manual for streets evidence
DESCRIPTION
urban designTRANSCRIPT
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
4
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
= Junctions Measured
= ATC I.D.
= Links Measured
= Manual Speed Reading Locations
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
® Crown Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449
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
Forward visibility (m)
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
Forward visibility (m)
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
Forward visibility (m)
Spe
ed (
mph
)
Road Width = 5mRoad Width = 6mRoad Width = 7mRoad Width = 8mRoad Width = 9mRoad Width = 10m
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
)
Road Width = 5mRoad Width = 6mRoad Width = 7mRoad Width = 8mRoad Width = 9mRoad Width = 10m
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 = 7mRoad Width = 8mRoad Width = 9mRoad Width = 10m
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
)
Road Width = 5mRoad Width = 6mRoad Width = 7mRoad Width = 8mRoad Width = 9mRoad Width = 10m
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Forward visibility (m)
Spe
ed (
mph
)
Road Width = 5mRoad Width = 6mRoad Width = 7mRoad Width = 8mRoad Width = 9mRoad Width = 10m
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
)
Road Width = 5mRoad Width = 6mRoad Width = 7mRoad Width = 8mRoad Width = 9mRoad Width = 10m
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Forward visibility (m)
Spe
ed (
mph
)
Road Width = 5mRoad Width = 6mRoad Width = 7mRoad Width = 8mRoad Width = 9mRoad Width = 10m
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
Forward visibility (metres)
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
Forward visibility (metres)
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
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
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
® Crown Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449
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
® Crown Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449
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
® Crown Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449
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
BETHNAL GREEN AND BOW BORO CONST
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
® Crown Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449
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
® Crown Copyright 2005. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449
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)
Accs/year (25% flow on minor arm)
Accs/year (10% 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
® Crown Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449
New Town - Reading = ATC Location
= Junctions Measured
= ATC I.D. = Links Measured
= Manual Speed Reading Locations
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
® Crown Copyright 2005. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449
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
= Junctions Measured
= ATC I.D. = Links Measured
= Manual Speed Reading Locations
64
B.1.3 Jericho, Oxford
! Site located outside Oxford’s old city walls in a historic area, north of the city.
! Site area: 7.5 ha.
! 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
= Junctions Measured
= ATC I.D. = Links Measured
= Manual Speed Reading Locations
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
® Crown Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449
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
® Crown Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449
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
= Junctions Measured
= ATC I.D. = Links Measured
= Manual Speed Reading Locations
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.
! Site area: 4.4 ha.
! Approximately 278 dwellings.
! Site is residential and affords a mix of detached and terrace houses, ranging in age and condition.
! Housing tenure: not known.
! 30 mph speed limit.
! 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
® Crown Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449
= ATC Location
= Junctions Measured
= ATC I.D. = Links Measured
= Manual Speed Reading Locations
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
! 30 mph speed limit.
! 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
= Junctions Measured
= ATC I.D.
= Links Measured
= Manual Speed Reading Locations
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
® Crown Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449
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
® Crown Copyright 2005. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449
2
21
= ATC Location
= Junctions Measured
= ATC I.D. = Links Measured
= Manual Speed Reading Locations
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.
! 20 mph speed limit on site.
! 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
® 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
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.
! 30 mph speed limit on site.
! 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
® Crown Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449
1 to 11
TOMMY GREEN WALK
8
GREAT FARM ROAD
6
EASTLEIGH WEST ED
1
= ATC Location
= Junctions Measured
= ATC I.D. = Links Measured
= Manual Speed Reading Locations
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.
! 30 mph speed limit.
! 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
® Crown Copyright 2005. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449
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
= Junctions Measured
= ATC I.D. = Links Measured
= Manual Speed Reading Locations
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.
! 30 mph speed limit on site.
! 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
® Crown Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449
274
TYLEHOST
280
2
273
1
1
4
GO
DD
AR
D C
LOS
E
2
= ATC Location
= Junctions Measured
= ATC I.D. = Links Measured
= Manual Speed Reading Locations
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).
! 20 mph speed limit on site.
! 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
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 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
BETHNAL GREEN AND BOW BORO CONST
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
® Crown Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449
96
BM 9.12m
4
15 to 21
21286
AS
TON
ST
RE
ET
Posts 9.1m
Channel
House
= ATC Location
= Junctions Measured
= ATC I.D. = Links Measured
= Manual Speed Reading Locations
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.
! Site area: 17.4 ha.
! 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.
! Development period: 1991-2000.
! 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
® Crown Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449
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
= Junctions Measured
= ATC I.D. = Links Measured
= Manual Speed Reading Locations
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.
! Housing tenure: 0% affordable.
! 30 mph speed limit on site.
! 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
® Crown Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449
54
= ATC Location
= Junctions Measured
= ATC I.D. = Links Measured
= Manual Speed Reading Locations
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.
! Site area: 3.56 ha.
! 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.
! 20 mph speed limit on site.
! Greenfield site.
! Development period: 2001-2003.
! 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
® Crown Copyright 2005. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449
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
= Junctions Measured
= ATC I.D. = Links Measured
= Manual Speed Reading Locations
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.
! 20 mph speed limit on site.
! Brownfield site.
! Development period: 2003-2004.
! Developer: Bidwells.
! ‘Homezone’ design standards applied.
! Local planning authority: Ipswich Borough Council.
! Highways authority: Suffolk County Council.
= ATC Location
= Junctions Measured
= ATC I.D. = Links Measured
= Manual Speed Reading Locations
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
® Crown Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449
Sta
SEVILLE ROAD
SE
VIL
LE C
OU
RT
BURLINGTON ROAD
= ATC Location
= Junctions Measured
= ATC I.D. = Links Measured
= Manual Speed Reading Locations
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.
! Housing tenure: 10% affordable.
! 20 mph speed limit on site.
! 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
® Crown Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449
RO
LLS CR
ESCEN
T
11
13
18
16
312
= ATC Location
= Junctions Measured
= ATC I.D. = Links Measured
= Manual Speed Reading Locations
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.
! Development period: 1992-1997.
! 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
® Crown Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449
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
= Junctions Measured
= ATC I.D. = Links Measured
= Manual Speed Reading Locations
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).
! 30 mph speed limit.
! 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
® Crown Copyright 2005. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449
CO
RIA
ND
ER
WAY
5
16
12
1
= ATC Location
= Junctions Measured
= ATC I.D. = Links Measured
= Manual Speed Reading Locations
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.
! 30 mph speed limit.
! 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
86
87
88
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.
90