ge

nera

l gu

ide

to t

he b

road

UK

The

pla

cing

of

stre

et f

urni

ture

, es

peci

ally

by

utili

ty c

ompa

nies

,th

e pl

anni

ng s

yste

m a

nd c

rim

epl

anni

ng p

rinc

iple

s ou

tline

d in

PPS

1. T

he g

uide

is

not

shou

ld b

e ca

refu

lly c

onsi

dere

d so

as

to m

inim

ise

the

likel

ihoo

dpr

even

tion

.on

ly a

bout

des

igni

ng o

ut c

rim

e, b

ut a

lso

abou

t pr

omot

ing

of a

nti-

soci

al b

ehav

iour

suc

h as

van

dalis

m. E

ach

elem

ent

of t

hego

od d

esig

n le

adin

g to

saf

e, s

usta

inab

le a

nd a

ttrac

tive

stre

etsc

ape

need

s to

be

cons

ider

ed a

s pa

rt o

f a

tota

l w

hole

.en

viro

nmen

ts t

hat

mee

t th

e fu

ll se

t of

pla

nnin

gIn

sens

itive

ly p

lace

d ad

ditio

ns a

re a

pro

blem

in

man

yre

quir

emen

ts.

The

gui

de c

once

ntra

tes

on h

ow t

he p

lann

ing

stre

etsc

apes

and

nee

ded

to b

e ta

ckle

d on

a c

oord

inat

ed b

asis

.sy

stem

can

del

iver

sus

tain

able

env

iron

men

ts.

49

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

ipti

on o

f so

urce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

dati

ons

/ K

ey c

oncl

usio

ns

Qua

lity

plac

es (

Con

tinue

d)

Dim

ensi

ons

stre

ets

and

squa

res,

Noo

rdzi

j P

C a

ndIn

vest

igat

ion

into

the

eff

ects

of

traf

fic

sign

s an

d ro

adN

ethe

rlan

dsT

he a

utho

rs i

nves

tigat

e th

e ef

fect

s of

tra

ffic

sig

ns a

nd r

oad

rela

tions

hip

to b

uild

ing

heig

hts

Hag

enzi

eker

M P

(19

96).

mar

king

s on

saf

ety.

mar

king

s on

saf

ety.

The

fol

low

ing

mea

sure

s ha

ve b

een

iden

tifie

dan

d m

assi

ng (

cont

inue

d).

Ver

keer

sbor

den,

beb

aken

ing

to i

mpr

ove

the

cont

ribu

tion

of t

raff

ic s

igns

and

roa

d sa

fety

:en

ver

keer

svei

ligh

eid.

SW

OV

,M

ake

a di

stin

ctio

n be

twee

n im

port

ant

and

less

im

port

ant

traf

fic

Lei

dsch

enda

m.

sign

s; I

mpr

ovin

g th

e de

sign

of

thes

e si

gns

to m

ake

them

mor

eno

ticea

ble,

rec

ogni

sabl

e an

d un

ders

tand

able

(fo

r ex

ampl

e,in

trod

ucin

g ne

w s

igns

to

indi

cate

wha

t ty

pe o

f ro

ad a

use

r is

on)

;Pl

acin

g sp

eed

limit

sign

s ev

eryw

here

at

the

entr

ance

to

a (s

ectio

nof

) ca

rria

gew

ay o

r to

an

area

, and

rep

eatin

g th

em w

here

nece

ssar

y; R

einf

orci

ng t

he m

essa

ge o

n th

e si

gns

of o

ther

, mor

ena

tura

l in

dica

tors

; R

epla

cing

som

e of

the

roa

d m

akin

gs w

hose

mes

sage

is

inte

nded

to

be r

ead

at d

iffe

rent

tim

es o

f th

e da

y or

nigh

t.

Mov

emen

t

Stre

et n

etw

orks

and

typ

es.

Eng

lish

Part

ners

hips

/ L

lew

elyn

The

Urb

an D

esig

n C

ompe

ndiu

m o

ffer

s an

ove

rvie

w o

fU

KSe

e co

mm

ents

und

er S

igni

ng/C

lutte

r –

it ar

gues

tha

t m

inim

isin

gD

avie

s (2

000)

. Urb

an D

esig

nur

ban

desi

gn b

est

prac

tice

in t

he U

K a

nd I

nter

natio

nally

.pe

dest

rian

bar

rier

s ca

n he

lp t

o cr

eate

a m

ore

wal

king

fri

endl

yC

ompe

ndiu

m.

It c

over

s a

wid

e ra

nge

of i

nter

rela

ted

topi

cs w

hich

pro

vide

envi

ronm

ent.

Gua

rd R

ailin

g in

par

ticul

ar t

houg

h so

met

imes

prac

titio

ners

with

a r

efer

ence

gui

de o

f w

hat

wor

ks w

ell

bille

d as

ped

estr

ian

impr

ovem

ents

can

act

ually

spe

ed u

pan

d w

hy.

impe

ding

mov

emen

t on

foo

t an

d ra

ther

rei

nfor

ce v

ehic

ular

mov

emen

t. T

he g

uide

als

o of

fers

an

exam

ple

of C

anni

ng S

tree

tin

Liv

erpo

ol w

here

sel

ectiv

e st

reet

clo

sure

in

a hi

stor

ical

lay

out

has

been

use

d to

ach

ieve

a b

ette

r ba

lanc

e be

twee

n ve

hicl

es a

ndot

her

user

s. T

his

is a

use

ful

met

hod

as t

he b

arri

ers

to v

ehic

lem

ovem

ent

are

not

actu

ally

‘de

ad-e

nds’

as

they

are

rem

ain

perm

eabl

e to

cyc

lists

and

ped

estr

ians

- a

nd p

oten

tially

emer

genc

y se

rvic

e ve

hicl

es a

nd d

isab

led

driv

ers

depe

ndin

g on

the

trea

tmen

t us

ed.

DeR

ober

tis M

and

Wac

htel

AT

his

pape

r ex

amin

es t

he e

ffec

ts o

f va

riou

s tr

affi

c ca

lmin

gU

SAT

hose

tra

ffic

cal

min

g m

easu

res

that

are

NO

T r

ecom

men

ded

(199

6).

Tra

ffic

cal

min

g do

sm

easu

res

on c

yclis

ts,

incl

udin

g di

scom

fort

, fe

elin

gs o

fin

clud

e m

eand

erin

g ro

adw

ays

(cau

se e

rrat

ic m

ovem

ents

by

and

don’

ts t

o en

cour

age

safe

ty a

nd i

ncon

veni

ence

.m

otor

ists

and

inc

reas

ed d

ista

nces

for

cyc

lists

); c

hica

nes

(cyc

lists

bicy

clin

g. I

TE

Ann

ual

Mee

ting

are

forc

ed c

lose

r to

veh

icle

s);

STO

P si

gns

(inc

reas

e de

lay

toC

ompe

ndiu

m.

cycl

ists

); a

nd r

umbl

e st

rips

(ca

usin

g di

scom

fort

to

cycl

ists

, an

dpo

ssib

ly s

teer

ing

diff

icul

ty/lo

ss o

f co

ntro

l).

Ken

nedy

J V

, Whe

eler

A H

Qui

et l

anes

are

rur

al r

oads

tha

t m

ostly

sat

isfy

the

fol

low

ing

UK

Mea

n sp

eeds

in

Ken

t re

duce

d fr

om 2

9.2

mph

to

26.9

mph

aan

d In

woo

d C

M (

2004

b).

crite

ria:

nar

row

sin

gle-

trac

k ro

ad;

very

low

flo

w;

not

are

duct

ion

of -

2.3

mph

. Spe

eds

at t

he 8

5th

perc

entil

e re

duce

d fr

omK

ent

quie

t la

nes

sche

me.

mai

n ac

cess

rou

te;

no s

tree

t lig

htin

g; n

atio

nal

spee

d lim

it.35

.2 t

o 32

.6, -

2.6

mph

. How

ever

, gre

ater

red

uctio

ns, -

2.8

mph

TR

L R

epor

t T

RL

603.

Thi

s st

udy

focu

ses

on a

pilo

t un

dert

aken

on

road

s in

Ken

t.(m

ean

spee

d) a

nd -

3.2

(85t

h pe

rcen

tile)

wer

e re

cord

ed o

n co

ntro

lW

okin

gham

: T

RL

.T

he Q

uiet

Lan

e ne

twor

k w

as i

mpl

emen

ted

betw

een

road

s, s

how

ing

negl

igib

le c

hang

es i

n sp

eed

. Tra

ffic

flo

ws

wer

eA

ugus

t 20

00 a

nd M

ay 2

001.

The

net

wor

k w

as d

esig

ned

redu

ced

slig

htly

whe

n co

mpa

red

to t

he c

ontr

ol r

oads

, fro

m 2

,137

to l

ink

tow

ns, v

illag

es, p

ublic

rig

hts

of w

ay a

nd t

he e

xist

ing

to 2

,122

on

wee

kday

s an

d 1,

577

to 1

,453

at

the

wee

kend

scy

cle

rout

es. T

raff

ic c

alm

ing

on b

usie

r st

retc

hes

of r

oad

(Con

trol

roa

d vo

lum

es i

ncre

ased

). S

uppo

rt r

emai

ned

stro

ng i

nin

clud

e fa

lse

cattl

e gr

ids

(5 r

umbl

e st

rips

) an

d co

lour

ing

both

the

bef

ore

and

afte

r at

titud

inal

sur

veys

, with

ove

r 75

% o

fof

the

cen

tre

sect

ion

of t

he r

oad,

lea

ving

edg

es o

f th

e ro

adre

spon

dent

s in

fav

our

of th

e sc

hem

es.

50

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

ipti

on o

f so

urce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

dati

ons

/ K

ey c

oncl

usio

ns

Mov

emen

t (C

ontin

ued)

Stre

et n

etw

orks

and

typ

esun

chan

ged

(nar

row

ing

effe

ct).

Foo

tway

s ha

ve b

een

(con

tinu

ed).

wid

ened

and

Qui

et L

anes

sig

ns w

ere

erec

ted.

Ext

ensi

vem

onito

ring

was

und

erta

ken,

inc

ludi

ng b

efor

e tr

affi

c an

dsp

eed

surv

eys

and

befo

re a

nd a

fter

atti

tudi

nal

and

vide

o su

rvey

s.

Ken

nedy

J V

, Whe

eler

A H

,T

his

stud

y fo

cuse

s on

a p

ilot

unde

rtak

en o

n ro

ads

inU

KM

ean

spee

ds i

n N

orfo

lk i

n th

e Ju

ly r

educ

ed f

rom

30.

2 m

ph t

oan

d In

woo

d C

M (

2004

a).

Nor

folk

. The

Qui

et L

ane

netw

ork

was

im

plem

ente

d in

30.1

mph

a r

educ

tion

of -

0.1

mph

. Spe

eds

at t

he 8

5th

perc

entil

eN

orfo

lk q

uiet

lan

es S

chem

e.M

arch

200

0, w

ith s

mal

l m

odif

icat

ions

unt

il N

ovem

ber

redu

ced

from

36.

8 to

36,

-0.

8 m

ph. H

owev

er, g

reat

er r

educ

tions

,T

RL

Rep

ort

TR

L60

3.20

00.

Ext

ensi

ve m

onito

ring

was

und

erta

ken,

inc

ludi

ng-1

.1 (

85th

per

cent

ile),

wer

e re

cord

ed o

n co

ntro

l ro

ads

(+0.

1 fo

rW

okin

gham

: T

RL

.be

fore

tra

ffic

and

spe

ed s

urve

ys a

nd b

efor

e an

d af

ter

the

mea

n sp

eed)

, sh

owin

g ne

glig

ible

cha

nges

in

spee

d. M

ean

attit

udin

al a

nd v

ideo

sur

veys

. sp

eeds

in

Nor

folk

in

the

Nov

embe

r re

duce

d fr

om 3

0.5

mph

to

30.2

mph

a r

educ

tion

of -

0.3

mph

. Spe

eds

at t

he 8

5th

perc

entil

ere

duce

d fr

om 3

6.4

to 3

6.2,

-0.

2 m

ph. H

owev

er, g

reat

erre

duct

ions

, -0.

8 m

ph (

mea

n sp

eed)

and

-1.

5 (8

5th

perc

entil

e)w

ere

reco

rded

on

cont

rol

road

s, s

how

ing

negl

igib

le c

hang

es i

nsp

eed.

Tra

ffic

flo

ws

wer

e re

duce

d sl

ight

ly w

hen

com

pare

d to

the

cont

rol

road

s, f

rom

1,9

43 t

o 1,

879

on w

eekd

ays

and

1,24

5 to

1,09

1 at

the

wee

kend

s (C

ontr

ol r

oad

volu

mes

inc

reas

ed b

y10

.1%

in

both

cas

es).

Sup

port

rem

aine

d st

rong

in

both

the

bef

ore

and

afte

r at

titud

inal

sur

veys

, with

ove

r 75

% o

f re

spon

dent

s in

favo

ur o

f th

e sc

hem

es.

DfT

(20

04).

Qui

et l

anes

. Tra

ffic

Thi

s T

raff

ic A

dvis

ory

Lea

flet

sum

mar

ises

the

res

earc

hU

KR

ecom

men

datio

ns a

re m

ade

for

loca

l au

thor

ities

on

the

Adv

isor

y L

eafl

et 3

/04,

UK

.un

dert

aken

by

TR

L (

Ken

nedy

et

al.,

2004

a a

nd b

) on

the

impl

emen

tatio

n an

d m

onito

ring

of

quie

t la

nes.

impl

emen

tatio

n an

d m

onito

ring

of

Qui

et L

anes

in

Ken

tan

d N

orfo

lk.

Stre

et d

imen

sion

s.D

aisa

J M

and

Pee

rs J

B (

1997

).R

oad

narr

owin

g as

a m

eans

of

calm

ing

or s

low

ing

traf

fic

USA

Key

con

clus

ions

inc

lude

d: w

ider

res

iden

tial

stre

ets

expe

rien

ced

Nar

row

res

iden

tial

str

eets

: do

is i

nves

tigat

ed w

ithin

thi

s pa

per.

Spe

ed d

ata

was

col

lect

edhi

gher

spe

eds

for

both

the

ave

rage

and

85t

h pe

rcen

tile

spee

ds;

they

rea

lly

slow

dow

n sp

eeds

?fr

om a

lmos

t 50

str

eets

in

the

San

Fran

cisc

o B

ay a

rea

whe

reon

-str

eet

park

ing

dens

ity s

igni

fica

ntly

aff

ects

spe

eds

(whe

re i

t is

kerb

wid

ths

vari

ed f

rom

25

ft (

7.62

m)

to 5

0ft

(15.

24 m

).pr

esen

t, it

redu

ces

spee

ds);

tra

ffic

vol

umes

and

veh

icle

hea

dway

Park

ing

dens

ity w

as a

lso

surv

eyed

. the

sel

ecte

d st

reet

s ha

daf

fect

spe

eds;

and

sig

nifi

cant

red

uctio

ns i

n ef

fect

ive

stre

et w

idth

sim

ilar

char

acte

rist

ics

to a

llow

com

pari

son.

ar

e re

quir

ed to

dra

mat

ical

ly r

educ

e sp

eeds

.

DT

LR

and

CA

BE

(20

01).

‘Bet

ter

plac

es t

o liv

e’ i

s a

com

pani

on g

uide

to

PPG

3 an

d is

UK

The

gui

de s

ugge

sts

that

les

sons

fro

m c

ount

less

tra

ditio

nal

tow

nsB

y D

esig

n: B

ette

r pl

aces

to

live

.in

tend

ed t

o ai

d pr

actit

ione

rs i

n th

e de

liver

y of

the

cha

nges

poin

t to

the

im

pact

tha

t th

e ov

eral

l ar

rang

emen

t of

bui

ldin

gs a

ndou

tline

d in

PPG

3. I

t fo

cuse

s on

urb

an d

esig

n pr

inci

ples

as

spac

es c

an h

ave

on d

rive

r's b

ehav

iour

. It

argu

es t

hat

build

ings

they

rel

ate

to t

he r

esid

entia

l en

viro

nmen

t, bu

ildin

g on

the

whi

ch o

bstr

uct

driv

ers’

for

war

d vi

sion

can

res

ult

in d

rive

rspr

inci

ples

out

lined

in

the

Urb

an T

ask

Forc

e R

epor

t an

d th

ead

optin

g a

mor

e ca

utio

us a

nd s

low

er a

ppro

ach.

Act

ive

traf

fic

Urb

an W

hite

Pap

er.

cont

rol

elem

ents

suc

h as

chi

cane

s, r

amps

etc

are

onl

y ne

cess

ary

if t

he d

esig

n ha

s fa

iled

and

corr

ectiv

e m

easu

res

are

requ

ired

.B

ette

r de

sign

red

uces

the

nee

d fo

r co

rrec

tive

mea

sure

s.

Polu

s A

and

Cra

us J

(19

96).

The

con

cept

of

shar

ed s

tree

ts, i

n pa

rtic

ular

the

pla

nnin

gP

lann

ing

and

geom

etri

c as

pect

san

d ge

omet

ric

aspe

cts,

are

exp

lore

d. W

here

nar

row

wid

ths

of s

hare

d st

reet

s.ar

e pr

esen

t, on

ly o

ne v

ehic

le c

an p

ass

alon

g a

stra

ight

51

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

ipti

on o

f so

urce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

dati

ons

/ K

ey c

oncl

usio

ns

Mov

emen

t (C

ontin

ued)

Stre

et d

imen

sion

s (c

onti

nued

).se

ctio

n of

roa

d, w

here

as a

t di

agon

al s

ectio

ns, v

ehic

les

can

Isra

elR

ecom

men

datio

ns r

egar

ding

sha

red

stre

ets

incl

ude:

tra

nsiti

ons

pass

eac

h ot

her

in o

ppos

ite d

irec

tions

. the

ang

le o

f th

ebe

twee

n st

reet

s sh

ould

be

mad

e cl

ear

thro

ugh

an e

leva

ted

ordi

agon

al s

ectio

n, r

elat

ive

to a

str

aigh

t lin

e, a

nd i

ts w

idth

are

text

ured

sur

face

; a

safe

ty z

one

of 0

.90

m t

o 1.

50 m

is

desi

rabl

esi

gnif

ican

t in

det

erm

inin

g th

e ra

dius

of

the

path

of

vehi

cles

eith

er s

ide

of t

he t

rave

l la

ne t

o pr

ovid

e fu

rthe

r co

mfo

rt w

hen

two

alon

g th

is s

ectio

n.

oppo

sing

veh

icle

s m

eet;

suff

icie

nt p

arki

ng s

houl

d be

pro

vide

d to

acco

mm

odat

e vi

sito

rs/g

uest

s (i

nsuf

fici

ent

park

ing

is f

ound

to

besi

gnif

ican

t in

faile

d de

sign

s).

Bar

rel

and

Whi

teho

use

(200

4).

