Manual For Streets 2

Manual for Streets 2

Wider Application of the Principles
www.ciht.org.uk
Published by the Chartered Institution of
Highways & Transportation
Published September 2010
All rights reserved. No part of this publication shall be reproduced, copies stored in an electronic retrieval system or
transmitted without the written permission of the publishers.
© CIHT 2010
ISBN 978-0-902933-43-9
Acknowledgements
The Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation would like to thank the following people without whom the
document would not have been possible.
Managing Editors:
Alan Young WSP
Phil Jones Phil Jones Associates
Steering Group:
Peter Dickinson
Louise Duggan CABE
Wayne Duerden Department for Transport
Andrew Pearson Homes and Communities Agency
Daniel Bridger Communities and Local Government
Anne Locke English Heritage
Edward Chorlton ADEPT
Sam Wright Transport for London
John Smart CIHT
Amy Napthine CIHT
Scott Dyball CIHT
Contributors:
Steve Proctor TMS
John Dales Urban Initiatives
Stuart Reid MVA Consultancy
Ben Castell Scott Wilson
Peter Jones UCL
Paul Forman
Emily Walsh Solihull MBC
Bob White Kent CC
Stephen Hardy Dorset CC
Tim Pharaoh
Graham Paul Smith
Anne Locke English Heritage
Tim Cuell WSP
Andrew Cameron WSP
Nicola Cheetham Transport for London
Ben Hamilton-Baillie Hamilton-Baillie Assiciates
Proof Reader:
John Cordwell
Financial Support:
Department for Transport, Commission for Architecture and Built Environment, Homes and Communities Agency and
Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport
Photographs courtesy of:
Phil Jones, Phil Jones Associates

Stephen Hardy, Dorset County Council P11 CABE/Jane Sebire
Tim Pheby, Transport Initiatives P15(1) CABE/Jane Sebire
Andrew Cameron, WSP P15(2) David John Urban Initiatives
John Dales, Urban Initiatives P17(1) Gillespies
Adrian Lord, Arup P18 CABE
Rob Marshall, Transport Initiatives P49 CABE/Jane Sebire
John Smart, CIHT P62(1) Nottingham City Council
Scott Dyball, CIHT P62(2) Nottingham City Council
Deborah Sims, Mott MacDonald, P62(3) Nottingham City Council
Brian Johnson, Keep Britain Tidy P66(3) Louise Duggan
Ben Hamilton-Baillie, Hamilton-Baillie Associates P81(1) Louise Duggan
Transport for London P81(2) Camlins
Alan Young, WSP P81(3) Louise Duggan
Graham Paul Smith P87(1) CABE/Stephen McLaren
David Sprunt, Essex County Council P88(3) CABE/Stephen McLaren
Steve Proctor, TMS Consultancy P97(5) Southampton City Council
Joe Burns, Mouchel
CIHT and the members of the Steering Group who produced this document have endeavoured to ensure the accuracy
of its contents. However, the guidance and recommendations given should always be received by the reader ‘in light of
the facts’ of their specialist circumstances and specialist advice obtained as necessary. Any references to legislation
discussed within this document should be considered in the light of current and any future legislation. No liability for
negligence or otherwise in relation to this document and its contents can be accepted by CIHT, the members of the
Steering Group, its servants or agents, or the managing editors or contributors.
Published by the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation,

119 Britannia Walk,
London N1 7JE
Registered Charity No. 1136896
Published 2010. ISBN 978-0-902933-43-9

Contents
Ministerial Foreward 001
Presidential Foreword 002
Partnering Organisations Preface 003
Status and Application 004
Section A – Context and Process 005

1 Principles 007
1.1 Introduction 007
1.2 MfS Principles 007
1.3 Scope of MfS 008
1.4 The Benefits of Better Streets 009
2 Networks, Contexts and Street Types 012
2.2 Network 014
2.3 Context: Town and City Centres 015
2.4 Context: Urban and Suburban Areas 017
2.5 Context: Urban Extensions 021
2.6 Context: Interchanges 023
2.7 Context: Village Centres 024
2.8 Context: Rural Areas 026
2.9 Context: Urban and rural settlements 027
3 Highway Design, Risk and Liability 029
3.1 The Need for Additional Clarification 029
3.2 Design Guidance and Professional Judgement 030
4 Design and Implementation Process 031
4.2 Community involvement 031
4.3 Stages of Improvement 032
4.4 Developing a Quality Audit Process 034
Kent Design Guide 035
Quality Audit Process: St Mildred’s Tannery Canterbury, Kent 035
4.5 Road Safety Audit 037
4.6 Maintenance Issues 038
Section B — Detailed Design Issues 041

5 Pedestrian Needs and Footways 043
5.1 Pedestrian Needs 043
5.2 Footway Provision 043
6 Cycle Facilities 045
6.2 Cycle Lanes, Cycle Tracks and Markings 045
6.3 Cycle Parking 047
7 Bus Facilities 049
7.2 Bus Priority 049
7.3 Bus Stops 049
7.4 Bus Laybys and Boarders 050
8 Carriageways 051
8.2 Design Speed 051
8.3 Horizontal Alignment 052
8.4 Carriageway Gradients 052
8.5 Vertical Curvature 053
8.6 Carriageway and lane widths 053
8.7 Refuges, Medians and Central Reservations 054
8.8 Kerbs 055
9 Junctions, Crossings and Accesses 057
9.2 Spacing of Junctions 058
9.3 Crossings 058
9.4 Priority and Uncontrolled Junctions 063
9.5 Squares 065
9.6 Conventional Roundabouts 065
9.7 Mini Roundabouts 067
9.8 Traffic Signals 068
9.9 Traffic Management and One Way Systems 070
9.10 Direct Frontage Access 071
10 Visibility 073
10.2 Visibility Requirements 075
10.3 Forward Visibility 075
10.4 Visibility at Priority Junctions 076
10.5 X and Y Distances 078
10.6 Visibility Along the Street Edge 079
10.7 Obstacles to Visibility 080
11 On-Street Parking and Servicing 081
12 Street Furniture and Trees 083
12.2 Procedures for reducing street furniture 084
12.3 Keeping footways clear 085
12.4 Guardrail 087
12.5 Street Trees and Planting 091
12.6 Street Lighting 093
12.7 Security Measures 094
13 Traffic Signs and Markings 095
13.2 Size and mounting height of Signs 095
13.3 Yellow Backing Boards 096
13.4 Keep Left/Right Signs 096
13.5 Centreline Markings 097
13.6 Zig-Zag Markings 098
13.7 Coloured Surfacing 098
13.8 Signs and Markings at Junctions 098
13.9 No-Waiting Markings 099
Section C — Case Studies 101

14 Case Studies 103
14.1 Walworth Road, Southwark, London 103
14.2 London Road, Southampton 108
14.3 Sheaf Square & Howard Street, Sheffield 113
14.4 High Row & West Row, Darlington, Part of the ‘Pedestrian Heart’ 119
14.5 Maid Marian Way, Nottingham 124
Ministerial Foreword
Ministerial Foreword
Streets and roads make up around three-quarters of all public space – their design, appearance,
and the way they function have a huge impact on the quality of people’s lives. The Department for
Transport is committed to high quality design in the public realm and our technical advice is
evidence of that commitment.
In 2007 the Department published the Manual for Streets, replacing guidance which had been in
use for 30 years. It completely changed the approach to the design and provision of residential and
other streets. It enjoys an excellent standing and its success has generated a desire among
professionals for technical advice to cover other streets and roads along similar lines.
Manual for Streets 2 – Wider Application of the Principles is the result – a product of highly
collaborative working between the Department for Transport and industry. It is an excellent
demonstration of what can be achieved when Government works in partnership with others.
I congratulate the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation and the team which made
publication of Manual for Streets 2 possible and I commend the document to all those involved in
designing the public realm. The challenge now is for them to embrace the advice and extend the
advantages of good design to streets and roads outside residential areas.
NORMAN BAKER
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State
for Transport
001
Presidential Foreword
By Geoff Allister
CIHT President 2010-2011
In 2007 the Department for Transport published the Manual for Streets, a landmark document that
is changing the face of our residential streets. The Manual for Streets (MfS1) did not set out new
policy, it reinforced a philosophy that had been growing since the late 1990s to return our
residential streets to the community by engineering them to create a greater sense of place,
provide an environment that is accessible and safe for all, and one that improves the quality of life.
The Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation’s new guidelines builds on the advice
contained in MfS1, exploring in greater detail how and where its key principles can be applied to
busier streets and roads in both urban and rural locations up to, but not including, trunk roads.
Manual for Streets 2 – Wider Application of the Principles will help to fill the perceived gap in design
advice between MfS and the design standards for trunk roads set out in the Design Manual for
Roads and Bridges.
Manual for Streets 2 is the result of a partnership between practitioners and policy makers from
highway engineers and urban designers to transport planners. The quality of the advice it contains
is a true testament to the knowledge and expertise of all those who have contributed to its
preparation. I thank them all, particularly the members of the steering group and the editorial team
for the considerable time and effort they have contributed to this project.
I would also like to thank the sponsors the Department for Transport, the Association of Directors
of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport, the Commission for Architecture and the Built
Environment and the Homes and the Homes and Communities Agency who have made these
guidelines possible.
On behalf of the Institution, I am pleased to commend Manual for Streets 2 – Wider Application of
the Principles to all those who are involved in the planning, construction and improvement of our
streets and roads. I am sure it will make a significant contribution to professional practice and, over
time, to our communities and the places where people live, work and play.
Geoff Allister
President 2010-2011

Partnering Organisations Preface
Streets play a fundamental part in community life which is why CABE has been a long term
supporter of the development of Manual for Streets. Our experience tells us that creative design
can deliver more vibrant and inclusive streets. Happily we’re not alone in this view. Policy makers,
practitioners, and community members also identify well designed, civilising streets as critical to
issues such as community cohesion, economic vitality, well-being and health. The key challenge in
delivering these wider benefits is the ability to strike a more effective balance between the
movement, meeting and exchange functions of our street network. Manual for Streets 2 will play an
important role in supporting this agenda.
Richard Simmons
Chief Executive, CABE
ADEPT enthusiastically supports this important piece of work which will be an essential reference in
the future. Local authorities are increasingly aware of the fundamental nature of well designed and
maintained streets to the economic, social, educational and environmental well-being of local
citizens and communities; and the harmful consequences of neglecting the places where we live
and work.
George Batten
President of ADEPT
003
Status and Application
Manual for Streets 2: Wider Application of the Principles (MfS2) forms a companion guide to
Manual for Streets (MfS1). Whilst MfS1 focuses on lightly-trafficked residential streets it also states
that, ‘a street is defined as a highway that has important public realm functions beyond the
movement of traffic…. Most highways in built up areas can therefore be considered as streets.’
MfS1 also stated that, ‘many of its key principles may be applicable to other types of streets, for
example high streets and lightly trafficked lanes in rural areas’.
MfS2 builds on the guidance contained in MfS1, exploring in greater detail how and where its key
The following principles can be applied to busier streets and non-trunk roads, thus helping to fill the perceived
definitions apply gap in design guidance between MfS1 and the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB).
throughout this
document: DMRB is the design standard for Trunk Roads and Motorways in England, Scotland, Wales and
MfS1 refers to Manual Northern Ireland. The strict application of DMRB to non-trunk routes is rarely appropriate for
for Streets (2007). highway design in built up areas, regardless of traffic volume.
MfS2 refers to this
document. MfS2 provides advice and does not set out any new policy or legal requirements.
MfS refers to both

documents.

Section A
Context and Process

1_ Principles
1_ Principles
1.1_ Introduction
1.1.1 MfS2 has been prepared for the Chartered
Institution of Highways and Transportation (CIHT) by a
multidisciplinary team of consultants. The document is
endorsed by the Department for Transport (DfT), the
Homes and Community Agency (HCA), the Welsh
Assembly Government (WAG), Commission for
Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), the
Association of Directors of Environment, Economy,
Planning and Transport (ADEPT) and English Heritage. All
of these organisations contributed to its development.
1.1.2 This new document does not supersede MfS1;
rather it explains how the principles of MfS1 can be
applied more widely. It draws on a number of sources
including:
• The Department for Transport’s ‘Mixed Priority Route'
research study1;
• Interim findings from the ongoing Department for
Transport research into Shared Space2;
• Case Studies, including detailed research by CABE;
and
• Further research into the relationship between junction
visibility and collisions.
1.2_ MfS Principles Both of these streets have about the same amount of
1.2.1 MfS1 changed the way we approach the design, carriageway space and carry around the same volume of
construction, adoption and maintenance of urban streets. vehicular traffic. The cross section and arrangement of buildings
mean that the one in the upper photo segregates two
The principal changes to practice, as set out below, also communities whilst the one in the lower photo is at the centre of
form the basis of this document which considers the the community and offers retail and commercial opportunities.
wider highway network.
• Applying a user hierarchy to the design process with
• Developing masterplans and preparing design codes
for larger scale developments, and using design and
pedestrians at the top. This means considering the
access statements for all scales of development.
needs of pedestrians first when designing, building,
retrofitting, maintaining and improving streets.
• Establishing a clear vision and setting objectives for
schemes, which respond to the more complex and
• Emphasising a collaborative approach to the delivery of
competing requirements in mixed use contexts.
streets. Many busy streets and rural highways require a
‘non-standard’ approach to respond to context and
• A locally appropriate balance should be struck
between the needs of different user groups. Traffic
this can be achieved by working as a multidisciplinary
capacity will not always be the primary consideration in
team and by looking at and researching other similar
designing streets and networks.
places that work well. It is important to include all skill
sets required to meet scheme objectives. Many of
• Creating networks of streets that provide permeability
and connectivity to main destinations and choice of
these are included in MfS1, paragraph 1.2.1.
routes.
• Recognising the importance of the community function
• Moving away from hierarchies of standard road types
of streets as spaces for social interaction. Streets
based on traffic flows and/or the number of buildings
should integrate not segregate communities and
served.
neighbourhoods.
• Promoting an inclusive environment that recognises
• Developing street character types on a location-
specific basis requiring a balance to be struck between
the needs of people of all ages and abilities. Designs
place and movement in many of the busier streets.
must recognise the importance of way-finding and
legibility, especially with regards to the sensory and
• Encouraging innovation with a flexible approach to
street layouts and the use of locally distinctive, durable
cognitive perceptions of children, older people and
and maintainable materials.
disabled people.
• Reflecting and supporting pedestrian and cyclist desire
• Using quality audit processes that demonstrate how
designs will meet objectives for the locality.
lines in networks and detailed designs.
•
007
Designing to keep vehicle speed at or below 20mph in
streets and places with significant pedestrian
movement unless there are overriding reasons for streets with on-street parking and direct frontage access to
accepting higher speeds. 2/3 lane dual carriageways. Furthermore, local context
• Using the minimum of highway design features varies not only from street to street but also along the length
necessary to make the streets work properly. The of a street.
starting point for any well designed street is to begin (See Figure 1.1.)
with nothing and then add only what is necessary in
1.3.6 Where a single carriageway street with on-street
practice.
1.3_ Scope of MfS

parking and direct frontage access is subject to a 40mph
speed limit, its place characteristics are more of a residential
street or high street, with higher traffic flows, and may result
1.3.1 The following key areas of advice, derived from in actual speeds below the limit. It is only where actual
principles contained in MfS, can be applied based on speeds are above 40mph for significant periods of the day
speed limits, subject to a more detailed assessment of that DMRB parameters for SSD are recommended. Where
local context, as shown below in Table 1.1. speeds are lower, MfS parameters are recommended.
1.3.2 It is clear from Table 1.1 that most MfS advice can be Where there may be some doubt as to which guidance to
applied to a highway regardless of speed limit. It is therefore adopt, actual speed measurements should be undertaken
Speed Limit 20mph 30mph 40mph 50+mph

User Hierarchy • • • •
Team Working • • • •
Community Function • • • •
Inclusive Design • • • •
Ped/Cycle Support • • • •
Master Plans/Design Codes • • • •
Stopping Sight Distance • • • •
Frontage Access • • • •
Minimise Signs and Street Furniture • • • •
Quality Audits • • • •
Connectivity/Permeability • • • •
Table 1.1 Application of key areas of MfS advice Note: • yes • subject to local context
recommended that as a starting point for any scheme to determine which is most appropriate. (See Chapter 10 for
affecting non-trunk roads, designers should start with MfS. SSD guidance.)
1.3.3 Where designers do refer to DMRB for detailed 1.3.7 Similarly, in rural areas many parts of the highway
technical guidance on specific aspects, for example on network are subject to the national speed limit but have
strategic inter-urban non-trunk roads, it is recommended traffic speeds significantly below 60mph. (See Figure 1.2)
that they bear in mind the key principles of MfS, and apply Again in these situations where speeds are lower than
DMRB in a way that respects local context. It is further 40mph, MfS SSD parameters are recommended.
recommended that DMRB or other standards and guidance
1.3.8 Direct frontage access is common in all urban areas,
is only used where the guidance contained in MfS is not
including where 40mph speed limits apply, without evidence
sufficient or where particular evidence leads a designer to
to suggest that this practice is unsafe. This is confirmed in
conclude that MfS is not applicable.
TD41/953 (Annex 2 paragraph A2.10) which states that ‘in
1.3.4 The application of MfS advice to all 30mph speed the urban situation there is no direct relationship between
limits as a starting point is in keeping with MfS1. access provision and collision occurrence’. However, this is
not true of rural roads (A2.5) where the research identified a
1.3.5 Much of the research behind MfS1 for stopping sight
‘statistically significant relationship for collisions on rural
distance (SSD) is limited to locations with traffic speeds of
single carriageways with traffic flow, link length and farm
less than 40mph and there is some concern that driver
accesses. On rural dual carriageways, the significant
behaviour may change above this level as the character of
relationship extended to laybys, residential accesses and
the highway changes. However, 40mph speed limits in built-
other types of access including petrol filling stations’ (See
up areas cover a wide range of contexts, from simple urban
Chapter 9 for further advice on direct frontage access.)
1_ Principles
1.3.9 This approach demonstrates that the key MfS

principles can be applied widely to improve the quality of
highways and their application is not limited to low speed or
lightly trafficked routes.
1.3.10 Any new design has to take account of local context,
however adopting speed limits as a proxy to identify which
elements of MfS apply provides a reasonable way forward.
It is clear from Table 1.1 that for a particular context, even
though some aspects of MfS may not apply, there are still
many principles which affect design quality that do.
Single Lane,
Frontage Access,
On-Street Parking
Figure 1.2 National speed limits apply in rural lanes but actual
speeds can be much lower
1.4_ The Benefits of Better Sreets

Wide Single Lane, 1.4.1 It is important to take into account multiple objectives
Frontage Access, when developing transport strategies and schemes, and
On-Street Parking not simply congestion reduction. These other priorities
include economic regeneration, climate change, casualty
reduction, reducing air and noise pollution, minimising the
impact of transport on the natural environment, heritage and
landscaping, and encouraging more sustainable and
healthy patterns of travel behaviour.
1.4.2 Making appropriate provision for road-based public
transport, cycling and walking can help to encourage modal
shift from the private car, and so contribute to the
sustainability and health agendas. Enhancing street
environments through a high quality public realm
2/3 Lane Dual incorporating local materials and historic street features,
Carriageway. No
removal of clutter and pedestrian barriers, use of shared
frontage access.
No stopping. space where appropriate and enhanced street lighting can
help to stimulate local economic activity, reduce street crime
and encourage a sense of local community; this in turn
encourages more local, shorter distance travel on foot or by
cycle. This will be particularly important in conservation
areas, national parks, World Heritage sites and other
environmentally sensitive areas.
1.4.3 Local Transport Note 3/08, ‘Mixed Priority Routes:
Practitioners’ Guide’1, refers to ten schemes which were
among the least safe of urban roads which were
transformed into safer, friendlier, more attractive and
009
Figure 1.1 Typical Range of Urban 40mph Speed Limits inclusive streets as discussed in the box out below.
The ten MPR schemes:
1 Walworth Mixed Priority Routes (MPR) demonstration project Outcomes

Road, London
2 Wandsworth Mixed Priority Routes are streets that carry high Early results across a number of different indicators
Road, London levels of traffic and also have: show that all of the MPR demonstration schemes have
3 Prince of Wales
Road, Norwich • A mix of residential use and commercial frontages; been successful in meeting their stated objectives:
4 Newland Avenue, • A mix of road users, i.e. shoppers, cyclists, bus
• Safety: all schemes have achieved a substantial
Hull
passengers, schoolchildren;
5 Nantwich Road, casualty reduction of between 24% and
Crewe • A mix of parking and deliveries.
60%;
6 Renshaw Street/
Berry Street, They are not just transport routes. Although dealing • Environment: noise and air quality measurements
Liverpool with transport and safety is a key element, other have shown improvements;
7 Wilmslow Road,
concerns associated with the local economy and • Accessibility: pedestrian and cycling activity has
Rusholme,
local communities may also generate an interest in increased, and children and mobility impaired
Manchester
8 St Peter’s Street/ improving the area with economic regeneration and users generally feel more confident; and
Chequer Street,
environmental improvements. • Economy: improvements in the quality of
St Albans streetscape have led to a reduction in vacant
9 The Parade/ There are many benefits to be gained from enhancing
Victoria Terrace,
premises and a more vibrant local economy.
Leamington Spa
the high street environment with an integrated
10 Cowley Road, approach. The investment is likely to contribute
Oxford towards assisting the delivery of a range of local
authority corporate objectives and targets including:
• Accessibility planning;
• Casualty reduction;
• Economic regeneration;
• Public service agreement;
• Quality of life; and
• Sustainability.
Prince of Wales Road, Norwich Newland Avenue, Hull

1_ Principles
1.4.4 These schemes have clearly demonstrated a range 1.4.7 Green infrastructure, which provides a network of
of benefits beyond just road safety. These include living green spaces, is important to the design of urban
increased economic vitality due to additional visitors to communities. Trees are one of the most visible
local shops and services and increased investment in components of green infrastructure and highway
regeneration, through improvements in facilities and the engineers and transport planners are well placed to help
environment. deliver this element of the natural environment. In the last
few years a growing body of research has made it clear
1.4.5 Research into mixed-use high streets carried out by
that trees bring a wide range of benefits both to the urban
University of Westminster4 has shown that they are well
environment, individual people and to society as a whole.
used and well liked by local people and encourage
Further guidance on how to plan and design for street
sustainable and inclusive patterns of living. Resolving the
trees is given in Chapter 12.
challenges of balancing the movement and place
functions will result in these streets becoming the 1.4.8 A number of case studies that demonstrate the
cornerstone of sustainable communities. value of improving the public realm can be found in
Section C.
1.4.6 Both sets of research complement the studies
carried out by CABE which found a clear link between
street quality and property values - see Example below.
CABE: Paved with Gold: the Real Value of Good This work identified for the first time a direct causal link
Street Design (2007)5 between street quality and market prices, which
discounted all other factors. It established that prices
Streets are public assets and, in common with other are not totally explained by factors such as prosperity
public realm features, assessing their value is a difficult of the neighbourhood or public transport accessibility
undertaking. Broadly speaking streets are too often alone; a significant proportion of these prices are
viewed in purely technical terms by the people explained solely by the quality of the street.
designing and managing them on the one hand and
their more aesthetic qualities by people funding
economic redevelopment work on the other.
The truth lies somewhere in between - that streets

which resolve competing demands and create places
that people enjoy using can deliver in transport
economic and social terms. CABE’s research, 'Paved
with Gold: the Real Value of Good Street Design'
(2007), was designed as a demonstration project to
show how to measure the impact of street design
improvements on market prices as revealed through
retail rents and residential prices.
London High Street case studies, outside the centre to

avoid tourist effects, were identified in order to make
them as comparable as possible. Streets with large
shopping centres were excluded as their presence
would skew results. A range of types of area and quality
of streets was identified.
011
2_ Networks, Contexts and Street Types
2.1_ Introduction
2.1.1 This section examines some common street types
in different contexts to demonstrate how context and user
needs inform a balanced approach to design,
see Figure 2.1. It provides general advice on the
application of the key MfS principles in Section 1.2. While
the examples are not meant to be exhaustive, they will
serve as a guide to other situations.
Figure 2.1: Changing Street Context

2.1.2 In Figure 2.1, the Movement function remains largely 2.1.4 A more formal approach to the determination of
the same along the route, but the Place function varies status level is given in the ‘Link and Place’ methodology6,
according to the importance of that part of the street as a which provides definitions for different status levels,
place and the predominant type of land use. As the Place resulting in a ‘matrix’ of street types varying in their
function becomes more important, the relative weight balance of Link and Place status, as shown in Figure 2.3.
given to the Movement function will be reduced when (In MfS, the term ‘movement’ is used rather than ‘link’,
deciding on priorities and an appropriate street design. but the principle is the same.)
Figure 2.2
2.1.5 A matrix similar to this has been used by the
London Borough of Hounslow7 to classify its entire street
2.1.3 The balance between Place and Movement at any
network into segments corresponding to the 25 cells in
particular location can be expressed using the hierarchy
the matrix, while Transport for London has used a 2x6
diagram shown in Figure 2.2. A high street, for example,
matrix (i.e. two levels of Link and six levels of Place) for its
has both a relatively high Movement and Place status
categorisation of the 580km Transport for London Road
level.
Network.
2.1.6 The application of the movement/place diagram
Figure 2.2 does not depend on the detailed analytical
013
Figure 2.3: The Hierarchy Matrix from 'Link and Place'
approach as indicated in Figure 2.3. It can simply be used 2.2_ Network

as a design philosophy that ensures a balanced approach
is taken. Further advice on understanding the character of 2.2.1 Highway networks interlace and connect residential,
a place is given in Understanding Place: An Introduction commercial, urban and suburban areas of cities, towns
and Associated Guidance on Historic Area and villages. They fulfil many functions along their routes
Assessments8 9. catering for many types of journey by different modes.
Their interrelated nature means that changes to one part
of the network can have implications for adjacent routes
and therefore must be understood and taken into account
when designing and implementing highway
improvements.
2.2.2 Major routes in the highway network are most
commonly classified by the volume of traffic they carry
and are often known as Principal Routes, Distributor
Roads, Ring Roads, or similar. These standard
classifications remain constant for the whole route and
this has often been used to inform the design and
management criteria that are applied to different parts of
the network. However, by failing to take account of the
changing context along the route this classification
system limits understanding of how improvements or
maintenance should reflect the wider functions such
routes serve.

2.3_ Context – Town and Common Street Types: Multifunctional

City Centres Streets and Spaces
Typical Characteristics
2.3.1 Town and city centres are often the most important
urban environments, forming a focus for economic vitality,
public life and image of the town/city as a whole. They are 2.3.4 Town and city centres are made up of a network of
where most exchange takes place, be it commercial, connected multifunctional streets and spaces, which in
social, cultural or political. They are also likely to be the larger centres may historically have made up a series of
public places where people spend more time outdoors distinct ‘quarters’ with different character and functions.
than anywhere else in the town/city, including parks and Over the latter part of the 20th century, many centres
other green spaces. became more uniformly focussed on retail. While centres
2.3.2 Centres are the places that most people in a town may thrive during shopping hours, many are ‘dead’ once
or city are travelling to and from: they are at the heart of the shops shut.
Movement and Place Functions

the local highway, bus and cycle networks; they will
contain, or usually be close to, the main railway station
and main bus station/hub; and they will experience far
greater footfall than any other part of the urban area. They 2.3.5 Town and city centres should be, pre-eminently,
are, in themselves, transport interchanges. places. However, many have been harmed either by
attempts to protect their place status through eliminating
2.3.3 A town or city’s public image is shaped by the some of the movement activity that made them the
quality of its public realm. The beauty, safety and state of places they were, or by an emphasis on enabling traffic to
repair of its streets and spaces are very important to its get across them as easily as possible.
success.
2.3.6 Centres should be the most walkable part of the
network; they should accommodate public transport
services, cycle routes and cycle parking, while remaining
accessible by private car. As centres of public life, they
must actively enable access by all in society, and they
must also support efficient access by delivery, service and
emergency vehicles. At the same time, they should be
attractive places to shop, eat, drink, work, play, do
business, meet, study, hang around in and look at.
2.3.7 There is barely a single movement or place function
that a town/city centre may not need to accommodate, all
of which represents a very considerable challenge to
designers of streets, spaces and the broader public
realm. But it is a challenge that must be met if urban life is
Walworth Road, London to flourish.
Key Issues
2.3.8 Centres that have successfully balanced movement
and place functions have done so by prioritising
pedestrian and cycle movement within the core, while
making it straightforward to get to the edge of the centre
by other modes. This means that busier routes around
the town centre must be easily crossed by pedestrians
and cyclists and should not form a barrier.
Darlington
015
Breaking the Concrete Collar In Birmingham
In Birmingham the Inner Ring Road was long seen as a constraint to extending the City’s inner retail core and
was a major barrier to pedestrians. This has now been broken with at-grade crossings provided for pedestrians
who previously had to contend with detours via unpleasant subways. Elsewhere in Birmingham the Inner Ring
Road has been lowered with a ground level pedestrian route provided in place of subways between the City
Centre and Broad Street, helping to regenerate this area of the City.
2.3.9 Access restrictions by day and/or time of day may 2.3.12 Advice on this issue is set out in TAL 9/93 'Cycling
be appropriate in core areas. This means that the physical in Pedestrian Areas'10 . This emphasises that, on the basis
layout should cater for a number of patterns of use, rather of research, there are no real factors to justify excluding
than just one: for example, streets having a conventional cyclists from pedestrianised areas and that cycling can be
carriageway and footway layout with a substantial kerb widely permitted without detriment to pedestrians. This
upstand between may be well suited for typical was confirmed by TRL report 583 'Cycling in Vehicle
longitudinal movements by vehicles and pedestrians, but Restricted Areas' (2003)11 which established that cyclists
cause problems where many crossing movements take alter their behaviour according to the density of
place or the space is being used for events, such as a pedestrian traffic by modifying their speed or dismounting.
street market. Case studies contained within the report demonstrate
that very few collisions actually occur between cyclists
2.3.10 Long-term adaptability should be a design
and pedestrians. It also showed that as pedestrian flows
principle for town and city streets. This can be achieved
rise, the incidence of cyclists choosing to push their cycle
by adopting an area-wide public realm strategy and a
also rises and those cyclists who continue to ride tend to
streetscape manual to ensure that an harmonious public
do so at a lower speed.
realm is achieved through consistent design choices,
which the local authority is able to maintain to a high 2.3.13 The TRL research found that within pedestrianised
standard. areas most cyclists and pedestrians favour a marked
cycle route. However, such a solution should be
2.3.11 Where there are proposals to introduce vehicle
approached with caution as it can lead to higher cycle
restricted or pedestrianised areas, the starting position
speeds and possibly more serious conflicts. Cyclists are
should be that cyclists are allowed to continue to use the
also more likely to be obstructed by straying pedestrians
streets concerned. If there are concerns about conflict
using the defined cycle route and this can itself cause
between cyclists and pedestrians, the preferred approach
conflict.
is to allow cycling from the outset on the basis of an
experimental traffic regulation order and only restrict
access when and if the need has been demonstrated. If
restrictions on cycling are shown to be necessary, they
may only be required at certain times of day. The
restriction periods can always be extended later if the
need arises.

