Civil Engineering- Alex McKeown, City Builder Academy 2014
Manual for streets 2
1. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Manual for Streets 2
Wider Application of
The Principles
Birmingham
18 April 2011
Phil Jones, PJA
2. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Manual for Streets 2 - Why?
MfS only applicable to residential streets (?)
Concerns over HGVs and bus braking
characteristics/SSDs
Fear of litigation
Comfort of familiar standards
Lack of confidence in applying MfS principles
in busier locations
4. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
DMRB – National Guidance on Roads
• Applicable to Trunk Roads
• Highways Agency’s standard (Eng.)
• Very detailed – covers
• Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
• Carriageway widths
• Design Speeds
• Junction geometry/detailing
• Checking and audit procedures
• Often used by Local Highway Authorities
• But they don’t have to!
5. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
What is DMRB for?
Use of the Manual for Trunk Roads
1.4 The documents in the manual have been prepared …
specifically for Trunk Road Works throughout the UK….
Use of the Manual by Other Highway Authorities
1.5 The manual sets a standard of good practice that has been
developed principally for Trunk Roads. It may also be
applicable in part to other roads with similar characteristics.
Where it is used for local road schemes, it is for the local
highway authority to decide on the extent to which the
documents in the manual are appropriate in any particular
situation
Introduction to the DMRB, GD01/08 (our emphasis)
7. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
MfS (1 and 2) Key Principles
Hierarchy – consider pedestrians first
Strike a balance – traffic is not always paramount
Respect pedestrian and cycle desire lines
Permeable and connected networks are preferred
Collaborative approaches work best
Innovation is encouraged
8. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Speed Limit 20mph 30mph 40mph 50+mph
User Hierarchy ● ● ● ●
Quality Audits ● ● ● ●
Community Function ● ● ● ●
Inclusive Design ● ● ● ●
Ped/Cycle Support ● ● ● ●
Master Plans/Design
Codes
● ● ● ●
Stopping Sight Distance ● ● ● ●
Frontage Access ● ● ● ●
Minimise Signs and
Street Furniture
● ● ● ●
Connectivity/Permeability ● ● ● ●
11. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Two dimensional approach to Hierarchy – Movement and Place
Design choices need to respect both functions
Some Movement corridors are more important than others…
Some Places are more important than others...
Motorway
High Street
Residential Street
Rural Lane
Place Status
MovementStatus
13. What are streets for?
Movement
Pedestrians
Cyclists
Buses
Cars/HGVs
Deliveries
Parking
Place Shopping Playing Socialising Eating/drinking Sitting
Events
14. What are streets for?
Movement
Pedestrians
Cyclists
Buses
Cars
Deliveries
Parking
Place Shopping Playing Socialising Eating/drinking Sitting Events
15. What are streets for?
Movement
Pedestrians
Cyclists
Buses
Cars/HGVs
Deliveries
Parking
Place Shopping Playing Socialising Eating/drinking Sitting Events
16. What are streets for?
Movement
Pedestrians
Cyclists
Buses
Cars/HGVs
Deliveries
Parking
Place Shopping Playing Socialising Eating/drinking Sitting Events
36. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
What is Shared Space?
Shared Space: a street or place accessible to both pedestrians
and vehicles that is designed to enable pedestrians to move more
freely by reducing traffic management features that tend to
encourage vehicles to assume priority.
Level surface: a street surface that is not physically divided by
kerb or level differences into areas for particular uses. Level
surface is a feature of some shared space schemes.
Shared Space Research Report, for DfT
37. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Increasingly shared
Decreasingly segregated
Guardrails Conventional
kerbs, different
materials
Level Surface,
Minimal/No
delineation
Low kerbs,
common material
Increasingly cooperative
When does a space
become shared?
60. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Shared Space DfT Research
Research being carried out by MVA
- Guidance out in Spring 2011
Key findings:
Shared Spaces are no less safe
and can be safer
Reducing the degree of
segregation between users
produces slower traffic, more
pedestrians using whole of the
space.