The

im

pact

s of

the

DfT

’s p

ilot

Hom

e Z

one

sche

mes

are

UK

To

achi

eve

the

tight

est

vehi

cle

path

for

car

s w

ill o

ften

res

ult

in a

Hom

e Z

ones

– a

n ev

olvi

ngdi

scus

sed

by B

arre

l an

d W

hite

hous

e (2

004)

. The

mai

ncl

ear

wid

th o

f on

ly 3

m i

n pl

aces

, and

lat

eral

shi

fts

of u

p to

4 m

appr

oach

to

com

mun

ity

stre

ets.

outc

ome

of t

he s

chem

es s

eem

s to

be

the

deve

lopm

ent

ofov

er a

len

gth

of l

ess

than

10

m h

ave

been

rec

omm

ende

d. T

his

isPr

ocee

ding

s of

the

Ins

titut

ion

ofst

rong

er a

nd m

ore

inte

grat

ed l

ocal

com

mun

ities

thr

ough

on t

wo-

way

str

eets

with

flo

ws

of l

ess

than

100

veh

icle

s pe

r ho

urC

ivil

Eng

inee

rs,

157,

the

activ

e in

volv

emen

t of

res

iden

ts i

n al

l le

vels

of

the

– gr

eate

r w

idth

s ne

ed t

o be

pro

vide

d in

ord

er f

or v

ehic

les

to p

ass

pp.

257-

265

cont

inue

d so

cial

opp

ortu

nitie

s cr

eate

d as

a r

esul

t of

Hom

eea

ch o

ther

.Z

one

impl

emen

tatio

n. H

owev

er,

ther

e ar

e ce

rtai

n co

ncer

nsre

gard

ing

som

e de

sign

asp

ects

of

Hom

e Z

ones

, suc

h a

s ca

teri

ng f

or l

ess

able

-bod

ied

mem

bers

of

the

com

mun

ity.

Sing

le s

urfa

ce a

reas

hav

e be

nefi

ted

thos

e w

ith m

obili

typr

oble

ms,

but

thi

s de

sign

can

dis

adva

ntag

e th

e pa

rtia

llysi

ghte

d, w

here

no

guid

ance

is

give

n. T

here

fore

, bo

unda

ryfe

atur

es h

ave

had

to b

e in

corp

orat

ed i

nto

the

desi

gn t

opr

ovid

e so

me

guid

ance

for

tho

se w

ith s

ight

pro

blem

s.

Till

y et

al.

(200

5). P

ilot

hom

eA

num

ber

of H

ome

Zon

e m

easu

res

wer

e ap

plie

d in

UK

Pa

rkin

g ha

s be

en r

educ

ed f

rom

56

kerb

sid

e sp

aces

to

just

26

zone

sch

emes

: ev

alua

tion

of

Nor

thm

oor,

a r

esid

entia

l ar

ea 3

mile

s so

uth-

east

of

eche

lon

spac

es;

resi

dent

s in

the

aft

er s

urve

y re

gard

ed p

arki

ng a

sN

orth

moo

r, M

anch

este

r.M

anch

este

r C

ity C

entr

e. T

hese

mea

sure

s in

clud

edan

‘un

reso

lved

’ is

sue.

Ove

r ha

lf o

f th

e re

spon

dent

s th

ough

t th

atT

RL

Rep

ort

TR

L62

5.re

plac

ing

para

llel

park

ing

with

ech

elon

par

king

on

the

hom

e zo

ne h

ad i

ncre

ased

par

king

pro

blem

s ou

tsid

e th

eir

Wok

ingh

am:

TR

L.

alte

rnat

e si

des

of t

he r

oad,

slo

win

g ve

hicl

es u

sing

chi

cane

s,ho

use.

On

thre

e of

the

str

eets

, the

mea

n sp

eed

was

red

uced

to

int

rodu

cing

‘gr

een

stre

ets’

bet

wee

n th

e pa

ralle

l st

reet

s,11

.5, 9

.4 a

nd 1

2.6

mph

, with

85t

h pe

rcen

tile

spee

ds o

f 14

.2, 1

3.9

intr

oduc

ing

part

icul

ar f

eatu

res

such

as

smal

l ga

rden

s an

dan

d 16

.1 m

ph. T

he s

peed

on

the

dist

ribu

tor

road

jus

t ou

tsid

e of

wal

l m

ount

ed p

ots

outs

ide

the

hous

es, p

lant

ing

tree

s in

the

the

area

, 85t

h pe

rcen

tile

spee

ds i

ncre

ased

slig

htly

to

21.3

mph

.st

reet

s, a

nd r

enew

ing

and

upgr

adin

g st

reet

lig

htin

g. T

oO

n th

e ro

ads

with

out

any

mea

sure

s, s

peed

s re

mai

ned

sim

ilar

inas

sess

the

eff

ectiv

enes

s of

the

sch

emes

, TR

L c

arri

ed o

utbo

th t

he b

efor

e an

d af

ter

(18

mph

and

23

mph

). S

tree

ts w

ithbe

fore

and

aft

er m

onito

ring

, in

clud

ing

inte

rvie

w s

urve

ysm

easu

res

redu

ced

traf

fic

flow

s by

19

to 3

4%. o

n un

trea

ted

with

adu

lts a

nd c

hild

ren,

col

lect

ion

of t

raff

ic f

low

, spe

edst

reet

s, t

raff

ic r

educ

ed b

y 17

%. 3

9% o

f re

spon

dent

s th

ough

t th

atan

d ac

cide

nt d

ata

and

vide

o re

cord

ing.

dr

iver

s w

ere

mor

e co

nsid

erat

e to

chi

ldre

n pl

ayin

g in

the

str

eet,

whe

reas

53%

tho

ught

the

y w

ere

abou

t th

e sa

me.

72%

tho

ught

it

was

ver

y sa

fe o

r qu

ite s

afe

for

adul

ts w

alki

ng o

r cy

clin

g in

the

Hom

e Z

one.

Of

the

28%

who

tho

ught

it

was

not

ver

y sa

fe o

r no

t at

all

safe

,re

ason

s gi

ven

incl

uded

too

man

y pa

rked

car

s (1

9%),

veh

icle

str

avel

ling

too

fast

(20

%)

and

lack

of

pave

men

t w

idth

(16

%).

The

re w

as 5

yea

rs o

f ‘b

efor

e’ a

ccid

ent

data

and

23

mon

ths

of‘a

fter

’ ac

cide

nt d

ata.

Alth

ough

the

sam

ple

was

ver

y sm

all,

the

data

sho

wed

tha

t th

e nu

mbe

r of

acc

iden

ts p

er y

ear

redu

ced

from

1.0

befo

re to

0.5

acc

iden

ts p

er y

ear

afte

r.

52

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

ipti

on o

f so

urce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

dati

ons

/ K

ey c

oncl

usio

ns

Mov

emen

t (C

ontin

ued)

Stre

et d

imen

sion

s (c

onti

nued

).L

ayfi

eld

et a

l. (2

005)

. P

ilot

A n

umbe

r of

Hom

e Z

one

mea

sure

s w

ere

appl

ied

in M

agor

UK

Litt

le c

hang

e to

the

ove

rall

num

ber

of p

arki

ng s

pace

s oc

curr

ed.

hom

e zo

ne s

chem

es:

eval

uati

onvi

llage

, 5 m

iles

east

of

New

port

. The

se m

easu

res

incl

uded

How

ever

, res

iden

ts i

n th

e af

ter

surv

ey r

egar

ded

park

ing

as a

nof

Mag

or V

illa

ge,

Gat

eway

tre

atm

ents

, fl

at t

op h

umps

, ex

tens

ive

plan

ting

,‘u

nres

olve

d’ i

ssue

. Ove

r ha

lf o

f th

e re

spon

dent

s th

ough

t th

at t

heM

onm

outh

shir

e. T

RL

Rep

ort

bolla

rds

and

‘Sto

nem

aste

r Fl

ags’

, 20

mph

zon

e ou

tsid

e th

eH

ome

Zon

e ha

d in

crea

sed

park

ing

prob

lem

s. O

n Sy

cam

ore

TR

L63

3. W

okin

gham

: T

RL

.bo

unda

ry o

f th

e zo

ne, n

arro

win

g of

the

roa

d. T

o as

sess

the

Ter

race

, spe

ed h

umps

had

as

smal

l ef

fect

on

the

mea

n sp

eed

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

the

sch

emes

, TR

L c

arri

ed o

ut b

efor

e an

dw

hich

red

uced

by

2.5

mph

to

13.9

mph

. (85

per

cent

ile –

afte

r m

onito

ring

, in

clud

ing

inte

rvie

w s

urve

ys w

ith a

dults

16.8

mph

). T

he s

peed

hum

ps n

orth

of

The

Squ

are

redu

ced

the

and

child

ren,

col

lect

ion

of t

raff

ic f

low

, sp

eed

and

acci

dent

mea

n sp

eed

slig

htly

by

1.7

mph

to

12.2

mph

(85

per

cent

ile –

data

and

vid

eo r

ecor

ding

. 14

.8 m

ph).

Jus

t ou

tsid

e of

the

Hom

e Z

one,

mea

n an

d 85

thpe

rcen

tile

spee

ds r

educ

ed b

y 4

mph

to

22 m

ph a

nd 2

8 m

phre

spec

tivel

y. F

low

s on

Syc

amor

e T

erra

ce i

ncre

ased

by

15%

,w

here

as t

hose

on

The

Squ

are

redu

ced

by 5

0% –

mai

nly

due

to i

tbe

com

ing

one-

way

aft

er i

nsta

llatio

n. 1

9% o

f re

spon

dent

sth

ough

t th

at d

rive

rs w

ere

mor

e co

nsid

erat

e to

chi

ldre

n pl

ayin

g in

the

stre

et, w

here

as 6

1% t

houg

ht t

hey

wer

e ab

out

the

sam

e. 5

5%th

ough

t it

was

ver

y sa

fe o

r qu

ite s

afe

for

adul

ts w

alki

ng o

rcy

clin

g in

the

Hom

e Z

one.

Lay

fiel

d et

al.

(200

5).

Pil

otU

KO

f th

e 28

% w

ho t

houg

ht i

t w

as n

ot v

ery

safe

or

not

at a

ll sa

fe,

hom

e zo

ne s

chem

es:

reas

ons

give

n in

clud

ed t

oo m

any

park

ed c

ars

(17%

), v

ehic

les

eval

uati

on o

f M

agor

trav

ellin

g to

o fa

st (

8%),

pro

blem

s at

the

sch

ool

entr

ance

96%

)V

illa

ge,

Mon

mou

thsh

ire.

and

lack

of

pave

men

ts (

6%).

Onl

y on

e sl

ight

inj

ury

acci

dent

TR

L R

epor

t T

RL

633.

occu

rred

in

the

befo

re p

erio

d of

7 y

ears

giv

ing

an a

ccid

ent

rate

Wok

ingh

am:

TR

L.

of 0

.14

acci

dent

s pe

r ye

ar (

a ca

r an

d a

mot

orcy

clis

ts t

rave

lling

in o

ppos

ite d

irec

tions

nor

th o

f T

he S

quar

e –

this

typ

e of

acc

iden

tsh

ould

no

long

er o

ccur

due

to

the

new

one

-way

sys

tem

). T

heaf

ter

peri

od, o

f ju

st 9

mon

ths

show

s th

at t

here

hav

e be

en n

oac

cide

nts

in th

e H

ome

Zon

e.

Junc

tion

s.L

awto

n B

J, W

ebb

P J,

Thi

s st

udy

focu

ses

on t

he u

se o

f ‘c

ontin

enta

l’ s

tyle

UK

Due

to

the

low

num

ber

of c

yclis

ts i

n bo

th s

urve

y ty

pes,

it

was

Wal

l G T

and

Dav

ies

D G

roun

dabo

uts,

whi

ch f

eatu

re n

arro

wer

cir

cula

ting

diff

icul

t to

com

e to

any

fir

m c

oncl

usio

ns r

egar

ding

cha

nges

tha

t(2

003)

. C

ycli

sts

atca

rria

gew

ays

than

typ

ical

Bri

tishr

ound

abou

ts a

nd t

ypic

ally

coul

d be

mad

e to

inc

reas

e sa

fety

for

cyc

lists

at

roun

dabo

uts.

A‘c

onti

nent

al’

styl

e ro

und-

have

few

er e

ntry

and

exi

t la

nes

on e

ach

arm

, and

the

irnu

mbe

r of

pos

itive

mea

sure

s w

ere

iden

tifie

d th

at a

ppea

r to

hav

eab

outs

: re

port

on

four

tri

alef

fect

s on

the

saf

ety

of c

yclis

ts. T

his

styl

e of

rou

ndab

out

isan

eff

ect

on s

afet

y of

cyc

lists

at

geom

etry

on

appr

oach

es;

asi

tes.

TR

L R

epor

t T

RL

584.

typi

cally

use

d on

roa

ds w

here

the

re a

re l

ower

tra

ffic

flo

ws,

redu

ctio

n in

the

num

ber

of e

ntry

and

exi

t la

nes;

an

enla

rged

Wok

ingh

am:

TR

L.

as t

hey

are

not

desi

gned

with

the

aim

of

max

imis

ing

vehi

cle

cent

ral

isla

nd;

the

intr

oduc

tion

of t

ouca

n cr

ossi

ngs

on t

he a

rms

flow

s. B

ecau

se o

f th

e de

sign

, ‘c

ontin

enta

l’ s

tyle

of r

ound

abou

ts;

and

the

addi

tion

of c

ycle

str

ips

at t

he

give

-way

roun

dabo

uts

appe

ar t

o be

eas

ier

for

cycl

ists

to

nego

tiate

,li

nes.

and

it is

sug

gest

ed t

hat

they

are

the

refo

re s

afer

. The

stu

dyus

ed a

ser

ies

of ‘

befo

re’

and

‘aft

er’

vide

o an

d in

terv

iew

surv

eys,

a s

tudy

of

roun

dabo

ut f

low

s us

ing

AR

CA

DY

, and

an a

naly

sis

of a

ccid

ent

stat

istic

s at

the

rou

ndab

outs

bef

ore

and

afte

r in

stal

latio

n.

53

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

ipti

on o

f so

urce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

dati

ons

/ K

ey c

oncl

usio

ns

Mov

emen

t (C

ontin

ued)

Junc

tions

(co

ntin

ued)

.E

nglis

h Pa

rtne

rshi

ps /

Lle

wel

ynA

pplie

s w

orke

d ex

ampl

e of

the

tra

ckin

g pr

inci

ple

to t

he U

KU

nder

the

arg

umen

t ke

ep i

t tig

ht t

he c

ompe

ndiu

m s

ugge

sts

that

Dav

ies

(200

0). U

rban

Des

ign

desi

gn a

nd l

ayou

t of

jun

ctio

ns.

Whi

le j

unct

ions

will

alw

ays

tight

cor

ners

hav

e a

maj

or t

raff

ic c

alm

ing

effe

ct.

Com

pend

ium

.be

pla

ce s

peci

fic,

it

sugg

ests

tha

t ju

nctio

ns b

e ke

pt a

s tig

htas

pos

sibl

e. S

ome

tight

cor

ners

hav

e a

traf

fic

calm

ing

effe

ct.

It s

ugge

sts

that

jun

ctio

ns s

houl

d be

wei

ghte

d in

fav

our

ofpe

dest

rian

s in

the

maj

ority

of

case

s. S

hare

d sp

aces

(ca

rs,

cycl

es, p

edes

tria

ns o

n th

e sa

me

rout

e) a

re a

lso

advo

cate

d.

DE

TR

and

CA

BE

(20

00).

Som

e br

ief

refe

renc

es t

o ju

nctio

ns, w

hich

it

argu

es c

an b

e U

K A

s ab

ove.

By

Des

ign:

Urb

an d

esig

n in

the

trea

ted

as s

pace

s in

the

ir o

wn

righ

t an

d/or

as

a po

int

ofpl

anni

ng s

yste

m:

tow

ards

entr

y, w

hich

can

im

prov

e le

gibi

lity

by h

elpi

ng t

o id

entif

ybe

tter

pra

ctic

e.pl

aces

and

to

bette

r de

fine

rou

tes.

DT

LR

and

CA

BE

(20

01).

Giv

es e

xam

ple

of t

ight

jun

ctio

ns a

nd p

inch

poi

nts

inU

KA

s ab

ove.

By

Des

ign:

bet

ter

plac

es t

o li

ve.

Poun

dbur

y w

hich

enc

oura

ge d

rive

rs t

o ta

ke c

orne

rs m

ore

care

full

y.

Ach

ievi

ng a

ppro

pria

te s

peed

s.D

TL

R a

nd C

AB

E (

2001

).‘B

ette

r pl

ace

to l

ive’

is

a co

mpa

nion

gui

de t

o PP

G3

and

isU

KB

y D

esig

n su

gges

ts t

hat

deve

lopm

ents

can

be

laid

out

in

such

aB

y D

esig

n: b

ette

r pl

aces

to

live

.in

tend

ed t

o ai

d pr

actit

ione

rs i

n th

e de

liver

y of

the

cha

nges

man

ner

as t

o en

cour

age

low

(er)

tra

ffic

spe

eds.

The

y m

ake

four

outli

ned

in P

PG3.

It

focu

ses

on u

rban

des

ign

prin

cipl

es a

ssu

gges

tion

s:

they

rel

ate

to t

he r

esid

entia

l en

viro

nmen

t, bu

ildin

g on

the

1D

evel

opm

ents

sho

uld

be d

esig

ned

with

reg

ard

to t

heir

eff

ect

prin

cipl

es o

utlin

ed i

n th

e U

rban

Tas

k Fo

rce

Rep

ort

and

the

on t

raff

ic s

peed

s.U

rban

Whi

te P

aper

.2

Tra

ffic

spe

eds

can

be m

anag

ed b

y th

e ar

rang

emen

t of

build

ings

and

spa

ces

– ph

ysic

al t

raff

ic-c

alm

ing

mea

sure

ssh

ould

be

seco

ndar

y, b

ut c

onsi

dere

d as

int

egra

l as

par

t of

the

desi

gn p

roce

ss a

nd n

ot a

s an

aft

erth

ough

t.3

Cha

nges

in

mat

eria

ls o

r ‘g

atew

ays’

at

the

entr

ance

to

low

spee

d ar

eas

can

aler

t m

otor

ists

to

the

need

to

redu

ce s

peed

.4

Smal

ler

corn

er r

adii

will

enc

oura

ge m

ore

care

ful

vehi

cle

mov

emen

t. T

he l

ayou

t an

d de

sign

of

build

ings

and

the

spa

ces

betw

een

them

hav

e th

e po

tent

ial

in t

hem

selv

es t

o re

duce

the

spee

d of

tra

ffic

. Whe

re a

dditi

onal

rem

edia

l m

easu

res

are

deem

ed n

eces

sary

, th

ey s

houl

d id

eally

be

inte

grat

ed i

nto

the

initi

al d

esig

n of

the

pub

lic r

ealm

. Whe

re t

his

is n

ot p

ossi

ble,

new

add

ition

s sh

ould

be

‘des

igne

d in

’ ra

ther

tha

n m

erel

yco

nfor

min

g to

eng

inee

ring

sta

ndar

ds.

Bri

ndle

R E

(19

96).

Des

igni

ngR

oad

wid

th –

as

a m

easu

re t

o re

duce

spe

eds.

Str

eet

sect

ion

UK

A U

K r

esea

rch

repo

rt b

y N

obel

(19

84)

foun

d th

at m

inor

for

mod

erat

e sp

eeds

in

new

leng

th.

redu

ctio

ns i

n av

aila

ble

carr

iage

way

wid

th a

ppea

r to

mak

e ve

ryne

ighb

ourh

oods

. A

RR

B,

little

dif

fere

nce

to s

peed

s. D

rast

ic o

nes,

lik

e th

ose

prod

uced

by

Spec

ial

Rep

ort

No.