Common Street Types: Arterial Routes

and High Streets
2.4.3 Arterial routes form essential parts of the wider
highway network acting as key links between towns,
cities and local centres. They are usually a part of the core
network for the town or city where it is not easy or
appropriate to remove or redirect traffic, including HGVs
and buses. The level of activity along these links varies
depending on location. Along some sections of arterial
routes the movement function will be most important;
Darlington arterial routes are key to the functioning and economy of
urban areas. However, along other sections of the routes
the place function should be given greater weight.
2.4.4 Local high streets in interconnected urban and
suburban locations often occur along arterial routes
where they benefit from through traffic and proximity to
adjacent neighbourhoods. In smaller towns and larger
villages, high streets may also form the core of the
settlement with little scope for removing through traffic.
High streets will have a significant element of retail and
commercial uses, often mixed with residential use that
generates regular, high volume short-stay visits.
2.4.5 There are significant levels of pedestrian and cycle
activity associated with the movement of people along the
Birmingham street and to local destinations. There are also high levels
of kerbside activity generated by parking, loading and
2.4_ Context – Urban and

public transport. Provision for passing trade should take
Suburban Areas
account of the needs of people travelling by all modes.
2.4.6 Essentially these streets are ‘living’ streets that act
2.4.1 Town and city centres are surrounded by urban and as both a significant local destination and as a corridor for
suburban areas, the former being a mix of residential, movement through urban and suburban areas or into city,
employment and retail and the latter predominantly town or large village centres.
residential. Urban areas tend to be higher density and
older development.
2.4.2 Suburban areas can be considered the urban
extensions of yesterday and tend to be either fully
interconnected with the surrounding area, a characteristic
of pre World War II development, or less integrated, cul-
de-sac development of the post WWII era. Interconnected
suburbs are linked together by a network of residential
and arterial routes which double as local high streets at
certain points. Cul-de-sac suburbs are connected to the
outside world by movement-focused distributor roads,
relief roads and the arterial network. As noted in MfS1 this
type of layout encourages movement to and from an area
by car rather than other modes. English Heritage
guidance on managing change and conserving the A207 Welling, Kent
character of historic suburbs is set out in ‘Suburbs and
the Historic Environment’12 .
017
2.4.9 With these complex and competing demands,
balancing the place and movement function is challenging
and can only by resolved by taking a comprehensive and
multidisciplinary approach to solutions that respect local
context and user needs.
2.4.10 On larger new-build schemes it will often be
appropriate to build new mixed-use high streets forming
an active core to new communities and connecting them
to the wider area. In the recent past distributor routes
have taken traffic around the edge of a development.
Taking this traffic through the centre will make the new
high street an accessible, inclusive and active place.
Common Street Types: Relief

Nottingham
Movement and Place Functions Road/Ring Road
2.4.7 High streets (and high street sections of arterial routes)
are complex. They often cater for local retail, leisure and
social needs as well as passing trade. High Streets can be 2.4.11 The terms ‘Relief Road’ and ‘Ring Road’ are
centres of civic pride where important civic buildings, generally used to describe major roads whose primary
monuments and spaces are located. These functions need function is to carry traffic around an urban centre. While
to be understood and incorporated in any redesign ‘Ring Road’ implies the existence of a complete loop, the
term is also applied to partial loops. ‘Relief Roads’ tend to
be more linear in form.
2.4.12 Segregation of different user groups is the design
philosophy which most clearly characterises Relief/Ring
Roads. Another key characteristic is that many were built,
all or in part, as new highways. While some may have
been based on the alignment of existing highways, a
significant amount of new construction was involved in
turning them into the higher capacity traffic routes.
Typically Relief/Ring Roads involved the loss of a
significant amount of the existing urban fabric, and the
alignment of the new highways were and remain at odds
with the historic street structure of the area.
Kinver High Street, Staffordshire
Key Issues
2.4.8 In the main, designers will be tackling problems in
high streets that already exist. These streets will therefore
frequently have significant and widespread physical
constraints:
• fixed building lines;
• extensive statutory undertakers’ equipment;
• shallow services;
• established balance of priority to motor vehicles
creating difficulties for the reallocation of space due to
wider area impacts;
Birmingham Middle Ring Road
• high cost of remodelling the street;
• demand for parking not in keeping with the physical
space available;
• public aspiration in terms of the quality of the finish;
and
• maintaining service access.
2.4.13 Relief/Ring Roads are typically multi-lane dual Movement and Place Functions
carriageways, often with speed limits of 40 or 50mph,
with very little frontage development. Typical adjacent land 2.4.14 Relief/Ring Roads are predominantly about motor
uses are those that welcome excellent highway traffic movement and hardly at all about place, despite the
accessibility yet are not sensitive to the built environment fact that they are often on the edge of very active town
quality (e.g. retail warehousing and other industrial uses) centres. Many new routes were built without footways or
and/or to the backs of buildings whose fronts face provision for cycling despite their urban environment.
inwards to the central streets from which traffic was They are likely to sever communities and disrupt
diverted onto the Ring Road. pedestrian and cycle movement to town centres. Where
they have been formed from existing streets, the previous
place qualities have usually been given little thought and
consequently have been considerably damaged.
Stourbridge Ring Road
Constructed in the 1960s, Stourbridge Ring Road creates a tight collar around the town’s compact centre. Formed
partly from existing roads and partly on new alignments, it is one-way and encourages high traffic speeds.
The Ring Road did not respect the existing urban form and exposes the rear of a number of historic buildings
along the town’s High Street. Many sections of the road are not well overlooked by buildings. It forms a barrier to
pedestrians, with few at-grade crossings and is very intimidating for cyclists.
019
Key Issues 2.4.16 Some authorities have recognised that a
piecemeal approach is all that can be achieved, and have
2.4.15 Where the roads are adversely constraining the
therefore focused on improvements such as the
development, growth and prosperity of the town/city, then
replacement of poor quality subways by at-grade
consideration should be given to redressing the balance
pedestrian crossings, introducing ‘friction’ features such
of movement and place. The scale of change required to
as kerbside parking and loading bays, moving from one-
transform Relief/Ring Roads from corridors for general
way to two-way operation, reducing speed limits (with or
traffic to balanced streets has major cost implications.
without the addition of speed-limiting engineering
Nevertheless, there are a small but growing number of
elements), or measures to ‘humanise’ the roads such as
examples where all or part of the ring road has been
simple decluttering or the widening and planting on
remodelled, e.g. Ashford, Nottingham, and Birmingham.
median strips.
Sky Blue Way/Far Gosford Street, Coventry
Sky Blue Way is a major urban relief road, constructed in the 1980s, which relieved traffic from Far Gosford Street, a
medieval street on the edge of the city centre. The road carved a broad swathe through the urban fabric, revealing
the rear of buildings. There are few buildings overlooking the new route and it is a hostile environment for pedestrians
and cyclists.
A scheme has now been developed by the City Council, working with developer partners, to heal the damage done
by the road scheme. It introduces new buildings to front onto Sky Blue Way, making best use of the awkward plots
of land. Changes to one of the terminal junctions are also proposed, simplifying the layout and removing extensive
lengths of guardrailing.

Common Street Type: Boulevards Movement and Place Functions
2.4.20 Multiple movement functions mixed with a very
strong sense of place are at the heart of the boulevard
typology.
2.4.17 Boulevards typically carry large volumes of traffic.
'The Boulevard Book'13 describes three types of boulevard 2.4.21 Adjacent uses may be of almost any variety: retail,
design: (a) streets with a wide central landscaped median, residential, civic, commercial, or a mix. However the
flanked on both sides by carriageways and footways; (b) a grand sense of scale created by the wide street is also a
wider-than-usual street of conventional layout, with a vital place element in its own right. Wide, tree-lined
central carriageway and broad, tree-lined footways (often footways are there for the convenience of pedestrians,
also referred to as an ‘avenue’); and (c) ‘multiway and there may also be additional leisure space on the
boulevards’ with a central carriageway for through traffic, medians.
2.5_ Context - Urban Extensions

tree-lined medians to each side, one-way access
carriageways, beyond these medians, and then footways.
2.4.18 Boulevards are important in many countries. In
Britain boulevards have not had such a large part to play 2.5.1 An urban extension is the significant growth of an
in our towns and cities, but there are some UK streets existing town or city with development that ideally is well
that genuinely justify being defined in this way. London’s connected to, and adjacent to, the urban edge of the
Park Lane and Cheltenham’s Promenade could qualify as existing settlement. Urban extensions can provide
could some interwar suburban development which important ‘green infrastructure’ links that connect urban
adapted the boulevard typology to facilitate strategic and open spaces with rural areas.
local traffic movements. 2.5.2 They should allow for the growth of our existing
towns and cities to take place in a more sustainable way
so that new residents and workers in the urban extension
can benefit from the existing facilities in the town or city as
well as those provided in the extension area. Practice that
relies on limited access via distributor and relief roads
limits the level of connectivity that can be delivered and is
not recommended.
Common Street Types: High Streets,

Residential Streets
Promenade, Cheltenham
2.5.3 Many existing suburban areas are edged with culs-
de-sac and low density development, which makes it very
difficult to continue the growth of the settlement in a well-
connected way particularly by public transport.
2.5.4 In order to achieve connected growth, urban
extensions should link in to the surrounding network of
local and strategic routes. Developments with only one or
two means of access should be avoided as they
segregate existing and new development, and do not
provide for good walking and cycling connections.
2.5.5 The form of the urban extension should be made up
of connected streets and urban blocks. The streets
should be generally low speed and all, be well overlooked.
Park Lane, London There should also be a high quality, high frequency public
transport system at the heart of the development. The
2.4.19 The boulevard typology can be highly appropriate walkable neighbourhood principle should be used to help
for application to the conversion of some of the nation’s structure the urban extension.
widest urban roads from traffic-dominated corridors
having no grandeur and a very poor public realm to much
021
more multifunctional urban streets.
The Sherford New Community featured in MfS1. This urban extension, which will link well to the surrounding
network, has now received planning consent and is moving towards implementation.
The Sherford New Community is structured around the walkable neighbourhood (a series of 5 minute walks) and a
new high street that carries both strategic and development generated traffic which will aid the vitality of the place
and viability of retail and commercial uses.
Movement and place functions 2.5.8 Figure 2.4 illustrates development that ignores, and
often backs onto existing highways, and provides few
2.5.6 These will vary within an urban extension due to the
direct connections. The alternative on the right, illustrates
variation in contexts from high streets to residential streets
how new development which embraces and connects
and squares to mews and courts. However, with all of
with these routes, changing the form of them to reduce
these street types the consideration of place and the need
speed and make them more humane can help to deliver
to integrate communities must underpin design decisions.
integrated growth.
Key Issues 2.5.9 Masterplans for urban extensions should also

consider future growth and how the plan could develop
2.5.7 Unfortunately many urban extensions have left further, over say a 50 or 100 year vision. Planning and
unchanged strategic highway routes that run adjacent to highway authorities should require developers to provide
or through the development rather than making it a focus future connections when further expansion is a possibility.
for the development, possibly in the form of a high street.
Figure 2.4 - Urban Extensions; Suburban Sprawl vs Connected Development

2.5.10 Taking this approach will mean that planning and

highway authorities will have to accept that the character
of rural routes will have to change fundamentally in these
locations as they become part of the urban fabric. Local
Development Frameworks or in Wales, Local
Development Plans can stipulate that developers require
sufficient land for adequate connections from new
development to potential further expansion.
2.5.11 Existing routes that pass or run through urban
extensions will change in character as development takes
place bringing new place function as well as an increase
in movement along and across the highway. Both need to
be considered in the redesign of the route.
2.6_ Context - Interchanges

Louth, Lincolnshire. A bus station that complements the town centre.
2.6.1 Whilst at one level interchange facilities can

• Level access, particularly given the expected
concentration of encumbered users in and around
comprise major bus, tram and rail stations, at another
transport facilities;
they could simply refer to a high street or crossroads
where two bus routes meet. Both extremes need to be
• Clear and concise identification of transport facilities;
carefully designed to cater for ease of pedestrian

• Street direction signs, including cycle/pedestrian
routes;
movement.
• The provision of cycle access, including secure storage
2.6.2 The need to provide integrated transport to enable and cycle hub facilities at the station with the
different modes of transport to be used in a seamless development of convenient cycle routes;
manner to enable door-to-door travel is crucial. In • Improved bus access through closer partnerships with
particular the provision of adequate cycle parking at train operating companies, local authorities and bus
stations and bus stops can make a public transport operators; and
journey a convenient and speedy choice. • Provision for taxis.
2.6.3 Often an interchange is a traveller’s first experience
of a place, the gateway to a country or city. It will need to
encapsulate a sense of arrival appropriate to its scale and 2.6.6 Any strategy to harmonise and integrate the design
location. and function of streets and interchanges will have to work
in conjunction with the physical layout of each place and
2.6.4 Transport integration covers not just the interchange
under a range of operating environments.
facility but ticketing and the provision of passenger
information. Ultimately, maximising passenger satisfaction, 2.6.7 Above all, any strategy aimed at enhancing
or user experience, is crucial to making public transport transport integration will have to ensure that pedestrians
more attractive. The aim is to achieve: and cyclists can be catered for and directed in a
convenient manner. Success will be dependent upon co-
• Seamless and efficient movement of pedestrians,
ordination across a range of transport planning,
cyclists and public transport;
management and operation disciplines.
• Increased pedestrian and cyclist satisfaction by making
interchanges and their urban context more integrated 2.6.8 The Pedestrian Environment Review Software
and attractive to use; (PERS)15 is a well-established approach for auditing
• Improved good quality of information, cycle parking pedestrian networks and is recommended in several
and wayfinding; publications, including Transport for London’s (TfL’s)
• Places that feel and are safe and secure. guidance 'Walking Good Practice' published in 201016 .
2.6.9 One of the street audit frameworks developed in the
Typical characteristics
PERS system is specifically concerned with Interchange
Spaces. This was developed at the instigation of TfL and
2.6.5 An independent review on how to improve particularly recognises the specific requirements and
stations14 recommended that, in the context of street challenges of designing public spaces in which interchange
design, improvements to station access should focus on is the primary, or most significant, function. This prompts
providing a minimum level of provision dependent on the assessment of key elements of an interchange space such
category of the interchange. Features should include: as the ability of people to orientate and navigate in the
space or to move freely and safely.
023
2.7_ Context - Village Centres Common Street Type: Village Streets
2.7.4 Many villages have existed for centuries and are
likely to have an historic centre with a street pattern that is
unlikely to conform to a standardised highway layout but
which it is desirable to conserve in the interests in
maintaining the character of the area. Carriageways are
often narrow, and footways may be narrow or non-
existent and as a result speeds can be low. Street lighting
may be below normal standards and may be entirely
absent as a conscious decision of the local authorities.

Troutbeck, Cumbria
2.7.5 Many historic buildings do not have off-street
parking leading to significant demand for on-street
2.7.1 Villages are smaller isolated settlements in rural parking in many village centres. This can be in conflict
locations, and can vary from a scattering of dwellings to with movement functions, particularly where villages are
what could also be described as a small town. on major routes. As in other situations, an appropriate
2.7.2 Villages are the most numerous type of settlement balance needs to be struck between demand for on-
in the UK. In 2001 there were over 4,200 settlements in street parking, road safety and visual amenity.
England with more than 100 residents, and of these some 2.7.6 Village centres have all of the place functions of the
3,100 had fewer than 5,000 residents. While the majority centres of larger settlements, albeit on a smaller scale.
of people reside in larger settlements, a total of 9.8 million Most centres will have some shops and one or more
people lived in rural England in November 200917 . pubs, churches and community halls, and so the most
2.7.3 The quality of the built environment in these important buildings will be located there. Village greens,
settlements is obviously important to those who live there, ponds and other areas of open space will often form a
but villages are also an essential part of the make-up of key element within the centre, contributing to the sense of
the UK and are vital to its image. Tourism is a major place. The relationship between these buildings, green
contributor to the rural economy and preserving the spaces and the routes through a village is often a major
attractiveness of village centres is essential if this is to be part of its character.
maintained.
Hallow Village Green, Worcestershire
Abbotsbury, Dorset

2.7.7 Public transport is often limited in rural areas, but Key Issues
services will almost always stop in the village centre. With
many villages being compact in size, the centre will be 2.7.10 There are often concerns over the urbanising
accessible to local residents on foot, and so the number effect and visual intrusion of unsympathetic highway
of people on foot will be higher in the centre than in other features such as traffic signs, road markings, street
parts of the settlement. furniture and excessive carriageway width. These can be
in conflict with local place functions. The opportunity for
2.7.8 In movement terms, many village centres are the designers to employ ‘natural’ features should be
focus for street networks that carry low volumes of traffic, considered, for example grass or grassy banks,
but there are also many that are on the route of one or appropriate trees and shrubs and also seating.
more heavily trafficked highways, including trunk roads. In
these cases there are often significant tensions between 2.7.11 In the past highway authorities may have chosen
the movement function of these principal routes and the to apply national road standards through rural villages on
place function of the settlement. the basis that the streets are on a classified route. Unless
the streets are part of the trunk road network, there is no
2.7.9 Providing a bypass has long been the favoured requirement to apply DMRB standards, and a more
means of reconciling this conflict, but such schemes are place-sensitive approach should be used.
costly and take many years to deliver. Where this is not
possible, the reduction in traffic speed through the 2.7.12 As with larger settlements, experience shows that
sensitive redesign of the principal streets offers an a more sensitive approach can bring significant benefits.
alternative, as illustrated in the Clifton example below.
Clifton Village Traffic Calming At regular intervals the footway was widened and the
road narrowed to 6 metres, wide enough for two heavy
The main street through Clifton village, Cumbria, is the
vehicles to pass. These narrowings are spaced within
A6, a former trunk road. Heavy traffic now uses the
sight of each other, to continually reinforce to drivers the
nearby M6. This left a wide road, with many signs and
message that they need to keep their speed down.
lines, carrying relatively light local traffic, although it is
Each of the locations where the footway was built out
still used by some heavy vehicles.
relates to an important building in the village, such as
Instead of a conventional traffic calming scheme with the school, the church and the pub. These are
yet more signs and lines, a scheme was designed to emphasised by specially designed plaques on planters.
introduce measures that protected and enhanced the Centreline markings have been removed throughout the
appearance of the village, as well as reducing speed. length of the village.
The design concept was to show to drivers that they
Following implementation of the scheme the all-vehicle
are not just driving down a road, but through a village
traffic speed has reduced to 27mph (average) and
where people live.
34mph (85th percentile).
George and Dragon Pub before; and after, showing

carriageway narrowing and planters
025
2.8_ Context - Rural Areas 2.8.3 A number of local authorities have developed
policies sensitive to local context. Dorset County
Common Street Type: Rural Roads

Council’s18 approach to the design and management of
and Lanes
rural highways is given in the Example below.
2.8.1 Rural roads are an integral part of the landscape, Movement and Place Function
often reflecting and preserving historic landscape features
2.8.4 Outside villages most rural roads connect small
such as ancient routes or field boundaries and set within
settlements and farms to local centres and the wider
outstanding countryside. Elements such as hedges,
highway network. Their predominant function is
verges, banks and fingerposts may contribute strongly to
movement, although there is often a leisure aspect to this;
local character and historic significance.
walking, cycling and equestrian. Some routes also attract
car drivers on leisure routes such as in the National Parks.
2.8.5 Whilst these routes are largely subject to the
2.8.2 There is a considerable variation in the highway national speed limit, their curvilinear nature can encourage
network running through rural areas from motorways to speeds well below 60mph, the clear exception being the
Green Lanes. The majority of other rural roads follow old busier and more direct ‘A’ roads. However most of these
pathways and boundaries and do not conform to present routes are single carriageways where the speed of HGVs
guidance on highway standards. Indeed to attempt to do is limited to 40mph, and as a result they often act as a
so could be to the detriment of local character and lead to constraint on car speed.
intrusion into some of our most outstanding landscapes.
2.8.6 On the more lightly trafficked rural lanes Devon
County Council19 offers the good practice advice in the
Example overleaf.
In April 2008, Dorset County Council formally
adopted a rural roads protocol setting out their new
approach on how to manage the roads in Dorset’s
countryside. The protocol’s main principle is to use
the local setting and distinctiveness of the rural
environment to guide their management decisions. All
future work on rural roads and streets will:
• Balance the safety and access needs of users
with care for the environment and the quality of
our landscape and settlements
• Use local materials and design schemes to be
sympathetic to the character of our rural
settlements
• Consider the landscape adjacent to the road and
address ecological and historical needs and
interests
• Address sustainability and consider the potential
impacts of climate change, ensuring that our
management of rural roads and streets does not
create or contribute to foreseeable environmental
problems in the future
• Keep signs, lines and street furniture to the
minimum needed for safety and remove intrusive
roadside clutter
• Where signs and markings are needed, we will
adapt standard designs wherever possible to
make them the best possible fit with local
surroundings
• Encourage and test innovative approaches and
make full use of the flexibility in national
regulations, standards and codes of practice

2.9_ Context: Urban and

Rural Settlements
There is a large network of minor roads in Devon. Most
junctions are T-junctions or crossroads and on
occasions, a road has a split junction, leaving a small
Street Types: Shared Space
grass area between the carriageways. Junction
improvements are sometimes necessary on safety
grounds or as a result of development in an area.
Whilst legislation sometimes requires specific
standards to be met, some regulations do allow
flexibility. The design of any new scheme should use
the existing topography, vegetation, buildings and
other structures, so that they appear an integral part of
the landscape and historic road pattern. Solutions
should reinforce local identity by careful choice of
detailing, materials and street furniture.
Roundabouts are normally associated with urban
areas or major roads, where the volume of traffic
means they are considered to be essential. Regulation
requires lighting, mandatory signs and lines to a
satisfactory standard at roundabouts and this can be New Road, Brighton
inappropriate in rural areas. In view of this, other
junction treatments are preferable.
Junction improvements will only be considered where
there is a proven safety need and the introduction of a 2.9.1 Shared Space is predominantly an approach to
roundabout should only be considered as a last resort. highway design and is introduced for a range of purposes
including:
Wherever possible, the area of carriageway should be
reduced and the road realigned rather than use large • improving the built environment;
areas of hatching. • giving people freedom of movement rather than
There should be a presumption of retaining trees, instruction and control;
hedges and verges including any central grass areas. • improving the ambience of places;
• enhancing social capital;
If a traditional Devon hedge needs to be removed for • enhancing the economic vitality of places; and
the realignment of a road, the practicality of • safety.
translocation/moving the hedgebank should be
considered in the first instance. Where this is not
2.9.2 Many local authorities’ objectives can be addressed
feasible, the next option should be to carefully
through pedestrianisation. However, for practical
dismantle and reconstruct the hedge. Archaeological
purposes and in some settings, Shared Space may be
recording and supervision may be required.
more desirable for a number of reasons.
Lighting will not be installed on roads outside
2.9.3 A characteristic of many Shared Space schemes is
settlement boundaries unless there is a proven and
the minimal use of traffic signs, road markings and other
overriding safety reason which cannot be addressed
by other means. Where considered necessary, the traffic management features. With less or no traffic
highway authority will consult with landscape management, or clear indication of priority, motorists are
managers during the design stage. The preferred encouraged to recognise the space as being different
option is to install high-reflective non-illuminated signs. from a typical road and to react by driving more slowly
and responding directly to the behaviour of other users
Signing will be kept to a minimum and will be located (including other motorists) rather than predominantly to
with a view to minimising the impact on the landscape the traffic management features. This approach takes
and the rural character of the area, as well as with a
place against a backdrop of concern at the proliferation of
view to safety and utility.
features such as pedestrian guardrailing, traffic signs and
Detailing and choice of materials will respect the local highway regulation which, it is argued, reduce users’
environment and standard solutions or components understanding of the complexity of the street environment
will not always be appropriate. Kerbing of central grass and their personal responsibility for safe and appropriate
areas should be avoided. Chevron blocks around the behaviour.
edge of the roundabout are not appropriate and
should not be used.
027
2.9.4 Some Shared Space schemes also feature a level
Key Issues
surface. In these cases, kerbs are omitted and there is no
level difference between pedestrians and vehicular traffic. 2.9.8 A number of emerging design issues have been
The aim of reducing the definition of areas for pedestrians identified in the ongoing DfT research project on Shared
and vehicles is to indicate that the street is meant to be Space2. These are summarised below:
shared equally by all users of the highway. Indication of • there is a need to take a comprehensive approach to
implied priority for motor vehicles is removed, as is a the design of Shared Space schemes, with clear
physical and psychological barrier to pedestrians which objectives as to what the scheme is meant to achieve;
might discourage their using the full width of the highway. • establishing a multidisciplinary team at an early stage in
Ideally, people should be able to not only cross the street scheme development is important;
wherever they want to, but occupy the full width of the • there is a need for close and continued engagement
street too. with interested parties, including groups representing

vulnerable users;
• achieving vehicle speeds of under 20mph is likely to be
important to achieving the full potential benefit of
2.9.5 Shared Space can maintain access for public
schemes;
transport, cyclists, disabled people reliant on cars,
• it may be necessary to consider traffic network design
passing trade, and delivery vehicles that might otherwise
to manage the flow of vehicles such that pedestrians
be excluded. It can also reduce the network impacts of
are willing to use the space as intended;
entirely closing a link to traffic. Shared Space also
• schemes need to be designed in three dimensions, as
addresses a particular problem which can affect some
vertical features and cross sections can influence driver
pedestrianisation schemes, where the absence of
speed;
vehicular traffic can lead to them becoming lifeless places
• Shared Space schemes seem likely to be most
at night. This can give rise to personal security issues.
effective when they provide a comprehensive redesign
2.9.6 Several terms are currently in use aimed at of the space - just adding or removing specific design
describing Shared Space. At the time of publication the features without regard to context or integration of
following definitions are used: other design elements is unlikely to be satisfactory;
• Shared Space: a street or place accessible to both

• transition zones or gateway treatments can be useful
for indicating to motorists that they are entering a place
pedestrians and vehicles that is designed to enable
where they need to drive at low speed and with
pedestrians to move more freely by reducing traffic
caution, and for encouraging them to adjust their
management features that tend to encourage users of
behaviour prior to encountering significant numbers of
vehicles to assume priority.
pedestrians;
• Level surface: a particular type of Shared Space where
• tactile features for blind or partially sighted people are
the street surface is not physically segregated by kerbs
required to enable them to navigate the space;
into areas for particular uses. Not all parts of a level
surface are necessarily shared as other features, such
• control of parking needs to be considered in level
surface schemes;
as street furniture, may physically prevent vehicles from
occupying certain parts of the space (see next).
• with level surfaces designing for drainage needs
particular care because of the lack of conventional
• Comfort space: space(s) within the scheme designed
carriageway cross falls and kerbs; and
to discourage or prevent vehicular access so that
pedestrians can choose whether to mix with vehicles
• providing surfaces in contrasting tones can assist
partially-sighted pedestrians in orientating themselves
or not.
within a street. However colour fading, dirt, wet
weather, low light etc. may affect the level of contrast.
2.9.7 In historically sensitive environments, creating a level
surface may result in the loss of significant features such
2.9.9 These considerations will be reflected in the final
as historic kerb lines, and creating surfaces with
design guidance which will result from the ongoing
contrasting tones may be visually intrusive. English
research, expected to be published by DfT in 2011.
Heritage’s ‘Streets for All: Practical Case Study 6: Tactile
Paving’20 illustrates how natural materials can be used to
achieve contrast in sensitive areas.

3_ Highway Design, Risk and Liability
3_ Highway Design, Risk and Liability
3.1_ The Need For

Additional Clarification
3.1.8 Key guidance from the Highway Code states that
people must not drive dangerously, without due care and
attention or without reasonable considerations for other
3.1.1 MfS1 sought to assuage fears of some highway road users. It goes on to say:
authorities, when considering more innovative designs at ‘Adapt your driving to the appropriate type and condition
variance with established practice, concerning liability in of road you are on. In particular
the event of damage or injury. Whilst this was accepted
by some it is clear that there is a need for more guidance • do not treat speed limits as a target. It is often not
on risk and liability. appropriate or safe to drive at the maximum speed
limit
3.1.2 Since the publication of MfS1, the UK Roads Board • take the road and traffic conditions into account. Be
has published a second edition of Highway Risk and prepared for unexpected or difficult situations, for
Liability Claims (HRLC)21 . All those with an interest in example, the road being blocked beyond a blind bend.
highway design are strongly recommended to read this Be prepared to adjust your speed as a precaution
comprehensive document. • where there are junctions, be prepared for road users
3.1.3 The document is quoted below more extensively emerging
than was its predecessor in MfS1 to raise awareness of • in side roads and country lanes look out for unmarked
the issues and demonstrate how few cases arise due to junctions where nobody has priority
alleged defects in design and to give greater confidence • be prepared to stop at traffic control systems, road
to designers to respect local context and move away from works, pedestrian crossings or traffic lights as
a standardised, rigid approach. necessary
• try to anticipate what pedestrians and cyclists might
3.1.4 The HRLC document sets out the legal uses and
do. If pedestrians, particularly children, are looking the
obligations of users of the highway.
other way, they may step out into the road without
Uses of the Highway

seeing you’ (Highway Code Rule 146)
3.1.9 It is clear that the Highway Code requires drivers to

3.1.5 When discussing the rights to use a highway,
have regard for other road users particularly children,
reference should be made to the following:
which is confirmed in the case of Russell v Smith:
“the public highway is a public place which the public
“The Highway Code requires motorists to take particular
may enjoy for any reasonable purpose, provided the
care in looking out for children in built up areas and to
activity in question does not amount to a public or private
travel at an appropriate speed. In the case of Russell v.
nuisance and does not obstruct the highway by
Smith and Another 2003 EWHC, a motorist, Miss Smith
unreasonably impeding the primary right of the public to
collided with a young cyclist who had emerged into her
pass and repass” Lord Chancellor, DPP v Jones 1999
path from a side road. Failure to observe a provision of
3.1.6 This shows that the public highway is not merely a the Highway Code is something which a court can take
piece of infrastructure for moving from place to place. It is into account when assessing liability, and does not involve
a place in its own right that can be used for any purpose fault on the part of the driver. The court judged that Miss
that does not cause nuisance or obstruction. Smith had failed to observe the provisions of the Highway
Code that requires drivers to have regard to the safety of
3.1.7 The Highway Code22 provides a guide to the use of
children in a residential area, and was held partly liable.”
the highway and confirms that users must behave
reasonably, taking into account other people and local 3.1.10 There has been a long standing principle, as
conditions. restated in the Gorringe v Calderdale ruling, that drivers
are responsible for their own safety.
“The overriding imperative is that those who drive on the
public highways do so in a manner and at a speed which
is safe having regard to such matters as the nature of the
road, the weather conditions and the traffic conditions.
Drivers are first and foremost themselves responsible for
their own safety”.
029
3.2_ Design Guidance and
Professional Judgement
“Many more accidents occur on the wider, and
should be, safer roads than upon the so-called
dangerous ones. I have in some cases, widened
3.2.1 For some time there have been concerns expressed
turns to render them safer, but more accidents have
over designers slavishly adhering to guidance regardless
ensued owing to motorists taking the turns much
of local context. Local Transport Note 1/08 specifically
faster.”
advises:
H T Chapman, County Surveyor of Kent, September
“Regulations and technical standards have a key role in
1932
the delivery of good design, but, if used as a starting
In 1954 in the paper 'Road Design in relation to point, they may serve to compromise the achievement of
Traffic Movement and Road Safety Proceedings of wider objectives. A standards-based template view of
the Institution of Municipal Engineers', the author R J road junction design, for example, is inappropriate". LTN
Smeed reported on research that had found a 1/08 3.2.124
relationship between increased carriageway width
3.2.2 In reality, highway and planning authorities may
and increases in the average speed of traffic, and
exercise considerable discretion in developing and
conversely reductions in radius of curvature of
applying their own local policies and standards.
highways and reductions in speed of traffic.
"Designers are expected to use their professional
Risk Compensation
judgement when designing schemes, and should not be
over-reliant on guidance". LTN 1/08 3.2.324
3.1.11 Risk compensation, whereby a driver is assumed "Available guidance is just that, guidance, and cannot be
to adjust behaviour in response to perceived changes in expected to cover the precise conditions and
risk is reflected in MfS1 but there is evidence of this dating circumstances applying at the site under examination.”
back to the 1930s: (See Example above). LTN 1/08 3.2.224
3.1.12 The evidence based approach set out in MfS1 3.2.3 On this issue HRLC states:
used the research findings of 'The Manual for Streets:
Evidence and Research', TRL66123 , in concluding that a “The authors of guidance, how ever accomplished, will
number of environmental factors influence driver not be cognizant of the site and situation in question. It
behaviour to bring about this compensation. would be neither reasonable nor rational to presume that
(See Chapter 8.) anyone could produce an optimal design in abstract. The
informed judgement of trained professionals on-site,
Design, Defects and Liability

should logically take precedence over guidance.”
3.1.13 Streetscape and highway design have been

devolved to local authorities. However, some highway
authorities do not take advantage of this and can shy
away from developing local guidance for fear of litigation.
However, HRLC refers to a survey it conducted to assess
the scale of cases relating to defects in design.
“There have been very few cases relating to alleged
defects in design. A request went out to members of the
CSS [now ADEPT] in 2008 for cases that had gone
against the authority on the basis of design. There was no
significant history. There was a small number of live cases
that were tending to focus on trip hazards resulting from
design. There is of course nothing stopping an individual
making a claim for a design defect, however the instances
seem rare and the chances of success remote.”

4_ Design and Implementation Process
4.1_ Introduction 4.1.3 This process emphasises the need for a clear vision,
a multidisciplinary team and the monitoring of the
4.1.1 A generic design and implementation process was performance of the completed project.
4.2_ Community Involvement

set out in MfS1 which leads from local policies through
design, auditing, approval to implementation and
monitoring. This process can be applied to all types of
projects from new development to changes to existing 4.2.1 On many schemes there will be a need for thorough
streets. public consultation and involvement. The Mixed Priority
Route projects (see LTN 3/081) all spent considerable time
4.1.2 The detailed process given in MfS1 was primarily for
and effort to consult widely which resulted in much
new development. For existing streets the following
improved and well-received schemes.
example of a design process can be applied and is taken
from Local Transport Note 1/0824 .
Traffic
Design Project engineer Maintenance
Urban Contractor
champion manager contractor
designer
Safety auditor
Project Maintenance
Design Implementation
initiation and monitoring
Strategy/ Regulations Site Maintenance

vision guidance and supervision programme
standards
Policy Design Contractor Maintenance

techniques involvement
context agreement
and continuity
Scheme Design
value Performance
checklist monitoring
assessment
Funding and Quality Scheme

timescales auditing evaluation
Project/
scheme brief
Figure 4.1: The Design Process - Flows, Inputs and Links, from LTN 1/08
031
4.2.2 These principles can also be applied on small low- guidance on how to provide better streets and a series of
budget schemes, for example the Sustrans DIY Streets staged actions to deliver them. MfS and the Better
project which is yielding significant benefits to local Streets strategy share a consistent philosophy.
people, see Example below.
DIY Streets – Active Collaboration.

