1. Link and Place:
A Guide to
Street Planning and Design
Prof. Peter Jones
Centre for Transport Studies, UCL, London
Engineers Australia, 6th October 2009

2. Introduction
• For decades, the primary concern on urban
streets has been to design for traffic
movement, often resulting in poor street
environments for pedestrians
• Growing recognition that streets contribute
in many ways to economic, environmental
and social life – which has been neglected:
– “Sharing the Main Street” (NSW, RTA)
– “Transitioning urban arterial roads to activity
corridors” (Curtis & Tiwari, Perth)
– “Manual for Streets” (DfT, UK)

3. •‘Manual for Streets’,
•Department for Transport, 2007
[and others]
• Recognises current problems
• Advocates greater emphasis
on Place
• Concentrates on residential
streets

4. Introduction
‘Link & Place: A Guide to
Street Planning and Design’,
Peter Jones, Natalya Boujenko
and Stephen Marshall, 2007
• Advocates an approach based on
streets as movement conduits
(Links) and destinations in their
own right (Places)
• Can be applied to any street within
a city or a town

5. PRINCIPLES: Dual functions of streets
LINK PLACE
street as a street as a
movement conduit destination in its
own right

6. PRINCIPLES: Dual functions of streets
LINK PLACE
street as a street as a
movement conduit destination in its
own right
Design objective: Design objective:
save time spend time

7. PRINCIPLES: Dual functions of streets
LINK PLACE
street as a street as a
movement conduit destination in its
own right
Design objective: Design objective:
save time spend time

8. LINK and PLACE activities
LINK: PLACE:
Through movement by: • People standing,
• Private cars, vans, sitting, sightseeing,
goods vehicles shopping, trading
• Public transport • Public performances,
parades,
• Cycles demonstrations, etc.
• Pedestrians • Parking (including
cycle parking)
• Loading / servicing

9. PLACE Levels
A
B
C
• Places of national, city, local significance, etc.
• Based on catchment area, cultural significance, etc.
• These form a spatial scatter – not contiguous

10. LINK Levels
I
II
III
• Spectrum of types, from strategic to local routes
• Strategic routes all connect up to form a single
contiguous network
• May have several transport networks: trucks, PT, …

11. The Link/Place Matrix
Place status
High Low
High
Link status
Low
Each cell represents a
particular type of street with
a specific combination of a
Link and Place status level

12. Street types in a ‘5 x 5’ Matrix

13. Link & Place applied to street network
• Link levels based on existing road
classification, but with modifications:
– To reflect change in de facto function
– To allow for priority for public transport or
cyclists
• Place levels based on:
– Catchment areas of premises alongside
– Cultural importance of adjoining buildings
– Cultural importance of the street space itself

14. Link & Place applied to street network

15. Uses of the Matrix
• Identifies set of street types (cells) with
unique balance of Link/Place functions
• Further sub-division based on main land
use and mode priorities
• A street may change its cell by time of
day, day of week or time of year
• Design standards differ by cell
– Performance standards
– Design requirements
– Speed limits for a given Link status may vary
by Place status and land use type

16. …Leads to different design solutions
I-A I-B I-C I-D I-E I-A I-B I-C I-D I-E
II-A II-B II-C II-D II-E • Two urban streets II-A II-B II-C II-D II-E
• Same width
III-A III-B III-C III-D III-E III-A III-B III-C III-D III-E
• Different Link/Place status
IV-A IV-B IV-C IV-D IV-E • Different designs IV-A IV-B IV-C IV-D IV-E
V-A V-B V-C V-D V-E V-A V-B V-C V-D V-E

17. Using Link & Place in Design
• Identify relevant street user groups and
their desired activities
• Determine infrastructure requirements –
‘street design elements’
• Decide on level of provision:
– Minimum
– Desirable
• Use Link and Place status to determine
balance of space/capacity allocation
• Where no acceptable design solution:
downgrade Link or Place status (e.g.
Trafalgar Square)