53.

lines

of

park

ed c

ars,

had

onl

y a

limite

d ef

fect

.

Nob

el (

1987

) ci

tes

that

on

stra

ight

roa

ds m

ore

than

200

m lo

ng,

mea

n sp

eeds

will

be

clos

e to

50

km/h

(31

mph

); b

elow

200

m,

mea

n sp

eeds

will

be p

rogr

essi

vely

low

er, r

educ

ing

to a

bout

30

km/h

(19

mph

) at

60

m. B

enne

tt (1

983)

sta

ted

that

it

wou

ld b

epo

ssib

le t

o ac

hiev

e lo

w s

peed

s on

str

eets

of

trad

ition

al c

ross

-se

ctio

n an

d vi

sibi

lity

stan

dard

s, u

sing

sho

rt l

engt

hs o

f st

reet

s an

d

54

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

ipti

on o

f so

urce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

dati

ons

/ K

ey c

oncl

usio

ns

Mov

emen

t (C

ontin

ued)

Ach

ievi

ng a

ppro

pria

te s

peed

sfr

eque

nt 9

0 de

gree

ben

ds –

alth

ough

suc

h co

nfig

urat

ions

wou

ld(c

onti

nued

).be

far

fro

m c

onve

ntio

nal

Avo

id l

ong

and

wid

e si

ght

lines

, whi

lst

bein

g ca

refu

l th

atst

oppi

ng s

ight

dis

tanc

es a

re b

eing

obs

erve

d. T

he d

esig

n sp

eed

for

vert

ical

sig

ht d

ista

nce

shou

ld n

ot b

e le

ss t

han

that

for

hori

zont

al s

ight

dis

tanc

e, a

nd s

houl

d be

gre

ater

if

hori

zont

alsi

ght d

ista

nce

is a

t a m

inim

um.

Use

occ

asio

nal

inte

rrup

tions

to

the

park

ing

lane

s (s

uch

aspl

antin

g ar

eas)

to

cons

trai

n th

e ‘o

ptic

al w

idth

’ of

the

str

eet,

bein

gca

refu

l to

pro

tect

sig

ht s

topp

ing

dist

ance

s

Bri

ndle

R E

(19

96).

Des

igni

ngU

KA

t th

e sm

all

scal

e, e

ncou

rage

inn

ovat

ive

tota

l de

sign

to

prod

uce

for

mod

erat

e sp

eeds

in

new

spee

ds w

ell

belo

w t

hose

in

conv

entio

nal

esta

tes.

Tot

al d

esig

n of

neig

hbou

rhoo

ds.

AR

RB

Spe

cial

the

stre

et,

com

bini

ng c

onsi

dera

tions

of

leng

th,

visi

bilit

y, t

extu

reR

epor

t N

o. 5

3.

and

mat

eria

ls,

cros

s-se

ctio

n, e

dge

trea

tmen

ts,

activ

ity,

road

side

deve

lopm

ent

and

plan

ting

is r

equi

red

to m

ake

sure

tha

t al

l th

eva

riab

les

wor

k in

con

cert

to p

rodu

ce a

saf

e, lo

w-s

peed

env

iron

men

t.

Scot

tish

Exe

cutiv

e (1

999)

.T

his

repo

rt f

or t

he S

cotti

sh E

xecu

tive

expl

ores

roa

dSc

otla

nd,

UK

Sc

enar

ios

whi

ch p

rodu

ce t

he l

owes

t sp

eeds

(qu

estio

nnai

reN

atur

al t

raff

ic c

alm

ing:

envi

ronm

ent

fact

ors

whi

ch m

ay h

ave

an e

ffec

t on

dri

ver

resp

onse

s) w

ere

reve

aled

to

be p

edes

tria

ns c

ross

ing

(20

mph

),gu

idan

ce a

nd r

esea

rch

repo

rt.

be

havi

our,

foc

usin

g on

‘na

tura

l tr

affi

c ca

lmin

g’.

The

stu

dych

ildre

n pr

esen

t (2

3 m

ph),

lor

ries

unl

oadi

ng (

24 m

ph)

and

cars

is b

ased

on

a co

mbi

natio

n of

rea

l-lif

e ex

ampl

es a

ndpa

rked

on

both

sid

es o

f th

e ro

ad. T

hese

res

ults

sug

gest

tha

t th

ebe

havi

oura

l or

psy

chom

etri

c te

stin

g. L

ocal

aut

hori

ties

inpe

rcei

ved

risk

of

colli

sion

with

ped

estr

ians

is

one

of t

he m

ost

Scot

land

wer

e co

ntac

ted

whi

ch r

esul

ted

in t

he i

dent

ific

atio

npo

wer

ful

infl

uenc

es o

n pe

ople

's a

vera

ge s

peed

s. T

he n

ext

low

est

of t

en l

ocat

ions

whe

re t

raff

ic a

ppea

red

to b

e ‘n

atur

ally

aver

age

resp

onse

spe

eds

rela

te m

ore

to r

oad

and

traf

fic

calm

ed’.

Phy

sica

l su

rvey

s w

ere

unde

rtak

en o

f ea

ch o

f th

eco

nditi

ons;

the

roa

d su

rfac

e is

cob

bled

(26

mph

), t

raff

ic i

s he

avy

road

s, i

nclu

ding

tra

ffic

sur

veys

(co

mpo

sitio

n),

spee

ds(2

7 m

ph),

sev

eral

str

eet

inte

rsec

tions

(28

mph

) an

d hi

gh(b

efor

e an

d af

ter)

. In

five

of

the

loca

tions

, the

se w

ere

build

ings

loc

ated

clo

se t

o th

e ro

ad (

29 m

ph).

The

cas

e st

udie

sco

mpl

emen

ted

with

mor

e de

taile

d da

ta c

olle

ctio

n, i

nclu

ding

reve

aled

tha

t it

is a

com

bina

tion

of d

iffe

rent

fea

ture

s w

hich

hav

equ

estio

nnai

re s

urve

ys o

f dr

iver

s an

d pe

dest

rian

s.

the

mos

t in

flue

ntia

l ef

fect

on

driv

er b

ehav

iour

. T

rans

ition

was

high

light

ed a

s be

ing

impo

rtan

t: he

lpin

g dr

iver

s ad

just

the

irpe

rcep

tions

and

the

ir s

peed

to

the

envi

ronm

ent

whi

ch t

hey

are

ente

ring

usi

ng a

ran

ge o

f di

ffer

ent p

hysi

cal a

nd p

erce

ptua

l fac

tors

.

Tra

nsiti

on c

an i

nclu

de:

sequ

entia

l ch

ange

s in

lan

dsca

pe a

ndto

wns

cape

; ch

ange

s in

phy

sica

l co

nditi

ons

of t

he r

oad

itsel

f;ac

tivity

and

fea

ture

s w

ithin

the

roa

d en

viro

nmen

t an

d as

soci

ated

'ow

ners

hip'

of

the

stre

et e

nvir

onm

ent;

and

chan

ges

in d

rive

rpe

rcep

tions

of

risk

and

unc

erta

inty

. One

of

the

mos

t im

port

ant

vari

able

s th

at n

eeds

to

be t

aken

int

o co

nsid

erat

ion

is ‘

risk

hom

eost

asis

’ –

the

way

in

whi

ch d

rive

rs a

djus

t th

eir

beha

viou

r to

mai

ntai

n a

cons

iste

nt l

evel

of

risk

. As

driv

ers

feel

saf

er, t

hey

begi

n to

tak

e m

ore

risk

s w

here

as c

onve

rsel

y, i

f ro

ad c

ondi

tions

mak

e th

em f

eel

unsa

fe, d

rive

rs a

re l

ikel

y to

adj

ust

thei

rbe

havi

our

to ta

ke f

ewer

ris

ks.

55

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

ipti

on o

f so

urce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

dati

ons

/ K

ey c

oncl

usio

ns

Mov

emen

t (C

ontin

ued)

Ach

ievi

ng a

ppro

pria

te s

peed

sG

rayl

ing

et a

l. (2

002)

. T

he s

tudy

exa

min

ed t

he r

elat

ions

hip

betw

een

depr

ivat

ion

UK

The

mai

n re

com

men

datio

n fr

om t

he r

epor

t is

tha

t a

max

imum

(con

tinu

ed).

and

child

ped

estr

ian

casu

altie

s in

Bri

tain

and

the

use

of

20 m

ph s

peed

lim

it co

mbi

ned

with

tra

ffic

cal

min

g sh

ould

20 m

ph z

ones

to

redu

ce i

njur

ies

and

ineq

ualit

ies.

A s

urve

ybe

com

e th

e no

rm i

n re

side

ntia

l an

d bu

ilt u

p ar

eas

and

that

was

und

erta

ken

of t

raff

ic-c

alm

ed 2

0 m

ph z

ones

in

Eng

land

prio

rity

sho

uld

be g

iven

to

traf

fic

calm

ed 2

0 m

ph z

ones

in

and

Wal

es. O

f th

e 17

1 co

unty

and

uni

tary

dis

tric

t co

unci

ls,

depr

ived

are

as w

ith h

igh

casu

alty

rat

es.

119

ques

tionn

aire

res

pons

es w

ere

rece

ived

. 80

% h

adim

plem

ente

d at

lea

st o

ne t

raff

ic-c

alm

ed 2

0 m

ph z

one,

tot

alof

684

zon

es, a

nd t

here

wer

e a

furt

her

441

zone

s pl

anne

d.H

ull

was

fou

nd t

o ha

ve e

xten

sive

20

mph

zon

e co

vera

ge,

abou

t 10

0 zo

nes

cove

ring

25%

of

its r

oad

leng

th. I

t w

ases

timat

ed t

hat

Hul

l’s

prog

ram

me

of 2

0 m

ph z

ones

sin

ce19

94 h

as a

lrea

dy s

aved

abo

ut 2

00 s

erio

us i

njur

ies

and

1,00

0 m

inor

inju

ries

.

Vis

A A

, Dijk

stra

A a

nd S

lop

MT

his

stud

y lo

oks

at th

e re

ason

30

kph

(18.

5 m

ph)

zone

s w

ere

Net

herl

ands

Key

res

ults

wer

e as

fol

low

s: s

peed

; hu

mps

, nar

row

ing

of t

he(1

992)

. Saf

ety

effe

cts

of 3

0 m

phin

trod

uced

, and

the

eff

ects

tha

t th

ese

zone

s ha

ve i

n 15

are

asro

ad,

(par

tial)

bar

rica

des,

elo

ngat

ed h

umps

and

ent

ranc

ezo

nes

in t

he N

ethe

rlan

ds.

with

in t

he N

ethe

rlan

ds. T

he e

valu

atio

n of

zon

es u

sed

thre

eco

nstr

uctio

ns a

lmos

t al

way

s ac

hiev

ed a

85t

h pe

rcen

tile

valu

ety

pes

of s

tudy

; tr

affi

c st

udie

s (m

ode

split

, tra

ffic

vol

ume,

(V85

) of

abo

ut 3

0 kp

h. T

he e

ffec

t is

muc

h le

ss f

or r

efug

es a

ndsp

eed,

pla

cem

ent

on t

he r

oad,

con

flic

ts a

nd b

ehav

iour

at

hum

ps w

ith c

ycle

lan

es.

Tra

ffic

vol

ume:

tra

ffic

int

ensi

tyin

ters

ectio

ns);

opi

nion

res

earc

h pr

ojec

ts (

resi

dent

’s v

iew

s);

gene

rally

fel

l by

5 t

o 30

%, w

hich

was

par

ticul

arly

pre

vale

nt i

nan

d an

acc

iden

t st

udy

(bef

ore

and

afte

r –

the

zone

,ar

eas

whe

re m

easu

res

affe

ctin

g ci

rcul

atio

n w

ere

intr

oduc

edsu

rrou

ndin

g ar

teri

al r

oads

and

con

trol

are

as).

Fou

r ty

pes

ofw

hich

res

ulte

d in

a c

onsi

dera

ble

‘los

s of

tim

e’ f

or th

roug

h tr

affi

c.en

gine

erin

g m

easu

re w

ere

eval

uate

d: i

nfor

mat

ive

mea

sure

s;tr

affi

c nu

isan

ce g

ener

ally

dec

lined

(pr

oble

ms

exis

t re

gard

ing

the

sugg

estiv

e m

easu

res

(roa

d na

rrow

ing)

; pe

rsua

sive

mea

sure

s;co

mpa

rabi

lity

of b

efor

e an

d af

ter

peri

ods

and

inte

rpre

tatio

ns).

and

obst

ruct

ive

mea

sure

s.R

esid

ent’

s op

inio

ns:

inte

rvie

ws

wer

e co

nduc

ted

with

a r

ando

msa

mpl

e of

the

pop

ulat

ion

show

ed t

hat

ther

e w

as a

hig

h le

vel

ofac

cept

ance

of

the

30 k

ph r

egul

atio

n. R

esid

ents

gen

eral

ly p

refe

rth

e ne

w s

ituat

ion

over

the

old

one

, fee

l sa

fer

as t

he s

peed

and

inte

nsity

of

the

traf

fic

is l

ower

. A m

arke

d ch

ange

in

the

actu

alus

e of

the

are

a w

as n

ot r

epor

ted,

eve

n th

ough

pre

sent

con

ditio

nsw

ould

fav

our

such

a c

hang

e.

Eng

el U

and

Tho

mse

n L

KT

he a

utho

rs e

valu

ate

the

safe

ty e

ffec

ts o

f sp

eed

redu

cing

Den

mar

kA

ccid

ents

per

km

of

road

: 10

km

of

15 k

ph (

9 m

ph)

and

223

km(1

992)

. Saf

ety

effe

cts

of s

peed

mea

sure

s, u

sing

stu

dies

bas

ed o

n ac

cide

nts

and

vehi

cle

of 3

0 kp

h (1

8.5

mph

) st

reet

s w

ere

used

. No

sign

ific

ant

chan

ges

redu

cing

mea

sure

s in

Dan

ish

spee

ds (

acci

dent

s –

all

polic

e re

port

ed a

ccid

ents

; pe

rson

alw

ere

foun

d in

the

15k

ph s

tree

ts, a

lthou

gh t

here

wer

e si

gnif

ican

tre

side

ntia

l ar

eas.

Acc

iden

tin

jury

and

dam

age

only

; an

d ca

sual

ty –

per

sona

l in

jury

chan

ges

in t

he 3

0 kp

h st

reet

s; a

cha

nge

in a

ccid

ents

of

24%

(77

Ana

lysi

s an

d P

reve

ntio

n,on

ly).

Bef

ore

and

afte

r pe

riod

s w

ere

3 ye

ars

each

in

the

few

er a

ccid

ents

in

3 ye

ar)

Red

uctio

ns i

n ca

sual

ties

in t

he s

ame

24 (

1) p

p. 1

7-28

.ac

cide

nt s

tudi

es.

stre

et t

ype

wer

e 45

% (

88 f

ewer

cas

ualti

es i

n 3

year

s). i

n th

est

reet

s ad

join

ing

the

30 k

ph s

tree

ts, a

ccid

ents

red

uced

18%

(15

0fe

wer

acc

iden

ts)

and

casu

altie

s re

duce

d 21

% (

106

few

erca

sual

ties)

. Acc

iden

ts p

er r

oad

km:

The

re w

as a

sig

nifi

cant

chan

ge i

n th

e nu

mbe

r of

cas

ualti

es p

er r

oad

user

km

of

72%

,w

ith c

onfi

denc

e lim

its r

angi

ng f

rom

4 t

o 29

% d

ue t

o th

e ch

ange

in s

tree

t st

atus

. The

re w

as a

lso

a ch

ange

in

the

num

ber

ofse

riou

sly

inju

red

of 7

8% (

Con

fide

nce

26-9

3%).

Mot

or v

ehic

lesp

eeds

: Sp

eed

redu

cing

mea

sure

s w

ere

impl

emen

ted

with

adi

stan

ce o

f a

max

of

100

m. T

he g

reat

est

chan

ge i

n sp

eed

was

achi

eved

thro

ugh

the

use

of h

umps

(up

to -

13 k

ph).

56

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

ipti

on o

f so

urce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

dati

ons

/ K

ey c

oncl

usio

ns

Mov

emen

t (C

ontin

ued)

Ach

ievi

ng a

ppro

pria

te s

peed

sC

ount

rysi

de A

genc

y (2

005)

.T

his

guid

ance

pre

pare

d fo

r th

e C

ount

rysi

de A

genc

y lo

oks

UK

Nat

ural

tra

ffic

cal

min

g is

rec

omm

ende

d; u

sing

tre

es,

hedg

es,

(con

tinu

ed).

Min

i gu

ide

to r

ural

roa

d sa

fety

at r

ural

roa

d sa

fety

and

tra

ffic

cal

min

g.w

alls

and

bui

ldin

gs t

o sl

ow s

peed

s. E

xam

ples

are

giv

en o

f w

here

and

traf

fic

calm

ing.

Fab

erth

is h

as b

een

impl

emen

ted,

inc

ludi

ng S

uffo

lk,

whe

re h

edge

sM

auns

ell.

have

bee

n cr

eate

d to

giv

e th

e pe

rcep

tion

of a

nar

row

edca

rria

gew

ay w

ithou

t ph

ysic

al a

ltera

tions

. B

ends

, na

rrow

roa

dsan

d ro

ugh

surf

aces

are

als

o va

rian

ces

of r

ural

tra

ffic

cal

min

g.

Wilt

shir

e C

ount

y C

ounc

il ha

ve t

aken

an

inno

vativ

e ap

proa

ch t

ore

duci

ng s

peed

s th

roug

h re

mov

ing

whi

te c

entr

e la

ne l

ines

fro

mro

ads

that

are

lit

and

are

subj

ect

to a

30

mph

spe

ed l

imit.

12

site

sw

ere

asse

ssed

whe

n re

surf

acin

g w

orks

wer

e un

dert

aken

in

the

last

thr

ee y

ears

. In

the

villa

ge o

f Se

end,

the

cou

ncil

have

not

iced

a re

duct

ion

of 5

% i

n sp

eed.

the

lon

g te

rm r

emov

al o

f w

hite

cent

re li

nes

on e

ffec

tiven

ess

is s

till t

o be

see

n.

Abu

rahm

ah a

nd A

l A

ssar

(19

98).

Thi

s st

udy

inve

stig

ates

whe

ther

the

ins

talla

tion

of p

hysi

cal

USA

The

per

cent

age

redu

ctio

n in

spe

ed (

at t

he 8

5th

perc

entil

e) v

arie

dE

valu

atio

n of

nei

ghbo

rhoo

dm

easu

res

such

as

spee

d hu

mps

red

uce

the

oper

atin

g sp

eeds

from

-6.

9% t

o 36

.7%

, whe

re w

as t

he p

erce

ntag

e re

duct

ion

intr

affi

c ca

lmin

g te

chni

ques

in

and

volu

mes

of

traf

fic

in r

esid

entia

l ar

eas.

The

stu

dyav

erag

e da

ily t

raff

ic f

low

s ra

nged

fro

m -

200.

5% t

o 30

%. T

here

side

ntia

l ar

eas.