This Sustrans project involves local people in designing
modest but effective improvements to the streets
where they live, using the principles of the first
‘woonerf’ schemes in the Netherlands (and which
formed the basis of UK Home Zones).
A total of 12 projects have been implemented, all of
which have been founded on extensive collaboration
with residents. Sustrans has developed a toolkit of low
cost interventions to help groups develop future similar
schemes. See http://www.sustrans.org.uk/what-we-
do/liveable-neighbourhoods/diy-streets for more
information
Designing with residents, on street
Mina Road, Bristol – Before
Mina Road, Bristol – After
4.3_ Stages of Improvement 4.3.2 The strategy sets out five practical steps to
delivering better streets. The steps are progressive,
4.3.1 Significant improvements to existing streets can be moving from simple measures through to the complete
delivered with relatively little effort by applying the transformation of streets, and more than one can be done
principles of MfS during ongoing maintenance. A similar at the same time. Steps One to Four can be undertaken
approach has been developed by the Urban Design Team in the course of routine maintenance, or small-scale
within Transport for London Group Planning on behalf of improvements. These can be inexpensive to implement
the Mayor of London in his 'Better Streets strategy'25 from an engineering point of view and can be carried
published in November 2009 and the 'Mayors Transport out quickly.
Strategy' published in June 2010. These provide

0. Existing Street
Considering a typical street in the UK, the strategy sets out five practical
steps to deliver better streets.
1. Tidy Up
Get rid of unnecessary road markings and bits of kit that are easy to lift
and remove. Remove things such as unwanted or broken seats where
removal is simple and will not damage the footway or repair them where
appropriate.
2. Declutter
More thoroughly, justify each piece of equipment and obstruction with a

presumption that it should be removed unless there is a clear case for
retention, for example its contribution to the historic character of the area.
Look particularly carefully at the need for signs, posts, guardrails, bollards
and road markings.
3. Relocate/merge functions
Make the remaining street features and equipment work together, maybe
putting multiple signs on poles, private boundary walls, railings or buildings
when possible or installing a furniture zone in preference to scattering
objects across the pavement width.
4. Re-think traffic management options
Consider how pedestrians, cars and cyclists use the area and rebalance
priorities. This might mean, for example, eliminating some traffic signals,
removing redundant carriageway width and providing more generous
pavements, creating indirect driving lines, or reverting to traditional two-
way roads where practical.
5. Re-create the street
Totally remodel the space creating a very different place. This type of
approach is likely to be appropriate in very carefully chosen locations. It
should be very well designed, with the aid of extensive consultation, and
carefully implemented with consideration to the effects on how the historic
environment contributes to the sense of place and to the needs of all
users. High quality materials and craftsmanship are essential.
images copyright of Transport for London
033
4.4_ Developing a Quality
Audit Process
4.4.6 The review might consider the following:
• A record of the geometry of the street, including
distances between buildings and widths of pavement.
4.4.1 Quality Audit (QA) was first described in general • A record of the materials that are in use. This may
terms in MfS1. QA is a process whereby a series of include:
discrete evaluations are collected and given due - Old granite kerbstones, which are very durable
consideration within the design process throughout the and often remain
life of a project. - Stone paving slabs
4.4.2 Quality Audit is recommended as integral to the
- Stone setts in the road (which may be covered
by a layer of black-top)
design process, from initial conceptual designs when a
vision for a scheme is developed and including criteria for
- Granite setts, for example marking the channel
or around cellar entrances
success, e.g. not just reducing collisions or congestion • Details of any street furniture that adds to a sense of
but also increasing footfall and use of places. For larger place including historic street signs and fingerposts,
schemes this will require a team approach whereby all milestones, traditional phone boxes and features such
those with an interest at some stage in the project, as horse troughs or drinking fountains. Some of these
including the general public and disability groups, are may be heritage assets of local or national significance,
brought together to identify and resolve competing as defined in Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5):
objectives. QA is appropriate for both large and small ‘Planning for the Historic Environment’27 . In Wales
schemes and for changes to existing streets. It could further advice design is contained in Technical Advice
become part of the Design and Access Statement Note 1228 . Locally specific information is available from
required for submission with a Planning Application. the relevant local authority’s Historic Environment
Record (HER) and from English Heritage regional
4.4.3 A number of local highway authorities and
offices and in Wales from Cadw.
consultants are already involved in QA processes, which
include a Road Safety Audit (RSA). More are involved in 4.4.7 Further information is available in English Heritage’s
undertaking road user audits in addition to RSA on some ‘Streets for All’29 publications.
schemes, (see Examples from Kent and Solihull).
4.4.8 A QA could comprise a number of discrete studies
4.4.4 It is recommended that local highway authorities set including:
down a process for implementing and documenting QA,
including procedures for resolution if various audits or • Road Safety Audit (RSA) possibly including a Risk
assessments are in conflict. Assessment
• Cycle Audit
4.4.5 The design process should start with an evaluation • Visual Quality Audit
of what is already there in the street, and how it operates. • Access Audit
Street character assessments, including reviews of • Walking Audit
existing adjacent streets, can help to inform decisions on • Cycle Audit
appropriate materials for new streets, and it may be • Non-Motorised User Audit
possible to draw from local designs in designing street • Community Street Audit
furniture. This is a useful way to assess whether items of • Placecheck
street furniture (such as signs, posts or bollards) are
redundant and can be removed. This approach will be 4.4.9 Other issues that may need to be considered in the
particularly important in conservation areas, national QA process include parking, servicing, public transport,
parks, World Heritage sites and other environmentally impact on utilities, trees and planting, drainage etc.
sensitive areas. Hampshire County Council has adopted a
‘Companion Document to Manual for Streets’26 which 4.4.10 The various audit reports should be brought
sets out its approach to street characterisation in a wide together in order to identify any conflicts that may arise,
variety of settings. with a view to seeking a balanced response.
4.4.11 The following examples show how two authorities,
Kent and Solihull, have approached Quality Audits.

Kent Design Guide Quality Audits bring together the various assessments of
public realm. The Development Team, and not individual
“The Quality Audit is carried out by the Development Team.
professionals, decides on the balance to be struck between
This team is assembled by the Local Planning Authority and
the outcomes. As such, Road Safety Audits have no
is made up of all relevant professionals. Its purpose is to
superior status. Many Development Planning Engineers
work with the developer’s Project Team to achieve a high
have been making value judgements on attractiveness,
quality development that is attractive, functional and safe.
functionality and safety for years. Increasingly, their role will
Within the Development Team there will normally be at least
be one of ‘placemakers’, hence they will become adept at
one Development Planning Engineer representing Kent
interpreting Road Safety Audits and understanding the risks
Highway Services. All development proposals which involve
to which the findings direct the Project Team’s attention.
the creation of new streets (as part of the public realm)
They will also develop the skills necessary to contribute
should be subject to a Quality Audit, albeit the team size
positively and creatively to the placemaking agenda, not
and detailed approach should reflect the scale of the
restricting themselves to the application of standards.
proposal.
The Local Planning Authority’s Case Officer will keep a
Development Planning Engineers are primarily responsible
record of the Quality Audit inputs and decisions. This will
for assessing the public realm for functionality and safety,
be sufficient to deal with enquiries in the very unlikely
and for making the highway authority’s recommendation to
event of an incident being attributed to the design of the
the Local Planning Authority. The recommendation should
public realm. A copy of the Quality Audit should be kept
be discussed with the Development Team before it is
on the planning file(s) and any subsequent adoption
formalised. Road Safety Audits will normally figure in the
agreement file.”30
assessment, but they will not direct it.
Quali ty A udit Process: St Mild red’s Tannery street layout and then invited highway maintenance
Canterbury, Kent experts to comment upon proposals for street
materials.
St Mildred’s Tannery was the last major site in the
historic city centre of Canterbury to become available Certain materials were rejected because they were
for redevelopment. Since the 1980s, development considered to be unsuitable, but alternatives
plan allocations had moved from multi-storey car appropriate for this important part of the city centre
park, coach park, major hotel and supermarket to conservation area were suggested and accepted.
mainly residential with a limited amount of commercial
Parking provision, at well below one space per unit,
floorspace. The latter element was eventually
was agreed as being in line with established and
identified as a small retail centre and a small hotel.
emerging policies and guidance, and the site was
The site had ground contamination problems, lies in a considered to pass all relevant tests for travel
flood risk area and had, for centuries, been sustainability and transport impact. No major highway
inaccessible to the public. Redevelopment offered the infrastructure improvements were required, but an
opportunity to open up important riverside and other important addition to the riverside walking and cycling
pedestrian and cycle routes in the area, as well as route will be delivered.
create a lively new ‘quarter’ of the city.
Over 400 units of residential accommodation are
A Development Brief, prepared by a City Council being built, along with the small retail centre and
multidisciplinary team, was subject to wide small hotel.
consultation and member approval. The Brief not only
Qualit y A ud it A ctions
established the principles of development, including
listed building retention, scale and massing, • Development Team approach established for
permeability and street forms, but it also established Development Brief preparation and carried through
the Development Team principle for the assessment to consideration of detailed proposals by the
of detailed schemes. Design Team.
• Additional expertise called upon at appropriate
Two detailed proposals, both of which were worked stages of assessment.
on by the Development Team in partnership with the • Ongoing involvement of Development Team during
developer’s Design Team, were rejected by the City construction, including visits by Planning
Council’s Planning Committee. The third scheme was Committee members.
deemed to be in accordance with the Development • Continuing liaison with Project Manager and
Brief. Long before the third proposal reached the Agreement Engineers, until development is
Committee stage, the Development Team agreed the completed.
035
Case Study : Quality Audit Proce ss Adopted by Representatives of the Design Team presented the
S olihull scheme and answered questions. Council officers
from planning, transport and highways also took part.
As part of regeneration in North Solihull a new village
The original intention was that a series of questions
centre, North Arran Way is being built with a high
would be worked through to identify any issues and
street designed around guidance in Manual for
conflicts. However, the user groups were so
Streets.
forthcoming that no questions were needed to
In conjunction with its development partner, In- facilitate discussion. Many safety issues were raised
Partnership, Solihull MBC has developed a Quality and discussed, in particular the challenges of the
Audit process which has review meetings at four proposed shared space for visually impaired users.
stages of the design process to consider whether the Many solutions were also offered to the Design Team.
emerging design is meeting the objectives of the Structured notes of the meeting were taken and
street. The review stages are: circulated to the Design Team and the officers from
the Council.
• Outline design (pre-planning) – (user and
professional audit); The outline stage professional audit review meeting
• Detailed design – (professional audit only); took place a week after the user audit. The Design
• Completion of construction - (professional audit Team again presented the scheme, this time to
only); and council officers who included: highway safety,
• After opening - (user and professional audit). transport planning, landscape, environmental
maintenance, street lighting, cycling and planning.
The objectives for the street identified the need for:
In addition to the Design Team and council officers,
• A high quality public realm that people want to be
two independent reviewers were invited to act as
in, is enjoyable to be in and encourages social
‘independent challengers’. A Road Safety Auditor
interaction;
who had not been involved in the design was invited
• The street to be acceptably safe from a highway and also the ‘Design Champion’ for North Solihull.
and community point of view; and
Their role was to challenge the design for their areas
• The street to be functional, so the needs of all
users must be considered and catered for as far of interest i.e. highway safety and public realm quality.
as possible. The Design Team and council officers then agreed a
The first stage of the quality audit was carried out at response to each point raised. It had been agreed
outline design stage before the planning application prior to the meeting that if necessary a risk
was submitted. Two review meetings were arranged. assessment approach would be used to help resolve
The first meeting was with invited representatives any areas of tension, but the need for this did not
from user groups. The user audit was held close to arise.
the development site and representatives from the The results of the user audit were worked through in
following groups invited: visually impaired, mobility addition to comments raised by council officers and
impaired, other disabled users groups, school issues raised by the ‘independent challengers’. The
children, local people including the elderly, discussion and agreed decisions were minuted and
pedestrians and cyclists and potential high-street action points for the detailed design agreed.
shopkeepers, Solihull cycle campaign, the public
Further professional audits are planned at the detailed
transport operator, drivers of delivery vehicles, and
design stage and on the completion of construction.
the emergency services.
These audits will also include the ‘independent
challengers’ looking particularly at highway safety and
public realm quality.
A final user audit will then be carried out when the
scheme is completed and opened.

Figure 4.2 - Example Quality Audit Process (Source: Solihull MBC)31
4.5_ Road Safety Audit 'There can also be a tendency for auditors to encourage
designs that achieve safety by segregating vulnerable
Safety Audit and Risk Assessment

road users from road traffic. Such designs can perform
poorly in terms of streetscape quality, pedestrian amenity
4.5.1 The aim of Road Safety Audit (RSA) is to check that and security and, in some circumstances, can actually
the design has adequately addressed all safety issues in reduce safety levels.' MfS 3.7.11
order to minimise the number and severity of situations in 4.5.4 Such situations may have arisen where an individual
which road users are injured whilst using the public auditor had not kept up to date with latest thinking and
highway. This task is undertaken by experienced road research on road safety, or where the scheme objectives
safety practitioners who examine new schemes and have not been fully appreciated by the audit team. Safety
highway improvements during the design and auditors with an understanding of the latest safety
construction stages (IHT RSA Guidelines, 2008)32 . research and knowledge of innovations in road and street
4.5.2 The RSA process involves the preparation of an design can perform an especially valuable role. Many
audit brief and commissioning of an independent audit client organisations now require that safety auditors keep
team to carry out the audit. The designer responds to the up to date by attending appropriate training courses and
audit recommendations, and the client determines seminars.
whether to undertake the audit recommendations in the 4.5.5 Where an RSA is undertaken on highways that fall
light of the design response. As noted in MfS1, there is no under the scope of MfS, the audit team should have a
sense in which a scheme ‘passes’ or ‘fails’ the RSA sound understanding of the scheme objectives, design
process. principles and research involved. It is important that in the
4.5.3 Road safety auditing began around thirty years ago interests of the development of highway engineering that
as a means of feeding back cutting edge knowledge on they play the role that was first envisaged, bringing an up-
road safety into main stream highway design. Some 25 to-date understanding of safety into mainstream highway
years later, MfS1 contained qualifications regarding some engineering and public realm practice.
037
more recent activity:
4.5.6 The RSA procedures set out in DMRB33 are a formal 4.6_ Maintenance Issues
requirement for trunk roads. Whilst RSA have never been
mandatory on local roads, many local authorities have 4.6.1 Maintenance should play a major part of the design
adopted the process. The 2008 IHT (now CIHT) process as ongoing maintenance costs can be an
Guidelines32 advise that local highway authorities should important influence on the quality of a public realm
undertake RSA, but set out a more flexible approach than scheme. Whole life costs are sometimes only considered
that prescribed for trunk roads. at the later stages of the design process, which should
not be the case. Early consideration of maintenance
4.5.7 In order to mesh with the balanced decision issues during the design process will help to ensure a
approach of Quality Audits, it is helpful if the RSA contains maintainable scheme is being delivered.
measured statements where the risk is assessed. The IHT
RSA Guidelines contain helpful guidance on Risk 4.6.2 There is a major opportunity to improve streets
Assessment. when authorities carry out routine maintenance. Carrying
out minor street improvements at the same time as
4.5.8 Where appropriate, local highway authorities should maintenance can reduce overall costs. The process of
consider asking for a Risk Assessment of issues raised in using ongoing maintenance for minor improvement is
an RSA. included in the ‘tidy up’ and ‘declutter’ steps in the Mayor
4.5.9 The recommendations should be reviewed by the of London’s 'Better Streets Strategy'25 .
designer against the overall scheme objectives. This 4.6.3 The London Borough of Hounslow34 has developed
designer can then prepare a short Design Review Report, a method to determine minimum asset provision and
which evaluates how each recommendation of the audit levels of service and condition on a very diverse highway
balances in relation to other scheme objectives (liveability, network using a location’s Link and Place functions; see
sustainability, etc), and states what course of action will Example overleaf.
be taken for the overall benefit of the public.
4.5.10 The 2008 IHT RSA guidance on Risk Assessment
includes an example of the matrix below.
Frequency of collision
More than One every 1-4 One every 5- Less than one
one per year years 10 years per 10 years
Fatal Very high High High Medium
Severity
Serious High High Medium Medium

Slight High Medium Medium Low
Damage Medium Medium Low Low
Table 4.1: Risk Assessment Matrix from IHT RSA Guidelines
4.5.11 The road safety auditor should be able to provide

some assessment of the risk, and the reasoning why a
recommendation is made. This approach gives the
designer a clear indication of the importance of particular
issues and problems raised and an audit trail.

Using St reet Func tion to De termine Ma intenance of guidelines. For example, a section with two or
Requirements three bus routes would have a minimum Link value of
3, and the presence of a primary school would result
The London Borough of Hounslow is putting into
in that section having a minimum Place value of D.
place, supported by an award of £267m of PFI
credits from the Department for Transport, a project These values are used to determine:
for the upgrade and maintenance of its highway
infrastructure assets over a 25 year period, starting
• The minimum condition at which maintenance is
required to maintain required levels of service on a
in 2013. section of carriageway or footway
The Council, supported by Mouchel and Professor • The standard to which the carriageway or footway
Peter Jones of UCL, has developed an objective and should be maintained, or reconstructed
consistent basis for determining minimum asset • Whether a below-standard street section is eligible
provision and appropriate levels of service and for a wider boundary-to-boundary treatment
condition on each part of a very diverse highway scheme (a so-called Whole Street Environment
network. It has done this by codifying the use made scheme) and
of each part of the network, in terms of its Link and
• The level of financial deduction – and by
implication the degree of incentive – that is applied
Place functions. The assigned Link and Place status
when the PFI contractor fails to meet contractual
determines the maintenance and serviceability
requirements on a particular length of street
requirements for a section of street, with Link carrying
most weight for carriageways and the Place for
The Council has developed a new Streetscene
footways.
Design Guide*, which sets out these and other
The street network in the Borough consists of around principles that should be used by all bodies involved
400km of carriageway and 700km of footway; this in the planning, design, construction and
has been divided into around 2,000 street sections maintenance of Hounslow’s roads and streets.
for highway maintenance purposes. Each section has * Hounslow Street Design Guide, Streetcare Services,
been assigned a Link value and a Place value, on a London Borough of Hounslow, Currently in draft
scale from 1/A (high) to 5/E (low), based on a series
4.6.4 During the design process the maintenance issues

related to the following street elements and issues need
to be considered:
• Street Furniture including signs and lighting;
• Footways;
• Vehicle overrun areas;
• On-street loading and parking bays;
• Carriageways;
• Street Cleansing - Chewing Gum / Staining;
• Vandalism;
• Security;
• Stock Pile/Storage of materials; and
• Finishings.
Bespoke street furniture
039
The photographs above show examples of how a
scheme has failed as a result of poor design and
construction. In the left hand case the restraining edge to
the natural stone sets has failed under vehicle loading
thus resulting in failure to the paved area. The right hand
case is a further example of failure due to loading.
Damage to concrete paviours due to scraping off chewing gum

and visual impact of chewing gum on footways

Section B
Detailed Design Issues

Section B of MfS2 provides guidance on geometric and other parameters for new and improved
highways. 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.
This section is divided into chapters by area of the highway (carriageway, footway etc) and by
design elements (junctions, street furniture etc).
However, 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. The best
highway designs respect their surroundings - the buildings, open space and pedestrian/cycle
routes that pass through an area.

5_ Pedestrian Needs and Footways
5_ Pedestrian Needs and Footways
5.1_ Pedestrian Needs of the type discussed in Chapter 2, which do not perform
well in place terms. Moreover, drivers tend to react to the
5.1.1 Advice on meeting pedestrians’ needs, including the absence of pedestrians by travelling faster, to the
geometric design of footpaths and footways is given in detriment of road safety.
Chapter 6 of MfS1, and that advice applies to all
highways that fall within the scope of this document.
Further guidance on planning and designing for
pedestrians is given in the DfT’s ‘Inclusive Mobility’35 and
the IHT document ‘Guidelines for Providing for Journeys
on Foot’36 , further guidance in Wales is contained in
Technical Advice Note 18 Transport37 .
5.1.2 Encouraging walking has many benefits, including
reductions in vehicle emissions and traffic collisions, and
improvements in personal health.
5.1.3 In summary, MfS1 advises that
• The propensity to walk is influenced not only by
distance, but also by the quality of the walking
experience.
• Good sightlines and visibility towards destinations and
intermediate points are important for way-finding and
personal security.
• Pedestrian routes need to be direct and match desire
lines as closely as possible, including across junctions,
unless site-specific reasons preclude it.
• Pedestrian networks need to be connected. Where
routes are separated by heavily-trafficked routes,
appropriate surface-level crossings should be provided
where practicable.
• Pedestrians should generally be accommodated on
multifunctional streets rather than on routes
segregated from motor traffic. In situations where it is Modern urban highways without footways
appropriate to provide traffic-free routes they should be
short, well-overlooked and relatively wide.
• Obstructions on the footway should be minimised. 5.2.2 Where pedestrians are likely to be present in
Street furniture on footways can be a hazard for significant numbers footways should normally be provided
vulnerable people. along both sides of highways, particularly in urban areas.
• There is no maximum width for footways; widths However, streets without conventional footways may be
should take account of pedestrian volumes and appropriate where traffic speeds are low and the area
composition. operates on ‘shared space’ principles such as in town or
village centres (see Chapter 2).
5.1.4 These principles are important throughout urban
5.2.3 In town centres and other places where there are
areas, and are not confined to lightly-trafficked situations.
high numbers of pedestrians, footways should be of
Indeed, meeting pedestrians’ needs where traffic volumes
sufficient width to cater for peak demand without causing
are higher is vital if this most sustainable mode of
crowding and the risk that people will be pushed into the
transport is to be encouraged.
carriageway. In some cases, this will mean that space
5.1.5 This chapter provides key advice on the provision needs to be taken from the carriageway in order to create
and design of footways; Chapter 9 deals with crossings a better balanced street. It may be possible to achieve
and pedestrians’ needs at junctions, and Chapter 12 this without causing a significant reduction in vehicular
covers street furniture, including guardrail. capacity by reducing the width of traffic lanes, as set out
5.2_ Footway Provision

in Chapter 8. It may also be possible to remove lanes
without affecting capacity or safety e.g. lightly-used
turning lanes.
5.2.1 There are many examples of routes in urban areas
that were built without footways where pedestrians still do 5.2.4 Additional footway capacity can also be gained by
walk, despite the lack of any formal provision. Many of removing and/or rationalising street furniture, including
these routes were built as modern ring roads/relief roads guardrail - see Chapter 12.
043
5.2.5 Evidence from the Newland Avenue Mixed Priority The gradient of pedestrian routes should ideally be no
Routes (MPR) project (see Example) indicates that more than 5%, although topography or other
providing more generous and better quality facilities for circumstances may make this difficult to achieve.
pedestrians can lead to large increases in walking. However, as a general rule, 8% should generally be
considered as a maximum, which is the limit for most
wheelchair users, as advised in Inclusive Mobility35 .
The Newland Avenue MPR Project created much more At a pinch point under a narrow railway bridge, the
space for pedestrians by narrowing the carriageway to footway was widened from 1.1m to 1.6m, and the flow
between 6 and 6.5m and removing guardrail. See LTN of pedestrians increased by around 1,700 per day, an
3/081 for further information. increase of 59%.
Footways widened significantly by narrowing carriageway
A marginal widening of footway led to a large increase in pedestrian flow.

6_ Cycle Facilities
6_ Cycle Facilities
6.1_ Introduction 6.2.3 Guidance on when to provide cycle lanes and cycle
tracks is given in Table 1.3 of LTN 2/0838 , depending on
6.1.1 Advice on meeting cyclists’ needs is given in the volume, composition and speed of traffic. A high
Chapter 6 of MfS1, and that advice applies to all percentage of larger vehicles, including buses, will
highways that fall within the scope of this document. increase the desirability of cycle lanes (or alternatively
6.1.2 As with walking, encouraging cycling has many combined bus/cycle lanes).
benefits, including reductions in vehicle emissions and 6.2.4 Well-designed cycle lanes can benefit cyclists, but
traffic collisions, and improvements in personal health. poorly designed lanes can make conditions worse for
6.1.3 In summary, MfS1 advises that them. All cycle lanes should be of sufficient width as there
is evidence that vehicles are driven closer to cyclists when
• Cyclists should be accommodated on the carriageway. there is a cycle lane39 . Cycle lanes are more beneficial in
• Cyclists prefer direct, barrier-free routes that avoid the the uphill direction as the speed differential between
need for cyclists to dismount. Routes that take cyclists cyclists and vehicles tends to be larger, while cyclists may
away from their desire lines and require them to wander a little as their speed is reduced. A single uphill
concede priority to side-road traffic are less likely to be cycle lane of the recommended width is far preferable to
used. sub-standard cycle lanes in both directions.
• Off-carriageway cycle tracks that bring cyclists into
conflict with side road traffic can be more hazardous
than routes that stay on the main carriageway.
• Cyclists are sensitive to traffic conditions; high speeds
or high volumes of traffic tend to discourage cycling. If
traffic conditions are inappropriate for on-street cycling,
they should be addressed to make on-street cycling
satisfactory.
• Junctions should be designed to accommodate
cyclists’ needs. Over-generous corner radii that lead to
high traffic speed should be avoided.
6.1.4 This chapter provides key advice on the provision

and design of cycle facilities; Chapter 9 deals with
crossings and cyclists’ needs at junctions.
Generous cycle lanes, Scunthorpe. Note absence of central
6.2_ Cycle Lanes, Cycle Tracks

white line
and Markings 6.2.5 Cycle lanes should be 2 metres wide on busy

roads, or where traffic is travelling in excess of 40mph. A
6.2.1 Detailed guidance on the design of specific facilities
minimum width of 1.5m may be generally acceptable on
for cyclists is given in Local Transport Note 2/0838 , 'Cycle
roads with a 30mph limit. Cycle lanes less than 1.2m
Infrastructure Design' and its advice should be taken into
width are only recommended at lead-in lanes to advanced
account when highway schemes are being developed.
stop lines where there is insufficient width for wider lanes.
6.2.2 Generally the preferred design approach - to enable Cyclists will also benefit from bus lanes, when provided.
and encourage increased levels of cycling - is to create Where cycle lanes pass parking and loading bays
conditions on the carriageway so that cyclists are content sufficient margin should be provided to allow for doors
to use it, particularly in urban areas. This may require being opened.
reductions in the volume and/or speed of traffic and the
6.2.6 In some cases, providing the recommended width
reallocation of space away from traffic. Reductions in
of cycle lanes will mean that space needs to be taken
vehicular lane widths may make it possible to achieve this
from the carriageway. It may be possible to achieve this
without causing a significant reduction in vehicular
without causing a significant reduction in vehicular
capacity, as set out in Chapter 8. However the choice of
capacity by reducing the width of traffic lanes, as set out
lane width should carefully consider the ability of motor
in Chapter 8. In Cambridge, a scheme is being installed
vehicles to pass cyclists, if necessary. Narrow traffic lanes
on a busy radial route that reduces the number of traffic
will help to reduce traffic speed, which will in turn reduce
lanes to provide wide cycle lanes (See Example overleaf).
the need for motor vehicles to pass cyclists.
045
Hills Road Bridge is one of the busiest routes in Cambridge. Formerly a four lane dual carriageway, it caters for over
4,000 cyclists everyday, which often results in conflict for both cyclists and drivers. New 2.1m wide cycle lanes are
being installed on Hills Road Bridge, which will allow cyclists to proceed straight ahead safely with motor traffic as
the lane moves to the right at the top of the bridge. Cyclists turning left will be provided with a by-pass lane.
6.2.7 Many authorities have chosen to use blue, red, 6.2.9 Using the cycle symbol (diagram 1057), in
green or another coloured surfacing for cycle lanes, and conjunction with appropriate upright signs but without
this can make them more conspicuous, which is useful at marking a cycle lane is a way of making drivers more
critical locations such as where a cycle lane crosses a aware of the likelihood of encountering cyclists and
junction. However, coloured surfaces can be visually confirming to cyclists that they are on a designated route.
intrusive, particularly if used excessively, and may not Placing the symbol away from the kerb also encourages
always be justified. cyclists to take up a safer position in the carriageway and
reduces the likelihood of drivers passing too close and
6.2.8 Hybrid lanes are wide cycle lanes with some form of
forcing them towards the kerb. However, the cycle
physical demarcation, such as a cobbled strip, between
symbol and associated signs do have a visual impact and
the cycle lane and the carriageway. They offer a greater
add to street furniture and authorities should therefore use
feeling of protection which is important to less confident
this approach selectively.
cyclists. They are commonplace in the Netherlands and in
other countries but are presently rare in the UK. 6.2.10 Off-carriageway cycle tracks can have advantages,
but will generally need to be shared with pedestrians, who
may see them as a reduction in provision. They will
therefore be the least desired option, particularly in urban
areas. More information on the design of shared use
schemes is available in Local Transport Note 2/86
‘Shared Use by Cyclists and Pedestrians’40 . This Local
Transport Note is in the process of being updated and a
replacement document is expected to be published by
DfT in 2011.
6.2.11 Shared use footway/cycle tracks can be
segregated into pedestrian/cycle areas using a raised
white line or other measure, but these can be omitted on
unsegregated routes, reducing street clutter.
Hybrid cycle lane, Netherlands

6_ Cycle Facilities
6.3_ Cycle Parking

6.3.1 Convenient cycle parking should be provided at key
destinations - for example in local high streets - to
support journeys by bike. This may be on the footway but
there should be a clear route for pedestrians. As indicated
in Chapter 8, cycle parking can also be provided along
central reservations.
6.3.2 Public transport accessibility can also be greatly
increased by providing good quality cycle parking at key
bus and tram stops and at railway stations. Cyclists travel
around three times the speed of pedestrians and so the
cycle catchment of a stop is around ten times the
pedestrian catchment.
Secure, covered cycle parking - Newland Avenue MPR scheme
047
7_ Bus Facilities
7_ Bus Facilities
7.1_ Introduction 7.2.4 Providing bus lanes can increase the overall width of
the carriageway, which will reduce the space that can be
7.1.1 Buses carry more passengers than any other public given over to pedestrians, and make it more difficult for
transport mode, and are mainly routed along the more them to cross the street. A careful balance will need to be
heavily trafficked highways that are covered by this struck between the requirements of these different user
document. Providing good bus services, particularly in groups, taking account of local context.
urban areas, is fundamental to achieving more sustainable
patterns of movement that reduce people’s reliance on 7.2.5 In the case of the Walworth Road MPR scheme (see
the car. case study in Chapter 14), bus lanes were removed in
order to enable wider footways to be created, with bus
7.1.2 Advice on designing for public transport users and priority being achieved through bus advance facilities.
vehicles is given in Chapter 6 of MfS1, with particular
emphasis on bus-based transport, and the key points in 7.2.6 Bus advance areas with pre-signals enable buses to
the document are as follows: move to the head of vehicle platoons by controlling
general traffic with a separate signal, which buses can
• Bus routes and stops should form key elements within bypass.
walkable neighbourhoods. Bus services are most
viable when they follow direct and reasonably straight
routes, avoiding long one-way loops or long distances
without passenger catchments.
• Bus stops should be high-quality places that are safe
and comfortable to use and highly accessible by all
people, ideally from more than one route. Stops should
be provided close to specific passenger destinations
(schools, shops etc.).
• Carriageways on bus routes should not generally be
less than 6.0m wide, although this could be reduced
on short sections with good inter-visibility between
opposing flows. Chapter 8 provides more detailed
advice on carriageway widths.
• Buses can help to control the speed of cars at peak
times by preventing overtaking.
7.1.3 This chapter provides key advice on the provision

and design of bus facilities. Bus Advance Area, Walworth Road MPR scheme
7.2_ Bus Priority 7.2.7 Many authorities have chosen to use red or another
coloured surfacing for bus lanes and bus advance areas,
7.2.1 Bus priority systems are provided to increase the
and ‘Keeping Buses Moving’ advises that this can
overall speed, efficiency and reliability of bus services in
improve compliance, but it does add to visual impact and
congested conditions, and can be a highly effective way
so may not always be justified.
of improving the attractiveness of buses and increasing
7.3_ Bus Stops

their mode share. Guidance on the design of bus priority
systems is given in Local Transport Note 1/97, 'Keeping
Buses Moving'41 and in 'Bus Priority: The Way Ahead'42 ,
7.3.1 Guidance on the design of bus stops is given in LTN
published by DfT in 2005.
1/9741 , 'Keeping Buses Moving', and more detailed
7.2.2 Bus priority is most commonly achieved by advice is contained in the Transport for London document
providing with-flow bus lanes, and unless signed to the BP1/06 'Accessible Bus Stop Design Guidance'43 and in
contrary they can be used by cyclists. Where roads are DfT’s 'Inclusive Mobility'35 .
wide enough bus lanes should be 4.25m wide and the
7.3.2 The bus stop is a vital component of the public
minimum preferred width is 4m; this allows buses to
transport system. Stops that are fully accessible, which
overtake cyclists safely and reduces the likelihood of
feel safe and secure and provide good quality information
interference from general traffic in the adjacent lane. The
on services, are vital if patronage is to be increased. As
minimum recommended width is 3m.
noted above, providing cycle parking at key stops will
7.2.3 Bus lanes can also be provided in a contraflow greatly increase public transport accessibility.
direction on streets that are one-way for general traffic,
but their use can have road safety implications.
049
7.3.3 Well-designed bus stops should enable buses to
stop parallel to the kerb and with a kerb of sufficient
height (minimum 125mm, but higher kerbs may be
desirable) to allow access ramps to be deployed when
required.
7.3.4 Bus shelters are desirable at stops, and the chosen
design must also be able to accommodate the numbers
of pedestrians likely to wait for buses and any bus
information systems that are provided.
7.4_ Bus Laybys and Boarders

7.4.1 In the past, on busy routes, it was commonplace to
Reduced width bus boarder
place bus stops in laybys so that general traffic was able
to pass a bus at the stop, but laybys can create difficulties
for buses seeking to rejoin a traffic queue on the main
carriageway and can therefore make services slower and
less reliable. They also reduce footway width and make
conditions worse for pedestrians. Bus laybys should
therefore only be used where a stationary bus would
otherwise create a significant safety problem.
7.4.2 Conversely, bus boarders are used to enable buses
to stop within a traffic stream and move off without
difficulty. They are built out from the existing kerb line
where there are parked cars or other obstructions that
would prevent the bus from stopping parallel to the kerb,
so that people, particularly those with impaired mobility,
can get on and off the bus without difficulty. A full width
boarder projects a vehicle width into the carriageway - 2m
typically, and 2.6m where large vehicles are parked
nearby.
Full width bus boarder
7.4.3 Half-width or narrower bus boarders can also be

useful, however, where there is insufficient remaining
carriageway width for a full-width boarder to be installed
or where it is desirable to allow other traffic to overtake a
stationary bus.