Solutions are emerging that
mitigate the impact of Level
Surfaces on disabled people.
62. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
What’s the Problem?
• Persistent concerns over potential for highway
authorities – and individual officers/members – to be
held liable for design faults and innovations.
• No evidence that this is actually a significant problem
in practice.
63. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Liability and Good Urban Design
• Designers often over-estimate their legal responsibilities
• Designers may therefore be unwilling to consider non-
conventional design initiatives (e.g. removing guard-rails)
• Irrational fear of liability can be detrimental to good design
• Need to be more informed about
risk, safety & possible liability
• Need to balance these concerns
with the benefits of good urban
design
• Good urban design can be just
as safe as traditional approaches
and sometimes safer
64. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Legislative duties and judgements
Highway Risk & Liability Claims
A practical guide to Appendix C
of ‘Well Maintained Highways’
• Produced by UK Roads Board
• Advice, case studies and
judgements on liability
65. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Legislative duties and judgements
Three Principles:
1. Court rulings repeatedly state that road
users are responsible for their own safety
and have a duty to take the road as they
find it. This defines the road user as an
intelligent being, able and expected to
exercise their own judgement.
2. The highway authority should avoid
creating a trap for road users.
3. The highway authority should not act
irrationally.
66. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
• No duty to give warning or maintain
warning of obvious hazards
• No duty to erect of warning signs
(including markings) for obvious
hazards
• Cases:
• Gorringe v Calderdale
• Stovin v Wise & Norfolk CC
Judgements
67. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Gorringe (Appellant) v.
Calderdale Metropolitan
Borough Council (2004)
On 15 July 1996, on a country road in Yorkshire,
Mrs Denise Gorringe drove her car head-on into
a bus. It was hidden behind a sharp crest in the
road until just before she reached the top.
She said that the council caused the accident
by failing to give her proper warning of the
danger involved in driving fast when you could
not see what was coming.
The ‘SLOW’ road marking on the approach to
the crest had become worn.
68. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Gorringe (Appellant) v.
Calderdale Metropolitan Borough
Council (2004)The House of Lords
LORD STEYN
• …the courts must not contribute to the creation of a society bent on
litigation, which is premised on the illusion that for every misfortune
there is a remedy.
LORD HOFFMANN
• People must accept responsibility for their own actions and take the
necessary care to avoid injuring themselves or others.
• The users of the highway are expected to look after themselves.
• Drivers of vehicles must take the highway network as they find it.
LORD RODGER
• I am satisfied that the duty to maintain the highway
does not include a duty to repaint warning signs on
the surface.
69. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Quality Audits
Quality Audits introduced in MfS1 - a ‘Balanced Audit’ reviewing key
aspects of a design against set objectives
Some authorities (eg Kent, Solihull) have taken the concept further
Policy Review
Objective Setting
Design
Quality Auditing
71. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Quality Audit process for
large developments
Council sets out objectives/terms of reference for Quality Audit
Quality Audit to include:
•mobility or access audit
•cycling & pedestrian, equestrian audits
•visual quality and place check audits
•Stage F Road Safety Audit/ Road Safety
Assessment
•maintenance regime audit
•public transport audit
•Transport Assessment
•technical standards audit
•how streets will be used/ community audit
•construction audit
Information Gathering Stage
Facilitator involved to resolve
simple conflicts between audits
Some audits carried out by qualified
independent individuals/ teams,
audit payments negotiated with developer
Draft Quality Audit Report including outstanding
items and recommendations
Resolution of outstanding items
Developer input
Developer, Local
Authority input
Agreed final Quality Audit Report
Subsequent stages of Road Safety Audit on
approved option
Developer, Local
Authority input
Planning Approval by
Council
Risk Assessment
matrix used by
Facilitator to help
resolve
outstanding issues
Quality Audit process for
large developments
Council sets out objectives/terms of reference for Quality Audit
Quality Audit to include:
•mobility or access audit
•cycling & pedestrian, equestrian audits
•visual quality and place check audits
•Stage F Road Safety Audit/ Road Safety
Assessment
•maintenance regime audit
•public transport audit
•Transport Assessment
•technical standards audit
•how streets will be used/ community audit
•construction audit
Information Gathering Stage
Facilitator involved to resolve
simple conflicts between audits
Some audits carried out by qualified
independent individuals/ teams,
audit payments negotiated with developer
Draft Quality Audit Report including outstanding
items and recommendations
Resolution of outstanding items
Developer input
Developer, Local
Authority input
Agreed final Quality Audit Report
Subsequent stages of Road Safety Audit on
approved option
Developer, Local
Authority input
Planning Approval by
Council
Risk Assessment
matrix used by
Facilitator to help
resolve
outstanding issues
72. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
• CIHT and DfT working towards guidance note (LTN) on Quality
Audits
• Current thinking:
• Team leader for QA
• Separate reports commissioned
• Team review all reports leading to balanced recommendations
Quality Audits
87. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
The Value of Better Streets
Traditional economic evaluation relies on time saved
How do we value time spent in better streets?