IT

E A

nnua

lfo

cuse

s on

fou

r re

side

ntia

l lo

catio

ns i

n M

anat

ee C

ount

yov

eral

l co

nclu

sion

s in

clud

ed t

hat

the

spee

d at

mid

poin

ts b

etw

een

Mee

ting

Com

pend

ium

,w

here

spe

ed h

umps

hav

e be

en i

mpl

emen

ted

to r

educ

e tr

affi

cth

e hu

mps

and

ove

rall

spee

d re

duct

ion

was

aff

ecte

d by

the

Was

hing

ton

DC

: In

stitu

te o

fsp

eeds

. Spe

ed a

nd t

raff

ic v

olum

e da

ta w

as c

olle

cted

bef

ore

hum

ps, a

nd t

hat

traf

fic

volu

mes

wer

e al

so r

educ

ed i

n so

me

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Eng

inee

rs.

and

afte

r in

stal

latio

n of

the

spe

ed h

umps

. Si

gnif

ican

celo

catio

ns. H

owev

er, t

raff

ic v

olum

es r

emai

ned

the

sam

e or

test

ing

was

als

o un

dert

aken

usi

ng th

e ‘t

’ te

st.

slig

htly

inc

reas

ed i

n ot

her

loca

tions

.

Har

dy S

(20

04).

Pus

hing

Har

dy i

nves

tigat

es t

he u

se o

f ph

ysic

al s

urro

undi

ngs

inU

KIn

timid

atio

n ha

s an

im

pact

on

driv

ers

thro

ugh

the

perc

eive

d th

rat

the

boun

dari

es.

Surv

eyor

,cr

eatin

g tr

affi

c ca

lmin

g ef

fect

s, a

nd t

here

fore

, po

tent

ially

they

hol

d to

the

dri

ver.

Pos

itive

int

imid

atio

n is

ach

ieve

d th

roug

h1s

t Ju

ly 2

004.

safe

r en

viro

nmen

ts.

Alth

ough

the

pos

ition

ing

of k

eyth

e re

perc

ussi

ons

of c

ollis

ion

with

the

bui

lt or

nat

ural

for

mbu

ildin

gs o

r st

ruct

ures

is

impo

rtan

t in

for

min

g ‘p

lace

’,im

med

iate

ly a

djac

ent

to t

he v

ehic

le p

ath,

whe

reas

neg

ativ

eth

ere

are

also

oth

er c

onsi

dera

tions

, suc

h as

fro

m a

tra

ffic

intim

idat

ion

is a

chie

ved

thro

ugh

the

repe

rcus

sion

s of

fal

ling

into

mov

emen

t po

int

of v

iew

. Har

dy e

xplo

res

the

conc

ept

that

the

void

im

med

iate

ly a

djac

ent

to t

he v

ehic

le p

ath.

the

pos

itive

the

plac

emen

t of

str

uctu

res

can

be u

sed

as a

pos

itive

intim

idat

ion

can

resu

lt in

the

red

uctio

n of

spe

eds

as t

he d

rive

r is

infl

uenc

e to

red

uce

vehi

cle

spee

ds b

y vi

rtue

of

thei

r bu

lkre

quir

ed t

o re

cogn

ise

and

navi

gate

a f

orw

ard

rout

e. B

uild

for

ms

and/

or fo

rm.

plac

ed d

irec

tly i

n fr

ont

of t

he d

rive

r’s

path

of

trav

el w

ill i

nhib

itdi

rect

iona

l le

gibi

lity

as t

he r

oute

ahe

ad h

as t

o be

the

sub

ject

of

delib

erat

e, s

elec

tive

thou

ght

proc

ess.

Ken

nedy

J V

, Gor

ell

R,

Thi

s pa

per

exam

ines

the

use

of

psyc

holo

gica

l m

eans

of

UK

Bui

ld-o

uts

wer

e us

ed t

o de

fine

par

king

bay

s to

nar

row

the

roa

dC

rins

on L

, Whe

eler

A a

ndtr

affi

c ca

lmin

g as

an

alte

rnat

ive

to p

hysi

cal

vert

ical

and

give

a g

entle

chi

cane

eff

ect

(alth

ough

roa

d re

mai

ned

5.5

mE

lliot

t M

(20

05).

Psy

chol

ogic

alm

easu

res,

whi

ch c

an h

ave

a nu

mbe

r of

neg

ativ

e ef

fect

s.w

ide)

. Pla

ntin

g on

the

bui

ld-o

uts

and

park

ed v

ehic

les

wer

etr

affi

c ca

lmin

g. T

RL

Rep

ort

A c

ase

stud

y ex

ampl

e of

the

vill

age

of L

atte

rn, W

iltsh

ire,

inte

nded

to

limit

the

forw

ard

visi

bilit

y an

d br

eak

up t

heT

RL

641.

Wok

ingh

am: T

RL

. w

here

var

ious

psy

chol

ogic

al m

easu

res

wer

e im

plem

ente

dsi

ghtli

nes.

Gat

eway

s w

ere

intr

oduc

ed a

t ea

ch e

nd o

f th

e vi

llage

.on

a f

orm

er t

runk

roa

d. T

he s

chem

e ar

ea i

s th

e m

ain

road

Inbo

und

mea

n sp

eeds

fel

l by

8 m

ph a

nd 4

mph

at

the

nort

h an

dth

roug

h th

e vi

llage

whi

ch c

arri

ed a

ppro

xim

atel

y 2,

000

sout

h ga

tew

ay r

espe

ctiv

ely,

to

37 m

ph a

t bo

th (

47 m

ph 8

5th

vehi

cles

a d

ay. T

he s

peed

lim

it w

as 4

0 m

ph w

ithin

and

jus

tpe

rcen

tile

spee

ds).

In

the

villa

ge, t

wo-

way

tra

ffic

spe

eds

fell

byou

tsid

e th

e bu

ilt u

p ar

ea a

nd w

as e

xten

ded

for

abou

t 1

km.

7-8

mph

to 3

1 m

ph a

nd 8

5th

perc

entil

e sp

eeds

fel

l by

8-10

mph

to85

th p

erce

ntile

spe

eds

wer

e in

exc

ess

of t

he l

imit.

The

new

37-3

8 m

ph. T

his

was

des

pite

und

er u

se o

f pa

rkin

g pa

ys

57

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

ipti

on o

f so

urce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

dati

ons

/ K

ey c

oncl

usio

ns

Mov

emen

t (C

ontin

ued)

Ach

ievi

ng a

ppro

pria

te s

peed

ssc

hem

e co

nsis

ted

of s

tone

gat

eway

s w

ith v

illag

e na

mep

late

(allo

win

g ve

hicl

es t

o pa

ss e

ach

othe

r w

ith e

ase

thro

ugh

(con

tinu

ed).

and

30 m

ph s

igns

(ne

w l

imit)

; bu

ild o

uts

with

pla

ntin

g to

stra

ddlin

g th

e em

pty

park

ing

bay)

and

the

for

war

d vi

sibi

lity

not

narr

ow t

he r

oad

and

crea

te p

arki

ng b

ays

on a

ltern

ate

side

sbe

ing

redu

ced

as m

uch

as i

nten

ded

(par

ticul

arly

due

to

imm

atur

eof

the

car

riag

eway

; re

mov

al o

f ce

ntre

whi

te l

ine;

and

plan

ting

on b

uild

-out

s).

low

erin

g of

lig

htin

g co

lum

ns t

o a

heig

ht m

ore

appr

opri

ate

for a

min

or ro

ad.

Elli

ott

M A

, McC

oll

V A

and

Thi

s lit

erat

ure

revi

ew c

onsi

ders

the

rel

evan

t ps

ycho

logi

cal

UK

!

Psyc

holo

gica

l m

easu

res

to d

ate

have

gen

eral

ly p

rodu

ced

Ken

nedy

J V

(20

03).

Roa

dth

eori

es t

o pr

ovid

e an

ins

ight

int

o ho

w s

peci

fic

road

des

ign

smal

ler

spee

d re

duct

ions

tha

n th

ose

from

phy

sica

l m

easu

res

desi

gn m

easu

res

to r

educ

em

easu

res

mig

ht r

educ

e dr

ivin

g sp

eeds

. an

d th

eir

effe

ct m

ay l

esse

n ov

er t

ime.

How

ever

, the

y m

ay b

edr

iver

s’ s

peed

via

‘ps

ycho

logi

cal’

mor

e ac

cept

able

to d

rive

rs.

proc

esse

s: a

lit

erat

ure

revi

ew.

TR

L R

epor

t T

RL

564.

!In

gen

eral

, m

ore

com

plex

env

iron

men

ts t

end

to b

e as

soci

ated

Wok

ingh

am:

TR

L.

with

slo

wer

dri

ving

spe

eds,

the

lik

ely

mec

hani

sms

bein

gin

crea

ses

in c

ogni

tive

load

and

per

ceiv

ed r

isk.

!R

oads

ide

activ

ity e

.g. o

n-st

reet

par

king

or

the

pres

ence

of

pede

stri

ans

tend

s to

red

uce

spee

d. B

us o

r cy

cle

lane

s ar

e m

ore

likel

y to

red

uce

spee

ds w

hen

they

are

in u

se.

!C

ombi

natio

ns o

f fe

atur

es t

end

to b

e m

ore

effe

ctiv

e th

anin

divi

dual

mea

sure

s.

Scot

tish

Exe

cutiv

e (1

999)

.T

he s

tudy

atte

mpt

ed t

o id

entif

y th

e un

derl

ying

pri

ncip

les

Scot

land

, U

KT

he r

esea

rch

sugg

este

d th

at t

raff

ic c

alm

ing

shou

ld b

e de

fine

d as

Nat

ural

tra

ffic

cal

min

g:be

hind

nat

ural

tra

ffic

cal

min

g. T

en s

mal

l or

med

ium

tow

nsa

proc

ess

of h

elpi

ng d

rive

rs a

djus

t to

the

env

iron

men

t. It

was

guid

ance

and

res

earc

h re

port

.on

thr

ough

rou

tes

in S

cotla

nd t

hat

appe

ared

to

be n

atur

ally

conc

lude

d th

at d

rive

rs a

re i

nflu

ence

d by

a l

arge

num

ber

ofSc

ottis

h E

xecu

tive

Dev

elop

men

ttr

affi

c-ca

lmed

wer

e se

lect

ed a

s ca

se s

tudi

es.

Psyc

hom

etri

cdi

ffer

ent c

ues.

D

epar

tmen

tw

ork,

des

igne

d to

hig

hlig

ht t

he r

elat

ive

impo

rtan

ce o

fdi

ffer

ent f

eatu

res

or s

ituat

ions

, was

und

erta

ken.

Chi

nn L

and

Elli

ott

M (

2002

).T

he r

esea

rch

by T

RL

for

the

Hig

hway

s A

genc

y on

the

UK

The

des

ign

elem

ents

ide

ntif

ied

wer

e:T

he e

ffec

t of

roa

d ap

pear

ance

effe

ct o

f ro

ad a

ppea

ranc

e on

per

ceiv

ed s

afe

trav

el s

peed

!C

onte

xt e

.g.

road

side

typ

e.on

per

ceiv

ed s

afe

trav

el s

peed

:co

nsid

ered

the

des

ign

elem

ents

tha

t ca

n be

use

d in

!Sc

ale

e.g.

roa

d w

idth

and

com

plex

ity.

Fin

al r

epor

t. PA

3827

/20.

infl

uenc

ing

driv

er s

peed

. A

rep

rese

ntat

ive

surv

ey o

f 35

0!

Prop

ortio

n (h

eigh

t of

enc

losi

ng f

eatu

res

such

as

build

ings

or

Wok

ingh

am:

TR

L.

driv

ers

was

int

ervi

ewed

to

asse

ss t

he e

ffec

t of

a n

umbe

r of

tree

s).

road

des

ign

inte

rven

tions

on

resp

onde

nts'

rat

ings

of

spee

d!

Hor

izon

tal

and

vert

ical

alig

nmen

t.us

ing

sket

ches

. !

Act

ivity

e.g

. pr

esen

ce o

f pe

dest

rian

s, p

arke

d ca

rs.

!O

bjec

ts i

n th

e ro

ad c

orri

dor

e.g.

str

eet

furn

iture

, lan

dsca

pe.

!C

olou

r an

d m

ater

ial

of s

urfa

cing

.!

His

tori

c ch

arac

ter.

Gib

bard

et

al. (

2004

). T

he e

ffec

tT

his

repo

rt c

onsi

ders

the

eff

ects

of

road

nar

row

ings

on

UK

The

stu

dy r

evea

led

that

neg

otia

ting

narr

owin

gs c

onst

itute

d to

aof

roa

d na

rrow

ings

on

cycl

ists

.cy

clis

ts t

he s

tudy

con

sist

ed o

f co

nsul

tatio

n w

ith c

yclis

tso

urce

of

stre

ss t

o cy

cle

user

s.T

RL

Rep

ort

TR

L62

1.us

er g

roup

s, v

ideo

sur

veys

of

site

s w

ith f

eatu

res

inst

alle

dW

okin

gham

: T

RL

.by

hig

hway

aut

hori

ties

to a

ssis

t cy

clis

ts i

n ne

gotia

ting

road

narr

owin

gs,

and

virt

ual

real

ity s

imul

atio

ns o

f en

coun

ters

betw

een

driv

ers

and

cycl

ists

, mea

suri

ng t

he r

eact

ions

of

driv

ers

to b

e m

easu

red

unde

r a

rang

e of

cir

cum

stan

ces.

58

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

ipti

on o

f so

urce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

dati

ons

/ K

ey c

oncl

usio

ns

Mov

emen

t (C

ontin

ued)

Ach

ievi

ng a

ppro

pria

te s

peed

sK

allb

erg

V a

nd R

anta

S (

2000

).T

his

rese

arch

ed i

dent

ifie

d st

udie

s fr

om d

iffe

rent

cou

ntri

es G

erm

any

(con

tinu

ed).

Impa

cts

of u

rban

spe

ed-r

educ

ing

over

the

las

t 25

yea

rs w

here

ini

tial

spee

d le

vels

and

the

mea

sure

s. 2

nd I

nter

natio

nal

effe

cts

on s

peed

s w

ere

mea

sure

d of

var

ious

urb

an s

peed

-Sy

mpo

sium

on

Hig

hway

redu

cing

mea

sure

s.G

eom

etri

c D

esig

n, M

ainz

,G

erm

any

June

14-

17,

2000

, p

p. 9

3-10

9.

Em

erge

ncy

acce

ss.

Bou

lter

et a

l. (2

001)

. The

im

pact

sT

his

stud

y in

vest

igat

ed t

he e

mis

sion

im

pact

s of

nin

e ty

pes

UK

The

exp

erim

ent

cons

iste

d of

a f

ire

tend

er a

nd d

rive

r tr

avel

ling

of t

raff

ic c

alm

ing

mea

sure

s on

of t

raff

ic c

alm

ing

mea

sure

s; 7

5 m

m-h

igh

flat

top

roa

dth

roug

h a

resi

dent

ial

circ

uit

feat

urin

g va

riou

s tr

affi

c ca

lmin

gve

hicl

e ex

haus

t em

issi

ons.

hum

ps, 8

0 m

m-h

igh

roun

d-to

p ro

ad h

umps

, 1.7

m w

ide

mea

sure

s. T

he s

peed

red

uctio

n ca

used

by

the

spee

d cu

shio

ns w

asT

RL

Rep

ort

TR

L48

2.sp

eed

cush

ions

, co

mbi

ned

pinc

h po

int

and

spee

d cu

shio

n,si

gnif

ican

tly s

mal

ler

than

tha

t ca

used

by

the

flat

top

hum

ps.

Wok

ingh

am:

TR

L.

100

mm

-hig

h ra

ised

jun

ctio

ns,

chic

ane,

bui

ld o

ut,

min

i-H

owev

er, t

he t

ime

dela

y pe

r m

easu

re w

as r

elat

ivel

y sm

all

and,

roun

dabo

ut a

nd 1

.9 m

wid

e sp

eed

cush

ion.

As

part

of

the

unle

ss l

arge

num

bers

of

traf

fic

calm

ing

mea

sure

s ar

est

udy,

the

acc

ess

of e

mer

genc

y ve

hicl

es a

nd p

ossi

ble

dela

ysen

coun

tere

d, i

t is

unl

ikel

y th

at e

mer

genc

y fi

re t

ende

r re

spon

sew

ere

inve

stig

ated

as

a re

sult

of tr

affi

c ca

lmin

g in

stal

latio

n.

times

wou

ld in

crea

se s

igni

fica

ntly

.

Eng

wic

ht D

(20

03).

Int

rigu

e an

dE

ngw

icht

inv

estig

ates

the

use

of

intr

igue

and

unc

erta

inty

UK

6 de

sign

pri

ncip

les

are

disc

usse

d; c

reat

ing

room

s ra

ther

tha

nun

cert

aint

y: t

owar

ds n

ew t

raff

ic-

as a

mea

ns o

f ca

lmin

g tr

affi

c w

ithou

t th

e ne

ed f

orco

rrid

ors

(use

of

wal

ls a

nd e

ntry

/gat

eway

s, f

urni

ture

and

art

);ta

min

g to

ols,

ver

sion

2.1

.im

plem

entin

g ph

ysic

al m

easu

res.

It

is s

ugge

sted

tha

tre

duci

ng t

raff

ic o

rien

ted

devi

ces

(vis

ual

clue

s ra

ther

tha

nC

reat

ive

Com

mun

ities

thro

ugh

incr

ease

d st

reet

act

ivity

and

use

by

resi

dent

s,ex

cess

ive

sign

age)

; ev

olvi

ng a

uni

que

pers

onal

ity f

or e

ach

stre

etIn

tern

atio

nal.

driv

ers

begi

n to

exp

ect

the

unex

pect

ed,

ther

efor

e dr

ive

(les

s st

anda

rdis

atio

n of

des

ign

acro

ss a

num

ber

of s

tree

ts;

crea

tesl

ower

and

incr

ease

saf

ety.

ev

er-c

hang

ing

stre

etsc

apes

; bu

ild a

mbi

guity

and

leg

ibili

ty;

desi

gn a

fter

use

.

Scot

tish

Exe

cutiv

e (2

005)

.T

his

PAN

foc

uses

on

the

desi

gn o

f be

tter

qual

ityS

cotl

and

The

nee

ds o

f re

fuse

, fir

e an

d ot

her

serv

ice

vehi

cles

sho

uld

beR

esid

enti

al s

tree

ts,

plan

ning

.re

side

ntia

l st

reet

s, i

n pa

rtic

ular

, fa

ctor

s w

hich

can

cre

ate

cons

ider

ed i

n th

e pl

anni

ng o

f th

e st

reet

net

wor

k –

the

size

of

Adv

ice

Not

e 74

.go

od q

ualit

y st

reet

s de

sign

.ve

hicl

es t

o be

acc

omm

odat

ed s

houl

d be

est

ablis

hed

thro

ugh

dial

ogue

with

loca

l age

ncie

s.

DD

A/D

isab

led

requ

irem

ents

.O

xley

(20

02).