8_ Carriageways
8_ Carriageways
8.1_ Introduction 8.2.6 The finding in MfS1 that the context through which
drivers pass does have an effect on their chosen speed is
8.1.1 The design of carriageways between junctions in thus explicit in TD9/9344 , which notes in Para 1.2 that
urban and rural areas is often based on TD9/9344 , ‘Speeds vary accordingly to the impression of constraint
'Highway Link Design', part of DMRB, but that document that the road alignment and layout impart to the driver’.
has been prepared for Trunk Roads and may not always
8.2.7 Whilst an appropriate design speed can be
be appropriate in other circumstances. As noted in
determined from the guidance above, designers should
Chapter 1 it is recommended that designers bear in mind
also consider the potential for reducing design speed
the key principles of MfS when applying DMRB.
locally, where it is appropriate that traffic should travel
8.1.2 This chapter provides designers with advice on how more slowly.
carriageway widths, alignments and cross-sectional
8.2.8 Such situations could include where a major route is
details can be designed in a way that better respects local
passing through the centre of a small town or village, or
context and the needs of users other than motor traffic.
where there is a site of significant ecological value within
8.2_ Design Speed

the corridor of a highway improvement and where a
reduction in design speed would allow a scheme of lower
8.2.1 The geometric design of carriageways is generally impact to be designed.
based on the notion of a design speed, which in the past 8.2.9 In urban areas, highway space is shared between
has tended to be fixed along a route, or a substantial motor traffic, pedestrians, cyclists and public transport,
section of a route. and keeping speeds low has been demonstrated to have
8.2.2 Design speeds in urban areas (or rural routes significant safety benefits. MfS1 and DMRB confirm that
subject to a local speed limit) have tended to be based on designing for higher speeds will create an environment
the advice contained in DMRB TD 9/9344 , which where drivers tend to travel faster. Instead, speeds should
determines design speed from the existing or proposed be designed down to an appropriate level.
local speed limit, but with some allowance for vehicles 8.2.10 Speed limits of 20mph are now becoming
travelling at higher speeds. In urban areas subject to a commonplace. Some authorities, such as Portsmouth,
30mph limit, a design speed of 60kph (37mph) has often have adopted a policy of setting signed-only 20mph limits
been used. across most residential areas, which have succeeded in
8.2.3 It is now considered inappropriate in areas subject reducing speeds and improving safety.
to a limit of 30mph, to adopt a design speed of more 8.2.11 Advice on setting local speed limits is provided by
than 30 mph unless existing speeds are significantly DfT and the devolved administrations. In 2009, DfT
above this level. consulted on a change to Circular 1/200646 aimed at
8.2.4 This is justified by the finding from the research encouraging highway authorities, over time, to introduce
contained in MfS1 that drivers tend to adopt higher 20mph zones or limits into:
speeds in response to more generous highway geometry • streets which are primarily residential in nature; and
and that, in recent years, the proportion of vehicles that • town or city streets where pedestrian and cyclist
exceed the speed limit in free flow conditions has been movements are high, such as around schools, shops,
dropping; in 2008 it was below 50%, down from 69% in markets, playgrounds and other areas where these are
1998. Average free flow speeds were 30mph in 30mph not part of any major through route.
limits; and 36mph in 40mph limits45 .
8.2.12 The Welsh Assembly Government published
8.2.5 In rural areas not subject to a local speed limit,
TD9/93 can be taken as a starting point for new routes, guidance on the setting of speed limits in 200947 which
which relates design speed to the: supports the use of 20mph speed limits and zones at
appropriate locations, including town centres, residential
• Alignment Constraint, based on the bendiness of the areas and in the vicinity of schools.
route (degrees per kilometre) and on single
carriageways, the harmonic mean visibility; and the
• Layout Constraint, which measures the degree of
constraint imparted by the road cross section, verge
width, and frequency of junctions and accesses.
051
8.2.13 However, even where a 20mph limit is not 8.3.5 Horizontal curves of four steps below desirable
appropriate, authorities may still choose to set the design minimum (TF9/9344 para 0.7) have a v2/R value of 56, and
speed for a section of a route to below 30mph. Measures therefore the minimum horizontal curves corresponding to
that will help to keep speeds low, particularly in urban this criterion are as follows:
areas, are set out in section 7.4.4 of MfS1, and include:
• Physical features Curve Radius, m
• Changes in priority 4 steps below TD 9/93
• Street dimensions, including width
Design Speed, kph Desirable Min
• Reduced forward visibility
• Psychology and perception - the following features 30 16
may be effective: 40 28
- Visual narrowing; 48 41
- Close proximity of buildings; 50 44
- Reduced carriageway width;
- Obstructions in the carriageway 60 64
- Pedestrian refuges and other features Table 8.1 - Minimum Recommended Curve Radii
associated with activity;
- On-street parking;
- Land uses associated with large numbers of 8.3.6 Superelevation in urban areas should be kept to a
people (e.g. shops); and minimum, since it is often difficult to achieve due to the
- Pedestrian activity. frequency of accesses and junctions and other
constraints. Excessive superelevation can also adversely
8.2.14 Guidance on the design of physical traffic calming affect the relationship between the carriageway and
measures is given in the IHT publication 'Traffic Calming frontage buildings and footways. When it is provided, a
Techniques' (2005)48 . maximum superelevation in urban areas of 5% is
8.3_ Horizontal Alignment

recommended (TD9/9344 para 3.2).
8.3.7 Where it is desirable to provide a horizontal curve
below the values recommended in Table 8.1 above, the
8.3.1 Parameters for horizontal curves are related to local
preferred solution will often be to reduce the speed of
design speed and radius and are dependent on the limit
traffic locally, rather than provide steep superelevation,
of sideways force in the bend that can be tolerated by the
which will tend to encourage higher speeds.
vehicle without skidding or overturning.
8.3.8 The presence of a sharp bend will itself lead to
8.3.2 Desirable minimum horizontal curves set out in
lower speeds. Research by TRL49 showed the following
TD9/9344 seek to limit the sideways force to very low
reductions in speed at bends (v = Approach Speed (kph),
levels, commensurate with high speed inter-urban roads,
R = Bend radius).
and therefore result in generous curve radii.
8.3.3 The adoption of gentle minimum curve radii for new
highways in urban areas can result in alignments that are Percentage Speed Reduction Due to Bend
inappropriate to the surrounding urban grain, sometimes v /R
2
From 50%ile speed From 85%ile speed
requiring the acquisition and demolition of existing 20 3.5 5
buildings and creating awkward plots of remaining land.
28 5 7
This could be avoided if sharper curves were used. The
Sky Blue Way example in Chapter 2 shows the damage 40 7 10
that can result when new highways are designed with 56 10 14
generous curvature and widths. 80 14 20
8.3.4 Tighter radii can be adopted; TD9/93 para 3.4
44
advises that horizontal curves of four steps below Table 8.2: Percentage Speed Reduction at Bends
8.4_ Carriageway Gradients

desirable minimum radii can be used, "inter alia", for
design speeds of 60kph and below. The relative
sharpness of curves is established by the formula v2/R, 8.4.1 A maximum longitudinal carriageway gradient of 6%
where v=design speed (kph) and R= radius (m). is desirable (TD9/9344 para 4.1), although a gradient of
5% is desirable where there are significant numbers of
pedestrians walking along the route.

8 Carriageways
8.4.2 In hilly areas steeper gradients will frequently be 8.6.4 MfS1 Figures 6.18 and 7.1 provide information on
required, but a gradient of 8% should be regarded as a the width requirements of different types of vehicle, and
practical maximum unless there are particular local these can be taken as a guide to minimum lane widths.
difficulties. This is also the maximum gradient that a These can be applied to links between and at junctions.
manual wheelchair user can negotiate (see guidance on 8.6.5 Thus for example, at a traffic signal stop line, where
footway gradients in Chapter 5).
HGVs and buses make up only a small proportion of
8.5_ Vertical Curvature

traffic flow, 2 - 2.5m wide lanes would be sufficient for
most vehicles, and would reduce overall carriageway
width requirements, making it much easier for pedestrians
8.5.1 Minimum length requirements for vertical curves are
to cross the carriageway. Lanes wider than 3m are not
normally assessed based on two criteria - the comfort of
necessary in most urban areas carrying mixed traffic.
vehicle occupants and the need to maintain forward
visibility. 8.6.6 Carriageway and lane widths do not have to be
constant. Varying the width through non-parallel kerb lines
8.5.2 For design speeds of 50kph and below, where it
or other physical limits can create interest, provide
can be expected that drivers will reduce speed in
informal parking opportunities at widenings and traffic
response to changes of alignment, forward visibility to
speed reduction at narrowings. The needs of cyclists at
achieve minimum Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) should
narrowings should be considered in detail.
be used as the basis of design, but as with forward
visibility around horizontal curves, there will be locations 8.6.7 The needs of cyclists using the carriageway should
where it is appropriate to restrict forward visibility in order be expressly considered when lane widths are being
to help reduce traffic speeds. determined. Cyclists should wherever possible be
accommodated on carriageway without special provision,
8.5.3 For design speeds of 50kph and above, designers
based on the recommendations of LTN 2/08, 'Cycle
should follow the guidance contained in TD 9/9344 .
Infrastructure Design'38 .
8.6_ Carriageway and

Lane Widths
8.6.8 The ideal minimum widths required for vehicles to
overtake cyclists in comfort given in LTN 2/0838 are:
• Car passing at 20mph - 3.8m
8.6.1 UK practice has generally adopted a standard lane • Car passing at 30mph - 4.3m
width of 3.65m (12 feet) but this should not be taken as a • Bus/HGV passing at 20mph - 4.6m
preferred value in all circumstances. This can be an • Bus/HGV passing at 30mph - 5.05m
unsatisfactory lane width for cyclists, as there is
insufficient room for drivers to pass them comfortably. 8.6.9 These are not necessarily lane widths, however. If
8.6.2 Narrower lanes will be appropriate in many traffic flows are generally light enough for vehicles to pass
circumstances, particularly in built up areas, resulting in cyclists fairly readily by moving at least partly into the
carriageways that are easier for pedestrians to cross and opposite lane then the overall carriageway width will be
encouraging low traffic speeds without causing a available. Lane widths of 3m or less will make it less likely
significant loss of traffic capacity. The needs of cyclists will that drivers will try to squeeze past cyclists without pulling
need to be expressly considered however, as discussed around them.
below. 8.6.10 Providing a central median that can be overrun is
8.6.3 Lane widths should be determined based on the one way of allowing motor vehicles to pass cyclists
following local consideration: comfortably without using excessively wide lanes - see
Broad Street, Birmingham and Leamington Spa examples
• the volume and composition of vehicular traffic; overleaf.
• pedestrian and cyclists’ needs;
• the demarcation, if any, between carriageway and 8.6.11 If traffic speeds are higher and motor vehicles are
footway (e.g. kerb, street furniture or trees and planting); not able to move into the opposite lane to pass cyclists
• whether parking is to take place in the carriageway and, with comfort, then cycle lanes may be justified so that
if so, its distribution, arrangement, the turnover of excessive lane widths are not provided, which would
spaces, and the likely level of parking enforcement otherwise encourage higher speeds. Where there is more
(if any); than one lane in either direction, some authorities have
• the design speed; divided the carriageway into unequal lanes, giving more
• the curvature of the street (bends require greater width space on the nearside lane to assist cyclists.
to accommodate the swept path of larger vehicles); and
• any intention to include one-way streets, or short
stretches of single lane working in two-way streets.
053
8.6.12 Lane and carriageway widening requirements for
horizontal curves should be assessed using tracking
software. The criteria to be adopted should be based on
traffic flows and composition. For example, where HGV
and/or bus flows are low, it may not be necessary to
design carriageways to cater for two large vehicles
meeting at a bend, as long as there is sufficient inter-
visibility for one driver to stop and wait. The use of
overrun areas can be considered - see MfS1 7.11 for
further guidance on their use.
8.7_ Refuges, Medians and

Central Reservations This informal median on Broad Street, Birmingham has operated
8.7.1 Central medians/reservations and refuges are useful successfully for many years
features in urban areas to enable pedestrians and cyclists
to cross carriageways in two stages, whether as part of a 8.7.4 Formal central reservations, provided on dual
designated crossing of any type (see Chapter 9), on the carriageway links, can be planted or paved depending on
approach to a junction, or along a highway link. These local context and requirements, including the need for
features can also have a dramatic effect on the character pedestrians to cross the carriageway and the local
of a highway, and can therefore significantly enhance the landscape character.
sense of place.
8.7.2 The minimum width of central reservations/medians
and refuges should be based on the users anticipated35 :
• 1.2m - to accommodate pedestrians only, with no
street furniture on the median/island
• 1.5m - desirable width to accommodate wheelchair
users
• 2.0m - minimum width to accommodate allow
wheelchair users to pass one another. This is also the
minimum width for cyclists (LTN 2/08 para 10.2.738 ).
Mature trees in central reservation, Bristol Road, Birmingham.

Here the central reservation is of little benefit to pedestrians
crossing the route, but the width of the reservation and the
mature trees are attractive and make up a vital part of the street’s
character.
8.7.5 In urban areas, central reservations should be left

unfenced so that pedestrians can cross at any point,
unless there is clear safety case for not doing so.
These simple pedestrian refuges were provided on The Parade,

Leamington Spa MPR project. Note the absence of keep left
bollards, but also the intrusive road markings.
8.7.3 Narrower medians that can be over-run have also

proved useful in some schemes, by giving pedestrians a
space to wait in the centre of the carriageway which can
also be used by vehicles when they need to pass cyclists
or other vehicles. Such medians also allow emergency
vehicles to cross over into the opposing lane when
necessary.

8_ Carriageways
Upper Parliament Street, Nottingham – Unfenced Central Cycle parking on central reservation, Kensington High Street.
Reservation Generous spacing between the cycle racks enables pedestrians
to cross between the parked cycles.
8.8_ Kerbs
8.7.6 If it is of sufficient size, the central reservation can
be a place for useful activity. O’Connell Street in Dublin
has this form, which is also found at Las Ramblas,
Barcelona. 8.8.1 Historically kerbs were primarily installed to form an
8.7.7 There are few examples of this type of street in the edge to the drainage channel and provide a clean walking
UK, but The Broadway in Letchworth shares some of the route in urban areas, but have now come to represent a
characteristics, although the continuous fencing on both recognisable divider between the carriageway and the
sides has reduced the value of the central space as an footway. In rural areas they are mainly used to form an
accessible and active place. edge restraint and drainage feature, but there are many
rural roads and streets where there is no kerb and
separate footway.
8.8.2 In urban areas, half-batter kerbs with a standard
height of 125mm are often used, but lower kerb heights
are easier for pedestrians to negotiate, particularly people
with impaired mobility, and can help to reduce vehicle
dominance by reducing the degree of segregation.
8.8.3 Higher kerbs are appropriate at bus stops to allow
level access into vehicles - see Chapter 7 for further
guidance on bus stop design.
O'Connell Street, Dublin
8.7.8 On Kensington High Street, the central reservation

has been used for cycle parking. This is a practical use of
the space, which also sends a clear signal to drivers that
this is a street that cyclists are encouraged to use.
Kerb heights of between 75mm and zero (at informal crossings)

were used with streetscape improvements in the centre of
Nottingham.
055
8.8.4 Low kerb heights may mean that closer gully
spacings are required to avoid rainwater run-off from
affecting footways during heavy storms.
8.8.5 Kerbs are often omitted in shared space schemes in
order to reduce the separate definition of areas for
pedestrians and vehicles and to indicate that the street is
meant to be shared equally by all users of the highway.
However more subtle delineators such as old granite
kerbstones could be used, in a remodelled paving
scheme in order to retain historic kerb lines and local
character. Further guidance on the use of shared space
techniques is given in Chapter 2.
8.8.6 ‘Trief’ kerbs are designed to deter vehicles from
mounting the kerb where high containment is thought to
be necessary, but they are more visually intrusive than
normal kerbs, are difficult for pedestrians to cross, and
have been known to cause small vehicles to overturn.
They should therefore not be used without these adverse
effects being considered.

9_ Junctions, Crossings and Accesses
9.1_ Introduction 9.1.7 Well-designed crossings are of vital importance to

the ability of pedestrians and/or cyclists to move around
9.1.1 Junctions are critical places in a number of ways. In easily and safely.
traffic terms, they are a potential source of delay and
9.1.8 Crossings that involve grade separation - subways
where most collisions tend to occur. They are often seen
and bridges - are undesirable and should only be used
as a problem in these terms, and highway designers tend
where essential due to traffic speeds and volumes. Grade
to minimise the number of junctions in a network. When
separated crossings are much less convenient and
junctions are provided or modified, particularly on busier
therefore less likely to be used, particularly subways
highways, they tend to be designed with the principal aim
which create significant personal security concerns.
of accommodating peak hour traffic flows.
These types of crossing are much more costly and
9.1.2 In place terms, conversely, junctions can be seen as elevated structures, with their lengthy approach ramps,
an opportunity. By definition they are accessible places cause a high degree of visual intrusion.
from several directions, and so tend to be a good location
9.1.9 Where underpasses and bridges are used, they
for buildings that attract significant numbers of people,
should be as short, wide and direct as possible to
such as shops and public buildings. Junctions are also
improve users’ perception of security and make the
the most natural way for people to find their way around
routes more legible.
an area, whether on foot or in a vehicle, and so are a
good place for landmark buildings and other distinctive 9.1.10 The former subway at Maid Marian Way,
features, such as public art. Nottingham, was unwelcoming and felt dangerous. When
the subway was replaced by an at-grade crossing, the
9.1.3 It is critical therefore to achieve a good balance of
number of pedestrians increased significantly (see Case
place and movement functions at junctions, particularly in
Study Chapter 14).
urban areas.
9.1.11 More generally, grade separated junctions and
9.1.4 As noted in MfS1 section 7.3, there is considerable
links, particularly in urban areas, are rarely successful in
flexibility over the form of junctions, which can add to their
placemaking terms. The carriageways have no
distinctiveness, so that they function as significant places
connection with their surroundings and are highly
in their own right.
inflexible and costly to change. Elevated structures create
unwelcoming environments at ground level, both beneath
and adjacent to the route.
A wide range of junction layouts is possible
9.1.5 In the past, concerns over capacity and safety have

tended to overshadow any concerns about placemaking,
and as a result many urban junctions are unattractive and
difficult to negotiate, particularly on foot and cycle.
Excessive use of guardrailing is a particular problem and
further guidance on how to minimise it is given in
Chapter 12.
9.1.6 Because junctions are a natural focus for all modes
of travel, wherever possible they should include
convenient and direct crossing facilities for pedestrians,
desirably across all arms.
057
Nechells Parkway, Birmingham - Despite this pedestrian subway being close by, and the absence of a formal surface crossing, many
people choose to walk across the central reservation to reach the bus stops.
9.1.12 The choice of junction and crossing type at a 9.2.2 The need for and provision of junctions on new
particular location should be made after considering all of its highways, and additional junctions on existing routes,
functional requirements - including both movement and should be assessed in the round, considering a wide range
place functions - and not just capacity and road safety. of factors such as the need for access at particular
Every type of junction has its advantages and locations, the impact on the size of development blocks, the
disadvantages, and the effect of alternative options should potential for interaction between adjacent junctions and the
be considered. consequent effect on user delay and road safety.
9.3_ Crossings
9.1.13 A Quality Audit approach (see Chapter 4) can be
used to assess alternative junction types and layouts, so
that the best balance of outcomes is achieved, taking into
9.3.1 General advice on the choice of crossing type and
account the objectives of the scheme.
their design is given in Local Transport Notes 1/9550 and
9.2_ Spacing of Junctions

2/9551 and in Chapter 6 of MfS1, which is complemented
by the further advice in this section. While the focus is on
pedestrian crossings the recommendations can also be
9.2.1 In the past, guidance on minimum junction spacing
applied in most instances to crossings designed for cyclists
has often been based on recommended stopping sight
(other than zebra crossings). Crossings should be provided
distances (SSD) for 85th percentile speeds. The reductions
with appropriate tactile paving. The legal requirements for
in SSD compared to previous practice means that junction
crossings are given in the Crossing Regulations52.
spacing criteria determined on this basis should be
reduced. However, in any event there appears to be little 9.3.2 Crossings should be located on or close to desire
evidence that spacing criteria based on SSD are justified on lines so that pedestrians find them convenient and pleasant
safety or other grounds. to use. Placing crossings away from desire lines will reduce
their level of use, even when guardrailing or other deterrent
features are used.
Stoke Newington - new zebra crossings and new routes through park, linking directly to one another.

9.3.3 The simplest form of uncontrolled or informal 9.3.8 Zebra crossings also typically result in lower delays
crossing involves the provision of dropped or flush kerbs to traffic flow, except when pedestrian flows are heavy.
so that mobility-impaired people can cross to and from They are more immediately visible to drivers than
the carriageway. A refuge in the centre of the carriageway signalised crossings and can be located closer to
enables pedestrians to negotiate one stream of traffic at a junctions, which can help to put crossings on desire lines.
time, which can be of considerable help when flows are
high. Combining a refuge with a kerb build out, so that
the carriageway is narrowed, will provide additional
assistance to pedestrians. Further guidance on the design
of refuges is given in Chapter 8.
9.3.4 Informal crossings can also indicate clearly to
drivers where pedestrians are encouraged - and are
therefore likely - to be crossing. Designs can make use of
contrasting paving materials, street furniture and changes
in carriageway width and level to emphasise pedestrian
movement. When done well, in a slow speed traffic
environment, they will often encourage drivers to give
informal priority to pedestrians.
Zebra crossing located close to road junction.
9.3.9 Zebra crossings are generally only used when the

speed limit is 30mph or below, as at higher speeds it may
be more difficult for pedestrians to establish precedence.
9.3.10 There are four types of stand-alone signalised
crossings - Pelican, Puffin, Toucan and Equestrian
crossings, which are described in LTN 2/9551 . Traffic
signal junctions can also incorporate signalised crossings.
9.3.11 Signalised crossings can cause additional delay
compared to zebras and informal crossings, due to the
lost time caused by intergreen periods etc. Linking
Shrewsbury High Street – ‘courtesy’ crossings are paved in the signalised crossings to upstream signalised crossings can
same material as the footways and line up with pedestrian routes bring traffic benefits but this can lead to long delays for
on either side. See Traffic Advisory Leaflet 8/98103 . pedestrians.
9.3.12 Signalised crossings need to be used when
9.3.5 Informal crossings require no signs or markings and
controlled facilities for mounted cyclists and equestrians
therefore do not add to visual clutter. They can be
are required, as these groups are not authorised to use
generous in width (to pedestrians) so that the crossing
zebra crossings. Older people and people with a visual
becomes a strong element within the street scene.
impairment may express a preference for signalised
9.3.6 Replacing controlled crossings (ie zebra and crossings as they provide greater certainty when crossing.
signalised) with informal crossings can reduce delays to
9.3.13 All types of crossing can be provided on a raised
traffic. In the Newland Avenue MPR scheme all signal-
surface, so that pedestrians cross between footways on a
controlled crossings were removed, which resulted in
level surface. This slows traffic on the approach to the
reduced vehicle travel times as well as a reduction in
crossing, makes pedestrians more visible and
maximum vehicle speed. Road safety and vehicle
emphasises their presence in the street, making it more
emissions were also improved significantly - details are
likely that drivers will see them and cede priority.
given in LTN 3/081.
9.3.7 Zebra crossings offer the greatest advantage to
pedestrians as they give them priority over all other traffic.
In some authorities there has been a move away from
providing zebra crossings towards signalised crossings,
on the basis that they represent an ‘upgrade’ but this is
not necessarily the case. Research carried out in London
found that it was not possible to ascribe a safety benefit
059
directly to the conversion of zebra crossings to pelicans53 .
Zebra crossing on raised table. Simple raised crossing of minor arm, with tight corner radii.
9.3.15 Zebra crossings can also be used across minor

junctions close to the give way line, when it is judged
desirable to provide clear pedestrian priority at this point.
Signalised crossing on extensive raised table, City of London
Zebra crossing across minor arm, close to junction, on desire lines.
9.3.16 Controlled crossings may be divided using central

refuges. Straight ahead divided crossings are much more
convenient for pedestrians than staggered crossings,
which involve additional delay and deviation from the
desire line, particularly where the stagger is large.
Raised table across side road at signalised crossing – Walworth

Road MPR scheme.
9.3.14 Raised crossings across the mouth of minor road

junctions are very helpful to pedestrians, and provide an
element of informal priority at this key conflict point. Tight
corner radii help to reduce the speed of turning traffic and
help make the crossing movements easier and safer. The
Highway Code notes (Rule 170)22 that pedestrians who
have started to cross a junction have priority.

Staggered signalised crossing without guardrail
High Street Kensington - replacement of staggered crossing with

straight over crossing at signalised junction.
9.3.17 Divided zebras operate as two separate crossings,

with pedestrians having to establish priority on each side.
The absence of a stagger does not affect the operation of
a zebra crossing in terms of pedestrian priority.
9.3.18 Signalised crossings that are divided by a refuge,
and which are to operate in traffic terms as two separate
crossings, are normally staggered, although there are
examples of straight ahead signalised crossings that
operate under separate phases (see box out on Maid
Marian Way, overleaf).
9.3.19 Pedestrian guardrailing is often used to reinforce
staggers, but it is not essential. Some authorities have
successfully used upstand kerbs or low walls to define the
stagger at signalised crossings, which significantly
reduces street clutter.
061
Maid Marian Way – Two Stage Straight Ahead Crossings
At the junction of Maid Marian Way and Friar Lane, Nottingham, a roundabout with pedestrian subways was
replaced by a signal-controlled junction with pedestrian crossings.
Unwelcoming pedestrian subways were replaced by signal-controlled at-grade crossings.
Maid Marian Way is a busy dual carriageway and both Another non-standard aspect of the design is that one
crossings of this route needed to be signalled in two of the crossings is not perpendicular to the traffic flow
stages. Despite this requirement, straight ahead and stop line, but rather follows the pedestrian desire
crossings were used, rather than relying on more line.
conventional staggered layouts. Nearside pedestrian
aspects were used, as farside aspects could have led
to confusion.

9.3.20 Pedestrian crossings at traffic signals are typically 9.4.2 Detailed guidance on the design of priority junctions
across each arm of the junction, but when an all-red (to is given in TD42/9554 but (as with all sections of DMRB)
traffic) phase is provided, consideration can be given to this is written specifically for trunk roads and, where used
providing diagonal crossing facilities. These enable in other situations, should not be applied uncritically.
pedestrians to cross to the opposite corner of the junction 9.4.3 T and Y junctions have the fewest conflicting traffic
in one movement instead of two, which is much quicker
movements. Where there is a straight or nearly straight
and more convenient. A high-profile scheme has recently
through route drivers will tend to regard this as the major
been installed at Oxford Circus in London, but there are
movement, and so even without road markings or signs,
long-standing examples elsewhere, such as in Balham, at
a natural priority will tend to develop.
the junction of Bramford Road and Yarmouth Road in
Ipswich, and in Wellingborough at the junction of Croyland 9.4.4 Crossroads and multi-armed junctions have much
Road, Doddington Road and Broadway near a school. higher numbers of conflicting traffic movements and
therefore tend to perform worse in terms of road safety.
However, grid-type networks with crossroads junctions
are extremely legible and therefore encourage walking
and cycling, and it is therefore important to strike the right
balance. Well-connected street grids can also disperse
traffic flows, which will tend to reduce the level of conflict
at any particular point.
9.4.5 Reducing traffic speed will also improve safety, and
one way of achieving this at the conflict point is to raise
the junction onto a speed table.
Diagonal crossing, Balham
Tabled crossroads
9.4.6 Keeping the number of approach lanes to the

minimum will make the junction safer and easier to
negotiate for pedestrians and cyclists. Research into cycle
safety at T-junctions found that higher cycle collision rates
Diagonal crossing, Oxford Circus are associated with two lane minor road approaches55 .
9.4_ Priority and Uncontrolled

9.4.7 TD 42/9554 recommends that consideration should
Junctions
be given to providing a right turning lane at priority
junctions where the side road flow exceeds 500 vehicles
per day, but this advice relates to trunk roads, where there
9.4.1 The simplest junctions are where two or more is an emphasis on providing an unimpeded route for
streets meet at a point. These junctions may have marked through traffic. It is a relatively low flow, and junctions
priority so that there is a major route through the junction, without right turn lanes will often be able to cater for
or the junction may have no marked priority and is higher levels of turning traffic without resulting in
therefore uncontrolled. Uncontrolled junctions tend to significant congestion.
increase driver uncertainty and lead to reduced speeds 9.4.8 Right turning lanes make it more difficult for
and are therefore appropriate to low volume and low pedestrians to cross major roads and lead to higher traffic
speed environments, including in urban centres. speeds and authorities should therefore consider carefully
063
all of the effects before deciding to provide them.
Removing unnecessary right turn lanes can also be
considered, and will bring substantial benefits to non-
motorised users.
9.4.9 Where right turn lanes are to be provided or
retained, refuges should be provided within ghost islands
to facilitate pedestrians crossing.
9.4.10 As noted in Sections 6.3 and 6.4 of MfS1, tight
corner radii help pedestrians and cyclists to travel across
and through junctions by reducing the speed of turning
Despite the small corner radius, with sufficient carriageway width

(X) a long vehicle can still negotiate a junction.
major road. This may be the case where speeds are high,
but in urban areas the overall emphasis of MfS is that
speeds should be reduced to appropriate levels of 30mph
or below through design and the use of tight corner radii
is consistent with this approach.
9.4.13 Moreover, there are junctions on very busy routes
where tight corner radii have existed for a considerable
time, as shown above.
Ghost island junction with pedestrian refuge
vehicles. Advice contained in TD 42/9554 , that minimum

corner radii should be 6m in urban areas, should therefore
not be taken as representing best practice when the
needs of vulnerable road users are to be prioritised.
9.4.11 Larger vehicles can still negotiate junctions where
minimal (1m or less) corner radii are used, depending on
the width of the junction arms they are turning to and
from. In many cases it will be better to have slightly
greater carriageway widths at the junction, rather than
generous corner radii, or accept that larger vehicles
occasionally cross into the opposing lane. This approach
allows the vehicle to take a larger radius than the junction
kerb, as shown below. This can be tested by vehicle
tracking software rather than relying on fixed standards.
9.4.12 Designers are sometimes reluctant to use tight
corner radii on the grounds that vehicles slowing to turn
into the minor arm may cause shunt collisions on the
9.4.14 Footway crossovers can be used instead of more

formal priority junctions, which will give further
prominence to pedestrians. Footway crossovers are often
used successfully at accesses to commercial premises,
as illustrated below, demonstrating that they can be used
at busy locations.
9.4.15 Footway crossovers should maintain the normal
footway cross-fall as far as practicable from the back of
the footway (900mm), as recommended in MfS1. Designs

Footway crossover access to commercial premises Poundbury, Dorset. This square, where four routes meet, forms
part of a new urban extension. It includes parking and local shops
9.6_ Conventional Roundabouts

which ramp up over the whole width of the footway make
it difficult for people with a mobility impairment, including
wheelchair users, to negotiate the crossover. 9.6.1 Conventional roundabouts are widely used in the
9.4.16 The safety aspects of visibility requirements at UK. Detailed guidance on the design of roundabouts is
priority junctions are dealt with in Chapter 10. Junction given in TD16/0756 but (as with all sections of DMRB) this
capacity is also dependent on visibility, however, as the is written specifically for trunk roads and, where used in
drivers on the minor arm will emerge more cautiously and other situations, should not be applied uncritically.
slowly when visibility is limited. Standard junction capacity 9.6.2 Roundabouts typically have the lowest rate and
tools such as PICADY enable designers to consider the severity of motor vehicle collisions and cause low levels of
effect of minor road visibility on junction capacity. traffic delay, and therefore reduced vehicle emissions, in
9.5_ Squares
off-peak conditions. They can deliver high levels of traffic
capacity and can cater for junctions with more than four
approach arms, although there is some evidence that this
9.5.1 Squares are excellent opportunities for creating can lead to a reduction in road safety.
successful and attractive public spaces, where people will
wish to spend time, and are natural sites for commercial 9.6.3 On the other hand, roundabouts generally have a
and public buildings that add to vitality. Many towns and poor collision record for cyclists and can be a significant
cities have public squares at their heart, and many barrier to pedestrian movement. Many roundabout
designs for urban extensions incorporate public squares designs make only minimal provision for pedestrians,
as a focal point for the new community. requiring them to cross wide entry and exit arms. Where
formal crossings are installed, whether as zebra or signal-
9.5.2 Although squares are primarily regarded as public controlled crossings, they are often placed well away from
spaces, squares with traffic passing through them can desire lines. Some designers have created subways
also be regarded as a development of priority and/or beneath roundabouts in an attempt to give pedestrians
uncontrolled junctions, Squares offer a good way of more direct crossing routes, but as the Maid Marian Way
enabling complex turning movements to take place Case Study shows, this has rarely been successful
across a more dispersed area, rather than at a single Chapter 14).
(C
point, thus reducing conflict and improving safety. Many
squares successfully incorporate car parking within the 9.6.4 Providing adequate deflection is important in
space. reducing speed for motor vehicles, and normal practice is
for the geometry to force vehicles to turn through a curve
of less than 100m in radius. This is less important in urban
areas with a speed limit of 30mph or below where speed
can be limited by other means. Designs that use means
other than deflection to achieve low speeds can also have
a good safety record.
9.6.5 Roundabouts can have a large land requirement and
their circular geometry does not sit comfortably in dense
urban areas. The signs and road markings generally
associated with roundabouts can be very intrusive, although
advice is given in Chapter 13 on how this can be minimised.
065
9.6.6 When roundabouts are proposed, the
recommended approach is to make the overall diameter
of the junction as compact as possible to minimise land
take. This will reduce the disruption to pedestrian desire
lines, with crossings placed close to entries and exits.
This may have some impact on traffic flow, but this should
not always be seen as an unacceptable outcome, given
the underlying need to encourage walking and cycling.
Placing crossings on pedestrian desire lines will avoid the
need for guardrailing.
9.6.7 Entries, exits and circulatory carriageways should
be as narrow as possible, ideally to a single lane, subject
to capacity considerations. UK practice has generally
Cyclists leaving this roundabout can find themselves in the outside
been to have generous entry and exit radii and avoid re-
lane of a dual carriageway.
entrant curves, but moving towards a more ‘continental’
or ‘compact’ geometry will result in slower traffic speeds
9.6.12 Central islands at roundabouts can be utilised as
on the entries, exits and circulatory carriageway, which will
sites for public art and monuments, but this is likely to be
be of benefit to cyclists and pedestrians.
much more successful when these sites can be reached
9.6.8 Compact roundabouts are recommended in and enjoyed by people on foot.
TD16/0756 for single carriageway roads, and are
particularly suitable where there is a need to
accommodate the movement of pedestrians and cyclists.
Further guidance on providing for cyclists at compact
roundabouts is given in Traffic Advisory Leaflet (TAL)
9/9757 .
9.6.9 The widths of circulatory carriageways should be
checked using swept path analysis, considering the
largest vehicle that will regularly negotiate the junction,
rather than always designing for the largest legal
articulated vehicle, and using predetermined widths
based simply on diameter. This may well allow smaller
roundabouts to be achieved, particularly in urban areas.
9.6.10 Roundabouts do not always have to be circular,
Although the Wellington Arch, London is situated on a large
and ovoid or less regular shapes can be used in roundabout, the direct crossing facilities mean that it is
constrained situations. Care should be taken however to accessible by people on foot, cycle and on horses.
avoid sharp curves which can result in an overturning
hazard for long vehicles.
9.6.11 Left turn slip lanes are often used to increase traffic
capacity when there is a heavy demand for this
movement. These create a particular hazard for cyclists,
however, when they are leaving the circulatory
carriageway and find themselves between two moving
traffic lanes. Designers should not use these designs
without resolving this problem satisfactorily.
The monument at Seven Dials, London, acts as a place to sit and

linger, as well as a place to move through and is a public square
where seven routes meet. Roundabout priority is established by the
placing of signs only on the entries to the junction.