18. Allocating ‘Discretionary’ Space
Pdes Pdes Place status
Pmin Pmin
Link status
Lmin
Ldes
Link E Available space
of nve between
op lo
tio pe desirable and
ns
minimum levels
Ldes
Lmin
Pmin Pdes Place

19. Case study: Freiburg
• Population = 210,000
• Disruption from trams from
congestion
• Poor accessibility at tram stops
• Poor pedestrian environment
• High traffic volumes
• High traffic speed
Two design sections:
• Same Link status
• Place status higher in the
second design section

20. Different balance along a route
Design section 1
• Central carriageway portion to be converted to a dedicated tramway
• Cycle lanes added
• Segregated tram, cycle and traffic provision

21. Different balance along a route
Design section 2
• Higher Place status, district shopping centre
• The design offers greater street provision to pedestrians, cyclists and street
scene improvements
• Tram not specially segregated, but shares the carriageway with general traffic
(separation in time through traffic signals only)

22. Different balance along a route
Link status is the same
Place status is higher on design section 2
Relative Link status to Place status is lower on design section 2

23. Lower Link status to achieve Place
Streets around Place
Trafalgar Square
nal
Link
Natio ry Before I-A I-B I-C I-D I-E I-F
Galle
reconstruction –
II-A II-B II-C II-D II-E II-F
rrace After construction –
rt h Te
No
III-A III-B III-C III-D III-E III-F
gar
Trafal e
r
Squa IV-A IV-B IV-C IV-D IV-E IV-F
North Terrace
V-A V-B V-C V-D V-E V-F
After construction –
VI-A VI-B VI-C VI-D VI-E VI-F

25. Flow Reductions: Approaches to Trafalgar Square
1250 1150
1400 1150
1350
550 450
1350
800 450
750
750
850
467 Existing
AM Flows 800
1350
467 Existing
900 400
PM Flows 850
World Square 750 500
400 AM Target Flows 1050
500
800
World Square
750
PM Target Flows 550

26. Stakeholder Engagement: Background
• Traditionally, traffic engineers develop street
scheme solution(s) and then ‘consult’ residents
and local businesses, by asking for ‘objections’
• Local people have very little input into the design
process, so that:
– Their concerns and ideas are not incorporated
– They have little understanding of the limitations faced
by traffic engineers when designing streets
– They have little ownership of the final scheme
• This can lead to public apathy, or major high
profile disputes in areas with many competing
street uses

27. Aims of the Study
• To develop tools that enable local people
to contribute meaningfully to the street
space design process, through an
understanding of options and constraints
• Two tools developed (‘block’s and ‘bytes’):
– Tool 1: Physical blocks representing space
use
– Tool 2: Computer program – bytes -
(LineMap) to record, edit and analyse data

28. Tool 1 - Blocks
• Use scale blocks to represent different
space uses, in conjunction with detailed
maps of the high street:
– Users are made aware of many of the
component options (’street design elements’)
for allocating street space
– They then generate their own options, by
combining blocks in different ways and at
different locations
– Maps to scale allow users to work within the
constraints that the engineers face, without
having to have detailed knowledge.

29. Blocks – Colour and Size
• Use of colour to
Feature Colour
denote different types
Vehicle Lane Grey
of space usage.
Bus Lane Red
• Some of these based Cycle Lane Green
on current street General Parking Yellow
colour categories, e.g. Disabled Parking Blue
blue denotes disabled Loading Brown
parking (blue badge) Bus Stop Orange
• Size is based on size Traffic Island Cyan
of space actually Signal Crossing/ Magenta
Zebra Approach
needed to fit facility in

30. Box contents

31. Example of loading bay block
60mm
1:250

32. Bloxwich High Street

33. Existing conditions
Bloxwich High Street:
• 89 shops, 5 pubs, 2 large supermarkets, 1 school,
2 churches and a prosperous market
• 20,000 vehicles, 2-way in 12 hours
• 20 bus routes pass through area
• Pressures on parking/loading
• Concentration of accidents along the High Street