Inc

lusi

ve m

obil

ity:

The

DfT

(20

02)

have

pub

lishe

d ‘I

nclu

sive

Mob

ility

’,U

KPr

ovid

es s

peci

fic

guid

ance

(in

clud

ing

mea

sure

men

ts)

for

a gu

ide

to b

est

prac

tice

on a

cces

sw

hich

is

best

pra

ctic

e gu

idan

ce o

n ac

cess

to

pede

stri

anfo

otw

ays

(wid

ths)

, gr

adie

nts,

fen

ces

and

guar

drai

ls,

seat

ing,

to p

edes

tria

n an

d tr

ansp

ort

and

tran

spor

t in

fras

truc

ture

. A

lthou

gh p

rim

arily

aim

ed a

tba

rrie

rs o

n fo

otw

ays,

ram

ps a

nd s

teps

, str

eet

furn

iture

, str

eet

infr

astr

uctu

re.

impr

ovin

g ac

cess

for

dis

able

d pe

ople

, man

y of

the

des

igns

wor

ks,

colo

ur c

ontr

ast,

surf

aces

(in

clud

ing

tact

ile p

avin

g),

road

will

mee

t th

e ne

eds

of o

ther

peo

ple,

inc

ludi

ng t

hose

cros

sing

s, d

ropp

ed k

erbs

and

rai

sed

cros

sing

s.tr

avel

ling

with

sm

all

child

ren

or a

re c

arry

ing

lugg

age/

heav

ysh

oppi

ng, a

nd th

ose

with

tem

pora

ry m

obili

ty p

robl

ems.

Will

iam

s K

, Sav

ill T

and

Thi

s st

udy

prov

ided

a r

evie

w o

f th

e in

form

atio

n av

aila

ble

UK

Lea

rnin

g D

iffi

culti

es -

Pro

visi

on o

f gu

ard-

raili

ng o

utsi

de s

choo

lsW

heel

er A

(20

02).

Rev

iew

of

on t

he r

oad

safe

ty o

f ch

ildre

n an

d ad

ults

with

dis

abili

ties.

to g

uide

lea

rnin

g di

sabl

ed c

hild

ren

to a

cro

ssin

g, o

r pr

even

tth

e ro

ad s

afet

y of

dis

able

dT

he r

evie

w l

ooke

d at

a v

arie

ty o

f gr

oups

, inc

ludi

ng t

hose

runn

ing

into

tra

ffic

. Ph

ysic

ally

dis

able

d –

follo

win

g of

IH

Tch

ildr

en a

nd a

dult

s.w

ith l

earn

ing

diff

icul

ties,

AD

HD

, A

utis

m,

phys

ical

lygu

idan

ce.

Hea

ring

Im

pair

men

t –

pelic

an c

ross

ing

with

vis

ual

TR

L R

epor

t T

RL

559.

disa

bled

, he

arin

g im

pair

men

t, vi

sual

ly i

mpa

ired

and

mul

ti-cl

ues,

PU

FFIN

cro

ssin

gs a

re b

enef

icia

l as

gre

en/r

ed m

an s

igns

Wok

ingh

am:

TR

L.

sens

ory

impa

ired

. T

he i

mpa

ct o

n m

obili

ty a

nd s

afet

y,ar

e on

sam

e si

de a

s pe

dest

rian

s. V

isua

lly i

mpa

ired

– w

ides

prea

dac

cide

nt r

isk,

and

rem

edia

l m

easu

res,

inc

ludi

ng e

ngin

eeri

ngus

e of

tac

tile

pavi

ng t

o in

dica

te c

ross

ing

poin

ts,

adop

ting

mea

sure

s, w

ere

iden

tifie

d fo

r ea

ch g

roup

. st

anda

rds

for

foot

way

s w

hich

inc

orpo

rate

'uno

bstr

ucte

d w

idth

s',

59

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

ipti

on o

f so

urce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

dati

ons

/ K

ey c

oncl

usio

ns

Mov

emen

t (C

ontin

ued)

DD

A/D

isab

led

requ

irem

ents

.co

lour

ed p

ave

(suc

h as

in

hom

e zo

nes)

sho

uld

be a

void

ed a

s it

(con

tinu

ed).

can

be d

iffi

cult

to s

ee w

here

the

car

riag

eway

sta

rts

or c

reat

e an

illus

ion

of o

bsta

cles

in

path

(D

unca

n Jo

nes,

200

1), a

nd s

tree

tco

rner

s w

ith k

erb

flus

h w

ith t

he c

arri

agew

ay o

n th

e ra

dius

can

be

haza

rdou

s, p

eopl

e m

ay f

ind

it di

ffic

ult

to l

ine

them

selv

es u

pw

ith th

e op

posi

te c

arri

agew

ay.

It i

s re

com

men

ded

that

for

the

ben

efit

of t

hose

with

lea

rnin

gdi

ffic

ultie

s, o

r th

ose

who

suf

fer

from

AD

HD

, gua

rd r

ailin

gsh

ould

be

posi

tione

d ou

tsid

e sc

hool

s to

gui

de l

earn

ing

disa

bled

child

ren

to a

cro

ssin

g, o

r pr

even

t ru

nnin

g in

to t

raff

ic.

Par

king

PPG

3.O

DPM

(20

03c)

. D

eliv

erin

gPP

G3

stat

es t

hat

park

ing

can

be u

sed

as a

mec

hani

sm t

oU

Kpl

anni

ng p

olic

y fo

r ho

usin

g:sl

ow tr

affi

c, w

ith th

e in

tens

ion

of in

crea

sing

saf

ety.

P

PG

3 im

plem

enta

tion

stu

dy.

L

ayou

ts/d

esig

ns o

n/of

f-st

reet

DO

T (

1993

). P

avem

ent

park

ing.

Thi

s tr

affi

c ad

viso

ry l

eafl

et l

ooks

at

the

cons

eque

nces

of

UK

DO

T s

tate

s th

at I

t [p

avem

ent

park

ing]

can

cre

ate

haza

rds

for

park

ing.

Tra

ffic

Adv

isor

y L

eafl

et 0

4/93

.pa

vem

ent

park

ing

whe

re t

here

is

a la

ck o

f fo

rmal

par

king

visu

ally

im

pair

ed,

disa

bled

and

eld

erly

peo

ple

or t

hose

with

prov

isio

n. T

he c

onse

quen

ces

shou

ld b

e co

nsid

ered

whe

npr

ams

or p

ushc

hair

s. I

t m

ay a

lso

caus

e da

mag

e to

the

ker

b, t

hepa

rkin

g pr

ovis

ion

is li

mite

d.

pave

men

t or

the

ser

vice

s un

dern

eath

.

Nob

le a

nd J

enks

(19

96).

Par

king

:A

stu

dy i

nvol

ving

1,5

26 d

wel

lings

ser

ved

by 4

7 ro

ads

inU

KO

bser

vatio

ns s

how

ed t

hat

on-s

tree

t pa

rkin

g m

ade

it di

ffic

ult

for

dem

and

and

prov

isio

n of

pri

vate

Low

er E

arle

y an

d W

oodl

ey,

Rea

ding

.dr

iver

s in

som

e pl

aces

to

see

beyo

nd t

he p

arke

d ca

rs, t

here

byse

ctor

hou

sing

dev

elop

men

ts.

appe

arin

g to

mak

e ov

erta

king

haz

ardo

us.

Veh

icle

s pa

rked

on

the

Oxf

ord

Bro

oks

Uni

vers

ityfo

otw

ay w

ere

seen

to

forc

e pe

dest

rian

s to

wal

k in

the

roa

d, a

ndpa

rkin

g on

sha

red

surf

aces

mad

e ac

cess

inc

onve

nien

t fo

rpe

dest

rian

s us

ing

thes

e su

rfac

es a

nd a

ppea

red

to c

reat

e ha

zard

s.

Nob

le e

t al

. (19

87).

Roa

ds a

ndN

oble

et

al.,

has

iden

tifie

d a

num

ber

of s

afet

y re

late

dU

KIt

was

fou

nd t

hat

very

few

acc

iden

ts o

ccur

in

cul-

de-s

acs

and

park

ing

in p

riva

te s

ecto

r ho

usin

gob

ject

ives

to

be p

ursu

ed w

hen

desi

gnin

g la

yout

as

a w

hole

.sh

ort

loop

roa

ds w

hich

fun

ctio

n as

res

iden

tial

only

roa

ds,

sche

mes

: st

udie

s of

acc

iden

tsu

gges

ting

that

tra

ffic

flo

w, r

athe

r th

an p

arki

ng, i

s a

maj

orre

cord

s, i

nnov

ativ

e la

yout

s an

dco

ntri

buto

r to

acc

iden

ts.

Cul

-de-

sacs

ser

ving

up

to 8

0 dw

ellin

gspa

rkin

g pr

ovis

ion.

Hou

sing

wer

e in

clud

ed i

n th

e su

rvey

s an

d th

ere

wer

e no

sta

tistic

ally

Res

earc

h Fo

unda

tion.

sign

ific

ant

incr

ease

in

the

acci

dent

rat

e pe

r dw

ellin

gs a

ssoc

iate

dw

ith t

he s

ize

of c

ul-d

e-sa

cs a

t le

ast

up t

o th

at s

ize.

Ens

ure

that

non-

acce

ss v

ehic

ular

tra

ffic

is

excl

uded

or

disc

oura

ged

from

ente

ring

the

site

; en

sure

tha

t th

e sh

orte

st p

edes

tria

n ro

utes

to

loca

l am

eniti

es a

re a

long

foo

tway

s or

sep

arat

ed f

ootp

aths

; us

eth

e lo

wes

t ca

tego

ries

of

road

s w

here

ver

poss

ible

for

acc

ess

todw

ellin

gs b

y ro

ads

carr

ying

the

lea

st t

raff

ic;

and

ensu

re t

hat

the

road

lay

out

enco

urag

es l

ow d

rivi

ng s

peed

s: e

.g. b

y re

stri

ctin

g th

ele

ngth

s of

str

aigh

t ro

ads

and

usin

g tig

hter

rad

ii on

ben

ds.

60

Key

con

tent

Sour

ceD

escr

ipti

on o

f so

urce

Cou

ntry

of

orig

inR

ecom

men

dati

ons

/ K

ey c

oncl

usio

ns

Par

king

(C

ontin

ued)

Lay

outs

/des

igns

on/

off-

stre

etW

estd

ijk (

2001

). D

esig

ning

aW

estd

ijk m

akes

rec

omm

enda

tions

as

to h

ow t

o ac

hiev

e a

Net

herl

ands

Avo

id l

ong

row

s of

par

ked

cars

; cr

eate

com

mun

al p

arki

ng a

reas

park

ing

(con

tinu

ed).

safe

res

iden

tial

env

iron

men

tsa

fe s

tree

t en

viro

nmen

t. O

ne s

uch

appr

oach

is

to c

reat

e a

away

fro

m h

omes

; ar

eas

of c

hild

pla

y (p

lay

area

) m

ust

have

an

for

chil

dren

. Pro

ceed

ings

of

the

tran

spar

ent

lay

out.

unin

terr

upte

d lin

e of

sig

ht o

f 30

to

40 m

eith

er s

ide;

use

of

traf

fic

Con

fere

nce

on T

raff

ic S

afet

y on

calm

ing

mea

sure

s to

cou

nter

act

the

spee

ding

tha

t m

ay r

esul

tT

hree

Con

tinen

ts.

from

goo

d vi

sibi

lity.

Scot

tish

Exe

cutiv

e (2

005)

.T

his

PAN

foc

uses

on

the

desi

gn o

f be

tter

qual

ityS

cotl

and

On-

stre

et p

arki

ng i

s re

com

men

ded

to h

elp

redu

ce s

peed

ing

Res

iden

tial

str

eets

, pl

anni

ng.

resi

dent

ial

stre

ets,

in

part

icul

ar,

fact

ors

whi

ch c

an c

reat

etr

affi

c. R

athe

r th

an r

igid

ly d

efin

ed p

arki

ng b

ays,

pro

visi

onA

dvic

e N

ote

74.

good

qua

lity

stre

ets

desi

gn.

shou

ld b

e m

ore

info

rmal

, thr

ough

eith

er s

ubtle

wid

enin

g of

the

road

, or

end-

on o

r an

gled

par

king

sho

uld

be e

ncou

rage

d, u

sing

tree

s, p

lant

s or

oth

er s

tree

t fu

rnitu

re t

o di

scou

rage

ind

iscr

imin

ate

park

ing.

Whe

re o

ff-s

tree

t pa

rkin

g is

pro

vide

d, c

are

mus

t be

tak

ento

ens

ure

natu

ral s

urve

illan

ce.

Env

iron

men

t

Air

Qua

lity/

Noi

se.

Bou

lter

et a

l. (2

001)

The

im

pact

sT

his

stud

y in

vest

igat

ed t

he e

mis

sion

im

pact

s of

nin

e ty

pes

UK

The

res

ults

cle

arly

ind

icat

ed t

hat

traf

fic

calm

ing

mea

sure

sof

tra

ffic

cal

min

g m

easu

res

onof

tra

ffic

cal

min

g m

easu

res;

75

mm

-hig

h fl

at t

op r

oad

incr

ease

the

em

issi

ons

of s

ome

pollu

tant

s fr

om p

asse

nger

car

s.ve

hicl

e ex

haus

t em

issi

ons.

hum

ps, 8

0 m

m-h

igh

roun

d-to

p ro

ad h

umps

, 1.7

m w

ide

Mea

n em

issi

ons

of C

O p

er v

ehic

le-k

m w

as i

ncre

ased

by

34%

,T

RL

Rep

ort

TR

L48

2.sp

eed

cush

ions

, co

mbi

ned

pinc

h po

int

and

spee

d cu

shio

n,59

% a

nd 3

9% f

or p

etro

l no

n-ca

taly

st,

petr

ol c

atal

yst

and

dies

elW

okin

gham

: T

RL

.10

0 m

m-h

igh

rais

ed j

unct

ions

, ch

ican

e, b

uild

out

, m

ini-

cars

res

pect

ivel

y. E

mis

sion

s of

NO

x fr

om p

etro

l on

ly i

ncre

ased

roun

dabo

ut a

nd 1

.9 m

wid

e sp

eed

cush

ion.

sl

ight

ly w

here

as N

Ox

from

die

sel

incr

ease

d by

aro

und

30%

.C

O2

emis

sion

s fo

r th

e th

ree

vehi

cle

type

s in

crea

sed

betw

een

20an

d 26

%, a

nd e

mis

sion

s of

par

ticul

ate

mat

ter

from

die

sel

incr

ease

d by

30%

. A

lthou

gh t

raff

ic c

alm

ing

gene

rally

inc

reas

esem

issi

ons,

it

is u

nlik

ely

to r

esul

t in

poo

r lo

cal

air

qual

ity.

Har

ris

G J

, Sta

it R

E, A

bbot

t P G

As

the

max

imum

noi

se a

nd g

roun

d-bo

rne

vibr

atio

nU

KT

he o

vera

ll re

sults

of

the

stud

y in

dica

ted

that

the

fla

t-to

pped

and

Wat

ts G

R (

1999

).

Tra

ffic

alon

gsid

e tr

affi

c-hu

mps

dep

ends

on

the

prof

ile s

hape

as

hum

ps w

ould

pro

duce

hig

her

nois

e an

d vi

brat

ion

leve

ls t

han

calm

ing:

veh

icle

gen

erat

ed n

oise

wel

l as

the

typ

e, l

oad

and

spee

d of

the

veh

icle

cro

ssin

g th

eot

her

desi

gns.

Eve

n on

roa

ds w

here

few

hea

vy v

ehic

les

pass

and

grou

nd-b

orne

vib

rati

onpr

ofile

, TR

L i

nves

tigat

ed t

hree

typ

es o

f hu

mps

and

thro

ugh,

ben

efits

will

be

gain

ed f

or l

ocal

res

iden

ts, a

s ev

enal

ongs

ide

sinu

soid

al,

roun

d-to

pth

eir e

ffec

ts.

infr

eque

nt h

igh

nois

e le

vels

can

cau

se a

nnoy

ance

.an

d fl

at-t

op r

oad

hum

psT

RL

Rep

ort

TR

L41

6.W

okin

gham

: T

RL

.

Mat

eria

ls a

nd p

lant

ing

Eng

lish

Part

ners

hips

/ L

lew

elyn

Bri

ef r

efer

ence

to

diff

eren

t m

ater

ials

whi

ch c

an b

e us

ed,

UK

Mat

eria

ls c

an h

elp

to d

efin

e sp

ace

and

func

tion

and

can

impa

ctD

avie

s (2

000)

. Urb

an D

esig

nfo

r ex

ampl

e to

ind

icat

e pe

dest

rian

rou

tes

and

shar

edon

how

dri

vers

res

pond

.C

ompe

ndiu

m.

surf

ace

area

s.

DC

LG

(20

06).

Tre

e ro

ots

in t

hePr

ovid

es a

rev

iew

of

curr

ent

rese

arch

and

kno

wle

dge

onU

K!

Plan

ting

shou

ld b

e in

tegr

ated

int

o st

reet

des

igns

whe

rebu

ilt

envi

ronm

ent.

tree

roo

ts a

nd th

eir

inte

ract

ion

with

the

built

env

iron

men

t. po

ssib

le.

!R

ecom

men

ded

sigh

tline

s fo

r ve

hicl

es s

houl

d be

mai

ntai

ned

arou

nd p

lant

ed a

reas

unl

ess

visi

bilit

y is

bei

ng d

elib

erat

ely

kept

sho

rt i

n or

der

to l

imit

traf

fic

spee

ds.

61

Appendix B: Case study sites

B.1 Research site characteristics

Rural / Housing Land NetworkCharacteristic Town Ward Region urban period use Density type

Historic (pre-war) Reading New Town South East Urban Victorian Mixed High GridLavenham Suffolk South East Rural Medieval Residential Low OrganicOxford Jericho South East Urban Victorian Residential High GridBloxham Village Oxfordshire South East Rural Victorian Residential Low OrganicChichester West Sussex South East Urban Medieval Mixed High OrganicLondon Belgravia South East Urban Victorian Mixed High Grid

Case study Charlton Down West Dorset South West Rural Post 90s Residential High OrganicLichfield Darwin Park West Midlands Urban Post 90s Residential High OrganicEastleigh Former Pirelli site South East Urban Post 90s Residential High Atypical gridNewhall East Harlow East of England Suburban Post 90z Residential High OrganicGuildford Queen’s Park South East Urban Post 90s Residential Mid OrganicLondon Tower Hamlets South East Urban Post 90s Residential High GridGlasgow Crown St. Scotland Urban Post 90s Residential High OrganicChelmsford Windley Tye East of England Suburban Post 90s Residential Low Court layoutChelmsford Beaulieu Park East of England Urban Post 90s Residential Low GridManchester Hulme North West Urban 1990s Residential Low Grid

New build Ipswich Rapier St. South East Suburban Post 90s Residential High Atypical gridPortishead Port Marine South West Suburban Post 90s Residential Mid Organic

DB32 Compliant Leicester Syston East Midlands Urban 1980> Residential Mid Cul-de-sac with spineReading Lower Earley South East Urban 1980> Residential Mid Cul-de-sac with spine

62

B.1.1 New Town, Reading

! Site approximately 1.5 km from Reading Town Centre. Bus route on nearby London Road.

! Site area: 12.6 ha.

! Approximately 623 housing dwellings.

! Housing density: approximately 49 dwellings per hectare (dph)

! Predominantly residential. One school nearby.

! Residential mix: mostly terraces. Some conversions into flats.

! Housing tenure: None assigned, although prices in this area are probably lower than the average amount in Reading.

! 20 mph speed limit throughout area introduced in mid nineties as a road safety scheme.