9.7_ Mini-Roundabouts 9.7.5 Mini-roundabouts cannot easily achieve good entry

deflection and so are only suitable in locations where
9.7.1 Mini-roundabouts are essentially the application of a approach speeds are 30mph or below. One way of
road marking (TSRGD diag 1003.4)58 which defines a achieving a slow approach speed is to raise the junction
give-way to the right rule, circulating the marked central on a table.
island. Detailed guidance is given in TD 54/0759 but (as
9.7.6 Most designs are unlikely to deliver high traffic
with all sections of DMRB) this is written specifically for
capacities; mini-roundabouts with multiple approach
trunk roads and, where used in other situations, should
lanes have been used but these are less easy for
not be applied uncritically.
pedestrians and cyclists to negotiate safely, and can lead
9.7.2 In particular, although TD 54/07 states that new to higher approach speeds.
mini-roundabouts are not to be used at new junctions on
9.7.7 Mini-roundabouts work best where the traffic flow
trunk roads, no such presumption applies elsewhere, and
on different arms is reasonably balanced, so that drivers
mini-roundabouts remain a valid choice of junction type
on all approaches slow down in anticipation of having to
for new as well as existing junctions.
give way. When one or more arms has a relatively light
9.7.3 Further detailed guidance on the design of mini- traffic flow, a means of reducing traffic speeds, such as
roundabouts is given in the DfT and County Surveyors’ placing the junction on a speed table, may be a solution.
Society (now ADEPT) publication ‘Mini roundabouts good
9.7.8 The requirements for road markings and signs at
practice guidance’60 .
mini-roundabouts do have a considerable visual impact
9.7.4 Many mini-roundabouts have been installed at and can be particularly intrusive.
existing junctions where they can bring advantages such
9.7.9 Some authorities have responded to this by
as the reduction in traffic speed on all approaches and a
installing junctions that are designed to encourage drivers
reduction in overall traffic delay. The land requirement of
to adopt circulatory priority, but they are in fact
this type of junction is small - they can be fitted into
uncontrolled junctions - see Example of Julian Road,
junctions with an overall diameter of around 12m or less
Bath, overleaf.
and thus create little diversion for pedestrians. They are
safer for cyclists than large conventional roundabouts.
This mini-roundabout has an overall diameter of around 12m. It

was installed as part of a village traffic calming scheme and has
resulted in a significant reduction in collisions.
067
Julian Road Bath – Before and After
The scheme involved the redesign and realignment of a In the three years prior to the scheme, there were nine
stretch of busy road outside a primary school in the recorded serious accidents in the relevant area,
west of Bath between Marlborough Street and the including one fatality. There have been no recorded
junction with Harley Street. A ghost island junction was accidents in the three years since the scheme was
replaced by an uncontrolled junction that used completed. The scheme included removal of most
pavement materials to encourage circulatory priority. signs, barriers and road markings, and the creation of
simple informal “places” instead of sweeping priority
junctions.
9.7.10 Mini-roundabouts can also have controlled 9.8.2 Traffic signals and are widely used in urban
crossings close to exits, on pedestrian desire lines. situations and in rural locations and can cater for high
traffic flows, although they are less appropriate than
roundabouts when approach speeds are high. They
generally have a worse road safety record than
roundabouts in terms of vehicle-vehicle collisions, but are
better suited to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists
on their desire lines, although less so as the size and
complexity of the junction increases.
Zebra crossing close to mini-roundabout exit.
9.8_ Traffic Signals

9.8.1 The principles of traffic signal control are set out in
TAL 01/0661 and the design of pedestrian facilities at
signals is covered by TAL 05/0562 . Detailed guidance is
Traffic signal junction with clear and simple pedestrian crossings
given in TD 50/0463 but (as with all sections of DMRB) this and advance cycle stop lines. Note lack of guardrailing and
is written specifically for trunk roads and, where used in buildings close to junction corner, and tight corner radii.
other situations, should not be applied uncritically.

9.8.3 Traffic signals add to street clutter, particularly 9.8.8 Many traffic signal layouts include segregated left
layouts that require large numbers of signal heads and turn lanes, which may be signal-controlled or operate as
other equipment. They can therefore have a severe visual give way junctions. Whilst they can increase capacity, they
impact. The minimum number of signals at crossings is make pedestrian crossing movements much more
specified in the Schedule to Direction 54 of TSRGD58 . For difficult, adding an extra crossing which can significantly
example, a non-staggered crossing only requires one increase overall crossing times. They also add to the
primary and one secondary signal. Straight ahead number of signal heads needed, and therefore clutter.
crossings generally require fewer signal heads and These disbenefits should be expressly considered before
therefore create less clutter. this type of layout is adopted.
Traffic signals can have a severe visual impact Segregated left turn lanes make pedestrian crossing movements
more complex and slow, as well as adding to clutter.
9.8.4 Traffic signals generally occupy less land take than 9.8.9 Traffic signal junctions in urban areas should
roundabouts, depending on the number of approach generally incorporate advanced cycle stop lines to which
lanes and the need for separate turning lanes. enable cyclists to position themselves at the head of
9.8.5 Even where it is judged that pedestrian phases at traffic streams where they are more visible and safer.
traffic signals are not justified, pedestrians can still cross 9.8.10 Outside peak hours traffic signals can cause
more easily at traffic signals than at other locations, when greater levels of delay to all road users than other types of
traffic streams are stopped by red signals or during junction, due to the time lost when changing between
intergreen periods. signal stages. Keeping the number of signal stages to a
9.8.6 As with priority junctions, tight corner radii will make minimum will reduce this disbenefit. Some authorities
it easier for pedestrians to cross and will reduce the have begun to experiment with the removal of traffic
speed of turning traffic, although this will also reduce signal control to reduce delays, and research studies have
saturation flows and will need to be taken into account in found this can lead to significant economic benefits64 .
capacity assessments. 9.8.11 Notwithstanding these potential benefits, care
9.8.7 Visibility requirements between arms of traffic needs to be taken that the removal of traffic signals does
signals as set out in TD 50/0463 may affect the ability to not worsen road safety, or make conditions worse for
position buildings close to the corners of traffic signal pedestrians and cyclists.
junctions, which can affect the ability to create a well- 9.8.12 Traffic signal controllers should be sited to allow
enclosed space. Reducing corner radii can enable stop unimpeded use of the footway by pedestrians. In the
lines to be brought forward to reduce this effect, but example below, a signal controller has been installed in a
designers may need to consider whether the strict bench.
application of these visibility requirements is always
appropriate, particularly in urban situations where speeds
are low; or where stop lines are set back considerable
distances due to swept path requirements or other
reasons, giving rise to large intervisibility zones.
069
9.9_ Traffic Management and
One-Way Systems
9.9.1 In many towns and cities traffic management
systems, often involving networks of one-way streets,
have been created. The usual aim of these systems is to
increase network capacity by simplifying turning
movements at junctions. These aims are understood, but
the improvements in traffic flow capacity are offset by
reductions in legibility and accessibility for all road users.
One-way streets also tend to cause higher traffic speeds.
9.9.2 Cyclists are particularly disadvantaged by such
systems, since the additional travel distance can be
Bench containing traffic signal controller
significant. Pedestrians can become disorientated by one-
way streets, and fail to look for traffic in the correct
9.8.13 Most highway authorities specify backing boards direction before crossing. This is a particular problem
with white borders to traffic signals, but they are not where there are contraflow bus lanes.
legally required. Local Transport Note 1/9865 notes that
9.9.3 However, with appropriate designs to minimise
backing boards may be omitted at urban sites where
vehicle speeds, one-way streets can result in narrower
speeds are low and there are no distracting backgrounds.
carriageways which can create more space for
pedestrians, cyclists and the public realm.
9.9.4 Some towns and cities have begun to simplify traffic
management systems, judging that the benefits to other
road users outweighs any additional travel time for motor
vehicles. In South Kensington (see overleaf) a complex
one-way system has been removed, whilst at the same
time considerable areas of carriageway space have been
given over to pedestrians.
Signalised crossing with no white borders to signal heads

Before After
Changes at South Kensington - a complex one-way system has been simplified
Before After
Area outside Underground station
9.10_ Direct Frontage Access 9.10.3 Research referred to in TD 41/953 examined the
relationship between access frequency and collisions on
9.10.1 Providing direct access to buildings and public 3,000km of all-purpose trunk roads in England, both
spaces is an important element in creating streets that are urban and rural, dual and single carriageway. The
linked to their surroundings, rather than simply being research showed that there was no simple statistical
conduits for passing traffic. Access is a key part of the relationship between the number of collisions and the
place function of streets and should be facilitated where number of vehicular connections in the form of minor
possible. junctions and direct accesses.
9.10.2 MfS1 referred to research which looked at the 9.10.4 For rural roads, there was a statistically significant
relationship between traffic flow and road safety on relationship between collisions and traffic flow, link length
streets with direct frontage access to dwellings (MfS1 and the total number of all access connections. In the
7.9.5). A limit of 10,000 vehicles per day (vpd) was case of urban roads, however, only traffic flow had a
advised, but this related to the limited number of sites significant effect on the number of collisions at this level of
considered with more than this level of traffic, rather than confidence, and was found no direct relationship between
an indication that road safety declines above this level of access provision and collision occurrence.
flow.
9.10.5 It is therefore clear that the advice given in MfS1
concerning direct access is applicable to all urban roads,
and that providing direct frontage access is unlikely to
have significant disbenefits in road safety terms.
071
10_ Visibility
10_ Visibility
10.1_ Introduction 10.1.5 The basic formula for calculating SSD (in metres) is:
SSD = vt + v2/2(d+0.1a)
10.1.1 This section of MfS2 incorporates Section 7.5 of
where:
MfS1. It is based on a combination of the research carried
v = speed (m/s)
out by TRL23 , the research carried out by TMS
t = driver perception-reaction time (seconds)
Consultancy for MfS266 , a review of recent research and
d = deceleration (m/s2)
international standards and the outcome of public
a = longitudinal gradient (%)
inquiries since MfS1 was published (see Example below).
(+ for upgrades and - for downgrades)
10.1.2 Sight distance parameters can be based on
10.1.6 The Desirable Minimum SSDs in general use prior
various models, such as stopping sight distance,
to MfS1 were based on a driver perception-reaction time
overtaking distance or gap acceptance. UK practice
of 2 seconds and a deceleration rate of 2.45 m/s2
generally focuses on Stopping Sight Distance (SSD). The
(equivalent to 0.25g, where g is acceleration due to
effect of sight distance on the capacity of priority junctions
gravity (9.81 m/s2)). The Absolute Minimum SSD values
is discussed in Chapter 9 above.
kept the same reaction time of 2 seconds, but assumed a
10.1.3 This section provides guidance on SSDs for deceleration rate of 3.68 m/s2 (0.375g).
streets where 85th percentile speeds are up to 60 kph
10.1.7 The SSD values recommended in MfS1 were
(37mph). This will generally be achieved within 30mph
based on a perception-reaction time of 1.5 seconds and
limits and may be achieved in some 40mph limits.
a deceleration rate of 0.45g (4.41 m/s2). This value is
appropriate for cars and other light vehicles, but heavy
goods vehicles and buses have different deceleration
characteristics. When deciding whether to carry out
separate checks for cars, HGV and bus SSDs, highway
authorities should consider the following factors:
• Volume of HGVs and buses
• Proportion of HGVs and buses
• Presence of priority lanes which may enable higher
bus/HGV speeds
10.1.8 As a guide, it is suggested that bus/HGV SSD

should not need to be assessed when the combined
proportion of HGV and bus traffic is less than 5% of traffic
Inspectors at public inquiries have accepted that SSD guidance flow, subject to consideration of local circumstances.
in MfS1 applies to non-residential streets. At an appeal into a
development of some 100 dwellings, accessed from the B5215 10.1.9 Based on international vehicle standards (see
Leigh Road in Wigan, the Inspector concluded that MfS1 did Example) HGVs must be able to achieve peak
apply, notwithstanding the volume of traffic (approximately deceleration rates of at least 0.509g. However, allowing
1,700vph peak times) or the classification of the highway (part of for the delay in the maximum effectiveness of air braking
the Strategic Route Network).
systems, overall minimum stopping distances are also
specified which reduce the minimum overall deceleration
10.1.4 Stopping sight distance (SSD) is the distance
rateA under the regulations to some 0.36g. Real life tests
drivers need to be able to see ahead and they can stop
carried out by ROSPA (also see Example) indicate that
within from a given speed. It is calculated from the speed
these values are likely to be exceeded in practice and
of the vehicle, the time required for a driver to identify a
therefore the pre-MfS1 Absolute Minimum value of 0.375g
hazard and then begin to brake (the perception-reaction
is recommended for HGVs. These average deceleration
time), and the vehicle’s rate of deceleration. For new
rates already allow for the time taken for air braking
streets, the design speed for the location under
systems to apply and therefore the same reaction time of
consideration is set by the designer. For existing streets,
1.5 seconds should be used.
the 85th percentile wet-weather speed is used.
10.1.10 For buses, the limiting design factor is passenger
comfort and safety rather than the ability of the vehicle to
stop, and therefore for buses, the recommended
maximum deceleration rate is the same as the pre-MfS1
Absolute Minimum value of 0.375g, as used for the pre-
MfS1 Absolute Minimum SSD values.
073
A
The minimum overall deceleration rate means the deceleration rate, expressed as a uniform value, from the instant when
the brakes begin to be applied when the vehicle stops, required by the standards.
10.1.11 Where designers wish to determine different SSD
values for HGVs and buses it will be necessary to use
appropriate design speeds for these classes of vehicle.
Where SSD is being calculated for existing highways,
actual 85th percentile values for these types of vehicles
should be measured and the worst case SSD be used for
horizontal measurements of visibility.
10.1.12 Based on free flow vehicle speeds travelling in
30mph limits given in Transport Statistics Bulletin 200845 ,
buses travel at 90% of the average speed for all vehicles.
HGV Braking Performance A series of real life braking tests were carried out by
ROSPA using a wide range of vehicles in 2001, as
Minimum standards for lorry braking systems are set
reported in
out in the UNECE Vehicle Regulation 1367 , which
http://www.rospa.com/RoadSafety/AdviceAndInform
requires that the mean fully developed deceleration
ation/Driving/hgv-truck-braking-systems.aspx
rate achieved by the braking system (with the engine
disconnected) should be at least 5.0m/s2 (0.509g). In Deceleration rates have been calculated from the
addition, the stopping distance of the vehicle must results of these tests which show that the minimum
be no more than 0.15v+v2 /130, where v=vehicle overall braking rate achieved was 0.44g, for a 36
speed in kph (up to 60kph), and 0.15v+v2 /103.5 (v tonne Foden vehicle, which stopped in 20.68m from
up to 90kph). 30mph. (One vehicle did take longer to stop, at 27m,
but this was on a down slope). Cars were also tested
At 50kph the maximum allowable stopping distance
by ROSPA, and the best performing of these was a
is therefore 26.7m, and this is equivalent to a
Ford Mondeo, which stopped from 30mph in 7.14m,
minimum overall braking rate of 3.6m/s2 or 0.37g.
an overall deceleration rate of 1.27g.
10.1.13 In summary, recommended values for reaction

times and deceleration rates for SSD calculations are
given in Table 10.1 below and the resulting SSD values for
initial speeds of up to 120kph are shown on the graph
beneath.
Design Speed Vehicle Type Reaction Time Deceleration Rate Comments

60kph and below Light vehicles 1.5s 0.45g
HGVs 1.5s 0.375g See 10.1.9
Buses 1.5s 0.375g See 10.1.10
Above 60kph All vehicles 2s 0.375g (Absolute Min SSD) As TD 9/93
All vehicles 2s 0.25g (Desirable Min SSD) As TD 9/93
Table 10.1: Summary of Recommended SSD Criteria

10_ Visibility
10.3_ Forward Visibility

10.3.1 The minimum forward visibility required is equal to
the minimum SSD, based on the design speed at the
location being considered. It is checked by measuring
between points on a curve along the centreline of the
inner traffic lane (see Fig.10.1).
Graph showing recommended SSD values, allowing for bonnet

length.
10.2_ Visibility Requirements

10.2.1 Visibility should be checked at junctions and along
the street. Forward visibility is measured horizontally and
vertically. Figure 10.1 - Measurement of forward visibility
10.2.2 Using plan views of proposed layouts, checks for
visibility in the horizontal plane ensure that views are not 10.3.2 However there will be situations in locations with
obscured by vertical obstructions. design speeds of 60kph or less where it is desirable and
10.2.3 Checking visibility in the vertical plane is then appropriate to restrict forward visibility to control traffic
carried out to ensure that views in the horizontal plane are speed - research carried out for MfS1 describes how
not compromised by obstructions such as the crest of a forward visibility influences speed. An historic example is
hill, or a bridge at a dip in the road ahead. It also takes shown below.
into account the variation in driver eye height and the
height range of obstructions. Eye height is assumed to
range from 1.05m (for car drivers) to 2m (for bus and HGV
drivers).
10.2.4 Drivers need to be able to see obstructions from
2m high down to a point 600 mm above the carriageway.
The latter dimension is used to ensure small children can
be seen.
10.2.5 The SSD figure relates to the position of the driver.
However the distance between the driver and the front of
the vehicle is typically up to 2.4m, which is a significant
proportion of shorter stopping distances. It is therefore
recommended that for assessments of SSD, an
Spaniards Inn, Hampstead – historic building restricting forward
allowance is made by adding 2.4m to the distance visibility and carriageway width
calculated using the formula.
075
10.4_ Visibility At Priority Junctions
10.4.1 The visibility splay at a junction ensures there is
adequate inter-visibility between vehicles on the major
and minor arms.
10.4.2 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 MfS266 has found no
evidence of this (see research summary below). Research
into cycle safety at T-junctions found that higher cycle
collision rates are associated with greater visibility55 .
High Ri sk Collision S ites a nd Y Di st ance Visibili ty Collisions involving vehicles emerging from junctions
into the path of vehicles on the main road, together
Int rod uc tion
with nose-to-tail shunts on the minor road were
The accepted approach to visibility at priority identified as the type of incident that could have been
junctions has been to provide a minimum stopping caused by “poor visibility”. The locations were then
sight distance value appropriate to a particular ranked in descending order of these types of
design speed. The assumption made by some crashes, and site visits were carried out at the
designers and road safety auditors is that this value “worst” sites.
provides a minimum road safety requirement, and
In addition to the 626 potential “poor visibility”
that collision risk will increase if the SSD is not
collisions, a record was made of 203 collisions
achieved.
involving main road shunts, 46 collisions involving
The purpose of this research was to examine this main road bus passengers, 22 collisions involving
assumption and to identify whether or not a direct main road large goods vehicles, and 216 collisions
relationship can be established between variations in involving main road two-wheeled vehicles. There is a
Y distance SSD and collision frequency at priority concern that these types of collisions could be over-
junctions. represented at locations with poor visibility.
Method ology Site V is its
Sit e S electi on Two investigators visited each location, and
measured visibility to the left and right, from a point
A series of “high risk” priority junctions was identified
on the side road, 2.4m back from the main road
as the basis for research. Uncontrolled crossroads
channel line. Visibility was measured from a height of
and T- junctions were selected for all classes of road
1.05m, to a point at the kerb edge and a second
throughout all 20, 30 and 40mph speed limits in
point 1m out from the kerb edge, where observations
Nottinghamshire, Sandwell, Lambeth, and Glasgow.
showed that visibility increased.
For each area a list of all non-pedestrian collisions
was ranked in descending order of collision total for a
recent five-year period, with over 1500 collisions
listed in total. Each location was then analysed in
detail to identify specific collision characteristics.
Col lision Analysis

10_ Visibility
Summary of Findings
• A series of collision types at high risk locations
where Y distance was less than 45m were compared
• “High risk” sites were defined as locations that had with locations with more than 45m visibility. There were
three or more potential poor visibility collisions - in a no statistically significant differences between the two
five year period (94 in total). Of these 90 were on sets of data. The data analysed included main road
30mph roads, with 3 on 40mph roads. At 55 of the bus and large goods vehicle collisions, and the
94 locations the worst case visibility (either to the left research did not find high numbers of collisions
or right) was restricted to less than 120m. Thus in involving these types of vehicles at low visibility sites.
relation to the total number of uncontrolled junctions
that exist, the proportion of “high risk” sites where
visibility is less than that recommended for 70kph in
DMRB is likely to be very low. It is possible that Collision type No & % in No & % in
some former high risk priority junctions have been sites <45m vis sites >45m vis
converted to other forms of junction control.
Potential visi
• In two thirds of the cases where visibility was less
collisions in dark 40 (31.75%) 90 (30.3%)
than 120m, the restriction was due to parked
vehicles or street furniture. It is not possible to Main road shunts 24 (8.79%) 50 (9.11%)
determine whether the parking was present at the
time of the collision. Bus passenger 10 (3.66%) 10 (1.82%)
• Linear regression to compare potential poor visibility
collisions with Y distance has a very low R2 value, Main road HGV 1 (0.37%) 5 (0.91%)
which shows that the variation in collision frequency
was explained by factors other than Y distance Main road
visibility, for a large number of different situations. two-wheeled. 38 (13.92%) 85 (15.58%)
Therefore Y distance cannot be seen as a single
deterministic factor at these high-risk collision
locations (see example graph below). Conclusions
• This study has been unable to demonstrate that

road safety concerns regarding reduced Y distance
are directly associated with increased collision risk
at “high-risk” urban sites;
• Previous research for MfS1 demonstrated that main
road speed is influenced by road width and forward
visibility. Many of the locations in this study were
straight roads with good forward visibility. The ability
of the driver to stop is likely to be affected by more
than just what is happening in the side road and an
understanding of the factors influencing main road
speed is important when assessing visibility
requirements.
Visibility measured to right, to nearside kerb.
No. of sites No. collisions Collisions per year Collisions per site per year
0-20m 4 16 3.2 0.80
20-40m 14 58 11.6 0.83
40-60m 15 64 12.8 0.85
60-80m 5 24 4.8 0.96
80-100m 2 11 2.2 1.10
100-120m 1 6 1.2 1.20
120m+ 48 208 41.6 0.87
077
10.5_ X and Y Distances 10.5.8 A minimum X distance of 2m may be considered in
some slow-speed situations when flows on the minor arm
Measurement of X and Y distances

are low, but using this value will mean that the front of
some vehicles will protrude slightly into the running
10.5.1 The distance back along the minor arm from which carriageway of the major arm, and many drivers will tend
Figure
visibility is measured is known as the X distance (F to cautiously nose out into traffic. The ability of drivers and
10.2). It is generally measured back from the ‘give way’ cyclists to see this overhang from a reasonable distance,
line (or the main road channel line if no such markings are and to manoeuvre around it without undue difficulty,
provided). should be considered. This also applies in lightly-trafficked
rural lanes.
10.5.2 This distance is normally measured along the
centreline of the minor arm for simplicity, but in some 10.5.9 The Y distance should be based on the
circumstances (for example where there is a wide splitter recommended SSD values. However, based on the
island on the minor arm) it will be more appropriate to research referred to above, unless there is local evidence
measure it from the actual position of the driver. to the contrary, a reduction in visibility below
recommended levels will not necessarily lead to a
10.5.3 The Y distance represents the distance that a significant problem.
driver who is about to exit from the minor arm can see to
the left and right along the main alignment. For simplicity it
has previously been measured along the nearside kerb
line of the main arm, although vehicles will normally be
travelling at a distance from the kerb line. Therefore a
more accurate assessment of visibility splay is made by
measuring to the nearside edge of the vehicle track. The
measurement is taken from the point where this line
intersects the centreline of the minor arm (unless, as
above, there is a splitter island in the minor arm).
10.5.4 When the main alignment is curved and the minor
arm joins on the outside of a bend, another check is
necessary to make sure that an approaching vehicle on
the main arm is visible over the whole of the Y distance.
This is done by drawing an additional sight line which
meets the kerb line at a tangent.
10.5.5 Some circumstances make it unlikely that vehicles
approaching from the left on the main arm will cross the
centreline of the main arm - opposing flows may be
physically segregated at that point, for example. If so, the
visibility splay to the left can be measured to the centreline
of the main arm.
Recommended values for X and Y

distances
10.5.6 An X distance of 2.4m should normally be used in
most built-up situations, as this represents a reasonable
maximum distance between the front of a car and the
driver’s eye.
10.5.7 Longer X distances enable drivers to look for gaps
as they approach the junction. This increases junction
capacity for the minor arm, and so may be justified in some Figure 10.2
circumstances, but it also increases the possibility that
drivers on the minor approach will fail to take account of
other road users, particularly pedestrians and cyclists.
Longer X distances may also result in more shunt collisions
on the minor arm. TRL Report No. 18468 found that collision
risk increased with greater minor-road sight distance.

10_ Visibility
10.6_ Visibility Along The

Street Edge
10.6.1 Vehicle exits at the back edge of the footway mean
that emerging drivers will have to take account of people
on the footway. The absence of wide visibility splays at
minor accesses will encourage drivers to emerge more
cautiously - similarly to how vehicles pull out when
visibility along the carriageway is restricted (see Example
below)
10.6.2 . Consideration should be given to whether this will
be appropriate, taking into account the following:
• the frequency of vehicle movements; Access to commercial property with limited visibility.
• the amount of pedestrian activity; and
• the width of the footway.
10.6.3 When it is judged that footway visibility splays are

to be provided, consideration should be given to the best
means of achieving this in a manner sympathetic to the
Figure 10.3). This may
visual appearance of the street (F
include:
• the use of boundary railings rather than walls; and
• the omission of boundary walls or fences at the exit
location.
Figure 10.3
079
10.7_ Obstacles To Visibility 10.7.2 The impact of other obstacles, such as street trees
and street lighting columns, should be assessed in terms
10.7.1 Parking in visibility splays in built-up areas is quite of their impact on the overall envelope of visibility. In
common, yet it does not appear to create significant general, occasional obstacles to visibility that are not large
problems in practice. Ideally, defined parking bays should enough to fully obscure a whole vehicle or a pedestrian,
be provided outside the visibility splay. However, in some including a child or wheelchair user, will not have a
circumstances, where speeds are low, some significant impact on road safety.
encroachment may be acceptable. (See Example below.)
At urban junctions where visibility is limited by In the images above, the blue car moves forward
buildings and parked cars, drivers of vehicles on the slowly until it can see far enough past the parked
minor arm tend to nose out carefully until they can vehicles to see that the gap to the next oncoming
see oncoming traffic, and vice-versa. vehicle is long enough for it to pull out. Drivers on the
major route will also be able to see the vehicle pulling
forward slowly and may slow down or stop to allow it
to pull out.

11_ On-Street Parking and Servicing
11_ On-Street Parking and Servicing
11.1.1 Parking is an important consideration in the

planning and design of highway networks, particularly in
urban areas. General guidance on the development of
parking strategies is given in the IHT publication ‘Parking
Strategies and Management’ (2005)69 and the document
‘Car Parking, what works where’70 provides a
comprehensive analysis of the design of parking in
residential and mixed-use areas.
11.1.2 On-street car parking can be a vital component of
highways, particularly where routes pass through town
centres and commercial areas. The decision whether or
not to provide on-street car parking should take into
account its positive and negative effects, as summarised
Well-integrated on-street parking.
in MfS1:
Positive Effects 11.1.4 Car parking alongside carriageways can be

longitudinal, echelon or at right angles to the kerb.
• A common resource, catering for residents’, visitors’ Longitudinal parking will be more appropriate where traffic
and service vehicles in an efficient manner. speeds and volumes are higher, since vehicles entering
• Able to cater for peak demands from various users at and exiting the spaces cause less interruption to traffic
different times of the day, for example people at work flow. In town centres and other locations where speeds
or residents. are low, echelon and right angled parking may be the best
• Adds activity to the street. solution, since it is more efficient and creates a stronger
• Typically well overlooked, providing improved security. statement that the area is for ‘place’ activities as well as
• Popular and likely to be well-used. for movement.
• Can provide a useful buffer between pedestrians and
traffic.
Negative Effects
• If there are few places for pedestrians to cross with
adequate visibility it can introduce a road safety
problem, particularly if traffic speeds are above 20mph.
• Can be visually dominant within a street scene and can
undermine the established character.
• May lead to footway parking, unless the street is
properly designed to accommodate parked vehicles.
• Vehicles parked indiscriminately can block vehicular
accesses to premises.
• Cars parked on-street can be more vulnerable to
opportunistic crime than off-street spaces.
• Providing parking bays potentially reduces footway
space, which could also be used for cycle parking.
11.1.3 Where car parking is provided, a good solution is

to break it into discrete groups of spaces with build outs
that provide opportunities for pedestrians to cross with
good visibility.
Manchester Ancoats Before and After.
081
Manchester Ancoats Plan
11.1.5 Echelon parking may be more difficult for

pedestrians to pass through than longitudinal and right On-footway servicing bay - Walworth Road MPR Scheme,
angled parking, depending on the spacing of parked London
vehicles, and can provide a greater barrier to crossing the
street. This can be solved by leaving regular gaps 11.1.9 The minimum widths required to manoeuvre
between parked vehicles, however. It is easier to for to/from 2.4m wide parking spaces are as follows:
vehicles to enter and exit echelon than right angle spaces
and so the former have less impact on through traffic. • 90° - 6m
• 60° - 4.2m
11.1.6 With echelon and right angle parking, care has to • 45° - 3.6m
be taken that overhanging vehicles do not have an • 30° - 3.6m
adverse impact on the available footway width. This can
be addressed by providing generous footways, or using 11.1.10 Where parking is provided on street, this
street furniture or wheel stops, in the form of dished manoeuvring width will generally be provided by the
channels, to prevent vehicles from encroaching too far. carriageway.
11.1.7 On-street servicing bays are often required in 11.1.11 For echelon and right angle parking, manoeuvring
urban centres where commercial premises can only be space can be reduced by providing wider spaces, as
accessed from the front. Where they are designed as lay- shown in Figure 8.20 of MfS1.
bys, they can be difficult to keep clear of parked cars and
take space away from pedestrians that is empty for much
of the time. Some authorities are placing loading areas on
strengthened areas of the footway, which makes it much
less likely that space will be used for parking, and allows
pedestrians to use the space when there are no vehicles
present.
11.1.8 This approach has been used in numerous
locations in London in recent years71 .