Guidance on Urbandesignlondon.tfl.gov.uk
89. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Application of the Detailed Guidance
Two health warnings:
1. Although numerical values are given in this section, designers
are encouraged to take a flexible approach to its interpretation and
application, thinking through for themselves the likely outcome of
any course of action based on experience and local
circumstances.
2. In preparing schemes, designers should consider the layout in
totality, including the relationship of the highway to its
surroundings, both in urban and rural areas. The highway should
not be seen in isolation or simply as a piece of infrastructure.
90. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
And not forgetting
8.1.1 The design of carriageways...is often based on TD9/93 Highway
Link Design, part of DMRB, but that document has been prepared for
Trunk Roads and may not always be appropriate in other circumstances.
As noted in Chapter 1 it is recommended that designers bear in mind the
key principles of MfS when applying DMRB.
DMRB
91. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Pedestrian Needs and Footways
It’s not exactly rocket science...!
Pedestrians need direct, connected and clutter-free footways of
adequate width along and across multi-functional highways
Their needs must be considered when designing links and junctions
93. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Newlands Avenue MPR Scheme:
Pinch point widened from 1.1m to 1.6m
Number of pedestrians increased by 59%
94. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Cyclists’ Needs
Cyclists should generally be accommodated
on the carriageway – by making conditions
suitable for them.
Poor facilities are worse than no facilities –
vehicles travel closer when lanes provided
Where on-carriageway facilities are provided,
they should be well designed.
Off-carriageway facilities should be
convenient and not put cyclists at danger at
junctions
95. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Design of Cycle Facilities
MfS2 refers to LTN2/08 – Cycle
Infrastructure Design
Make space for cycle lanes by reducing
traffic lane widths
96. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Design of Cycle Facilities – cont’d
Coloured surfacing – conspicuity or
visual intrusion?
Hybrid/protected lanes can be used
Cycle symbol alone can be useful
Off-highway shared cycle tracks –
reduce pedestrian amenity, less
favoured.
Updated LTN on Shared Use Paths in
course of preparation.
97. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Cycle parking should be provided at key
destinations –for example in local high streets
98. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Bus Facilities
Bus routes and stops form key elements in walkable
neighbourhoods
Routes should be direct and reasonably straight
Bus stops should be high quality, accessible places with
good information
Bus priority lanes reduce journey times and benefit cyclists
but disadvantage pedestrians
Bus boarders preferred to laybys
101. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Carriageways
Design Speed in urban areas should generally not exceed
30mph (50kph) – and can be less where necessary
Both MfS1 and DMRB confirm that drivers respond to more
generous geometry by increasing speed.
102. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Various means of reducing speed:
– Physical features
– Changes in priority
– Street dimensions
– Reduced forward visibility
– Psychology and perception
Carriageways
103. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Horizontal Alignment
Can adopt curve radii well below DMRB Desirable
Minima in urban areas.