! Parking: oversubscribed. Most of the houses in New Town were built for the workers of the old Huntley and PalmerBiscuit factory on King’s Road to live in and work. They were never intended to accommodate on street parking,especially not on both sides of the road as occurs.

! Local planning authority and highway authority: Reading Borough Council.M

AN

CH

ES

TER

RO

AD

37

43.3m

MA

NC

HE

STE

R R

OA

D

2

341

337

MA

NC

HE

STE

R R

OA

D

11

14

PAR

K W

AR

D

TCBs

1

9

43.4m

301

277

289

325

19

33

29

60

63

27

2

38

50

77

60

70

49

313

26

PARK WARD

50

38

49

63

37

52

62

2

14

RADSTOCK ROAD13

25

FILEY ROAD

26

37

40

14

25

13

45

93

NORTON ROAD

86

78

65

7051

79

42

1

15

27

2

30

READING

16

68

28

12

14

22

1

31

1

42.5m

2

30

Surgery

NORTON ROAD

16

32

40

48

17

57

47

80

68

56

89

39

29a

92

65

77

50

38

El

PO

41

31

Sub Sta

42.5m

BM 42.44m

41.1m

51

49

61

59

COVENTRY ROAD39

41.9m

BM 42.38m

42.2m

41.0m

TCB

6

15

26

98

1

29

1

3

4

2

5

FRESHWATER ROAD

14

2

86

42.7m

CO

UR

T

RIVERS DALE

CHOLMELEY ROAD

LIVERPOOL ROAD

144

145

135

125

113

101

97

85

73

8

7

9

10

12

11

110

132

120

3

4

CHOLM

ELEY ROAD

READING EAST BORO CONST

NEW TOWN

82

66

58

42.3m

50


New Town - Reading = ATC Location




3

4

5

10

2

1

6

7

8

9

1 2

1

The 1946 New Towns Act was implemented to rapidly replace housing stock lost during the war. Reading’s New Town is a good example of the principles used, with its grid layout and long rows of terraced houses. The picture from the site survey shows permit parking on both sides of the road, greatly altering link widths that could be predicted from the adjacent CAD image. The narrowing that can be seen in the foreground is the only one on the site, and little is known about when and why it was introduced here in particular.

3

4

5

10

2

1

6

7

8

9

1 2

1

63

B.1.2 Lavenham, Suffolk

! 30 mph speed limit in place.

! Organic network type.

! Local planning authority: Suffolk County Council.

FB

Path (um)

Ford

BR

EN

T E

LEIG

H R

OA

D

Gasholder 40

HopeDrovers

Tha

tche

d C

otta

ge

CottageHouse

LB

50.2m

16

17

19

River

11

Cottage

Sunny Side

37

18

34

52.5m

32

Granary

Cottages

Barnsdale

19d

ST

RE

ET

SH

ILLING

Shilling

Orchard

14

12

19

19a

BOLTON STREET

28

29

1

5

4a4b

3026

23 24

PRENTICE STREET13

14

22

WATER

STREET

118

LOW

ER

RO

AD

49.24m

5

Prospect

View

BM

1

The

Cot

tage

Hol

mew

ood

PW

The Common

49.7m

BM 61.90m

44 4245

39

49

47

5154

25

24

10

to15

9

8

7

6

Bakers

Mill

5

Lingmell

Southview

Bonnieburn

Turners

52

Old

Brooke

House

65

61

47

42

CLO

SE

1 to 4

2

LOW

ER

RO

AD

1

TRINITY GILD

Daisy Chain

Rye

Cottage

Cottage

1

2

Mayes Farm

3

Prospect House

Maelands

The OldChapeI

Well House

LAVENHAM

40

38

4

Tudor

Cottage

BA

RN

STR

EE

T

5

1

6

Shilling Grange

Shilling Grange Cottage

Constable

2

1 to

8

13

15

The Maltings

1

Court

55.6m

5658

BM

55.02m

Lavenham

Chapel

County

Primary

School

1

4-5

6

24

3

BM 67.59m

Little Hall

46

PC

60

62

64

66

15

1011

9

7

12-14

59.0m

PH

2

Great House

1213

9

Market

Place

Market

Cross

LAD

Y S

TR

EE

T

3

1

Liby

Market

House Guildhall

12

69

5

10

Hotel

70

3

PU

MP

CO

UR

T

Car Park

38 39

5

The Hayloft

3637

Swan

9798 to 99

100

42LA

The Stables

TCB

74

B 1

071

1292

Wr T

67.0m

GP

MARKET

9193

95

1

1a

65.7

m

69.0

m

FB

Byes

Barn

21

31

29

27

21

25

Woolstaplers

Bungalow

10

9

12

12

6

23

El

Sub

Sta

14

16

1

61

60e

69.0m

4

67

HIG

H S

TRE

ET

70-71

42

45

48

40

14a

1413

SPRING

2

El Sub Sta

1

SPRING

LANE

9

12

18

SPRING STREET

45

26

11

19

35

54

57.6m

55

28

37

25

17

23

15

LB


37

38

40B

M 6

7.94

m41

2

44

1

45

16

4

1

7

2

17

15

14

80

7

6

3

8986

1

81

84

83

3133

34

5

6

PH

PO

23

24 25

26

1518

20

21

3-4

10

57

56e

56a

56

53f

53d

60a58

53b

53a

52

49

51

1

DEACON'S CLOSE

48a

PRESTON ROAD

Rushbrooke

3

Lavers

2

Mortlocks

2

Normans 1

45

House

End

Preston

1

5

1

CLOSE

6

Brookside

WEAVERS

16

20

Foxes

3

Little

11

GP

Pat

h (u

m)

Lavenham - Suffolk

6

7

8

10

12

15

16

17

18

19

1

2

3

4

20

Lavenham is situated in rural Suffolk and dates back to the medieval period. The street layout is organic and highly varied. The picture shows a junction with relatively low visibility on approach, caused by building frontages being characteristically close to the carriageway. Parking also restricts the road to single file in this instance, but on other sections narrow streets are signed as one-way.

67

8

10

12

15

16

17

18

19

1

2

3

4

20

= ATC Location




64

B.1.3 Jericho, Oxford

! Site located outside Oxford’s old city walls in a historic area, north of the city.


! Approximately 693 dwellings.

! Housing development began in the nineteenth century.

! Residential mix: mostly two-up two-down terraced housing, some semi-detached and flats.

! Housing tenure: 25% of people live in owner-occupied property, 57% rent from private landlords and 18% rent fromsocial landlords, mostly the council.

! 30 mph speed limit on site.

! Grid network type with mostly on-street parking.

! Local planning authority: Oxford City Council.

! Local highways authority: Oxfordshire County Council.

= ATC Location




101

55

The Je

richo

Tave

rn

(PH)

Ward Bdy

Cinema

118

59

61.2m

WALTO

N STREET

111

112

106

62.1m

TCB105

60

71

72

BM 62.83m

61.2m

The Radcliffe Infirmary

24

34

25

96

HART STR

EET

27

24a

31

28

21

LB

83

8277

84

80

20

19

Post

JERICHO

25a

21

8176

26

17

GREAT C

LARENDON STREET

ALBERT STREET

42

37

36

85

80

87

1

8

75

80

18

31

Chapel

22

24a

25

35

Baptist

St Paul'sHouse

Health C

entre

67

40

JERIC

HO STREET

38

1a

73

42

3739

41

32

36

Sub Sta

7

10

8

El

33

31

35

TCB

CRANHAM STREET

BLOMFIELD PLACE

Granth

am H

ouse

1

2

3

1 to 3

6

VENABLES C

LOSE

68

4

5

7

9

6

Shirley P

lace

3

2

5

1

4

11

12

9

6

8

PH

PH

3

JERIC

HO

SCHOO

L COURT

30

30a

1

CARDIGAN S

TREET

28

58

CRANHAM STREET

29

27

35

34

26

2422

VICTOR STREET

CANAL STREET

74

STREET

18

15

CRANHAM TERRACE

JUXON STREET

22

30

ALLAM

STREET

PH

30

ALLUM STREET

MOUNT

STREET

ALLAM STREET

OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY

JERICHO AND OSNEY WARD

MOUNT STREET

4

5

JUXON S

TREET

12

MOUNT

PLA

CE

21

PH

67

18

8

1

10

42

42a

2

9

6

5

6463

67

70

36

37

PH

62

65

38

Posts

66a

19

15

9

66

12

7

16a

16b

59.2m

2328

26

2927

21

25

62

19

17

16

57.8m

43

6

43a

44

57.6m

2

34

38

45

to

44a

44b

45

46

Hall

33

51

55

9

47

34a

PH

57.5m

BM 57.75m

16

19 to 25

26

11

6

1

19

13

16c

16d

3

BM 59.16m

51

37

26

50

PH

12

7

24

JER

ICH

OJE

RIC

HO

9

CA

NA

L STR

EE

T

CRANHAM

STREET

15

19

43

44

48

24

PH

40

57.6m

56

52

66

60

68

48

1

47


ST BARN

ABAS STREET

6

10

5

14

Jericho - Oxford

15

10

9

65

2

3

7

11

14

3

2

1 Jericho, just outside the centre of Oxford, is a Victorian development with a grid layout typical of the era and location. The rows of terraced houses, narrow streets (with permit parking bays) and frontages in close proximity to the carriageway create many junctions like the one shown in the picture. Visibility is poor on approach due to buildings, but when on the junction it is usually a parked vehicle that restricts visibility down the straight roads.

17

6

174

65

B.1.4 Bloxham Village, Oxfordshire

! Local planning authority: Oxfordshire County Council.

! 30 mph speed limit.

Rid

gew

ay

Sta

Conacre

Rid

gecr

oft

El Sub

HOGG END

Barnstone

BARLEY CROFT

Hor

elia

Faw

n H

ouse

BARLEY CLOSE

BR

ICK

LE L

AN

E

SOUTH EAST EER

The

Coa

chH

ouse

Kirinyaga

CHAPEL STREET

Hor

nton

Hou

se

ManorFarmhouse

Colgrae

WAT

ER

LA

NE

The

Shippon

WatersCourt

Lightbread

CHERWELL DISTRICTTHE RIDGEWAY

1

3

6

RO

SE

BA

NK

Bennetts

BennettsLittle

Tall TreesEl Sub Sta

Bank

Rose

RoseCott

15

Eton

OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY

HouseEton

Cottage

A 3

61

STONE HILL

Ellen Hind

Memorial HallBloxham

13

ViewWest14

8

HIG

H S

TR

EE

T

ST

EE

PLE

5

The

CLO

SE


111.3m

RO

SEBA

NK

4

2

1

HUMBER STREET

111.4m

Humber

HouseA 3

61

Bloxham Village - Oxfordshire

3

5 4

2

1

9

8

6

7

4

1

3

2

Bloxham is a low density rural community, and the street network represents the low flow levels one would expect. There are numerous single-track links, as shown above, with low visibility levels. It could be reasonably assumed that cars pass by mounting the low-level kerbs onto the pavement.

14

3

5 4

2

1

9

8

6

7

4

1

3

2

-

-

14

= ATC Location




66

B.1.5 Chichester, West Sussex

! Site located approximately 500 metres south west from Chichester town centre and approximately 1 km from therail / bus stations located to the west of the site.


! Approximately 278 dwellings.

! Site is residential and affords a mix of detached and terrace houses, ranging in age and condition.

! Housing tenure: not known.


! Some houses benefit from on-site parking whilst many rely on parking within the highway. Dwellings that benefitfrom onsite parking provision do not normally exceed two spaces.

! Local planning authority: Chichester District Council.

! Highways authority: West Sussex County Council.

ETTRICK CLOSE

12.7m

RO

AD

Lyndhurst House

21

ETTR

ICK

25

30a30

29

26

12

14

20

12.5m

CALEDONIAN ROAD

WEST SUSSEX COUNTY

48

41

30

32

50

12.1m

60

55BM

12.31m

LYNDHURST ROAD

16

23

BARFORD

ROAD

63

CHICHESTER CO CONST

72 12.6m

69

CLYDESDALE AVENUE

13

315 7

CLY

DE

SD

ALE

AVENUE7

4

8

5

CourtElgin

1 to 11

3

17

ST

IRLIN

G R

OA

D

157

Forum House

8

Posts

6

11

CHICHESTER SOUTH WARD

3

WHYKE

16

24

LABURNUM G

ROVE

20

Scyros

BARFORDROAD

2

7

25

1 5

19

30

STIRLING ROAD

36

32

JUXON CLOSE

22

42

1

LYN

DH

UR

ST

RO

AD

33

LB

14

12.5m

CALEDONIAN ROAD

44a 87

1

Forum House

ST

IRLIN

G R

OA

D

45

Market House

2

13.1m

Old M

arket House

CHICHESTER SOUTH ED

Oakshade

Tempe

2

12.7m

1

LABURNUM G

ROVE

MARKET AVENUE

40 39

BM 12.91m

84

44

CLY

DE

SD

ALE

AV

EN

UE

12.8m

2

34

11

CHICHESTER SOUTH WARD1

4

19

4

ETTRICK ROAD

FB


= ATC Location




Chichester - West Sussex

2

7

3

1

4

5

8

6

3

2

4

1

7 The Chichester site dates back to medieval times, and the organic layout of the residential area has produced a mix of junction types. The picture shows a narrow side street with low visibility on approach to the stop line, but other junctions have relatively high visibility levels. This trend of inconsistency is also apparent on links. Some are clear views while others bend relatively sharply, as can be seen on the site map.

2

7

3

1

4

5

8

6

3

2

4

1

7

67

B.1.6 Belgravia, London


! Local planning authority: Westminster City Council.

ECCLESTON

STREET

100

Bolivian

106

107

108

109

Embassy

8

6.9m

LB

7.8m

TCB

BM 7

.87m

Eaton

Squ

are

Garde

ns

6

24

SQUARE

26

7

36

11

32

103

102

EATON

95

98

Belgian Embassy

103

= ATC Location


= ATC I.D.

= Links Measured


Belgravia - London

The grid layout of Belgravia gives rise to high visibility levels at the majority of junctions, as can be seen in the image of junction 4. There were also clear views down the lengths of all measured links (link 1 = 122m, link 2 = 89m, link 3 = 194m, link 4 = 183m). This can be seen in the image of link 4.

46

7

5

LB

8

1 to 4

LB

14

12a

12

7.1m

EATON SQUARE

EATON S

QUARE

18

EATON S

QUARE

Eaton

Squ

are

Garde

ns

EATON S

QUARE

117

118 7.5m

12


KN

IGH

TS

BR

IDG

E A

ND

BE

LGR

AV

IA W

AR

D

13

15

14

2

2

118

11

KN

IGH

TS

BR

IDG

E A

ND

BE

LGR

AV

IA W

AR

D

115

6

8

10

22

12

111

109

7.9m

22

21

23

LB

6.9m

Tennis

Court

98.0m

LB

4

11

1

BM 8

.12m

17

31

5

36

24

EATON S

QUARE

ECCLESTON

STREET

6.9m

100

Bolivian

106

107

108

109

31

33

34

Embassy

8

Eaton

Squ

are

Garde

ns

6.9m

LB

7.8m

TCB

BM 7

.87m

Eaton

Squ

are

Garde

ns

LB

34

6

93

BELGRAVE PLACE

ECCLESTO

N MEW

S

24

SQUARE

26

7

36

11

32

107

103

44 to 47

40


38

39

41 to 43

EATON S

QUARE

90

46

102

EATON

95

98

32

19

Nuffield Club

Belgian Embassy

103

LONDON EER

19

43

37

35b

35

ItalianEm

bassy

Emba

ssy o

f the

Hunga

rian

People

's Rep

ublic

16

EATON M

EWS N

ORTH

54

56

14

15

86

38

83

LYALL STREET

84

BM 7

.00m

LB

69

BM 7

.75m

EATON P

LACE

68

8

57

45



Club

82

The Irish

82

7

The Irish

Club

EATON S

QUARE

77

80

44

LYALL STREET

8

82

9

2

84

64

46

EATON M

EWS N

ORTH

48

47

62

6

48

EATON S

QUARE

51

EATON S

QUARE

57 to 60

53 to 56

6.9m

Eaton

Squ

are

Garde

ns

The F

ive F

ields

61

67

72

6189

91

55

EATON M

EWS N

ORTH

73

53

108

57

58

103

93

EATON PLACE

101

102

104

99

7.3m

71

94

86

90

87

79

7.4m

62

2

LB

EATON SQUARE

66

66a

63


LBPH

35

12

7

2

34

1

123

4

5

6

15

9

10

11

823

68

B.1.7 Charlton Down, West Dorset

! Charlton Down is mostly housing development on the site of a former mental hospital 5 km north of Dorchester, Dorset.A self-contained rural (village) development.

! When complete, the overall scheme will have 546 units, with a mix of apartments, terraced and detached units on a sitearea of 48ha.

! The case study phase has a density of 30 dph net.

! Initial development phase: 1998 – 2005.

! Developer: Bellway.

! DB32 was not used specifically and the designers felt that they had pushed the boundaries in terms of streetspecifications.

! Curvilinear layout of streets including cul-de-sac.

! Maximum vehicle speeds: 20 mph.

! Local Planning authority: West Dorset District Council.

! Highways authority: Dorset County Council.

27

114.0m

Herrison Cottages

112.2m

21

12

15

11

14

31

7

ASH ROAD

DEV

EREL

RO

AD

24f

5

20

14

12

ROAD

112.2m

HE

RR

ISO

N R

OA

D

5

15

22

30

2

AS

PE

N R

D

24e

AS

PE

N R

D

10

8

12

9

16

1

19

30

17

1

22

2622

28

32

189

1115

3

24

32

7

MA

GN

OLI

AD

RIV

E

1416

18

4

16

20

22

7

5

Gre

ville

Cou

rt

MEECH WAY

7

12

21

6

9

1223

Greenwood House

1to54

8

SHERREN AVENUE

2

STRODES LANE

19

10

STRODES LANE

11

2

6

26

Herrison

2

Hall

SHERREN AVENUE

11

House

Deverel

3

20

1

5

12

6

14

1

24a

4

24b

29

28

7

9

36

3

1

5

3

Track

6

7

8

4

12

Alder

1to63

3

1

ROAD

11

3

LANE

ELM

4

6

HORNBEAM ROAD

2

LAB

UR

NU

M R

OA

D

3028

8

26

14

33

2

810

MAPLE

DRIV

E

2

1

6

19

OAK ROAD

26

1

4

11

Redwood House

17

Architects House

15

10

2

2

STRODES LANE

10

15

4

CY

PR

ES

S R

OA

D

3

5

1

ACACIA

8

9 2

1

HAWTHORN

15

6

1to54

3

5

14

27

23

17

25

1to7

Court

The

15

11

DE

VE

RE

L

37

14

14

4

4

CEDAR

ROAD

BM 109.74m

67

6

17

19

4

15

19

11

8

7

112.8m

1

31

1

1

1to7

House

Cherry

Tree

12

23

Posts

VIEW

P

P

CHESTNUT ROAD

WILLOW

GDNSMULBERRY

4

Posts

2

8

OAK ROAD

1618

8

MULBERRY GARDENS

24

29

2

ROW

AN WALK

7

ASH

RO

AD

1

12

5

2

1

3

2

10

16

12

5

DEV

EREL

3

RO

AD 39

3430

1 38

8

8

DRIVE

5

7


2

21

= ATC Location




Charlton Down - West Dorset

Charlton Down is a recently completed development situated in rural west Dorset. The picture shows one of several unconventional junctions on the site. Low flows allow for these informal squares to be created, though there could be confusion if vehicles were crossing paths. The bollards beyond the junction are also typical of the site. They are used widely to demarcate the pavement and road, as an alternative to kerbs.