12_ Street Furniture and Trees
12.1_ Introduction 12.1.5 A proliferation of street furniture can often arise in

mixed-use environments. This is made worse when
12.1.1 Street furniture is the collective term for the wide complex traffic management systems are also used.
range of extraneous items that are placed in highways, Consequently the key principles from MfS1 are even more
most of which is to be found outside the carriageway. important to consider in the context of the wider range of
Street furniture has an important role to play in facilitating street and road types that are covered by this document.
the use of the highway for many purposes, and some items
12.1.6 Local Transport Note 1/08 ‘Traffic Management
support important ‘place’ functions, such as seating and
and Streetscape’24 provides advice on how to manage
cycle parking. While trees may not be strictly classed as
street furniture in a more sensitive way, with particular
street furniture, they are important elements within
emphasis on the processes that should be followed.
highways that are highly beneficial, although they should be
Whilst LTN 1/08 focuses on traffic management schemes,
located and managed carefully.
its principles can be applied more generally, including on
12.1.2 In recent years there has been increasing concern new and improved highway schemes.
that excessive and poorly-planned and maintained street
12.1.7 Reducing the amount of street furniture will bring
furniture is seriously degrading the quality of the local
significant benefits in terms of visual amenity. It is only
environment.
possible to appreciate the character of an area if it is not
12.1.3 Based on the guidance that is already contained in obscured by excessive standardised street paraphernalia.
MfS1 the key principles that should be followed with
respect to street furniture, including traffic signs, are as
follows:
• Designers should start from a position of having no
street furniture and only introduce these elements when
they serve a clear function.
• Street designs should be as self-explanatory as
possible, so that the number of signs can be minimised.
Providing additional signs may not solve a particular
problem - it may be necessary to consider removing
signs and dealing with the problem another way.
• Excessive street furniture should be avoided, although
street furniture that is of direct benefit to street users,
such as seating and cycle parking, can contribute to a
sense of place, making the street a destination in its
own right. Character Obscured
• Street furniture should be laid out so that pedestrian
routes along and across the street are kept clear.
• New street furniture should be well designed and in
sympathy with the character of the street. Items of
historic interest should be retained.
12.1.4 Further detailed advice on minimising the number

and impact of traffic signs is given in Chapter 13.
Character Revealed - same location, same street furniture, but

rationalised (Images Courtesy Colin Davis)
Excessive signs and street furniture can have a severe impact on
083
the public realm.
12.2_ Procedures For Reducing
Street Furniture
12.1.8 Other benefits of reducing the amount of street
furniture include:
• reducing the costs of provision and maintenance.
12.2.1 In existing streets, highway authorities, working
• improving the overall image of a place, helping it to
closely with other agencies and other interested parties,
function well economically and making its features of
can carry out targeted decluttering schemes, reviewing
interest, such as heritage buildings and structures,
traffic signs and street furniture. This will identify what can
stand out more clearly.
be removed without adversely affecting road safety and
• improving the safety and amenity of pedestrians,
the proper functioning of the street. Highway authorities
particularly people with impaired mobility and people
should also work with external bodies, such as the
who are blind or partially sighted.
statutory undertakers, and with other local authority
• making those signs that are most important stand out
departments to prevent streets becoming degraded with
more clearly, improving safety and user behaviour.
excessive street furniture over time.
In summary, less can be more. 12.2.2 It is also recommended that highway authorities
adopt a process of decluttering as an integral part of their
ongoing maintenance regimes. It will often be possible to
identify items of street furniture that are redundant during
routine street inspections so that they can be removed at
little cost during maintenance operations. This process is
covered by the ‘tidy up’ step in the London Mayor’s
Better Streets strategy25 , set out in Chapter 4.
This guardrail has no function - the pedestrian route it was

protecting has been closed - and can therefore be removed.
12.2.3 When new highways are built or improvements are

carried out, designers may over-provide and over-specify
traffic signs, markings and other street furniture, based on
Mare Street Hackney - Before and after a decluttering scheme in the principle that they will only have one opportunity to
August 2007. Casualty records have revealed a safety neutral provide such items. This practice adds unnecessarily to
outcome. street clutter and should be avoided. Instead, the starting
point should be that they are not to be provided unless
there is a clear need for them. Where there is doubt over
the need for any items, they should be omitted, and the
situation monitored closely to establish whether they are
justified in the light of experience.

Junction of Corporation Street and Croft Road, Coventry - Junction simplified, traffic signs, bus lane, keep left bollards and guardrail
removed, cycle parking on median.
12.2.4 Local policy and guidance on streetscape design 12.2.5 Local highway authorities are encouraged to
and implementation processes has a key role to play in develop policy documents to ensure that similar principles
setting procedures for the progressive reduction of street are adopted as a matter of course when existing
clutter while promoting walking and cycling - see Example highways are maintained and improved, and when new
below. ones are being designed.
12.3_ Keeping Footways Clear

Transport for London’s 'Streetscape Guidance'72
12.3.1 Guidance on the space requirements for
contains detailed advice on the use of appropriate
pedestrians is contained in Section 6.3 of MfS1 and can
materials and details across the TfL network, and
be related to the volume of pedestrians per square metre
requires designers to ensure that:
(Fruin Level of Service). Experience from Copenhagen73
• Signs are sufficient to enforce the regulations but indicates that pedestrians start to take alternative routes
are not excessive in terms of numbers and size. when the flow exceeds 13 people per metre of footway
• Key views and landmark buildings are not width per minute.
obstructed by poorly located street furniture,
12.3.2 In many places, however, particularly in town
unless there is an unavoidable safety or security
centres, the effective width of footway is significantly
need.
reduced by the presence of street furniture and other
• Clear pedestrian routes are maintained by
obstacles (see box out on UCL research). Waste bins are
removing redundant furniture and locating new
a particular hazard in many cities. ADEPT have published
furniture outside pedestrian desire lines.
their practical guide for developers and local authorities
• Clutter is reduced by combining elements of
called ‘Making Space for Waste’74 .
street furniture, such as signals and signs on
street lighting or CCTV columns, incorporating
bins and seats into bus shelters, and by
mounting street signs and equipment on
buildings or structures, wherever it is safe and
acceptable to do so and the agreement of the
owner has been obtained.
• The extent and visual impact of safety fences
and barriers is reduced to the minimum required
for safety and security to lessen visual impact
and severance effects.
085
The Influence of Stree t Fur ni ture on P edestria n physical footprint due to two factors. First each
Footw ay Cap acity object has a ‘no go’ buffer space around it as
pedestrians seek to avoid coming into contact with
Research carried out at UCL by Peter Jones and
the object. The literature has historically assumed a
Rachel Palfreeman75 looked at the space
0.3 to 0.45m buffer width, but this research suggests
requirements of different types of street furniture
that it varies according to pedestrian flow rates and
located on the footway. The amount of space taken
can be as little as 0.1m at high rates of flow – see
up by such objects is often much greater than their
figure below.
Street furniture and other clutter affecting footway capacity
But there is a second factor which further reduces machine), or from unintended use (e.g. rubbish bags
pedestrian capacity, which has not previously been left next to a bin, or cycles parked alongside
taken into account. This is the ‘footprint in use’ of the pedestrian guardrailing). The ‘footprint in use’ may
object. This may result either from the intended use add considerably to the physical footprint of the
of an object (e.g. additional space taken up by a object itself, as shown in the table below, and so
cycle parked against a cycle rack; a person sitting on have a major impact on pedestrian flows and the use
a bench with shopping bags or a pushchair of the footway.
alongside; or people queuing to use a cash
Item of Street Furniture Typical Dimensions Extra footprint (footway width occupied)
when in use
Bus Shelter 0.28m x 3.9m to 1.3m x 5.2m 0.4m to 1.1m
Cycle Stands 0.1m x 0.6m to 0.1m x 0.7m 0.5m
Litter Bins 0.5m x 0.5m to 0.6m x 0.6m 0.1m to 0.9m
Cash Machines NA 0.55m to 1.6m
12.3.3 The first step to improve conditions for pedestrians 12.3.4 Where substantial items of street furniture, such as
is to remove any unnecessary obstacles, whether through street lighting columns, are to be replaced the opportunity
regular maintenance processes, a decluttering should be taken to co-locate items onto a single pole
programme or through the prevention of ad-hoc wherever possible, with individual departments of a local
installation of features by external agencies such as authority and external agencies working together. Items
utilities, by developing local working and communication such as traffic signal heads, belisha beacons and litter
arrangements. Encroachment by frontagers, such as by bins can all be dealt with in this way. Street elements can
A-boards or licensed street trading, should also be also be mounted on walls and other structures to remove
controlled. the need for a pole entirely.

12.3.6 Bollards create an obstacle to pedestrian movement

and can also be visually intrusive, particularly when used in
large numbers. They are often installed where there is a
concern that vehicles will encroach onto pedestrian areas,
particularly in level surface schemes, but they have tended
to be over-used as they provide an ‘easy’ design solution.
12.3.7 Where designers consider it essential to prevent
vehicles gaining access to a footway or pedestrian area,
items of street furniture with a definite purpose, such as
seating, cycle racks or trees, will often be preferable. Better
enforcement of parking can also have a part to play.
Maid Marian Way, Nottingham
Bollards can add considerably to street clutter.
12.3.8 When used, bollards should be of a minimum

Belisha Lamp Column height of 1m so that they are detectable by visually-
impaired people.
12.4_ Guardrail
12.3.5 Street furniture should be located in a consistent
place so that a clear pedestrian zone is maintained.
Normally street furniture will be positioned between 12.4.1 Guardrail is usually installed where there is a risk,
pedestrians and the carriageway to avoid affecting access or perceived risk, that pedestrians and/or cyclists will, in
to buildings and to provide a buffer to passing traffic. its absence, cross carriageways away from designated
crossing points, or will otherwise wander into places
where they can come into conflict with motor traffic. It is
widely used in the UK, both on existing streets where a
problem has been identified, and often on new or
improved highway schemes as a matter of course.
12.4.2 Guardrail is a very intrusive element. It
disadvantages pedestrian movement by making people
walk further, away from their desire lines, and creates an
unpleasant feeling of restraint. It also narrows the usable
footway which can lead to congestion. It is unsightly and
detracts from local character and visual amenity, and
there is evidence that it can increase traffic speeds and
present an increased risk to cyclists, who can be crushed
against it by vehicles.
Source - TfL ‘Streetscape Guidance'72 . Note - ‘Inclusive
Mobility’35 advises that minimum width for pedestrians of 1m
should only be used for distances of up to 6m.
087
12.4.4 Local Transport Note 2/09, 'Pedestrian
Guardrailing'76 , provides advice with respect to
guardrailing, including:
• a description of the development of policy guidance on
guardrailing;
• an assessment procedure for the evaluation of the
need for the installation or removal of guardrailing; and
• encouragement for authorities to consider developing
and using an audit trail, recording decisions and
actions when considering guardrailing.
12.4.5 LTN 2/09 advises that alternative measures should

be considered before a decision is taken to install
guardrailing. Such measures may include:
• Reducing traffic speed;
• Relocating or installing a new pedestrian crossing to
better fit pedestrian desire lines;
• Footway improvements and widening;
• Providing straight-ahead pedestrian crossings; and
• Using other means of directing pedestrians if this is
necessary.
Despite extensive guardrailing, many pedestrians still choose to

take the shortest path, putting themselves at greater risk. The red
line shows the designated path, the blue line where many people
walk.
Guardrailing can add to pedestrian congestion
12.4.3 There is a pressing need to strike a more

appropriate balance in the use of guardrail. That is not to
say that there are no locations where it may be necessary
- but it should only be used when no other solution to a
significant safety problem is practically possible, and the
adverse effects on amenity, capacity and safety have
been fully evaluated and recognised.

12.4.6 Experience has shown that the careful removal of

guardrail from existing streets does not necessarily result
in a worsening of road safety (see Prince of Wales Road
Example below).
Prior to its improvement, as part of the DfT’s Mixed At some junctions, kerbs have been used
Priority Route demonstration project Prince of Wales successfully to define staggered crossings rather
Road in Norwich had a very poor collision record and than using guardrail. These give guidance to less
a poor quality environment. confident pedestrians (including visually impaired
people) on the direction of stagger, whilst allowing
As part of the scheme, guardrails were removed from
more confident pedestrians to cross on their direct
most of the street, footways were widened, all on-
desire lines.
street parking moved into defined bays, and the
public realm was improved (including the
rationalisation and reduction of street furniture and
the introduction of street trees).
Pedestrians choosing different routes to cross the

carriageway
Prior to the scheme being implemented the street

had a very poor casualty record of 23 per year (44
per km), 75% of whom were pedestrians and cyclists.
In the three years after implementation, the average
number of casualties had reduced by 60% despite an
increase of 16% in pedestrian footfall.
Before and after pictures of Prince of Wales Road and Upper

King Street, Norwich
12.4.7 Guardrail has been extensively used in the past as 12.4.8 Guardrail is commonly installed when pedestrian
a means of preventing footway parking, and of and cycle routes meet a carriageway. There should be no
discouraging parking generally. This is not an appropriate presumption that this is necessary, unless there is a
use of guardrail - better enforcement should be used reason to think that pedestrians are more at risk than
instead. If it is necessary to control vehicle access to an when approaching a junction along a footway next to a
area, other useful street furniture such as a bench could carriageway - a situation where guardrail is not provided
be used. Where footway overrunning is a problem it may by default.
be simpler just to increase the construction depth so that
overrunning can be tolerated.
089
12.4.9 Guardrail is often installed as a matter of course at
new junctions, even when there is no particular reason to G ua rdrail resea rch
think that pedestrians are at a high risk of injury. As with Research on the effectiveness of guardrail has been
other street elements, highway authorities should start carried out by University of Southampton for the
with the presumption that no guardrail is necessary. If it is Department for Transport. The research for DfT,
considered that it may be needed, only the minimum which underpins LTN 2/0976 , examined 78 junction
amount should be installed, after considering all other and crossing sites with and without guardrailing in
ways of resolving the issue. If in doubt, it may be better to the UK outside London and found that:
omit the guardrail and carefully monitor the site after the
scheme opens to establish whether it is needed in the • The frequency of all collisions and pedestrian
light of actual usage. collisions was some 1.5 to 1.6 times higher at
sites with guardrailing than sites without
guardrailing, (although this may in part be due to
the with-guardrail sites having slightly higher
traffic flows and speeds).
• Guardrailing does (unsurprisingly) increase the
proportion of pedestrians that cross in the
designated places.
• However, there is no conclusive evidence that
the inclusion of pedestrian guardrailing at any
type of pedestrian crossing or junction has any
statistically significant effect on road safety.
12.4.12 Transport for London has developed a Guardrail

Risk Assessment Form77 which provides a method for the
Newly-implemented highway scheme with extensive guardrailing assessment of the suitability of pedestrian guardrail at an
existing site.
Guardrail assessment procedures

12.4.13 A more context-sensitive methodology for the
assessment of the need or otherwise for guardrailing has
12.4.10 When considering the removal of guardrail, been developed by Urban Initiatives for LB Hackney78 .
authorities should go through a well-documented process Details of the procedure are given in the box out below.
to show that the decision has been made following careful 12.4.14 Local highway authorities are advised to develop
consideration of all relevant factors. General advice on similar tools, which can also consider how measures
managing authorities’ liability is given in Chapter 3. described in 12.4.5 above, together with more general
12.4.11 LTN 2/0976 provides an assessment tool for public realm improvements, can reduce or eliminate the
authorities considering the removal of guardrail from need for guardrail.
existing junctions, based on research carried out by the
University of Southampton (see box out). The method
uses the evidenced comparison of sites with and without
guardrail, and does depend on data from a similar
comparison site being available. It focuses on the degree
of compliance with crossing points rather than a road
safety assessment.

LB Hackne y – G ua rdrail Assessment Proced ure Stage 4 then identifies desire lines on the assumption
that there is no guardrail considering local origins and
The methodology consists of two parts:
destinations such as doors in nearby buildings. The
Part A provides a framework for the determination of assessor then identifies where these important
the necessity for guardrail, up to the stage at which pedestrian movements coincide with major vehicle
revised design proposals, if necessary, are brought movements. Guardrail may be needed to influence
forward. These proposals should be audited in an these conflict points but should not otherwise be
independent safety audit. considered in most situations.
Part B considers the recommendations of the safety Stage 5 assesses the severity of these conflicts at
audit, and, where problems are identified with the coincidence points and other locations, and whether
scheme developed in Part A, weighs up all the there are any particular concerns.
information considered in the previous stages, and
Stage 6 then considers whether guardrail is an
records the authority’s conclusion.
appropriate means of diminishing danger at these
Par t A conflict points, or whether there are any other/better
tools that could be used, even if these cannot be
Stage 1a of the procedure considers the character of
delivered in the short term. From this assessment,
the place, how different users perceive it and how the
proposals for the installation or retention of guardrail,
current design favours one or more groups. Stage 1b
or other measures, are developed.
then considers road safety issues specifically,
including the collision record, vehicle speeds and the Pa rt B
presence of any vulnerable users.
The recommendations from Part A may then be
Stage 2 assigns the location to one of 12 street subject to a Road Safety Audit. If this does not
types, ranging from a pedestrianised street to a identify problems with the proposals, the process is
major distributor road in a non-built up area. complete.
Stage 3 assesses the in-principle appropriateness of If problems are raised by the Safety Audit, a
guardrail, depending on the street type. For example, documented process considers the previous
guardrail is considered to be never appropriate in a proposals and the Audit recommendations, leading
pedestrianised street, sometimes appropriate in high to an exception report and a final decision.
streets and likely to be necessary on major distributor
roads.
12.5_ Street Trees and Planting 12.5.3 Although providing and maintaining street trees
have financial implications, the economic, environmental
12.5.1 Trees bring a wide range of benefits both to and social benefits vastly outweigh these costs. For
individual people and to society as a whole. They example, a recent cost:benefit analysis study of New York
contribute to character and distinctiveness, create visual street trees has revealed significant cost benefits80 .
interest and help to soften the urban environment. Guidance on the asset valuation of trees (for non-timber
However, their potential contribution goes far beyond the purposes) has recently been published by the RICS81 .
purely visual; they have a critical role to play in helping to
adapt urban areas to climate change, for instance, by
providing shade and reducing the local environmental
temperature79 or by slowing the rate at which rainfall
enters the drainage system.
12.5.2 The introduction of trees as part of a scheme or
improvements around existing trees is as much a
specialist discipline as highway engineering and designers
need to take advice from a qualified and professional
arboricultural consultant or tree officer from the planning
or highway authority at the planning stage of a scheme to
ensure that suitable trees are used and their needs in
terms of growth, protection and maintenance are
appropriately catered for.
The street trees in the centre of The Circus in Bath are an example
091
of how trees can contribute significantly to the quality of place.
12.5.4 Recent studies have shown that in urban areas all 12.5.6 Designers should take steps to prevent conflicts
over England trees are under threat82 . Large, mature trees between tree root systems, underground services and
are under particular threat, while new trees being planted building foundations83 . Wherever possible underground
tend to be smaller varieties. It is worth noting that the services should be routed in shared service ducts. Ducts
benefits that trees bring are proportionate to their size: make maintenance easier and minimize the amount of
large, mature trees bring more benefits than small ones. space taken by services. Modern utilities in plastic ducting
The potential contribution of trees will be further improved can tolerate deformation by tree roots in ways that older
where they are integrated into ‘green infrastructure’ services cannot.
networks.
12.5.7 Tree pits are an important part of tree planting
12.5.5 Large species will grow to have large canopies and proposals in an urban street environment and the design
extensive root networks. Designers should choose will be site specific due to the nature and conditions of the
appropriate species and ensure that their physiological local environment. An arboricultural consultant or tree
needs are incorporated into scheme designs. Information officer must be consulted to provide advice on tree pit
about the types of trees that will survive in urban areas in design to ensure trees can grow to maturity.
England can be found at http://www.right-trees.org.uk.
12.5.8 One of the underlying reasons why urban trees are
under threat is that many people believe they cause a
range of problems. This section considers whether or not
these perceptions are realistic, and outlines ways in which
potential problems can be avoided.
12.5.9 The incidence of subsidence in urban areas that is
caused by trees is far lower than assumed. One study in a
London borough found that only 0.05% of its building
stock was affected by tree-related insurance claims
annually. Selecting appropriate species for a location and
maintaining the tree appropriately will ensure that roots do
not affect building stock. The London Tree Officers
Association has produced 'A risk limitation strategy for
tree root claims'84 .
12.5.10 Measures to be taken to avoid common
problems include:
Pavement lift:
• Ensure that the planting pit is designed and built to
allow for root expansion in the future.
• Where necessary, it might be possible to have non-
structural surface roots removed.
Footpath obstruction
• Ensure pavements are sufficiently wide to
accommodate large species trees where appropriate.
• Where trees have already grown too wide for a path, it
Designers need to plan now to achieve streets lined with large might be possible to build the path out into the street
canopy trees which will be vital in reducing the expected increase
in urban temperatures anticipated with climate change.
so that pedestrians can go round the tree trunk.
Appreciation of long-term growth issues such as root ball size
and overhang of carriageway must be taken into account. Leaf litter and fruit fall
• Leaf litter and fruit fall can be collected by local
authorities and used to create locally sourced
compost.
• Blocked gutters and drains can be avoided by fitting
mesh guards.

12.5.11 For further guidance, see: • Lighting design should ensure that shadows are
• Trees and Design Action Group avoided in streets where pedestrians may be
http://www.tdag.org.uk vulnerable. Sudden changes in lighting level can be
• CABE 'Managing Urban Trees'85 particularly problematic for partially sighted people.
• Trees for Cities http://www.treesforcities.org.uk and • It is important that lighting is carefully designed to
guidelines on street trees86 reduce stray light.
• Mayor of London’s Street Trees • Consideration should be given to attaching lighting
http://www.london.gov.uk/streettrees/ units to buildings to reduce street clutter.
• Greater London Authority ‘Right Trees for a Changing
Climate’ http://www.righttrees.org.uk
• Communities and Local Government trees web pages
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://ww
w.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/tr
eeshighhedges/trees/
• Chris Britt and Mark Johnston, 2008 ‘Trees in towns II:
a new survey of urban trees in England and their
condition and management’82
• Communities and Local Government, 2006 ‘Tree
Roots in the Built Environment’87
12.6_ Street Lighting

12.6.1 Street lighting can contribute to:
• improving road safety;
• assisting in the protection of property;
• discouraging crime and vandalism;
• making residents and street users feel secure;
• Enhancing the appearance of the area after dark; and
• Encouraging walking, cycling and the use of public
transport.
12.6.2 MfS1 provides advice on the design of street

lighting. The following key principles are given, which can
be applied to the range of highway types covered by
MfS2.
• Lighting should be planned as an integral part of the
Inconspicuous lighting units on buildings help to minimise clutter
street layout, including any planting. The potential for in this village high street.
planting to shade out lighting through growth should
be considered when deciding what to plant.
• Lighting should be appropriate to context and street 12.6.3 Sustainability is an important consideration. The
function. In some locations, such as rural villages, Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency
lighting may not have been provided elsewhere in the Scheme (CRCEE) and the Energy Using Products
settlement and therefore it may not be appropriate in Directive (EuP) should be taken into account in the design
new developments. of lighting schemes. Other recent legislation that should
• Lighting should illuminate both the carriageway and be considered includes the Climate Change Act (2008)
footway. and the Energy Act 2008 (Consequential Amendments)
• The height of street lighting units should be appropriate Order (2009).
to the cross-section of the street. Lowering the height
of lighting can make the scale more human but this will
mean that more lighting units are required.
• Lighting levels do not have to be constant during the
hours of darkness.
• Lighting columns should be placed so that they do not
impinge on the available widths of footways.
093
12.6.4 Current guidance documents on street lighting
include the following:
• BS 5489 (2003) Code of Practice for the Design of
Road Lighting - Part 1: Lighting of Roads and Public
Amenity Areas88 .
• BS EN 13201-2: 2003 Road Lighting - Performance
Requirements89 .
• BS EN 13201-3: 2003 Road Lighting - Calculations of
Performance90 .
• BS EN 13201-4: 2003 Road Lighting - Methods of
Measuring Lighting Performance91 .
• *Guide on the Limitation of the Effects of Obtrusive
Light from Outdoor Lighting Installations’92 .
• ‘Guidelines for Minimising Sky Glow’93 . Anti-ram walls that also provide seating outside the Supreme
Court, Parliament Square
• Institution of Lighting Engineers (ILE) (2005) ‘Guidance
Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light’94 .
• ‘Lighting in the Countryside: Towards Good
Practice’95 . special materials and foundations and, in so doing, they
are not frangible or likely to bend if accidentally hit.
12.7_ Security Measures

12.7.1 With an evolving criminal and terrorist threat to
infrastructure and areas where high concentrations of the
public may gather, certain sites may have anti-ram
protection measures installed to protect them from
vehicle-borne attack. Such countermeasures would
typically consist of vehicle security barriers such as
bollards, planters, structural walls or balustrades,
appropriately resilient landscape architecture, or using
structural elements concealed within common
streetscape items such as shelters, benches, cabinetry,
signposts and lighting columns.
12.7.2 For protection reasons, their position is usually
optimised as far from the vulnerable site as possible. The
advantage of having an effectively managed cordon-
based scheme, where barriers are located at the furthest
perimeter of a vulnerable site, is that individual assets
within the area will not typically need to be protected with
extra security barriers, thus helping a local authority
achieve its objectives with minimal clutter.
12.7.3 If designed to be permeable by pedestrians then
the spacing between structures will be no more than
1.2m apart such that hostile vehicles cannot encroach
through the gaps. They are unlikely to be less than 1
metre apart so that people with impaired mobility are not
inconvenienced. Although dressed to blend in to the
architecture and streetscape in an urban area, these
measures are designed to resist forced attack using

13_ Traffic Signs and Markings
12.7.4 In future years, town and city centres may install

permanent retractable bollard and gate schemes not just
for bus priority or environmental reasons but also to
include a security theme and thus be specified to a
security specification. These measures may be in place
full time or just at times of increased risk (e.g. when the
site is crowded or when a secure event is being hosted in
town).
12.7.5 Any traffic regulation introduced for this national
security purpose will typically be accompanied by Anti-
Terrorist Traffic Regulation Orders (ATTROs using Sections
22C or 22D of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as
amended by the Civil Contingencies Act 2004).
12.7.6 Further information is available in the Home
Office’s documents “Working Together to Protect
Crowded Places”96 , “Crowded Places: The Planning
System and Counter Terrorism”97 and “Protecting
Crowded Places: Design and Technical Issues”98 .
Protective security advice and a palette of appropriately
resilient vehicle security barriers or structural elements for
embedding in the public realm are available from
specialists at the UK Government’s Centre for the
Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI) or via the local
police Counter-Terrorism Security Adviser (CTSA).
13.1_ Introduction Village gateways do not have to use garish colours - images
taken from the Suffolk Countryside Manual, produced by Suffolk
13.1.1 Traffic signs and markings add significantly to the County Council100 .
amount of street furniture and it is important that highway
authorities look for opportunities to reduce excessive
that drivers are presented with simultaneously, the greater
signing, where this would not have a detrimental impact
the difficulty they are likely to have in assimilating all the
on road safety. Examples of where this could be done,
information.
whilst complying with the legal requirements of the Traffic
Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) and 13.1.4 Excessive signs and road markings can be
other Regulations, are given in this section of the particularly intrusive in rural areas, where it can have an
document. urbanising influence. The impact is not only aesthetic;
many rural economies are dependent on tourists,
13.1.2 Based on the guidance that is already contained in
attracted by the quality of the landscape, which can be
MfS1 the key principles that should be adopted with
damaged by insensitive design. Some authorities, such as
respect to traffic signs are as followsB:
Dorset County Council, have developed policies for
• The Traffic Signs Manual (TSM)99 and other DfT managing rural roads in a more sensitive way.
publications such as Traffic Advisory Leaflets provide
advice to designers on signing.
• Whilst signs must comply with legislation in the form of
the TSRGD58 and the Crossing Regulations52 , there is
flexibility within the regulations.
• Highway Authorities should not see TSRGD and the
TSM as constraining documents, and they are able to
use the flexibility in the documents to suit local
circumstances.
• TSRGD does not require any signs to be installed.
However, signs are needed to warn, inform or to give
effect to Traffic Regulation Orders.
13.1.3 Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual notes that

research has shown that the greater the number of signs
B
Note – road ‘markings’ are legally ‘signs’ and so the latter includes the former 095
13.2_ Size and Mounting Height
Of Signs
13.2.4 There is no legal requirement for signs to be
mounted at a particular height, although the Traffic Signs
Manual recommends that signs are generally set with their
13.2.1 Advice on the size of signs is given in the various lower edge between 0.9m and 1.5m above carriageway
chapters of the Traffic Signs Manual99 and is generally level, and 2.1 to 2.3m above footways and cycle tracks.
related to actual traffic speed (85th percentile values) and While their effectiveness may be reduced, mounting signs
in some cases the speed limit. at lower levels can reduce the visual impact of signs and
may be appropriate in some situations, particularly rural
13.2.2 Although highway authorities should take account
of this advice in determining the size of signs, it should be
noted that it is not unlawful to deviate from the advice
contained in these documents. TSRGD58 sets out the
If all signs have yellow backing boards, how well does a

particular sign stand out?
Sign mounted at low level areas where it is often important to mount traffic signs
below adjacent hedges or walls to minimise the impact on
long views across the countryside.
13.3_ Yellow Backing Boards

sizes of signs that can be used, and highway authorities
are at liberty to select from these alternative dimensions.
13.2.3 The Traffic Signs Manual confirms this, noting (in
Chapter 3, Appendix A) that smaller signs may be used 13.3.1 Yellow backing boards are placed on signs to
where special amenity considerations apply, but noting increase their conspicuity and while this may be
that this will offer drivers less time to react to the sign. appropriate in some exceptional circumstances, this
Highway authorities will need to judge, based on the technique significantly worsens their visual impact. The
importance of the information on the sign and the effect is particularly marked when a blanket decision is
consequences of drivers not being able to read it in time,
whether this will lead to a significant road safety problem.
Multiple yellow retroreflective bollards can have a significant visual

impact.
C
Note – retroreflective bollards complying with BS 8442:2006 section 14 incorporating traffic signs which are not lit require special
Manual for Streets 2 authorisation from the Department for Transport since they do not comply with TSRGD.
taken by a highway authority to use yellow backing

boards on all signs along a route.
13.3.2 Chapters 3, 7 and 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual99
provide advice on the use of backing boards and notes
that there are potential disadvantages to their use:
Sign to diagram 610 mounted on hoop top frame.
Keep left bollard, with rear face uncoloured
• Yellow backing boards can be especially

environmentally intrusive, and their over-use devalues
their attention-attracting benefits.
• Even a grey board can deprive triangular and circular
signs of a primary recognition aid, their distinctive
silhouettes.
Sign to diagram 610 mounted on post. Note - yellow backing is

not compulsory.
• Where it seems that a sign is not being noticed by

drivers, it should be checked to ensure that it is well
sited, not obscured by vegetation or other obstructions
and is of the appropriate size and in good condition.
Only then should the use of a yellow backing board be
considered.
13.4_ Keep Left/Right Signs

Pedestrian refuge without keep left bollards, Walworth Road
Mixed Priority Route scheme
• The larger overall size of the assembly can sometimes

obstruct sight lines.
• Where it is necessary to increase a sign’s conspicuity, a
less garish way of doing this may simply be to provide
a standard sign of larger size. Not only will this be more
noticeable than a smaller sign, but it will also improve
legibility and hence reading distance, which a yellow
backing board cannot.
• Yellow backing boards will not normally be necessary
when signs indicate an increase in the speed limit.
The London Road, Southampton scheme omits central line
097
markings for part of its length.
13.4.1 Signs to Diagram 610 (keep left or right) or 611 13.5_ Centreline Markings
(pass either side) are typically provided at the ends of
central islands and refuges and at kerb build-outs to warn 13.5.1 MfS1 notes that the use of centre lines is not an
drivers of the obstacle in their path. They are often absolute requirement and includes reference to the
mounted within illuminated or reflectorised bollards, which reductions in traffic speed that result by omitting
over recent years have increasingly been of the passively centreline markings on carriageways. This has been done
safe type, usually with a yellow reflective finishC . successfully on busy routes in urban areas as well as in
village settings. Removing centrelines can be done easily
13.4.2 These can be highly intrusive, particularly where a when carriageways are resurfaced, with an immediate
large number of such bollards are installed at a junction. saving in capital and ongoing maintenance costs.
13.6_ Zig-Zag Markings

13.4.3 Where the highway authority considers that retro-
reflective bollards are essential, they should give
consideration to specifying that the coloured material is
only provided on the side of the bollard that faces the 13.6.1 Zig-zag markings on the approaches to pedestrian
traffic flow, so that the overall intrusive effect is reduced. and cycle crossings are required under the Crossing
Regulations52 , which state that the number of zig-zag
13.4.4 Highway authorities should consider whether signs marks shall be between 8 and 18 in number. However,
and bollards are required at every central island or kerb the regulations also state that the number of zig-zag
build-out, particularly where the area is lit and other
vertical features would alert drivers to the presence of the
obstacle. The Crossings Regulations52 make it clear that
signs to diagrams 610 and 611 are optional.
13.4.5 Similarly, there is no legal requirement for such
bollards and signs on the median islands on the
approaches to roundabouts.
13.4.6 Where traffic signs are necessary, there is a range
of mounting and lighting arrangements that can be used.
The hoop type of sign mounting has been used in many
schemes, for various types of sign, and can be lit from
below when this is necessary. Signs to Diagrams 610 and
611 can also be mounted on lamp columns and other
street furniture. This junction has the Give Way marking (1003) and the approach
triangle (1023) but no Give Way sign. It would have been possible
to omit the approach triangle. Note also table to slow speeds
and make pedestrian crossing easier.
marks may be reduced to 2, of a minimum length 1m,

where the traffic authority is satisfied that, by reason of
the layout or character of the location, it will be
impracticable to comply with the normal requirements.
13.7_ Coloured Surfacing
Excessive use of coloured surfacing can be visually intrusive

bus and cycle lanes in an effort to improve compliance.