TD9/93 advises 4 steps below Des Min for speeds of
60kph and below:
Design Speed, kph
Curve Radius, m
4 steps below TD 9/93
Desirable Min
30 16
40 28
48 41
50 44
60 64
106. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Lane Widths
Lanes do not have to be 3.65m (12 feet) wide.
Narrower lanes will reduce speeds and overall carriageway width, and
require drivers to pull around cyclists.
Lanes >3m not necessary in most urban situations catering for mixed traffic
Wide (>4m) lanes allow large vehicles to pass cyclists more easily.
107. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Central Medians
Helpful to pedestrians crossing the carriageway
Should not fence off unless clear safety justification
Overrun medians can be a useful feature
108. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Kerb Heights
Typically 125mm – but...
Lower kerb heights are easier for the
mobility-impaired to cross and reduce
vehicle dominance.
Higher kerbs appropriate at bus stops.
109. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Junctions, Crossings and Accesses
Junctions often seen as problems – to be minimised
But can also be seen as opportunities for ‘place’ functions
Essential to consider pedestrian and cycle needs
Grade separation almost always makes for poor environments
111. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Crossings
Informal, Zebra, Signalised - all have
advantages and disadvantages
Informal - minimal clutter, can
encourage courtesy behaviour, little
delay to traffic, but no absolute
priority to pedestrians.
Zebra – delays can be minimal unless
pedestrian flows high, can be close to
junctions, more clutter.
Signalised – additional delay, more
clutter, preferred by vulnerable
pedestrians.
112. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Crossings
Two stage signalised crossings can
be straight across.
Staggered crossings don’t have to
have guardrail.
X-crossings are possible with simple
all-red stages.
120. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Priority Junctions
Advantages: Simple, legible, can have
low delays, particularly outside peaks
Minimising number of approach lanes
benefits pedestrians and cyclists. Ghost
island not generally justified at 500 vpd.
Crossroads have poor accident record at
higher flows and speeds. Tabling a
possible solution.
Tight corner radii, footway crossovers
should be considered in urban areas.
121. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Squares
Major opportunity for placemaking
and as a traffic/parking solution
Can be thought of as a series of
displaced informal priority junctions
122. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Conventional Roundabouts
Advantages: High capacity, good safety
record for vehicles, minimal delay
outside peaks.
Disadvantages - poor safety record for
cyclists, barrier to pedestrians, high land
take, visual impact.
Particular problem for cyclists –
left turn slip lanes
Recommended approach – ‘compact’
geometry - as small as possible with
narrow entries and exits.
123. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Mini Roundabouts
Advantages: Small land take, slow
speeds, good safety record, minimal
delay outside peaks, better for
pedestrians and cyclists.
Disadvantages – Limited traffic capacity,
visual impact.
No presumption against new mini-
roundabouts on non-trunk roads
‘Informal’ mini-roundabouts can work
well, minimal visual impact.
125. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Traffic Signals
Advantages: High capacity, can
incorporate pedestrian and cycle
facilities
Disadvantages – Clutter and visual
impact, delays outside peaks
Tight corner radii preferred – keep
pedestrians on desire lines, reduce
speed of turning vehicles.
Advanced cycle lanes should usually be
provided in urban areas.
126. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Traffic Signals – Cont’d
Intervisibility requirements from TD 50/04
can significantly affect ability to place
buildings close to corners – is this
always appropriate?
Left turn slip lanes increase clutter and
pedestrian crossing complexity
Traffic signal removal experiments –
need to consider pedestrian needs.
127. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Traffic Management Systems
Complex one-way systems often installed to maximise traffic capacity
Significant disadvantage to cyclists and can cause pedestrian accidents
Some towns have chosen to simplifying one-way systems.
128. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Visibility
Stopping Sight Distance
Guidance in MfS2 incorporates that of MfS1 –
effectively superseding it
Based on further research carried out by TMS
Consultancy, plus literature searches
MfS1 parameters apply to all <60kph links:
1.5s reaction time
0.45g deceleration rate
Except for buses and HGVs (>5% of flow typically)
1.5s reaction time
0.375g deceleration rate
129. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
TMS Consultancy Research
<120m visibility to right from kerb vs "visi" collisions
y = 0.0163x + 3.6442
R2
= 0.0586
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Visibility
Collisions
130. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Design Speed Vehicle Type Reaction Time Deceleration Rate
60kph and below
Light vehicles 1.5s 0.45g
HGVs 1.5s 0.375g
Buses 1.5s 0.375g
Above 60kph
All vehicles 2s
0.375g
(Absolute Min SSD)
All vehicles 2s
0.25g
(Desirable Min SSD)
131. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
SSD = vt + v2/2(d+0.1a)
where:
v = speed (m/s)
t = driver perception–reaction time (sec)
d = deceleration (m/s2)
a = longitudinal gradient (%)
(+ for upgrades and – for downgrades)
132. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Forward Visibility
Apply SSD requirements in the horizontal and vertical
plane.
But in some situations may be desirable to restrict
forward visibility to help control traffic speed.
133. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Visibility at Priority Junctions
X-distance of 2.4m generally appropriate, subject to
capacity considerations
Y-distance based on SSD but:
It has often been assumed that a failure to provide
visibility at priority junctions in accordance with the
values recommended in MfS1 or DMRB (as
appropriate) will result in an increased risk of injury
collisions.
Research carried out by TMS Consultancy for MfS2
has found no evidence of this.
...unless there is local evidence to the contrary, a
reduction in visibility below recommended levels will not
necessarily lead to a significant problem.
136. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Parking and Servicing
Positive and negative aspects of on-street parking set out in
MfS1
Positive
Common resource, efficient,
popular.
Caters for varying demand
Adds activity
Well overlooked
Negative
Possible impact on
pedestrian safety
Can be visually dominant
May block footways and
entrances
Can be source of crime
If done...should be done well!
139. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Street Trees and Planting
Green infrastructure is important to the design of
places and trees are one of its most visible
components
Engineers and transport planners are well placed
to help deliver street trees and their benefits.
• Visual
• Shade
• Habitat
• Drainage
• Economic
Practical difficulties (footway heave and restriction,
leaf drop) can be overcome through careful design
and maintenance
140. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Street Lighting
Plan street lighting as an integral part of the
street, including any planting
Lighting should be appropriate to context
and street function
Lighting levels do not have to be constant
during the hours of darkness.
Shadows and sudden changes in lighting
level can be particularly problematic and
should be avoided.
Consideration should be given to attaching
lighting units to buildings to reduce street
clutter.
141. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Street Furniture
Some street furniture is useful and
important...much is not
Start with nothing – introduce only
elements that are necessary
Clutter removal can be done as part of
ongoing maintenance
Combine elements together where possible
Street furniture should be arranged to keep
pedestrian routes clear
144. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Guardrail
Significant disbenefits - highly
intrusive, disadvantages pedestrians,
unsightly, can increase traffic speeds
and create risks for cyclists.
May be necessary in some locations –
but need better balanced use
Many guardrail removal schemes have
worked well in road safety terms, with
careful assessment
Look for alternative solutions before
installing new guardrail
145. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Traffic Signs and Markings
Add significantly to street clutter
Signs must comply with Regulations,
but Guidance (TSM) is just that.
There is flexibility in both types of
document
167. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
London Road, Southampton
• Citycentre radial
• 9400 vehicles per day (before)
• 6000 vehicles per day (after)
• 5500 pedestrians per day
• 400 cyclists per day
• 31 collisions in 4 years (before)
• 3 collisions in 10 months (after)
178. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Walworth Road, South London
• “A” class road
• 20,000 vehicles per day
• 180 buses per hour
• 20,000 pedestrians
• 250 accidents in 3 years
189. sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates
Conclusions
MfS2 provides detailed guidance on a wide range
of technical issues...
for a wide range of contexts and street types
It provides a ‘way in’ to DMRB and other technical
guidance
While encouraging designers to...
Think!
pj@philjonesassociates.co.uk
Twitter.com/Phil_PJA
0121 222 5422