1

24

6

7

9

10

11 13

15

1

3

4

2

15

16

69

B.1.8 Darwin Park, Lichfield

! Suburban area situated less than 2 miles south of Lichfield city centre, near to M6 toll road.

! Site area: approximately 33 ha.

! 1100 housing units when completed, supermarket, retail space.

! Housing density: approximately 33 dph.

! Residential mix: mixed apartments, terraced, semi-detached, detached.

! Housing tenure: 25% affordable housing.


! Parking ratio: believed to be approximately 1 or 1.5 per dwelling.

! Greenfield site.

! Development period: 1998 onwards (60% built). Due for completion in 2008/2009.

! Developer: Taylor Woodrow and Bryant Homes.

! Adopted Urban Design considerations. Curvilinear street layout. Some non-DB32 layouts used.

! Local planning authority: Lichfield District Council.

! Local highway authority: Staffordshire County Council.

A 461

27

19

127

86.0m

45

119a

89.3m

51

The

24

33

LEAMONSLEY

WALSALL ROAD

VIC

TOR

IA

12

14

2

32

8

117

129

Vicarage

127a

15

23

121

40

44

40

38

House

36

32

26

4

11

2119

2

57

23

7

9

Court

Leomansley Court

37

53

27

22

15

CHATTERTON AVE

7

189

Easter Hill

97

145

104

178

98

139

147

174

179

99

101

SAXO

N WAL

K

LEOMANSLEY VIE

W

Rookery

10

159

The Old

19

Vicarage

LANE

168a

25

105

9

5

168

2

BARDELL CLOSE

4

187

El Sub Sta

192

25

21

52

16

2

ORMONDS CLOSE

6

1

3

1

6

4

2

8

5

ALESMORE MEADOW

11

59

17

194

CLO

SE

30

1

5

12

3

10

7

158

34

11

1

35

42

WALN

UT WALK

34

38

32

25

29

21

Headland


92

1

146

138

5

106

CHRISTCHURCH

103

92.0m

165

14

PO

OLFIE

LD R

OA

D

4

2

177

14

12

10

170

WALSALL ROAD

191

BM 93.77m

= ATC Location




Lichfield

1

23

5

6

7

8

910

11

1

2

3

4

5

25

26

The Darwin Park development near Lichfield has some design elements which make it distinct from any other site included in the research. The photograph shows how grass has been used in some areas to make up the pedestrian surface. This may have aesthetic value but the practicalities, especially for a wheelchair user, can be challenged.

Another key characteristic of this site is the relatively low visibility levels on links (as shown in the picture) and junctions.

1

23

5

6

7

8

910

11

1

2

3

4

5

25

26

70

B.1.9 Former Pirelli Site, Eastleigh

! Location: 0.5 km to the west of Eastleigh town centre, 0.5 km from junction 13 of the M3, south of Leigh road.Proximity to town centre.

! Site area 11.7ha.

! 710 units (when complete).

! Density 60 dph gross.

! Mix of housing types, plus live work units and offices.

! Housing tenure: 17% affordable.


! Average residential parking to be no more than 1.5 spaces per unit. 33% of total parking to be shared on-street parking.

! Development period 2002-2006.

! Developers: Barratts and Kingsoak.

! DB32 loosely adhered to, design also influenced by Hampshire’s advice ‘Movement, access, streets and spaces’ adoptedin 2001.

! Local planning authority: Eastleigh Borough Council.

! Highways authority: Hampshire County Council.

109

17

NU

TB

EE

M R

OA

D

31

4

117

111

1 to

22

Will

iam

Pan

ter

Cou

rt

The

Good Companions

(PH)

32

81 to 91

24

34

40

Telephone Exchange

80 79

31

14.9m

CA

BLE

ST

RE

ET

70

60

61

69

27 29

8799

111

52 to

68

DR

UM

RO

AD

53 to 69

ROAD

BLENHEIM

STRANDING STREET42

3

15.5m

35 to 40

41 to 52

BM 15.40m

SO

PW

ITH

RO

AD

17 to 28

1 to 16

1 to 25

53

BENNY HILL CLOSE

12

29

9

30

34

14

17

7

STRANDING STREET

1 ESS

3 to 8

HEINZ BURT CLOSE

12

2 to

12

31

1

PLU

TO R

OA

D

1

1716

15

2

30

9

3749

63

Cha

rlie

Soa

r C

ourt

1 to

16

18

42

Church

4438

3634 40

3022

PIRELLI WAY

9

3

1

17

15

11

13

15

CA

BLE

ST

RE

ET

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY

2

11

10

CA

BLE

ST

RE

ET

25

42 to

58

29

27

24 to

40

22

SOPWITH ROAD

24

1 to 19

1820

3741

42

35

12

DR

UM

RO

AD

EASTLEIGH CENTRAL WARD

28

3129

2 to

18

ST

RA

ND

ING

ST

RE

ET

BR

IGH

T W

IRE

CR

ES

CE

NT

41 to 57

29

32

59 to 75

25

28

39

16 to 24

32

CR

ESCEN

T

SOUTH EAST EER

34

14

22

9 to 27

6

7

11

12

BR

IGH

T W

IRE

2

92

15.2m


1 to 11

TOMMY GREEN WALK

8

GREAT FARM ROAD

6

EASTLEIGH WEST ED

1

= ATC Location




Former Pirelli Site - Eastleigh

3

8

6

5

2

1

7

4

4

2 3

1

9

8

This site is a brownfield development in Eastleigh, to the northeast of Southampton. The atypical grid layout is characterised in this instance by built-in parking provision in the form of roadside bays. As the image shows, these act to drastically alter the visibility on links. A brick road surface has been widely used on the site, with some raised brick junctions. The site remains to be finished.

3

8

6

5

2

1

7

4

4

2 3

1

9

8

71

B.1.10 Newhall, East Harlow

! Large urban extension east of Harlow, Essex.

! Site area is 81ha.

! Population expected to reach 6000 in 2800 dwellings by 2018.

! Density 35 dph gross.

! Mixed land use. Residential mix of detached, terraced, semi-detached and flats plus community buildings, shops,services, pubs. Site includes district centre.

! Housing tenure: 25% lower cost dwellings.


! Parking ratio of 1.7 per dwelling plus 15 visitor spaces for the ‘Abode’ parcel.

! Different parcels within each phase (50-100 units per parcel) built out by different developers. Overall developers:Roger Evans Associates. Proctor Matthews Architects / Copthorn Homes, PCKO / Cala Homes also contributed.

! Development period started 2003. Not yet completed.

! Urban edge car-based Greenfield development.

! Street layout is deformed lattice shape.

! Local planning authority: Harlow District Council.

! Highways authority: Essex County Council.7

THE CHASE

3935

1

13

2

HOLLAND WAY

4

5 to 9

REGINALD MEWS

9

3

51

2

1

ST.NICHOLAS GREEN

1

161

to 1

0

11

5

1

RA

MB

LER

S LA

NE

4

44

1

3

18

CROSS WAY

10

5

1

38

SIMPLICITY LANE

4

GR

EE

N S

TR

EE

T

3

6

18

HO

NO

R S

TR

EE

T

ST.NICHOLAS GREEN

Playground

5

REGINALD MEWS

36

56 to 62

12

7

2

5

15

ST

NIC

HO

LAS

GR

EE

N

10

211

25 to 33

5

6

ST

RE

ET

1

TAT

TON

7


1

28

5

1

16

1 to 12

12

ST NICHOLAS GREEN

14

25

6 to 13

21

CA

NO

PY

LA

NE

13 to

23

1

BASIL MEWS

2

MAY

PO

LE S

TR

EE

T

THE CHASE

2

26

SOPER

SQU

ARE

10

6

3

Sub

4

El

ALBA ROAD

Sta

1

5

ALLIS MEWS

2

HARROWBAND ROAD

1

SQ

UA

RE

ST

RE

ET

4

1

3

9

1

19

18

8

4

1

= ATC Location




Newhall - East Harlow

7

9

5

3

8

6

1

4

3

1

4

2

1819

This recently developed site has an organic layout and has adopted numerous modern design elements. The picture gives an example of the shared spaces, planting in the carriageway and green public recreational areas. These wide junctions require care from drivers, but the plantings act to funnel vehicles and separate them from pedestrians.

7

9

5

3

8

6

1

4

3

1

4

2

1819

72

B.1.11 Queen Elizabeth Park, Guildford

! Located 2 miles north of Guildford, 30 miles west of London with close proximity to local bus routes and mainlinerailway route into London. Easy access to M25 via A3.

! Site area 23 hectares including open space and commercial uses.

! 525 units mix of houses and flats.

! Housing density 23 dph.

! Mix of uses: community centre, crèche, health and fitness centre, supermarket, doctor’s surgery, 25 small business unitsand 4550 sqm offices.

! Housing tenure: high income (mostly), 35% affordable.


! Average parking ratio: 1.5 spaces per dwelling.

! Date of development 2003-2005.

! Developers: Laing and Linden.

! Former barracks site on suburban Brownfield site.

! Relaxation of DB32 highway design standards and innovative measures to control speed.

! Local planning authority: Guildford Borough Council.

! Highways authority: Surrey County Council.

STOUGHTON WARD

STOUGHTON

1 to 6

RAILTON ROAD1

5

1

HA

LLO

WE

S C

LOS

E

18

3

10

2

6

9

9

GR

AN

GE

RO

AD

7 to 14

AV

EN

UE

17

45

HE

ND

ER

SO

N

35

10

4

15 to 16

Vaughan Court

19

RAILTON ROAD

RIV

ETT

-DR

AK

E C

LOS

E

15 to 23

11

6

10

12

2

8

5

1

1 to 6

MAC

DO

WALL R

OAD

7

Posts

GUILDFORD DISTRICT

12

WHATELEY CLOSE

21

Wha

tele

y Te

rrac

e

1

2

HENDERSON AVENUE

18

10

8

1

7

19 to 33

1

3

FO

RE

ST

ER

RO

AD

4

3

FORESTER ROAD

12 to 20

28

1929

33

22

26

10

GUILDFORD NORTH ED

11

36

17

MIC

HA

EL

LAN

E

9

1

SURREY COUNTY

44

38

2

1

KENT CLOSE

DUCHESS OF

4

8

Elizabeth Park

1

46

Queen

WA

KE

CLO

SE

1519

5

2

KN

OX

RO

AD

3541

1

8

48

31

1 to 6

TY

RW

HIT

T C

OU

RT

34

7 to 14

CROWCROFT CLOSE

6

7 to 14

3

HO

PK

IN C

LOS

E

1

32

25

24

38

1

RA

ILTO

N R

OA

D

24

20

33

15

11

23

26

17

1

9

Queen Elizabeth Park

11

15

CLO

SE

AN

DE

RS

ON

AN

DE

RS

ON CLO

SE

3

12

8

1

7

5

PR

INC

ES

S M

AR

Y C

LOS

E268

267

264


274

TYLEHOST

280

2

273

1

1

4

GO

DD

AR

D C

LOS

E

2

= ATC Location




Queen Elizabeth Park - Guildford

12

1312

9

6

4

3

5

11

8

7

10

14

15

2

1

33

4

Guildford’s Queen Elizabeth Park has an organic street layout, with an extensive network of footways linking green spaces and recreational areas. The picture shows an example of aesthetic considerations combining with link geometry, as the obelisk acts to reduce visibility on the link. Vegetation has been maintained so as to not reduce visibility further.

12

1312

9

6

4

3

5

11

8

7

10

14

15

2

1

33

4

73

B.1.12 Tower Hamlets, London

! Location: Central Stepney, inner East London housing area. The site is north of the river Thames, within close proximityto Canary Wharf and the Tower of London.

! Site area: 6 ha.

! 240 habitable rooms per hectare (up to 74 dph).

! 136 housing units developed (total development 445).

! Residential mix: terraces and flats.

! Housing tenure: almost all Registered Social Landlord (RSL).


! On-street parking except some in-curtilage for disabled.

! Development period: 1998-2004.

! Developer: John Laing Partnership. PRP Architects worked with local residents, the housing associations, Laing and theFree Form Arts Trust to develop the master plan.

! Residential development on site of a demolished 60s estate.

! Reproduction of Victorian terraced streets. Design based on DB32 and Section 38.

! Local planning authority and highways authority: London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

1 to

3

129

8.6m

2022

124 to 134112 to 122

30

11

86

12

SHAW C

RESCENT

3

4

6

2

1

2

18


8

15

CA

RR

ST

RE

ET

2741 1

3537

to 4

7

4953

78

78 92

100 to 110

94 to 9860 to 70

119 to 123

BE

TH

NA

L G

RE

EN

AN

D B

OW

BO

RO

CO

NS

T

ST

DU

NS

TAN

'S A

ND

ST

EP

NE

Y G

RE

EN

WA

RD

125

107 to117

EA

ST

FIE

LD S

TR

EE

T

2230

32

17

89 to 9395 to 105

1929

87

52 to 56

81

61

55 to 65

72 to 76

1

16

26

Playground

1

62

60

27 to 33

3634

BM

10.

56m

TCB10.1m

74

9.9m

182025

84

23

2426

7

Cau

ston

Cot

tage

s

Bailey Cottages

16

Batten Cottages

3

11

CA

RR

ST

RE

ET 74

5876

47

69

63

9498

96100

76

29 to

33

79

73

66

61

1

30

104

1 to

66

78

3

44

67 to 71

34

GA

LSW

OR

TH

Y A

VE

NU

E

23

Don

oghu

e C

otta

ges

121314

16 1517

20

HALLEY STREET

Elsa Cottages

7.9m

4632

34

GA

LSW

OR

TH

Y A

VE

NU

E

6

GA

LSW

OR

TH

Y A

VE

NU

E

Cau

ston

Cot

tage

s

2

9


6

LIMEHOUSE

REPTON STREET

10.4m

1713

6

1

Berry Cottages

Bradshaw Cottages

1

6

1

6

53

Burroughs Cottages

1

6

1

MAROON STREET

1

Limehouse

Fields Estate

41

16

1213 14

15 16

179

2823

20

CO

LTM

AN

ST

RE

ET

Gre

aves

Cot

tage

s

13 to 3943

HE

AR

NS

HA

W S

TR

EE

T

4151

9

HE

AR

NS

HA

W S

TR

EE

T

TOWER HAMLETS LB

Am

esC

otta

ges

Am

es C

otta

ges

18


96

BM 9.12m

4

15 to 21

21286

AS

TON

ST

RE

ET

Posts 9.1m

Channel

House

= ATC Location




Tower Hamlets - London

3

13

16

1

4

5

17

7

1

2

3

5

Tower Hamlets saw extensive redevelopment during the 1990s, and is characterised by its grid layout with on-street parking provision. The image shows a typically wide carriageway to accommodate this parking. The major arm at this junction is one-way traffic, with the central reserve turned into a recreational area.

3

13

16

1

4

5

17

7

1

2

3

5

74

B.1.13 Crown Street, Glasgow

! Location: site within walking distance (20 minutes) of Glasgow city centre on the south bank of the river Clyde.


! 832 dwellings.

! Gross density 48 dph.

! Residential development along wider boulevards with retail and mixed use provision laid out along the narrowest street.Residential mix of town houses, flats and duplex apartments (four-storey urban blocks).

! Housing tenure: 659 owner occupied, 173 social rented homes.

! Mainly 30 mph speed limits, with some streets 20 mph.

! Parking ratio is less than 1:1 overall.

! Former site: poor quality 1960s high rise residential tower blocks.


! Planner / Developer: Piers Gough.

! Strongly linear layout.

! Local planning and highways authority: Glasgow City Council.

258

159 to 167

PIN

E P

LAC

E

146 to 150

130 to 134

136 to 144

19 to 27

1115

17

7

175

169

45

45 to 49

16

2435 to 43

28 to

32

ERROL G

ARDENS

GLASGOW PER

29 to 33

19 to 27

GLASGOW

36 to

40

34

8

238

147 to 151

BEN

NY

LYN

CH

CO

UR

T

16

11

ST

NIN

IAN

TE

RR

ACE

36

56

40

7

137 to 143

OLD RUTHERGLEN ROAD

125 to 129

131 to 135

113 to 117

119 to 123

20

15

17

6

PO

12 16

114 to 118

120 to 128

110

167

161

155

180-

154

61

PIN

E P

LAC

E

55

32

235

48

42 to

46

34

227

229

46

44

221 to 225

39

192

190

184 to 188

215 to 219

CR

OW

N S

TRE

ET

ERROL G

ARDENS

22 to

26

18

181

207 to 211

197 to 201

191 to 195

27

9

11

15

203 to 207

166 to 170

4-8

5-7

197

209 to 213

Supermarket

50

CR

OW

N S

TRE

ET

9.1m

101

CA

MD

EN

TE

RR

ACE

CUMBERLAND STREET

164

10.0m

10-14

201 to 205

221 to 225

16-18

5557

45-49

42

9 to 11

235

37

39227 to 233

170

SAN

DIE

FIEL

D R

OAD

GLASGOW CITY

Supermarket

GORBALS

Play Area

Play Area

SA

ND

IEFI

ELD

RO

AD

SCOTLAND EER

El Sub Sta

170

200

El Sub

Sta

154

146 to 150

126 to 132

7 to 9

Play Area

NABURN GATE

KID

STO

N P

LAC

E

23

15 to 19

CRESCENT

230

224

19

KIDSTON TERRACE

15

21 to 2328

22 26

11

ALEXANDER

GLA

SG

OW

SH

ET

TLE

STO

N P

CO

NS

T

15

29

7

19 to 23

33

HA

ND

EL

PLA

CE

SOUTHSIDE CRESCENT

18

7

11

3

5 to 9

11 to 17

19 to 23

TCB


GLA

SG

OW

HU

TC

HE

SO

NTO

WN

WA

RD

6 to

10

TH

IST

LE T

ER

RA

CE

SOUTHSIDE CRESCENT

ALEXANDER

CRESCENT

25 to 27

11 to 1719 to 23

GO

RB

ALS

15

MA

LTA

TE

RR

AC

E

14

4

2

7

11

16

30

1921

12 to

16

18 to

22

24 to

28

3

= ATC Location




The Gorbals - Glasgow

1

2 3

6

4

8

7

5

10

9

41

3

2

29

30

This site is a redevelopment based around Crown Street in the Gorbals area of Glasgow. Brick tables are used extensively at junctions, and parking provision is situated between the carriageways with a one -way system in operation. This is evident in the picture above, as is an apparent degradation in the quality of road markings on the brick surface.

1

2 3

6

4

8

7

5

10

9

41

3

2

29

30

-

75

B.1.14 Windley Tye, Chelmsford

! Located on town centre fringe to the west of Chelmsford.

! 4.3 ha site.

! 23 housing units (Willow Court development).

! Overall density 25 dph (Willow Court Development).

! Residential mix: 3 and 4 bedroom detached, semi-detached and terraced houses.



! Car parking: generally behind the building line.

! Brownfield site. Former industrial site.

! Development period: 2002-2004 (Willow Court).

! Developer: Bellway Homes (Willow Court).

! Local planning authority: Chelmsford Borough Council.

! Highway Authority: Essex County Council.