Anti-skid surfacing is also sometimes coloured, although
less intrusive grey and buff colours are available.
13.7.2 Coloured road surfacing has no legal significance.
It adds to visual intrusion and should not be used by
Roundabout in Taunton town centre with proceed left signs to

Diagram 606 but no black and white chevrons to diagram 515.
Note - cobbled surface is difficult for cyclists.
13.7.1 Coloured road surfacing is often used to give

greater conspicuity to areas that are hatched (to Diagrams
1040, 1040.2, 1040.3 and 1040.4) as being areas that Visually intrusive yellow lines in a narrow street.
should not be entered by vehicles unless it is considered
by the driver to be safe to do so. It is also often applied to
default. It should be reserved for situations where it is
considered that it will have a particular safety benefit, and
where this outweighs the aesthetic disadvantages.
Studies have shown101 that coloured surfacing can
reduce the number of vehicles overrunning hatched
areas, but that the effect reduces with time as the colour
fades. Coloured surfacing therefore creates an ongoing
maintenance liability.
13.8_ Signs and Markings

at Junctions
13.8.1 There is no legal requirement to use road markings
to define priority at T-junctions or crossroads.
13.8.2 The give way rule at T-junctions is often signed
using both road markings to Diagram 1003 (give way line)
and 1023 (approach triangle) and a sign to Diagram 602
(Give Way). However, not all are mandatory and highway
authorities should consider whether it is necessary to go
beyond the minimum legal requirement. The following
options are possible:
• Give Way marking (1003) alone
• Give Way marking (1003) and approach triangle (1023)
• Give Way marking (1003) and approach triangle (1023)
and Give Way sign (602)
13.8.3 Roundabout central islands are usually signed with
the proceed left arrow sign (Diagram 606) and black and
One sign (Diagram 616), as shown on the lower image, can be
legal and sufficient. white chevrons (Diagram 515) but it is lawful to omit both
types of sign, or to use Diagram 606 without Diagram
099
515. At roundabouts and bends consideration could be
given to reducing the size of signs.
13.8.4 No entry signs (Diagram 616) are normally
provided on either side of the entrance to a one-way
street from a junction, but this is not a requirement of
TSRGD where the carriageway or vehicle track width is
less than 5m.
Detail for tabled side road crossing, omitting yellow/red markings across table

Section C
Case Studies

The detailed case studies have been developed on behalf of CABE by John Dales and David
Johns at Urban Initiatives. We are grateful to the project contacts for the time they took introducing
us to their schemes. Visit the CABE website (www.cabe.org.uk ) for detailed scheme drawings, a
wider selection of street focussed case studies, and information about training and direct project
support that we offer.
Case Study Photograph Credits

The CIHT would like to acknowledge and thank all those who supplied photographs of the case
studies they are listed below:
CS1 Ian Hingley Urban Initiatives
CS2 Louise Duggan CS28 CABE/David Millington

CS3 CABE/Jane Sebire CS30 CABE/ David Milington
CS4 CABE/Jane Sebire CS31 John Dales Urban Initiatives
CS5 CABE/Jane Sebire CS32 CABE/David Millington
CS6 CABE/Jane Sebire CS33 David Johns Urban Initiatives
CS7 CABE/Jane Sebire CS34 CABE/James Whitaker
CS8 CABE/Jane Sebire CS35 John Dales Urban Initiatives
CS9 CABE/Jane Sebire CS36 Gillespies
CS10 Sam Wright TfL CS37 CABE/James Whitaker
CS11 CABE/Jane Sebire CS38 CABE/James Whitaker
CS12 Southampton City Council CS39 Gillespies
CS13 Graham Redman/Southampton City Council CS40 Gillespies
CS14 Southampton City Council CS41 Nottingham City Council
CS15 Graham Redman Southampton City Council CS42 Nottingham City Council
CS18 Graham Redman Southampton City Council CS45 CABE/Stephen McLaren
CS19 Graham Redman Southampton City Council CS46 CABE/Stephen McLaren
CS20 Sheffield City Council
CS23 CABE/David Millington
CS24 CABE/David Millington
CS25 Urban Initiatives

14_ Case Studies
14_ Case Studies
14.1_ Walworth Road,

Southwark, London
Summary
Walworth Road in Southwark faced problems with road
safety. As a distributor route with heavy traffic and a local
high street with lots of shoppers things had become
unbalanced:
• The street space was largely allocated to motor
vehicles, including designated bus lanes.
• The footways were relatively narrow, and long
stretches of guard rails stopped pedestrian movement
both along and across the street.
• The guard railing also made servicing difficult for the
many retail and other commercial properties which
Photo CS2
fronted the street.
Despite many conventional traffic engineering and road

The scheme helped to re-establish balanced provision
safety measures, the collision record gave considerable
changing from a traffic-dominated thoroughfare into a
cause for concern.
vibrant place for people –that still carries important traffic
Walworth Road became one of ten Department for flows (see photo CS1 before and photo CS2 after).
Transport ‘mixed priority route’ demonstration projects. It
Description
was the most complex, because of its heavy traffic, and
the high importance of making it a much more attractive The A215 Walworth Road runs from the Elephant and
place for shopping, business and the local community. Castle in the north to Albany Road in the south - some
1.2km. It is a key radial route, carrying around 20,000
vehicles per day. However, it is also an important and
busy neighbourhood retail centre, in the area around the
East Street Market (see photo CS3). Around 500m of the
street in the heart of this centre was redesigned (see
Location Plan.
Photo CS1
Location Plan
103
• the carriageway contained a dedicated bus lane and a
general traffic lane in each direction
• vehicles and pedestrians were segregated by long
sections of guard rails
• there were infrequent crossing facilities
• it was badly cluttered in places by typical permanent
traffic management equipment and street furniture, and
by temporary ‘A-boards’ placed there by local
businesses.
One of the most critical issues was the reallocation of

space (see photo CS5) – carriageway to footway – to
enable the street to function far better as a local high
street and neighbourhood centre. This was a very
challenging task, given the fixed frontage to frontage
Photo CS3 widths and localised narrowness on the road in certain
sections.
Generally the street is fronted by retail and commercial

properties, though the immediate hinterland to both sides
is residential. Walworth Road is mainly used by local
residents from the nearby social housing. The lower levels
of car ownership in the social housing sector mean it’s all
the more important to enhance the walkability of the local
high street (see photo CS4). It’s historic alignment and
buildings create a well-defined street scale, but its relative
narrowness was a problem for the modern-day demands
of vehicles and pedestrians.
Photo CS5
Public transport
A comprehensive transport assessment was done to find
out the feasibility of removing bus lanes and redistributing
some of this space to the footways. Ten different bus
routes – with some 150 buses per hour at peak times –
use the road.
Bus ‘gates’ were installed at both entrances to the
Photo CS4 scheme area (see photo CS6). These allow buses to have
priority over general traffic. Nearly two years after the
scheme opened, anecdotal evidence suggests that it has
Balanced provision had little impact (either way) on bus journey times. Bus
drivers often do not use the gates, even at peak times.
Before the improvement scheme, Walworth Road was
dominated by through vehicles. This came at the expense
of pedestrian movement, and undermined the sense of
place:

14_ Case Studies
Photo CS6 Photo CS8
Other critical elements of the scheme included:

• improved and new formal (see photo CS7) and
informal crossing points along the street, including a
wide median strip in the southern section of the
scheme (see photo CS8)
• extensive tree planting (see photo CS9)
• seating (see Photo CS5)
• improved management of parking and loading (see
photo CS10)
• improved pedestrian and vehicular lighting, through
multi-function poles
• major de-cluttering - approximately 600 unnecessary
signs and poles, and around 425m of pedestrian guard
rails were removed.
Photo CS9
Photo CS7
Photo CS10
105
Design Process Notable issues
Scheme genesis Public consultation and engagement was a critical factor
in the success of the project. Consultation with traders led
The scheme began life as a road safety scheme. A bid
to agreement on a reorganisation of loading and delivery
was made by the London Borough of Southwark for
arrangements. The primary changes were an increase in
Department for Transport ‘mixed priority route’ road safety
permitted loading times and relocation from carriageway
demonstration project funding. The bid’s success
to footway loading. A construction method was also
encouraged the council not only to seek out innovative
developed in partnership with retailers to ensure
approaches to achieving better safety, but also to take a
continuous footway access to all premises during the
wider view of the street in the context of regeneration
build period. This was done through night working and
benefits.
careful phasing.
Given the many and complex transport issues along the
Procurement street and negotiations with London Buses and TfL’s
Network Assurance team, it took over two years for the
Southwark Council commissioned a comprehensive
scheme design to be agreed.
transport and public realm design for the street, through a
combination of conventional tendering and public
competition. Five consultancies were initially asked to
Technical Data
submit full tenders. From these, two were shortlisted to
produce design concepts for the competition. Dates Contract mobilisation October 2006.
Works largely complete in January 2008
A public vote identified Project Centre as the winning
with some minor amendments and
designer, on the basis of:
snagging works continuing until March
• the scheme’s simplicity 2008.
• the use of public realm elements appropriate for
Volumes • Pre-scheme: 75 buses/hour/direction;
Walworth Road’s use and character
20,000 pedestrians/day
• views on robustness and long-term cost-effectiveness.
• Pre-scheme: 24-hour weekday flow
>20,000 vehicles
Disciplines/people involved
There were two principal workstreams – transport/safety
• 2010: 24-hour weekday flow
= 18,300 vehicles (am peak hour
and public realm/street design – and these ran largely in
1,030; pm peak hour 1,080)
parallel. Officers from both Southwark Council and
Transport for London (TfL) were closely involved, as well Speeds Post-scheme mean speed 18 mph (85th
as the consultancy team. percentile 24 mph)
A comprehensive traffic analysis and modelling exercise Road 36 months ‘Before’ record: 63 total
was carried out by Southwark and presented to TfL as Safety collisions, of which 29 involved
part of the justification of the scheme. This information pedestrians or cyclists
was used not only to determine the impact of the scheme 19 months ‘After’ record (factored up to
on traffic flows – especially buses – but also to help 36 months): 53 total collisions, of which
identify opportunities for reallocating carriageway space to 30 involved pedestrians or cyclists
footways.
Costs £4.5 million (approximately £2.5 million
There was considerable public involvement throughout Southwark Council; £1 million Department
the design and delivery process, not only at the for Transport; £1 million Transport for
procurement stage. This included public meetings, London)
targeted stakeholder events and a business
questionnaire.
There was direct engagement with transport user groups,
including:
• TfL (buses, signals, cycling and walking)
• the emergency services
• Southwark Cyclists

14_ Case Studies
Evaluation blurring of pedestrian and vehicle areas can cause problems

Benefits for blind and partially sighted people. Tactile paving -
‘Corduroy’ - has been used to mark the boundary where
Walworth Road now has the character and appearance of there is no kerb.
bustling high street. Anecdotal evidence indicates:
• a noticeable increase in footfall and in the number of Problems
pedestrians crossing There have been a number of minor changes to resolve
• a decrease in shop vacancies particular issues. Pedestrian crossings were originally paved
• growth in the amount of time people spend in the street. in modular granite blocks. However, these failed to cope
with the weight and flow of buses and had to be removed.
Considering the challenging economic conditions since the
scheme opened, this is good news - although there is no Although footway materials are durable and maintainable,
supporting factual evidence. the lack of agreement on an overarching street
management plan has led to poor reinstatement of paving
Specific improvements include: by utility operators, and some problems with refuse
• better provision for pedestrians to cross according to collection.
their desire lines (see photo CS4) The scheme opened in April 2008, so it will be another year
• better provision for bus passengers in terms of the before sound conclusions can be drawn. Collision
positioning, layout and prominence of bus stop ‘pairs’ monitoring after six months painted a positive picture,
• easier pedestrian movement and a more visually pleasing although further analysis after 19 months was less
street scene due to the removal of unnecessary street conclusive – with some positive and some negative results.
clutter and the creation of raised side street crossings
(see photo CS11). The interim data shows:
• the total number of collisions reduced noticeably
• the proportion of collisions leading to people being killed
or seriously injured increased, also noticeably.
• this increase has fallen more heavily on user groups
usually considered less vulnerable, than on pedestrians
and cyclists.
Collisions incurring personal injuries are more evenly

distributed, rather than in clusters as before. As the scheme
did away with much of the paraphernalia focusing
pedestrian crossing in specific locations, this is unsurprising.
Conclusion
Despite the radical nature of the changes implemented on
Walworth Road, the scheme is characterised by its
Photo CS11 pragmatism. This is evident throughout, from the reasons
behind the public selection of the design team, through to
The footways are not just less cluttered - they are also the choice of materials. Walworth Road may look much
considerably wider. The most important, and obvious, different and better than it did previously - but the design
transformation the scheme has brought is the reallocation of fully responds to the practical and functional requirements
space away from motor vehicles. of this very hard-working street.
Comprehensive repaving in consistent, simple and

Further Information
maintainable materials has given the district a positive and
cohesive identity. The tree-planting programme softens the http://www.southwark.gov.uk
impact of traffic, and adds a welcome new element to the http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/dpp/mpr/
street’s overall character (see photo CS9).
Project Team
Throughout the scheme, kerb heights have been lowered
and in places there is no kerb at all (see photo CS5). This • Project Management- London Borough of
reduces segregation between those on the footway and Southwark/Malcolm Reading Associates
those in the carriageway - requiring them to be generally • Public consultation- London Borough of Southwark
more aware of one another. However, some national user • Lead Designer – Project Centre Ltd
107
groups and Southwark’s Access Officer maintain the • Main Contractor – FM ConwayLondon
14.2_ London Road,
Southampton
Summary
The improvements to London Road, to the north of
Southampton city centre, were opened in September
2008. The scheme aimed to radically change the way in
which London Road was used and understood,
strengthening its friendliness to pedestrians, the visual
quality of its public realm, and its sense of place. (See
photo CS12 before and photo CS13 after.) The design
adopted a minimalist approach to traffic management kit
and other street furniture.
Photo CS14
Photo CS12
Photo CS15
Description
London Road is an historic gateway to Southampton city
centre for traffic arriving from the north (see Location
Plan). The section covered by the scheme is around
450m long. It is home to around 80 businesses, mostly
retail. It also has a developing café society and night-time
economy, and is considered ‘on the up’ after years of
decline.
Photo CS13
Southampton City Council intentionally associated the term

‘shared space’ with the scheme. However, it is perhaps
best described as a ‘better balanced’ street, in which the
needs of all users are now given appropriate consideration
(see photo CS14 before and photo CS15 after). The
council’s aim was that the London Road design should be a
quality benchmark for future work in the city - and it has
succeeded in achieving this challenging objective.
14 Case Studies
Photo CS16
Location Plan
Before the scheme, it was also a road safety hotspot, with

31 personal injury collisions recorded from 2002-2004,
particularly affecting vulnerable road users. The degraded
streetscape reinforced antisocial driver behaviour, and
marginalised pedestrian movement along and across the
street.
Southampton City Council’s design team built on recent

experience from European countries of ‘shared space’
approaches to street design. They placed a strong
emphasis on innovative traffic management to reduce
speed and improve walkability: Photo CS17
• carriageways were narrowed

• kerb heights were lowered A banned right turn at the junction with Brunswick Place –
• the centre line and other superfluous road markings at the southern end of the scheme – has encouraged
were removed. through traffic heading south towards the city centre to
use the A33. This has led to reduced traffic volumes on
Horizontal deflection (see photo CS16) was used to London Road.
visually break the street into two sections, disrupting the
traditional linearity. Parking was reorganised into discrete Footways
areas of echelon - angled - parking. Vehicles manoeuvring
into and out of spaces increase ‘friction’ and help calm
Footways were widened - significantly in places - to give
traffic speeds (see photo CS17).
space for café seating and ‘spill out’ activity (see photo
CS15). Street furniture and signs were rearranged into a
furniture zone, so that pedestrian movement was not
obstructed. Carriageway and footway lighting were
combined to reduce the number of columns.
109
Crossing Points
Informal pedestrian crossing points were implemented in

three locations, using a change in materials and layout -
but no traffic management signs or measures. Flush kerbs
and granite sett paving were used on the carriageway to
indicate the crossing (see photo CS16). Build outs and
informal crossing points associated with angled parking (see
photo CS19B)
Public Transport
Bus stop improvements like raised kerbs (see photo CS18),

new bus shelters and better information have significantly
improved the public transport user experience. Bespoke
Southampton wayfinding signs were piloted in London Photo CS19B
Road, and are due to be rolled out across Southampton.
Design Process
Scheme genesis
The 2000 Southampton city centre masterplan identified the

need to improve London Road as part of a wider strategy to
upgrade the Queen Elizabeth II (QEII) Mile north-south
spine. This links the waterfront to the retail and civic cores of
Southampton.
Procurement
An interdisciplinary in-house team delivered the project from

inception through to construction. This team was supported
by specialist consultancy advice on street lighting, public art
and legibility aspects.
Photo CS18
People/disciplines involved
Seating The City Council team included an urban street and

landscape designer, transport engineers, transport
Bespoke seating was designed by a local artist, focusing on planners, a city centre manager, parking services, marketing
the history of London Road (see photo CS19). Two large and public relations professionals. The team worked
seats replicate the shape of the main rose window of St together to foster new ideas about street design and to
Paul’s church, which formerly stood in London Road. challenge traditional thinking. A communications plan was
used to:
• Keep people informed

• invite views on proposals
• build support for the project
• actively manage participation

14_ Case Studies
Notable issues Technical Data
A ‘Placecheck’ survey was done in 2004 to find out how

local businesses and residents thought London Road Dates Construction: June 2007-August 2008
should be upgraded. The design team then developed an Volumes • 2005 Pre-scheme: 24-hour weekday
overall vision and concept for the street, and took the flow = 12,716 vehicles (am peak hour
concept ‘on the road’ using a mobile exhibition space 764; pm peak hour 950)
within a bus.
• 2010 Post scheme: 24-hour weekday
Adjoining landowners and tenants were engaged on a flow = 7,260 vehicles (am peak hour
one-on-one basis. This aimed to help them understand 432; pm peak hour 559)
the scheme, allay any concerns, and work through the
complexities of construction programming. Post-
• Post-scheme counts: pedestrians
5,500/day; cyclists 400/day
consultation and approval of the design, regular
newsletters, updates and thank you letters were sent to Speeds • Post-scheme mean speed 18 mph
maintain communications. (85th percentile 23 mph)
The lead designers developed solutions that were Road 2003-2006 inclusive (48 months): 31
different and challenging. The experience has helped to Safety collisions (28 slight; 3 serious)
build council officers’ capabilities and capacities to deliver Jan-Dec 2009 (10 months): 3 collisions
similar schemes throughout the city. (all slight)
Complex issues of parking and loading along the street Costs £1.3 million (works and fees for all
were adequately resolved. phases)
• Third-party parking forecourts to the south of the street
were successfully integrated into the street design, while
Evaluation
retaining the primacy of the footway for pedestrians.
Benefits
• Designated cycle lanes within the street were initially
proposed, but these were removed in favour of The London Road improvement scheme has had a
encouraging cyclists to share the main carriageway. Part marked impact on the way people use and appreciate the
of the reason for this was possible conflicts between street. It has transformed a once failing space into a
cyclists in the lanes and vehicles manoeuvring into and worthy gateway to the city.
out of the angled parking bays.
Simple lines and a clean finish give the street a sense of
purpose (see photo CS13). The well considered layout of
Funding public realm elements emphasises the mixed-use nature
of the street. A series of public spaces provides a setting
Council officers got approval for improvements to London
for new public activities to happen in the street.
Road on the basis of benefits to road safety, public
transport, walking and cycling. Local transport plan funding The design has used horizontal deflection (see photo
was obtained to address these issues in a single package. CS16) of the carriageway alignment to create two
precincts - north and south - of different character, and to
reduce traffic speeds. The deflection is reinforced by short
rows of parking in angled bays on alternating sides.
Angled bays can be awkward for crossing pedestrians to
negotiate. However, the consolidation of parking, and the
loss of some spaces overall has opened up new areas for
pedestrian crossings with unobstructed sight lines (see
photo CS16). Together, the horizontal deflection and new
parking arrangements help to interrupt traffic flow and
limit speeds. In turn, this helps create gaps in the flow so
pedestrians can cross without formal signal control.
A representative of the local access forum commented
how the scheme has ‘settled down’ since opening.
Visually impaired people have got used to some particular
features – such as raised tables – having previously had
misgivings. It helped that certain design details – for
Photo CS19 example kerb heights - were tested in a mock-up at a
111
council depot, before progression within the overall
design.
Problems
It is perhaps unavoidable, given the scheme’s remit and
the nature of the roads which London Road connects to
both north and south, that the improvements come to a
very abrupt end at the scheme’s ‘red line’. For example,
the staggered pedestrian crossing at the southern
junction of London Road and Brunswick Place still acts as
a barrier to pedestrian movement to and from the city
centre. Reduced traffic flow on London Road means that
in hindsight an un-staggered crossing should have been
installed.
Although costs prohibited this, the design team would
have preferred to have gone with a higher specification
lighting column - the visual qualities and frequency of the
columns used means they do tend to dominate the street.
Tree planting on the eastern footway would have softened
the impact of lighting columns, and balanced vertical
elements along the street. However, the cost of relocating
utilities was too high.
Conclusion
Despite the economic climate, pedestrian footfall on
London Road has increased. Early results suggest that
both traffic speeds and the number of collisions have
been reduced.
Overall, the London Road scheme has considerable
lessons to offer. The project has showcased how in-
house design teams are capable of taking ownership of -
and delivering - high quality street improvement schemes,
in challenging urban ‘main street’ conditions. A simple yet
aesthetically pleasing design has been achieved without
major cost in terms of materials. It is both affordable and
replicable across Southampton, and in similar locations
across the UK (see photo CS18).
Project Team
• Designer: Simon Taylor, City Projects, Southampton
City Council
• Project Manager: Phil Marshall, Southampton City
Council
• Project Engineer: Graham Redman Southampton City
Council
• Site Engineer: Nigel Best Southampton City Council
• Principal Contractor: A Machola Ltd
• Public Artist: Christopher Tipping
• Street Lighting: Halcrow Group Ltd
• Legible City Design: City ID

14_ Case Studies
14_ Case Studies
14.3_ Sheaf Square & Howard

Street, Sheffield
Summary
Sheffield’s ‘Gold Route’ (see Location Plan) is a series of
streets and places running through the city centre from
Sheffield Station to the east, through to the Heart of the
City to Devonshire Park in the west. Identified in the 2000
City Centre Masterplan, it has contributed a range of city
centre regeneration schemes, and has been a focus for
public investment to turn the historic tide of city centre
decline.
Sheaf Square and Howard Street are two key elements of
the Gold Route that connect Sheffield Station to the city
centre, by incorporating new crossings of what were two
distinct parts of Sheffield’s relief/ring road system (Sheaf
Street and Arundel Gate). They have transformed the
sense of arrival in the city for many visitors, and greatly
improved the setting for Sheffield Hallam University.
They exemplify the successful relationship that can be
struck between an area’s historic character and heritage
and its emerging purposes and community. Although the
scale of change may be beyond the reach of most
Councils, they demonstrate what is achievable when the
potential contribution of public realm to city regeneration
is recognised and a commitment to joined-up design and
integrated delivery and management structures is
established.
Location Plan
113
Description trafficked Ring Road (Sheaf Street) (see photo CS22) and
a large roundabout. Pedestrian connections to the city
Sheaf Square was once dominated by Dyson House (see
centre from the station were unpleasant, indirect and
photo CS20) – a disused part of the Hallam University
illegible (see photo CS21).
Campus, and separated from the centre by the heavily
Photo CS20
Photo CS21
Photo CS22
Howard Street and Sheaf Square have been redesigned

to create a much better 'first impression' of Sheffield and
to reinforce one of the city’s major pedestrian axes. Both
were constructed at the same time as the major
reshaping of the station itself.
Sheaf Square
Demolition of Dyson House made a much enlarged
square possible and opened up two parcels of land for
major redevelopment (see photo CS23). The walking
route between the station and Howard Street now runs
between a water cascade and a gigantic stainless steel
sculpture ‘The Cutting Edge’ that frame a gentle slope to
the realigned and redesigned crossing of Sheaf Street.
The sound of the water and the form of the sculpture
blocks out any traffic noise. Photo CS23

14_ Case Studies
Howard Street
Howard Street, which runs up the side of a valley, was
previously dominated by traffic access and servicing in
conflict with high flows of pedestrians (see photo CS26
before). Access to Pond Street/Paternoster Row was
restricted to buses and local access traffic and Howard
Street restricted to pedestrians and cyclists only.
Photo CS24
The Ring Road itself has been substantially remodelled

between Sheaf Square and Howard Street so that a wide,
direct signalised crossing of the main carriageway is now
on the exact alignment between the two spaces (see
photo CS24) and a second, informal crossing of Pond
Street/Paternoster Row (see photo CS25). This street
narrows at the raised crossing point, so that only one Photo CS26
vehicle can pass at a time. Vehicles give way to one
another and pedestrians have a short crossing distance Howard Street itself is now a tree lined avenue with 12
to negotiate. This bus gate has experienced illuminated stainless steel and granite seats (see photo
vehicle/pedestrian conflicts and is currently under design CS27). The street is paved in a mix of flamed granite flags
review including looking at ways to reduce bus speeds. and sandstone with flush kerbs along the alignment of the
old carriageway (see photo CS28 and photo CS29). The
street is a shared surface for pedestrians,cyclists and
occasional vehicles accessing the University front entrance.
As elsewhere there is ongoing discussion about the design
of such spaces in relation to use by people with visual
impairments. Alongside, Hallam Gardens was created (see
photo CS30) by the University entrance and consists of a
simple terraced garden edged by a curved and ramped
stone sitting wall containing a small water feature.
Photo CS25
Photo CS27
115
At its upper end, Howard Street connects with Arundel
Gate, previously a dual carriageway ‘concrete collar’.
Formerly, the pedestrian route across Arundel Gate was
via a subway. In association with the redesign of Arundel
Gate itself, and through the creation of ‘Hallam Square’ in
front of the main University entrance, there is now a
signalised surface level crossing across a two-lane
carriageway (see photo CS31).
Design Process
Scheme Genesis
The ‘Gold Route’ emerged from the City Centre
Masterplan, with the Sheaf Square, Howard Street and
related projects identified as having a particular role to
Photo CS28 play in re-connecting the city centre with its mainline
railway station. The Novotel building which is on the direct
line between Howard Street and 'Hallam Square'
represented an ‘immovable object’ and, in order for the
route, to achieve its primary objective, the improvements
would have to exhibit excellence in its design.
Procurement
Initial city centre masterplanning was carried out by
EDAW, working with the City Council's in-house
Regeneration Projects Design Team (RPDT) who went on
to design and detail the scheme.
People/Disciplines Involved
Critically, the public realm and pedestrian interventions
were progressed within a wider programme of city centre
regeneration and involved the collective working of a
range of public institutions, asset/service managers, and
private land owners. Through collaborative working and
Photo CS31 investment the Gold Route projects have been so
successful in stitching together the station with the Heart
of the City and beyond.
Photo CS30

14_ Case Studies
Notable Issues Funding

The successful regeneration of the Peace Gardens and Sheaf Square was linked to the refurbishment of the
the Heart of the City projects helped to generate support railway station, and was implemented and funded
and commitment to further projects from politicians, through a partnership comprising Sheffield 1 (Urban
council officers and the public generally. Council Regeneration Company), the City Council, Network Rail,
restructuring led to the creation of a single directorate and Midland Mainline, the Department for Transport,
committee dealing with both transport and planning Yorkshire Forward (Regional Development Agency) and
projects for the city, enabling more integrated and the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority. The
consistent decision making. regeneration and pedestrianisation of Howard Street and
Hallam Square was delivered in partnership with, and in
Both the Masterplan and detailed designs for each project
cases only made possible by, the efforts of Hallam
area were the subject of extensive public consultation and
University.
engagement, especially with the users and operators of
the station and of Hallam University Campus.
Subsequently development of sites and spaces around Technical Data
the Sheaf Square and Howard Street were the subject of
further consultation as part of the development of the
Dates Construction: June 2007 to August 2008
Sheaf Valley Masterplan, which was later incorporated in
to the 2008 City Centre Masterplan Review. Volumes Sheaf Street
The management of Sheaf Square and Howard Street is 7am-7pm vehicle counts: 2001 – 36,600
supported by the City Centre Management Team, whose 2008 – 29,200
work ensures that the Council holds National Beacon 2010 – 25,520
Council status, and whose roles include cleaning, water
24-hour weekday flow: 2010 – 33,000
feature maintenance, horticulture, City Centre
Ambassadors and security (see photo CS32). 7am-7pm pedestrian counts:
2001 – 3174 movements at previous
roundabout
2008 – 8700 movements in same broad
area
Arundel Gate
7am-7pm vehicle count: 1990 – 24,000
2010 – 11,780
24-hour weekday flow: 2010 – 15,520
Speeds Sheaf Street: post-scheme mean speed
23mph (85th percentile 29mph)
Arundel Gate: post-scheme mean speed
21mph (85th percentile 25mph)
Road Sheaf Street/Paternoster Row (vicinity of
Safety Howard Street/Sheaf Square)
Before – 1/04/00-1/04/04 (48 months):
Photo CS32 18 collisions (16 slight; 2 serious)
After – 1/04/08-31/1/10 (22 months):
Overall, the success of the Gold Route programme and 10 collisions (all slight)
associated projects has been the consequence of Arundel Gate (vicinity of Howard Street)
committed leadership by the City Council, based on a Before – 1/04/00-1/04/04 (48 months):
clear and agreed vision for change that was conceived of 7 collisions (3 slight; 3 serious; 1 fatal)
and promoted as essential to the future success of the After – 1/04/08-31/1/10 (22 months):
City. Continued commitment to this vision at the highest 4 collisions (3 slight; 1 serious)
level helped to ensure the necessary interdisciplinary Costs £24 million (£11.1m European ‘Objective 1’
working within the Council, to which members remained funding; £6.8m DfT; £2.8m Yorkshire
committed despite possible concerns about cost, and Forward; £3.3m from Hallam University,
that the many vital partnerships with other parties and s106 contributions, English Partnerships,
agencies were well managed. The Gold Route is a great Railway Heritage, private developers)
example of what genuine civic leadership can achieve in
117
the 21st century.
Evaluation costs for cleaning, repair and reinstatement, and for the
management of major public realm features.
The regeneration of Sheaf Square and Howard Street has
delivered seamless and legible connections between key Day-to-day management of the spaces is enhanced by
points in the city centre (see photo CS31 and photo the presence of the CCMT Ambassadors. There are
CS24). The reflection of history, culture and enterprise in excellent working relationships with the local police, and
their layout, form and aesthetic give them meaning and this partnership allows for the sharing of responsibilities of
purpose. public space management.
In terms of transport, the reconfiguration of the Ring Road Successful partnerships; inspired and committed
and the downgrading of the infamous concrete collar leadership; design excellence; the prioritisation of
have not only been essential to the transformation in pedestrian movement over vehicular movement where
Sheffield but can also act as inspiration to the many other appropriate; and a clear ongoing maintenance and
UK cities and towns that suffer from the stifling of growth management regime. All of these have been essential to
and development that such highway infrastructure leads the success of Sheaf Square and Howard Street in
to. The concerns about gridlock in Sheffield that were achieving genuine benefits for the users of the spaces
once voiced at the prospect of the changes, though they and Sheffield as a whole.
were understandable, have proved unfounded.
Project Team
A few concerns about the scheme design have been
raised from an accessibility perspective. These include the
• Lead Designer – Sheffield City Council Regeneration
Projects Design Team with support from EDAW and
design of some seating without backs or arms, an issue
Faber Maunsell
that has since been resolved. The sharing of Howard
Street by pedestrians and cyclists remains a potential
• Main Contractor – Interserve
concern in relation to the safety of the former, and this is

• Lighting – Sutton Vane
an aspect of the scheme that is presently being monitored

• Highways Design – Street Force
to see if remedial action – perhaps simply through access

• Artists – Si Applied (‘Cutting Edge’ sculpture); Jeremy
Asquith (street furniture); Mosaic Workshop (Howard
management rather than design – is required.
Street Rill); RPDT (Sheaf Street Water Cascade)
The cost of these improvements, while justified by
experience, may be considered beyond the ability of other
Councils to afford. Nevertheless, the Gold Route
demonstrates the need for an institutional framework and
process to guide wider city centre regeneration. The
partnership between the Council and Hallam University in
the delivery of improvements to Howard Street and
Hallam Square, and between the Council and Network
Rail in joining-up the station redevelopment and Sheaf
Square project, show how such mechanisms are
necessary in creating better functioning, formed and
designed spaces.
Four years on from opening, both Sheaf Square and
Howard Street remain in good condition. This would not
have been the case had the Council not earnt lessons
with preceding schemes such as the Peace Gardens. The
major water features in Sheffield were installed with a
clear understanding of, and commitment to, a lifecycle
maintenance regime capable of keeping features such as
those in Sheaf Square and Hallam Gardens in excellent
working order.
The City Centre Management Team (CCMT) is key to the
ongoing success of the public realm investment (see
photo CS32). Specific service level agreements on
maintenance standards and budgets are based upon the
priority allocated to the location of the street or space.
These include a lifecycle asset management regime and

14_ Case Studies
14.4_ High Row & West Row,

Darlington - Part Of The
‘Pedestrian Heart’
Summary
The Darlington ‘Pedestrian Heart’ project opened in
summer 2007, following more than two years of physical
work in the town centre. Darlington wanted to maintain its
competitive edge as one of the main shopping
destinations in the Tees Valley. The scheme aimed to
bring people back, encourage an improved retail offer,
and attract new investment and development in the town.
The scheme involved rationalising bus access (see photo
CS33) and improving pedestrian provision within a large
part of the town centre. It was focused around the historic Photo CS34
market hall and market square, and included the unique
three-level street at High Row/West Row. Bus routes were
considerably reconfigured, with a bus-only gate Description
maintaining excellent bus penetration into the centre. All High Row and West Row lie parallel and immediately next
private car parking is provided on the edge of the core. to one another in Darlington’s town centre (see Location
Plan). They form part of what was once the Great North
Road between London and Edinburgh. High Row was
formed from a raised footway on the western side,
separated from its carriageway to the east by a triple-
stepped kerb. The whole was separated by a sloping
bank from the lower West Row.
Photo CS33
Over two years after opening, the scheme is considered a

major success. Footfall has increased and the
improvements have been cited as the reason why a
number of significant retail landlords have invested further
in the town. Darlington Pedestrian Heart is an example of
how appropriate public realm investment can enable a
market town to transform not only its image, but also the
quality of life for its people (see Photo CS34).
Location Plan
The layout dates back to 1904, when the street hosted a

cattle market. Before the Pedestrian Heart improvements,
traffic tended to dominate. There were access restrictions,
including one-way operation and bus lanes. These were
signed and enforced using conventional methods, which
together with planters and associated paraphernalia
created a poor impression.(see photo CS35)
119
creating a single surface. In the lower section - West Row
- the distinction between footway and carriageway was
also largely removed (see photo CS34). It is now
effectively a pedestrianised street. The level change
between the two streets is the defining feature within the
town centre which has been celebrated and articulated
through a single flight of steps that runs the entire length
of the space (see photo CS37).
Photo CS35
The dominance of the two carriageways, the lack of

pedestrian facilities, and some vehicle congestion meant
the space did not work well for anyone. Darlington
Borough Council saw an opportunity to create a focal
point for civic and market activity (see photo CS36).
Photo CS37
The steps terminate at the junction of West Row and