34. Local Council Interests
• Original proposals developed by consultants
and put out to public consultation in 2003 - with
strong opposition from local traders and
residents – and was withdrawn
• Council decided to try again, using a more
participatory approach, involving local
businesses, residents and politicians
• Resulted in a two-stage workshop-based
exercise, followed by ‘formal’ public consultation

35. Public Engagement Process
• Workshop 1
– Describes the background to and reasons for
the exercise
– Allows groups of stakeholders to use the
Blocks to propose their own solutions.
• Workshop 2
– Stakeholders are shown their own plans in
GIS, along with the planners solution, in
LineMap.
– The aspects of each plan can be discussed
on screen, and combined into a new plan.

36. Design Considerations
Place status
LINK Function:
Link status
national
city highway
boulevard
district
high street
local
streets
PLACE: Minimum
Function: spaces
Parking Bays 13
Loading Bays 12
Disabled Bays 4
Bus Stops 8
Crossings 3

37. Workshop 1: Local Stakeholders

38. Feedback and sharing ideas

39. Workshop One - Reactions
• Participants were enthusiastic about the
task
• They were divided into two design groups
• This method of design was liked by
previously ‘council sceptical’ people.
– They felt it was “their schemes” and felt that
the council may pay more attention to them
than they had to their concerns in the past.
• Council found that both schemes were
broadly feasible – blocks had built in basic
constraints

40. Workshop Two
• Previous participants were invited back
and other participants also attended
• The two schemes designed at the first
workshop were presented in road marking
form and block form on maps plotted using
LineMap and on screen
• Participants worked together, and agreed
on a combination of both schemes to be
put to public consultation, based on on-
screen editing of the GIS format

41. Scheme comparison

42. Workshop Two - Reactions
• A consensus was reached
• Participants were very satisfied with the
process
• One combined scheme was agreed to be
put out to public consultation:
– with some minor changes to its design
– With some sub-options (e.g. 20 mph zone?)

43. Display Bus on Bloxwich High Street
The display includes the full plan, information about the
area, and a description of the design process

44. Conclusions
• This time high level of public/business support at the
formal consultation stage, and very little opposition
• Using scale blocks and maps makes the design process
as simple as possible to understand, and highlights
opportunities and constraints
• LineMap provides a bridge between outline design and
professional drawings – suitable for use in larger public
meetings for scheme editing
• Process enables councils to regain confidence of local
people and plan with a wider understanding of the needs
of an area.
• Allows members of the public to participate in street
design and encourages innovative solutions
• Council very pleased with outcome – removes normal
confrontational approach – and is now using method in
other contentious areas

45. Conclusions
• Link & Place provides a new way of
addressing problems on urban streets
• It is intuitive and understood and
supported by stakeholders
• Gives due weight to both movement and
non-movement functions of streets
• Encourages strategic view and
comprehensive performance assessment
• Results in site-sensitive designs – not
uniform solutions along a corridor

46. Role of Different Professionals
Link Place
Planning Transport Urban
planners planners
Traffic Urban
Design
engineers designers
.

47. A shift in Design Philosophy
‘Rooms & Corridors’
(Buchanan, 1963)

48. A Shift in Design Philosophy
‘Rooms & Corridors’
(Buchanan, 1963)
Open-plan Office
(Link & Place)

49. Methodological Imbalances
LINK: PLACE:
• Full design standards • Partial design standards
• Quantitative PIs • Qualitative PIs
• Modelling flows, etc • Modelling - ?????
• Evaluation of user • Evaluation of features;
benefits: no direct measures of
– VoT savings user benefit:
– NOT value of bus lane! – VoT SPENT
– Quality of experience

50. Thank you
Peter.jones@ucl.ac.uk