ST ANDREWS

13

1

3

WEST CHELMSFORD CO CONSTHouse

1 to 6

2a

32.3m

40

36

2b

Upleatham

10

1

2

8

2

8

3

1

Path (um)

32.6m

191 to 2

3

BM 32.56m

11

23

11

17

19

8

24

FIT

ZW

ALT

ER

PLA

CE

SACKVILLE CLOSE

WINDLEY TYE

9

Foremans

12

13 to 14

El S

ub S

ta

14

18

13

29

31

EASTERN EER

22 20

CHELMSFORD DISTRICTROXWELL ROAD

ESSEX COUNTY


54

= ATC Location




Windley Tye - Chelmsford

1

2

346

5

1

2

3

11

10

Windley Tye is a small, low density development with a court-style layout. The rumble strip in the photograph marks the entrance to the newer courtyard area of the site and signifies to drivers that care should be taken. Visibilities at junctions in this section are relatively low, but the curved link actually has good visibility as the central section consists of low-level grass and flowers.

1

2

346

5

1

2

3

11

10

76

B.1.15 Beaulieu Park, Chelmsford

! Part of the Beaulieu Park urban extension on the north east edge of Chelmsford, Essex. Linked to town centre via A130.


! 91 dwellings.

! Gross density within the site of 25.6 dwellings per hectare.

! Residential mix: three-bedroom townhouses to six-bedroom detached homes, terraces.

! Housing tenure: development aimed at high-income earners. 20% affordable.


! Greenfield site.


! Developer: George Wimpy with local architect Ken Philpot.

! Non-standard street layout that goes beyond DB32 criteria. The Essex Design Guide had an influence on the design andarchitecture. DB32 sightline standards were avoided in the shared surface streets.

! Local planning authority: Chelmsford Borough Council.

! Highway authority: Chelmsford Borough Council acting as agents for Essex County Council.

50

30

38

46

29

22

14

34

2

21

WHARTO

N

12

11

17

Posts

Ppg Sta

56

3

ESS

101

103

5

14

17

15

24

28

2

10

19

16

8

6

64

76

51

70

BILLERS CHASE

14

2

48

52

17

15

43

60

25

to

89

87

to

77

99

74

55 to 61

75to

63

54

90

20

2226

24 42

16

96

94

28

86

84


8

1

14

SID

NE

Y P

LAC

E

15

29

19

2

7

BE

AULI

EU

BO

ULE

VAR

D

16

53

45

57

55

Posts

18

20

11

14

13

18

5

7

18

12

11

10

17

DR

IVE

15

97

1

2123

39 to 53

24

35

MU

LTO

N L

EA

1

1

8

5

6

31

27

Sta

10

9

12

7

GREEN

FRANCES

1 6

2

13

3

1

252

1

Playground

21

ANJOU G

REEN

BE

AULI

EU

BO

ULE

VAR

D

6

4

31

6

37

11

19

7

10

El Sub

4

8

5

2

1

HONOR LIN

K

166

68

BURNELL GATE

44

20

18

3

2

= ATC Location




Beaulieu Park - Chelmsford

10 4

6

8

59

32

7

121

3

2

46

5

12

13

Beaulieu Park is notable for its use of wide ranging materials within the streetscape. There are some shared surfaces where vehicle flows are relatively low, mixed with traditional asphalt on some access roads. The image shows innovative use of a brick surface, with a pattern created to denote the edge of one carriageway and the stopping point for vehicles on the minor arm.

10 4

6

8

59

32

7

121

3

2

46

5

12

13

77

B.1.16 Rapier Street, Ipswich

! Lies between main Wherstead Road (A137) and a route designated for a future strategic link into town centre. Situatedon the west side of the docks.

! 35 houses, 139 flats.

! Residential development, consisting of high rise flats and four-storey town houses are arranged around the perimeter ofthe site. Terraces, detached and semi-detached properties.


! Brownfield site.


! Developer: Bidwells.

! ‘Homezone’ design standards applied.

! Local planning authority: Ipswich Borough Council.

! Highways authority: Suffolk County Council.

= ATC Location




Rapier Street Home Zone - Ipswich

At the time of writing there were no CAD images available of Rapier Street due to it being a recent redevelopment. The adjacent site plans do at least give an impression of the layout. There are shared surfaces throughout, with a children’s play area at the centre of the site. Raised flats straddle the paved surface, with some parking provided underneath. A wide variety of materials were used to create a pedestrian focused streetscape.

78

Und

FF

FFFW

Def

EAST

CLLFF

EAST

CLL

FF

LOCKS

IDE

Hou

se

Mar

ine

Dock Masters House

ESS

Und

FF

EASTCLL

FF

LOCKSIDE SQUARE

LOW

ER B

URLING

TON R

OAD

WAT

CH HO

USE PLA

CE

Ward Bdy

CR

PIER ROAD

Statues

El Sub Sta

Pond

PIER CLOSE

31.8m

Court

EASTCLIFF

Burlington

LOWER BURLINGTON ROAD

33.0m

SA

LLY

HIL

L

WOODACRE

El Sub Sta

Centre Quay

WOODACRE

45

ESS

Statue

WO

OD

AC

RE

40.4m


Sta

SEVILLE ROAD

SE

VIL

LE C

OU

RT

BURLINGTON ROAD

= ATC Location




Port Marine - Portishead

1

3

2

64

7

10

5

9

8

1

2

3

22

Port Marine is a new build with an organic layout. The site is notable for its wide open grassed areas for recreation, along with prominent pieces of public art. There is little consistency in street design. The picture shows a wide link with a block paved surface and bollards to demarcate the carriageway, both of which are used only partially. The narrow courtyard entrance in the distance contrasts with the majority of junctions at the site .

1

3

2

64

7

10

5

9

8

1

2

3

22

B.1.17 Port Marine, Portishead

! Located north west of Bristol where the river Avon meets the Severn estuary.

! Site area: 18 ha

! Urban village of 920 dwellings.

! Approximately 45 dph.

! Residential mix of terraces, crescents, individual houses and apartment blocks. Properties range from two-storey mewshouses to eight-storey blocks facing the marina.



! Parking ratio: 1 per dwelling.

! Former power station site.

! Development period: 1999-2003. Further development expected to be completed in 2006.

! Developer: Crest Nicholson.

! Local planning authority: North Somerset Council.

! Highways authority: North Somerset Council.

79

ROLLS CRESCENT

2

TOM

LINS

ON

ST

RE

ET

1

18H

ULM

E

TOM

LINS

ON

ST

RE

ET

11

1

DUNHAM STREET

30

112

120

2

19

2

55

13

20

10

ELLIS

ST

RE

ET

HULME WARD

El Sub Sta

1239

1

122

134

2

6

1

ROLLS

CRESCENT

Rolls Crescent Primary School

133

53

HA

LSTO

N S

TRE

ET

135

8

12

STRETFORD ROAD

7

WARDE STREET

9

20

12

31

33

2

12

9

13

14

4

5

136

21

150

2

149

10

1

152

9

151

29

2

MANCHESTER, CENTRAL BORO CONST

HULME

162

19

8

163

ROLLS CRESCENT

2

1

164

SP

RU

CE

ST

RE

ET

165 5

3

1

35

17

28

167

168

170

33

AVE

NH

AM

CLO

SE

1

3

MANCHESTER DISTRICT

35

36

39

19

43

45

ANCROFT STREET

Zion

Church

Theatre

and Offices

4

26

17

23

19

to

21

15

22 to 24

341

Zion Medical Centre

337

339

11

13

11

292 to 296

23 to 29 53 to

71

37 to

51

21 to

35

27

1

25

22

24

26

345

310

306

300

304

20

349

298

21

343

10

1

3

2

4

CU

LMIN

GTO

N C

LOSE

2


RO

LLS CR

ESCEN

T

11

13

18

16

312

= ATC Location




Hulme - Manchester

1

3 4

5

7

9

10

12

13

1

2

3

27

28

The Hulme area of Manchester has a grid layout with two main 30mph access roads around the perimeter of the survey site. Within these roads there is a 20mph limit and extensive calming at junctions (brick tables), as can be seen in the image. The majority of vehicles park on the road, but there are some small residents-only car parks.

1

3 4

5

7

9

10

12

13

1

2

3

27

28

B.1.18 Hulme, Manchester

! Hulme regeneration area south of Manchester city centre – replacement of unsuccessful 1960s comprehensiveredevelopment. Site within walking distance (about 20 minutes) of city centre.

! Wider regeneration area is 121 ha. Site area: 6.6 ha.

! Density on average given as 90 dph. High density development.

! Mixed used development site. Resident mix: mainly flats.

! Housing tenure: dwellings are mostly social rented.

! Intended maximum traffic speed of 20 mph.

! Parking ratio 0.8-1.0 per dwelling.

! Replacement of 1960s comprehensive development. Brownfield site.


! Traditional grid street pattern.

! Highway safety not an overriding objective, though personal safety was an important consideration.

! Local planning authority and Highways authority: Manchester City Council.

80

27

21

6

2

6

4

MALLARD DRIVE

HE

RO

N W

AY

7

1

KESTREL

CLOSE

1

4

4

2

GLEBE

WAY

5

El Sub Sta

2

1

CLO

SE

2

7

6

11

KINGFISHER

SWALLOW DRIVE15

25

22

23

6

1

11

1214

WILLOW WALK

7

23

1

28

37

33

31

34

PART

RID

GE

15

CLO

SE

CURLEW CL

2

12

24

17

34

16

20

9

11

33

12

HO

LLY

BU

SH

CLO

SE

BLAC

KTH

OR

N D

RIV

E

27

20

19

LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY

8

9

HEATH AVENUE

HE

ATH

AV

EN

UE

2

21

6

24

SWIF

T CLO

SE

32

37

24

29

MARTIN

DRIV

E

21

7

14

38

10

1

TE

AL

WAY2

CURLEW

CLO

SE

8

12

2

SWALLOW

DRIVE

5

19

7

1115

25

GO

RS

E L

AN

E

12

5

17


PADDOCK VIEW

41

37

5

2

43 2

45

SE

DG

EF

IELD

DR

IVE

TH

E P

AS

TU

RE

S

27

34

15

25

38

42

1

24

Field View

CY

GN

ET

CLO

SE

SEDGEFIELD DRIVE

BLACKTHORN DR2

12

WREN CLOSE

17

22

El Sub Sta

28

20

1

8

57

SE

DG

EF

IELD

DR

IVE

2

74

11

18a

MARTIN DRIVE

18

12

9

32

61

48

12

5

SYSTON WEST WARD

56

20

8

6a8a

10

SWAN WAY

4

3

6

2a4a

60

2

15

62

79

4

SE

DG

EF

IELD

DR

IVE

1

SPINNEY CLOSE

1

MO

OR

LAN

D R

OA

D

31

33

RO

AD

2

21

6

27

COVERT CLOSE

CHARNWOOD CO CONST 52

15

2430

MO

OR

LAN

D

14

= ATC Location




Syston - Leicester

3

7

16 20

13

6

22

12

11

21

1

5

2

4

3

24

Syston is a spine and cul-de-sac residential estate typical of 1980s suburban developments. Junction markings are only used on the entrance/exits of the study area, and other road markings are sparse. The picture shows a long and sweeping link, along with a characteristically wide junction aperture. There is very little on-street parking as the vast majority of houses have driveways.3

7

16 20

13

6

22

12

11

21

1

5

2

4

3

24

B.1.19 Syston, Leicester

! Around 7 km from Leicester City centre and 1 km from Syston town centre. Regular bus service runs through estate,linking to Syston, Thurmaston and Leicester. Around 0.5 km – 1 km to railway station on Midland mainline.

! Previous greenfield site.

! Type of development: residential.

! Developer: Jelson Limited.

! Area of site: 24 ha (approximately).

! Number of dwellings: 678.

! Housing density: 28 houses/ha (approximately).


! Local planning authority: Charnwood Borough Council.

! Highways authority: Leicestershire County Council.

! Development period: 1988-mid 1990s.

! Residential mix: detached and semi detached 2, 3 and 4 bed houses.

! Housing tenure: not known for certain, believed to be 100% private.

! Parking ratios: dwellings with 4 or more bedrooms – minimum 3 spaces, dwellings with 3 or less bedrooms – minimum2 spaces (as per the then current Leicestershire County Council design guide).

81

24

10

16

7

MACE CLOSE

SA

GE

CLO

SE

ROAD

6

12

CARAWAY

HILLS

IDE

WA

RD

1

3

20

19

1

23

7

17

5

5

CH

IVE

RO

AD

FENNELCLOSE

21

7

CLO

SE

TH

YM

E

8

41

FENNELCLOSE

3

46

1

3

1

17

8

CA

RAW

AY

RO

AD

47

45

CA

RA

WAY

RD

10

DR

IVE

21

ROSEM

ARY AVENUE

1412

37

35

34

CA

SS

IA

6

14

11

27

16

20

28

1

ROSEMARY

AVENUE

19

15

6


CO

RIA

ND

ER

WAY

5

16

12

1

= ATC Location




Lower Earley - Reading

1

6

3

52

10

4

87

91

2

3

4

5

2

Lower Earley, to the south of Reading town centre, has a spine and cul-de-sac layout in compliance with DB32 recommendations. There are shared surfaces on some cul-de-sacs, as can be seen in the picture. It can also be noted that driveways have the potential to alter sight lines at junctions when they are occupied.

1

6

3

52

10

4

87

91

2

3

4

5

2

B.1.20 Lower Earley, Reading

! DB32 compliant.


! Local planning authority: Reading Borough Council.

82

85%

Dri

ver

s R

eact

ion t

o “

Cle

ar

and

ob

vio

us

stim

ulu

s” [

Ols

on

1997]

Fas

t R

eact

ion

Tim

e

Slo

wer

dri

ver

rea

ctio

n t

ime

Po

ssib

le n

igh

t ti

me

reac

tio

n t

imes

Hea

vy

Aver

age

Lig

ht

Em

ergen

cy

Hig

hw

ay

Co

de

Dry

surf

ace:

Un

chan

ged

Wet

Surf

ace:

add 0

.2g t

o d

ecel

erat

ion

Alc

ohol

(Low

lev

el):

Un

chan

ged

Can

nab

is:

add

0.2

s to

rea

ctio

n t

ime

Reacti

on

Tim

e (

s)

App

endi

x C

: B

raki

ng d

ista

nce

mat

rix

83

85%

Dri

ver

s R

eact

ion t

o “

Cle

ar

and

ob

vio

us

stim

ulu

s” [

Ols

on

19

97

]

Fas

t R

eact

ion

Tim

e

Slo

wer

dri

ver

rea

ctio

n t

ime

Poss

ible

nig

ht

tim

e re

acti

on t

imes

Hea

vy

Aver

age

Lig

ht

Em

ergen

cy

Hig

hw

ay

Co

de

Dry

su

rfac

e: U

nch

anged

Wet

Surf

ace:

add 0

.2g t

o d

ecel

erat

ion

Alc

ohol

(Low

lev

el):

Un

chan

ged

Can

nab

is:

add

0.2

s to

rea

ctio

n t

ime

Rea

ctio

n T

ime

(s)

84

85%

Dri

ver

s R

eact

ion t

o “

Cle

ar a

nd o

bvio

us

stim

ulu

s”

[Ols

on

19

97

]

Fas

t R

eact

ion

Tim

e

Slo

wer

dri

ver

rea

ctio

n t

ime

Po

ssib

le n

igh

t ti

me

reac

tio

n t

imes

Hea

vy

Aver

age

Lig

ht

Em

ergen

cy

Hig

hw

ay

Code

Dry

surf

ace:

Un

chan

ged

Wet

Surf

ace:

add 0

.2g t

o d

ecel

erat

ion

Alc

ohol

(Low

lev

el):

Un

chan

ged

Can

nab

is:

add

0.2

s to

rea

ctio

n t

ime

Reacti

on

Tim

e (s

)

85

Appendix D: Household survey questionnaire

89

Abstract

The Department for Transport and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister commissioned WSP, TRL, LlewelynDavies Yeang and Phil Jones Associates to develop the Manual for Streets (MfS), which shall supersede DesignBulletin 32 (DB32) and its companion guide, Places, Streets & Movement in 2007.

The manual will deal with underlying values that can be creatively deployed by practitioners to pursue theGovernment’s ‘placemaking’ agenda of individually distinctive localities while ensuring that streets remainfunctional and safe. It will be based around key elements of good design in residential streets and other lightlytrafficked roads.

The development of the MfS has involved some primary research to establish the relationships between differentlink and junction characteristics and road safety. The research examines the limits of design practice as currentlyspecified in DB32, to consider whether more liberal geometric and visibility values may be incorporated into themanual.

A review of literature and the contributions of industry stakeholders have indicated that, in terms of constraints ondesign, the critical dimensions for highway geometry are link widths, forward visibility, visibility splays andjunction spacing. The most significant barrier to the adoption of standards which use reduced values for width andvisibility is highway authority concern over road safety. The indicators of safety being considered in this researchare recorded casualties and vehicle speeds. In addition, residents’ perceptions of safety, sought through a householdsurvey, have been relevant as a qualitative response to different geometries.

The research has been undertaken at twenty sites across England. In the context of residential highway layouts,the research considers:

! Are junction geometries and road widths that do not meet DB32 standards safe in terms of recorded casualties?

! Are more permeable highway layouts such as grids associated with higher levels of casualties than spine and cul-de-sac layouts?

! Does there appear to be a relationship between design/environmental quality and driver behaviour?

The Manual for Streets has been prepared against a backdrop of sustainable development guidance and initiativesto ensure that it facilitates the long-term sustainability of streets, and contributes to an enhanced sense of place. Thisresearch provides an evidence base for redefining residential street design in the Manual for Streets.

Related publications

TRL641 Psychological traffic calming by J V Kennedy, R Gorell, L Crinson, A Wheeler and M Elliott.2005 (price £50, code HX)

TRL633 Pilot home zone schemes: evaluation of Magor Village, Monmouthshire by R Layfield, D Webster andS Buttress. 2005 (price £10 (special price))

TRL626 Pilot home zone schemes: evaluation of Cavell Way, Sittingbourne by D Webster, A Tilly and S Buttress.2005 (price £10 (special price))

TRL625 Pilot home zone schemes: evaluation of Northmoor, Manchester by A Tilly, D Webster and S Buttress.2005 (price £10 (special price))

TRL621 The effect of road narrowings on cyclists by A Gibbard, S Reid, J Mitchell, B Lawton, E Brown andH Harper. 2004 (price £50, code HX)

TRL603 Norfolk Quiet Lanes Scheme by J V Kennedy, A H Wheeler and C M Inwood. 2004a(price £40, code EX)

TRL602 Kent Quiet Lanes Scheme by J V Kennedy, A H Wheeler and C M Inwood. 2004b (price £40, code EX)

TRL584 Cyclists at ‘Continental’ style roundabouts: report on four trial sites by B J Lawton, P J Webb, G T Walland D G Davies. 2003 (price £50, code HX)

TRL564 Road design measures to reduce drivers’ speed via ‘psychological’ processes: a literature reviewby M A Elliott, V A McColl and J V Kennedy. 2003 (price £35, code E)

Prices current at May 2007

For further details of these and all other TRL publications, telephone Publication Sales on 01344 770783, email:[email protected], or visit TRL on the Internet at www.trl.co.uk.

manual for streets evidence

Documents

Transcript of manual for streets evidence