Northgate to the north of the scheme with a new
amphitheatre and focal point for civic gatherings and
events (see photo CS39). The removal of traffic outside
the market hall allowed for the relocation of the outdoor
market to a primary location within the town centre. A
similar market/events space was created to the south
along Blackwell Gate.
Photo CS36
A critical challenge was to reorganise provision for

different modes to stop vehicles ‘choking’ the town centre
streets, particularly along High Row and West Row. Bus
stop capacity and layover space were issues, given
increasing numbers of bus patrons and bus mode share.
Bus routes and interchange facilities were relocated, but
remained very close to the retail core (see photo CS33).
This enabled vehicles to be effectively excluded from
West Row. Service access to High Row was restricted to
before and after retail trading hours. These changes
allowed the three levels to be rationalised to two and the
creation of a predominantly pedestrian space. The upper
- High Row - carriageway was raised to footway level,

14_ Case Studies
Despite not having a formal role in project execution, a

steering group of council members ensured that
members remained informed and supportive throughout.
Without this well co-ordinated project management and
governance regime, some of the more controversial
aspects of the scheme – such as the water feature and
inclusion of cyclists – would have been lost.
Public and focused stakeholder engagement was a
crucial component throughout the process. This included
very close working with town centre businesses to
minimise construction disruption, and with the Darlington
Access & Disability group on inclusive design.
Notable issues
In such a historic location, there was understandable
Photo CS39 concern about the nature and scope of change. Local
heritage groups were particularly concerned about the
change from the previous three levels to two (see photo
One of the scheme’s most interesting features is the
CS37). This was addressed by outlining the benefits of
‘stepped water cascade’ developed by Gillespies,
the new layout, and by that the fact that the new scheme
Fountain Workshop and artist Michael Pinsky (see photo
would be reinstating the original simpler layout that was in
CS40). This water feature sits under the main pedestrian
place pre 1904.
ramp linking High and West Rows, and is made from
coloured strips of granite. Alternate grey and red lines Significant disruption to local businesses during the
reflect both the historic washing of blood down the slope construction period was recognised as inevitable. A
associated with the earlier market, and the ‘barcode’ dedicated liaison officer was appointed. Whose efforts in
pattern that underpins contemporary trading. building personal relationships with retailers and market
Design Process traders were key to maintaining their support. A major gas
main was encountered beneath West Row during
Scheme genesis construction, and this had a significant impact on scheme
The Pedestrian Heart scheme emerged from the 2001 design and costs. It also added three months to the
town centre development strategy. The strategy aimed to construction period.
make a distinct improvement in the economy and quality During design development, there was considerable
of the environment in Darlington town centre. It had two discussion about the initial plan to allow cyclists to use
main strands: the pedestrian area informally. The close working
• to attract new retailers and businesses relationships and trust between officers and members
• to increase the ease, comfort and safety with which meant that, despite opposition based on safety concerns,
the town centre could be used. cyclists were permitted to use the scheme on opening.
This was initially for a six-month trial period. Based on
Procurement experiences during this period – during which CCTV-
based assessment of pedestrian-cyclist interactions took
A 2001 town centre access study identified the place – the decision to allow cycling within the Pedestrian
opportunity to create a ‘pedestrian heart’. The proposal Heart area was made permanent.
was approved by Darlington Borough Council in 2002.
Gillespies were appointed in 2003 as lead consultants to Concerns were expressed by blind and partially sighted
take forward the design development. The Pedestrian people about the loss of kerbs in some locations. This
Heart project therefore pre-dates Darlington’s sustainable was addressed partly by varying certain design details.
travel demonstration town initiative. The very low vehicle volumes and speeds that would be
encountered in what is a virtually pedestrianised part of
People/disciplines involved the town centre were also pointed out.
Design development and delivery was helped by all the
key contributing officers being within the same division.
Transport officers in particular made a positive
contribution to negotiations with bus operators. The
process was also aided by strong buy-in from council
members, and the council’s general political unity.
121
Funding
• Cycling levels in the town centre have increased since
The Pedestrian Heart scheme was largely funded by: the scheme opened, with the number of cyclists
counted over a 12-hour period rising from around
• Darlington Borough Council
1,000 in July 2007 to over 1,300 in July 2008
• the Local Transport Plan and
• One North East (the regional development agency)
• Support from people in the town centre for allowing
cycling to continue has also increased over the same
‘Single Programme’ funding, through the Tees Valley
period, from 53.9% to 62.1%.
Partnership.
Technical Data
Dates Construction: 2005 – Summer 2007

Volumes Prebend Row
2010: 24-hour weekday flow = 2,020
vehicles (am peak hour 130; pm peak
hour 160)
Speeds Post-scheme mean speed 13mph (85th
percentile 17mph)
Road No personal injury collisions involving
Safety pedestrians or cyclists were recorded
within the town centre ring road in the
year following scheme completion.
Costs £6.5 million (approx) (£3.3 million One
Photo CS40
North East; £2.5 million Darlington
Borough Council; £0.65 million Local
Transport Plan) The scheme was ambitious, with a clear vision for
transformation and a strong emphasis on creating a
quality environment for pedestrians. It has successfully
Evaluation
achieved an appropriate balance between various modes
Perhaps the most important mark of the Pedestrian Heart of travel. The greatly enhanced public realm has created
scheme’s success is that, despite the economic both a safer and more attractive environment for all users,
recession, the town centre economy is showing signs of and a more flexible space for markets and events.
resilience. Pedestrian footfall and parking duration of stay
Problems
figures improved between 2008 and 2009, in contrast to
other centres in the Tees Valley. Darlington’s town centre As might be expected with such a major scheme, a
manager reports greater investor confidence in Darlington number of issues were encountered in the development
as an investment location - though objective data to and construction phases. Engagement with businesses
support this is not available. was a major issue:
Benefits • the 18-month period of design development meant

that several consultees moved on during the process
The design has delivered numerous benefits:
• some felt that more could have been done to get the
• The upper section exploits the east-facing orientation people of Darlington excited about the project - what
and elevated position relative to the rest of the town by the ‘gain’ would be for the construction ‘pain’.
incorporating new areas of seating, and a wide, flush,
retail and civic promenade. Project cost increases and overrun, largely due to the
• The scheme maintains good access to the centre for problems associated with the gas main under West Row,
public transport and for people with disabilities. meant that compromises were made in relation to some
• Space has been created for the market traders to be of the design features. There have also been maintenance
located on the main retail street to provide vitality and problems associated with some of the more complex
greater choice to the town centre offer. elements.
• Planters have been integrated into a retaining wall
between the upper and lower sections, breaking up the
hard urban condition and facilitating Darlington’s ongoing
participation in ‘Britain in Bloom’ (see photo CS39)

14_ Case Studies
Conclusion
Darlington Pedestrian Heart has nevertheless achieved its
primary objective of bringing people back to the town
centre - and encouraging them to stay there longer. The
heart of the town now throngs with people – whatever the
weather. It’s still easy to get to by bus, and businesses are
doing well. High Row and West Row no longer look or
work like the historic Great North Road did, but what this
part of Darlington needed then and needs now is quite
different. The Pedestrian Heart is a benchmark for the
town – and other market towns – for the early 21st
century (see photo CS36 and photo CS37).
Further Information
http://www.darlington.gov.uk/Living/Planning+and+Buildi
ng+Control/Planning+Services/Projects+and+Schemes/P
edHeart/PedestrianHeart.htm
Project Team
• Lead Designer – Gillespies
• Main Contractor – Birse
• Artist – Mike Pinsky (Water Cascade and ‘Life Pulse’)
• Highway Engineers – Faber Maunsell
• Quantity Surveyors – Kinsler & Partners
• Lighting Design – Equation
• Water Feature Designer – The Fountain Workshop
123
14.5_ Maid Marian Way,
Nottingham
Summary
Voted by the public as one of Britain's worst streets,
Nottingham's Maid Marian Way has since been
transformed from a traffic-dominated corridor into a more
pedestrian-friendly part of the city.
Pedestrian subways under busy roads on the edge of city
centres are a common legacy from the 1960s and 70s. In
Nottingham, Maid Marian Way was turned into an inner-
city dual carriageway in 1964. The intersection with Friar
Lane was turned into a roundabout with a sunken plaza,
which linked four pedestrian subways each served by
stairways and ramps (see Photo CS41). There are similar Photo CS42
examples in many other UK towns and cities.
In 1989, a review of planning policy for Nottingham city Description
centre highlighted a number of essential measures to
Maid Marian Way runs from Canal Street/Castle
retain the city’s competitive position for retail, business
Boulevard to the south, to the roundabout junction with
and tourism - including overcoming the barrier effect of
Upper Parliament Street to the north – some 650m (see
Maid Marian Way. Consideration was given to sinking the
Location Plan).
road into a tunnel, but this was discounted on financial
grounds (see Photo CS44). It was previously laid out as a four lane dual carriageway
that bore no direct relation to the surrounding urban
Remodelling of the dual carriageway and the inclusion of
fabric, and was designed primarily for moving large
wide pedestrian crossings has restored a direct visual and
volumes of traffic. As a result it severed the parts of the
psychological link across the busy road (see Photo CS42
city centre to west and east. It was lined by a mixture of
and CS43). Large areas of additional public space have
older buildings and undistinguished office blocks from the
been won back in the process, creating generous
1970s and 1980s.
pavements and areas of planting.
Photo CS41
Location Plan

14_ Case Studies
The centrepiece of the improvements is the treatment of Street furniture

the roundabout that formed the intersection with Friar
Modern street furniture, including bicycle parking, was
Lane. A sunken plaza with sloping concrete walls
installed, with new tree planting along the footway. Traffic
surrounding a small retail kiosk connected four subways,
signal equipment was mounted on new lighting columns,
which emerged through step/ramp arrangements on each
with dedicated electrical supply for each to keep
of the four corners of the space (see Photo CS41). The
maintenance simple and safe (see photo CS45). The City
available footway at each corner was reduced by this
Council also took the decision to omit the surrounding
arrangement to narrow fragments close to the buildings.
white backing boards for signal heads to reduce their
Crossings impact on the streetscape at the junction.
Photo CS43 Photo CS45
The design involved filling the subways and sunken plaza Friar Lane junction
with concrete. The roundabout was replaced with a set of
Although the speed limit - 30mph - and the basic dual
traffic signals and two in-line pedestrian crossings over
carriageway layout remained unchanged, both
Maid Marian Way to the north and south of Friar Lane.
approaches to the Friar Lane junction were redesigned
The five metre wide crossings provide adequate space on
with ramps as speed reduction features. Kerb heights at
the central median to allow them to be directly aligned
the junction itself were reduced to around 25mm.
with the dominant pedestrian movement. Generous new
pavement areas were added, with side-street connections The Friar Lane junction has been transformed, influencing
incorporated into the design (see photo CS43 and CS44). how the whole of Maid Marian Way impacts on the
surrounding built environment and on pedestrian
movement. The street continues to carry broadly the
same traffic volume as before.
Photo CS44
125
Design Process
Scheme genesis
The changes in Maid Marian Way were part of a wider
package of improvements. These aimed to reduce the
severance created by the inner ring road in order to allow
the city centre to expand. From the outset, it was
recognised Maid Marian Way would need to continue to
handle large volumes of traffic - so the focus was on how
best to improve physical and perceptual links for
pedestrians.
Procurement
Funding was sought via a major scheme bid to the
Department for Transport (DfT) - an ‘Annex E’ submission
as part of the Local Transport Plan.
Photo CS46
The focus on improved pedestrian movement and city
centre environment meant that a conventional cost-
However, traffic capacity and horizontal alignment issues
benefit assessment rated the overall package as negative.
– for example at the Mount Street junction - along with
This led to delays in the DfT approving the major scheme
awkward carriageway levels, have meant that a more
bid. However, Nottingham City Council pressed ahead
conventional highway design has been used north of the
with the implementation of the Maid Marian Way element,
Friar Lane junction (see Photo CS46). This includes
using general Local Transport Plan funding. The scheme
significant lengths of guard rails, and staggered
was procured, designed and delivered entirely by
pedestrian crossings.
Nottingham City Council.
The introduction of bus lanes and a dedicated right-
People/disciplines involved
turning lane into Friar Lane (east) means that Maid Marian
Way is now six lanes across in some places, compared Close working relationships between urban design
with the previous four. However, the width of each new officers, highway engineers and transport planners were
lane is less than the former lanes. achieved. Construction managers were included early in
the design process, exploiting the opportunities of in-
Further improvements are proposed for this northern
house contracting. The experience built confidence in
section:
council officers working together and managing large-
• the red tactile paving at junctions will be replaced with scale schemes. This prompted the setting up of a city
a less obtrusive colour development team, to bring together a wide range of skills
• significant lengths of pedestrian guard rails will be and professions.
removed from the Mount Street junction as part of a
Notable issues
wider city centre decluttering programme.
The project also gave momentum to a growing public and
political interest in streetscape design. This led to the
publication of a comprehensive streetscape design
manual in September 2004, updated in August 2006.
This has raised awareness of good design across the
council, and among contractors, statutory undertakers,
and other partners.
Communication and consultation involved some
imaginative measures:
• a programmed series of events and meetings with
businesses
• hotels promoting 'quiet days' during construction
when noisy operations were avoided
• regular monthly meetings for bus and taxi operators,
focusing on minimising disruption during construction
• articles written by a local food writer, observing
Photo CS47 progress from a nearby restaurant

14_ Case Studies
Technical Data
• where tree planting had to wait until the appropriate
season, the word 'tree' appeared across the
temporary paving Dates Scheme construction began in May 2003
• an imaginative series of handouts to keep the public and was substantially completed by
informed, explaining the logic of the scheme August 2004.
• a programme of artworks and events celebrating the Volumes 2010: 24-hour weekday flow = 27,840
new pedestrian connection. vehicles (am peak hour 1,970; pm peak
hour 1,960)
The multi-disciplinary in-house team meant a more
informed approach to safety auditing than might Speeds Post-scheme mean speeds
otherwise have been expected. After extensive (north of Friar Lane): northbound 24mph
discussions, traffic movements at the Friar Lane junction (85th percentile 28mph); southbound
were simplified, with no vehicles entering Maid Marian 16mph (85th percentile 21mph)
Way from Friar Lane. This enabled road safety officers to Road Analysis of accidents has shown no
feel confident with the proposals. Other technical Safety detriment to safety as a result of
challenges included the use of ‘puffin’ pedestrian removing the guard rail.
crossings, and providing an adequately wide central In each of the years 2000-2002,
median. This meant a direct - as opposed to staggered - there was a single Vulnerable Road User
pedestrian route could be provided, linking the two (VRU) casualty at the Friar Lane junction
separate signalised crossings (see photo CS47). (a cyclist in all three cases). There were no
Funding VRU casualties in 2003-2005, but a total
of six VRUs in the three years 2006-2008,
The £2.9 million cost of the Maid Marian Way scheme comprising four pedestrians, one cyclist
was met through Local Transport Plan funding and by the and one motorcyclist. Of the four
East Midlands Regional Development Agency - pedestrian casualties, three were
specifically for environmental enhancements. An intoxicated at the time and the fourth
additional £11.7 million of Local Transport Plan funding was a child walking down the
became available by 2003 to support a wide-ranging carriageway backwards.
strategy for Nottingham's city centre called 'Turning
Point'. The scheme for Maid Marian Way was also part of Costs £2.9 million (£2.35 million from Local
the city's 'Big Wheel' transport plans for Greater Transport Plan; £650,000 from Regional
Nottingham. Development Agency for environmental
enhancements)
Evaluation
Benefits
The remarkable transformation of Maid Marian Way
highlights the effort required to overcome the worst
legacies of segregation as a highway design philosophy. It
also shows how changing the highway alone can’t
change the whole place:
• the architecture and urban design of the surroundings
do little to foster a distinctive sense of place
• much remains to be done to integrate the street into
the fabric of Nottingham.
Nevertheless, a street identified as one of the least loved
in the country has been transformed into a legible and
functional space. In comparison with its previous layout,
its barrier effect is largely overcome.
A survey of pedestrian movements between April 2003
and April 2005 suggested that the Friar Lane route across
Maid Marian Way has attracted considerably more
people: a 56 per cent increase in weekday pedestrians
and a 29 per cent increase among Saturday shoppers. It
127
feels comfortable to cross the busy road - a pedestrian Maid Marian Way remains perhaps the best UK example
journey across Maid Marian Way is no longer the hostile of a ring road that has been transformed despite retaining
experience it once was. its strategic traffic function. Maid Marian Way shows how
– with a strong, shared commitment to change – soulless
Problems
traffic conduits can be made into lively city streets.
The scheme involved the clearance of the previous
Further Information
planting on the median to the north and south of Friar
Lane. This was due to the reduction in width of the • Turning Point
median itself, and to increase the visual connection (http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid
across the street. However, this meant the loss of some =2805)
mature trees. Although 80 new trees were planted on • Big Wheel (http://www.thebigwheel.org.uk/)
both the median and the - now wider - footways, it will be
some years before they have grown enough to provide Project Team
enclosure for the street.
• Ben Webster, Urban design officer
There were problems with the new low-level planting • David Jones, Modelling, appraisal & business case
between the trees on the median. The 2004 planting • Bob Bolus, Project manager
scheme was not strong enough to withstand winter • Alan Solaini, Traffic signals design team leader
salting, and failed to restrict pedestrians from crossing in • Sarah Clarke, Communications officer
mid-block locations. It was replanted with denser • John Hardy, Senior engineer, Highway design
vegetation, coupled with a 1m-high ‘post and wire’ fence • Chris Keane, Senior engineer, Highway design
to stop pedestrians crossing until the planting could • Francis Ashton, Road Safety Manager, Environment
become established. and Regeneration
Although transformed from its former configuration, the
• Nigel Turpin, Urban design team leader
central junction still feels highly engineered. Greater
• Brian Etherington, Site agent for highways construction
emphasis could have been given to the continuity and
importance of Friar Lane, stressing the connection
between castle and city centre without compromising
safety or traffic flows on the main road. An integral tactile
language as part of the overall design would have been
preferable – and this is now to be addressed.
Conclusion
The Maid Marian Way scheme kick-started a positive
change to Nottingham's public image that was taken on
by the rest of the Turning Point project. Tackling the worst
aspects of Maid Marian Way was an essential component
in reconnecting the fabric of the city. This project
demonstrates what can be achieved by bringing together
the skills and imagination of several professions to
rebalance the multiple functions of streets and public
spaces.
The scheme demonstrates how problem inner city ring
roads can be transformed. However, it also highlights –
for example at the Mount Street junction – the tensions
that still exist between traffic capacity and safety
concerns, and the desire to deliver more walkable and
high-amenity streets.
Some of its worst attributes have been removed and high
quality connections have been provided. However, more
work is required for Maid Marian Way to become an
urban boulevard that is supportive of the full range of city
centre movement patterns and other activities.

References
References
1
Mixed Priority Routes: A Practitioners Guide, Local 32
Road Safety Audit Guidelines, Institution of Highways
Transport Note 3/08, Department for Transport, 2008 and Transportation, 2008
2
DfT Shared Space Project - Stage 1: Appraisal of 33
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 5
Shared Space, MVA Consultancy, 2009 Section 2, HD19/03, Road Safety Audit, Highways
3
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 6 Agency, 2003
Section 2, TD41/95, Vehicular Access to All-Purpose 34
Hounslow Streetscape Design Guide, London
Trunk Roads, Highways Agency, 1995 Borough of Hounslow, Draft
4
Rediscovering Mixed-Use Streets: The Contribution of 35
Inclusive Mobility, Department for Transport, 2005
Local High Streets to Sustainable Communities, 36
Providing for Journeys on Foot, Institution of
Joseph Rowntree Foundation, The Policy Press, 2007 Highways and Transportation, 2000
5
Paved with Gold the Real Value of Good Street 37
Planning Policy Wales, Technical Advice Note 18:
Design, Commission for Architecture and the Built Transport, Welsh Assembly Government, 2007
Environment, 2007 38
Cycle Infrastructure Design, Local Transport Note
6
Link and Place: A Guide to Street Planning and 2/08, Department for Transport, 2008
Design, Landor Publishing, 2008 39
The Effect of Cycle Lanes on the Proximity between
7
Highways Asset Management Plan, London Borough Motor Traffic and Cycle Traffic, Accident Analysis &
of Hounslow, 2009 Prevention, Volume 42, Issue 1, January 2010
8
Understanding Place Historic Area Assessments: 40
Shared Use by Cyclists and Pedestrians, Local
Principles and Practice, English Heritage, 2010 Transport Note 2/86, Department of Transport / The
9
Understanding Place: Historic Area Assessments in a Welsh Office, 1986
Planning and Development Context, English Heritage, 41
Keeping Buses Moving, Local Transport Note 1/97,
2010 Department for Transport, Local Government and the
10
Cycling in Pedestrian Areas, Traffic Advisory Leaflet Regions, 1997
9/93, Department for Transport, 1993 42
Bus Priority: The Way Ahead, Department for
11
Cycling in Vehicle Restricted Areas, TRL Research Transport, 2004
Report 583, TRL, 2003 43
Accessible Bus Stop Design Guidance, Bus Priority
12
Suburbs and the Historic Environment, English Team technical advice note BP1/06, Transport for
Heritage, 2007 London, 2006
13
The Boulevard Book: History, Evolution, Design of 44
MultiWay Boulevards, MIT Press, 2003 Section 1, TD9/93, Highway Link Design, Highways
14
Better Rail Stations, An Independent Review Agency, 1993
Presented to Lord Adonis, Secretary of State for 45
Transport Statistics Bulletin, Road Statistics 2008:
Transport, Department for Transport, 2009 Traffic, Speeds and Congestion, Department of
15
Pedestrian Environmental Review System Version 2, Transport, 2008
Transport Research Laboratory, 2010 46
Setting Local Speed Limits, DfT Circular 01/2006,
16
Walking Good Practice Volume 3, Transport for Department for Transport, 2006
London, 2010 47
Setting Local Speed Limits in Wales, Circular No.
17
10 Big Numbers, Commission for Rural Communities, 24/2009, Welsh Assembly Government, 2009
2009 48
Traffic Calming Techniques, Institution of Highways
18
Managing Dorset’s Rural Roads: Our New Approach and Transportation, 2005
to Road Management in a High Quality Environment, 49
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Highway Link
Dorset County Council, 2008 Design, TA43/84 (Withdrawn), Highways Agency,
19
Devon County Council 1984
20
Streets for All Practical Case Study 6: Tactile Paving, 50
The Assessment of Pedestrian Crossings, Local
English Heritage, 2008 Transport Note 1/95, Department for Transport, 1995
21
Highway Risk and Liability Claims, UK Roads Board, 51
The Design of Pedestrian Crossings, Local Transport
2009 Note 2/95, Department for Transport, 1995
22
The Highway Code, Department for Transport, 2007 52
The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossing
23
The Manual for Streets: Evidence and Research, TRL Regulations and General Directions 1997
Report 661, Transport Research Laboratory, 2007 53
Safety Investigation at Pelican Crossing Sites, London
24
Traffic Management and Streetscape, Local Transport Accident Analysis Unit, 1974
Note 1/08, Department for Transport, 2008 54
25
Better Streets, Mayor of London, 2009 Section 2, TD42/95, Geometry Design of Major/Minor
26
Companion Document to Manual for Streets, Priority Junctions, Highways Agency, 1995
Hampshire County Council, 2010 55
Layout and Design Factors Affecting Cycle Safety at T-
27
Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Junctions, Traffic Engineering and Control, October
Centres, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005 1992
28
Planning Policy Wales, Technical Advice Note 12: 56
Design, Welsh Assembly Government, 2009 Section 2, TD16/07, Geometric Design of
29
Streets for All, English Heritage, 2005 Roundabouts, Highways Agency, 2007
30
Kent Design Guide Review: Interim Guidance Note 1: 57
Cyclists at Roundabouts: Continental Design
Quality Audits, Kent Highway Services, 2008 Geometry, Traffic Advisory Leaflet 9/97, Department
31
Solihull MBC for Transport, 1997
129
58
The Traffic Signs Regulation and General Directions 81
Valuation of Trees for Amenity and Related Non-
2002 Timber Uses Guidance Note, Royal Institution of
59
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 6 Chartered Surveyors, 2010
Section 2, TD54/07, Design of Mini-Roundabouts, 82
Trees in towns II: A New Survey of Urban Trees in
Highways Agency, 2007 England and Their Condition and Management,
60
Mini Roundabouts Good Practice Guidance, Communities and Local Government, 2008
Department for Transport and County Surveyors’ 83
Guidelines for the Planning, Installation & Maintenance
Society, 2006 of Utility Apparatus in Proximity to Trees, National
61
General Principles of Traffic Control by Light Signals, Joint Utilities Group Volume 4, 2007
Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/06, Department for 84
A Risk Limitation Strategy for Tree Root Claims 3rd
Transport, 2006 Edition, London Tree Officers Association, 2007
62
Pedestrian Facilities at Signal-controlled Junctions, 85
Managing Urban Trees, Commission for Architecture
Traffic Advisory Leaflet 5/05, Department for and Built Environment,
Transport, 2005 http://www.cabe.org.uk/sustainable-
63
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 6 cities/advice/urban-trees, 2010
Section 2, TD50/04, The Geometric Layout of Signal- 86
Best Practice Guidelines: How to Assess the
Controlled Junctions and Signalised Roundabouts, Suitability of a Site for Street Tree Planting and What
Highways Agency, 2004 to do Next ,Trees for Cities, 2008
64
Economic Impact of Traffic Signals, Greater London 87
Tree Roots in the Built Environment, Communities and
Authority, 2009 Local Government, 2006
65
The Installation of Traffic Signals and Associated 88
BS 5489: 2003, Code of Practice for the Design of
Equipment, Local Transport Note 1/98, Department of Road Lighting – Part 1: Lighting of Roads and Public
the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1998 Amenity Areas, British Standards Institute, 2003
66
Research for MfS2 – High Risk Collision Sites and Y 89
BS EN 13201-2: 2003, Road Lighting – Performance
Distance Visibility, TMS Consultancy, 2010 Requirements, British Standards Institute, 2003
67
UNECE Vehicle Regulation 1E/ECE/324 - 90
BS EN 13201-3: 2003, Road Lighting – Calculations
E/ECE/TRANS/505, Rev.1/Add.12/Rev.6, United of Performance, British Standards Institute, 2003
Nations Economic Commission for Europe, 91
BS EN 13201-4: 2003, Road Lighting – Methods of
68
Accidents at Three-Arm Priority Junctions on Urban Measuring Lighting Performance, British Standards
Single-Carriageway Roads, TRL Report 184, Institute, 2003
Transport Research Laboratory, 1996 92
Guide on the Limitation of the Effects of Obtrusive
69
Parking Strategies and Management, Institution of Light from Outdoor Lighting Installations, International
Highways and Transportation, 2005 Commission on Illumination, 2003
70
Car Parking: What Works Where Toolkit, English 93
Guidelines for Minimising Sky Glow, International
Partnerships, 2006 Commission on Illumination, 1997
71
Kerbside Loading Guidance, Freight Unit Technical 94
Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light,
Advice Note: FU5/08, Transport for London, 2009 Institution of Lighting Engineers, 2005
72
Streetscape Guidance 2009: A Guide to Better 95
Lighting in the Countryside: Towards Good Practice,
London Streets, Transport for London, 2009 Communities and Local Government, 1997
73
Towards a Fine City for People, Transport for London 96
Working Together to Protect Crowded Places, Home
and Central London Partnership, 2004 Office, 2010
74
Making Space for Waste: Designing Waste 97
Crowded Places: The Planning System and Counter
Management in New Developments, Association of Terrorism, Home Office and Communities and Local
Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Government, 2010
Transport, 2010 98
Protecting Crowded Places: Design and Technical
75
The Impact of Street Furniture on Pedestrian Issues, Home Office, 2010
Movement, Paper to the 7th Transport Practitioners 99
Traffic Signs Manual, Department for Transport,
Meeting, 2009 Various
76
Pedestrian Guardrailing, Local Transport Note 2/09, 100
The Suffolk Countryside Manual: Design Guidelines for
Department for Transport, 2009 Highway Works in Rural Areas, Suffolk Local
77
Guardrail Assessment Form, Transport for London, Authorities, 2003
2007 101
The Use of Coloured Surfacing in Road Layout, Traffic
78
Review of Criteria for the Provision of Pedestrian Safety and Environmental Division, Highways Agency,
Guardrailing in the London Borough of Hackney, ETC Proceedings, 1997
London Borough of Hackney and Urban Initiatives, 102
Statutory Guidance to Local Authorities on the Civil
2007 Enforcement of Parking Contraventions, Department
79
Adapting Cities for Climate Change: The Role of the for Transport, 2008
Green Infrastructure, Built Environment Volume 33 103
Shrewsbury Historic Core Zone. Traffic Advisory
Number 1, 2007 Leaflet 8/98, Department for Transport, 1998
80
Benefits of NYC’s Urban Forest, Million Trees NYC,
http://www.milliontreesnyc.org/html/urban_forest/urba
n_forest_benefits.shtml

References
References
131
Index
Index
Note: Titles of documents are printed in italics. City centres 15–16

case studies 113–23
Access see Vehicle access Classification of streets see Street types
ADEPT 3 Coloured road surfacing 95, 98
Advanced cycle stop lines 69 Comfort space 28
Alignment of highway 52, 54, 109, 111 Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
Anti-terrorism measures 94 (CABE) 3, 11
Arterial routes 17 Communal space 15, 28, 65
At-grade crossings 16, 57, 62, 116 Community involvement 31–2, 111, 126–7
Audits Connectivity 17, 21, 22, 63
quality 34–7 Context appraisal
road safety 34, 37–8 interchanges 23
Barriers rural areas 26
pedestrian 61, 84, 87–91 town and city centres 15
security 94 urban and rural settlements 27
Benefits 9, 11 urban and suburban areas 17
case studies 107, 111, 118, 122, 127–8 urban extensions 21
Blind people see Visual impairment village centres 24
Bollards 87, 96–7 Corner radii 60, 64, 69
Boulevards 21 Crime prevention 94
Building frontages, vehicle access 71 Crossing Regulations 58, 97
Buses 49–50 Crossings for pedestrians see Pedestrian crossing points
bus boarders 50 Crossovers 64–5
bus ‘gates’ 104 Curve radii 52, 75
bus lanes 49, 104 Cycle lanes 45–6
bus laybys 50 Cycle parking 47
bus priority systems 49 Cycle tracks 46
bus routes 49 Cycling 45–7
bus stops 49, 49–50 advanced cycle stop lines 69
carriageway width 49, 53 carriageway/lane width 53
stopping sight distance (SSD) 73–4 cyclists needs 45
CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Built junction design 63
Environment) 11 roundabouts 66
Cambridge, cycle lanes 46 safety 63, 65, 69, 76
Car parking see On-street parking shared use footway/cycle space 16, 46, 121
Carriageways traffic management systems 70
design speed 51–2 transport integration 23
gradients 52–3 vehicle forward visibility 76
horizontal alignment 52, 54 Darlington, High Row & West Row 119–23
vertical curvature 53 DASs (Design and Access Statements) 34
width 53 Design and Access Statements (DASs) 34
changes in 59, 64 Design audits 34–7
roundabouts 66 Design context see Context appraisal
vehicle lanes 45, 49, 53 Design guidance 30
and vehicle speeds 30, 77 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) 4, 8, 51
Case studies 103–28 Design principles 7–8
High Row & West Row, Darlington 119–23 Design process 31–40
London Road, Southampton 108–12 Design quality 34–7
Maid Marian Way, Nottingham 124–8 Design responsibility 30
Sheaf Square & Howard Street, Sheffield 113–18 Design speed 51–2
Walworth Road, Southwark, 103–7 Design standards 4, 8, 30
Central islands 66, 96–7 Desire lines see Pedestrian desire lines
Central medians/reservations 54–5 Development Team approach 35, 126
Central refuges 54, 59, 60, 96–7 Diagonal crossings 63
Centreline markings 97 Direct frontage access 8, 64–5, 71, 79
133
Direction signs see Traffic signs Integrated transport 23
Disabled people see Mobility impairment; Visual Interchanges 22, 47
impairment Junction design (see also Priority junctions; Roundabouts)
DIY Streets 32 57–8, 63–5
DMRB (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges) 4, 8, 51 carriageway width 64
Dropped kerbs 28, 55–6 corner radii 60, 64, 69
Echelon parking 81–2, 111 cycle safety 63
Energy efficiency 93 guardrailing 89–90
English Heritage pedestrian crossing points 58–63, 64
Streets For All 28, 34 spacing of junctions 58
Suburbs and the Historic Environment 17 visibility splays 80
Footways Keep left/right signs 96–7
at bus stops 50 Kent, quality audit process 35
obstructions 85–7, 94 Kerb build-outs
parking on 89 keep left/right signs 96, 97
provision 43–4 on-street parking 81
vehicle crossovers 64–5 pedestrian crossing points 59
visibility splays 79 Kerbs 28, 55–6
width 43, 82, 87 bus boarders 50
echelon and right angle parking 82 defining staggered crossings 89
and street furniture 86–7 granite kerbstones 56
and street trees 92 and visual impairment 121
Forward visibility 75 Landscaping (see also Trees) 11
Frontage access 8, 71 Laybys, bus 50
Funding 111, 122, 127 Left turn lanes 66, 69
Ghost islands 64 Legal requirements
Give way signs and marking 98 bollards and signs on median islands 97
Gradients 44, 52–3 no-entry signs 99
Green infrastructure (see also Trees) 11 pedestrian crossing points 58
Guardrailing 61, 84, 87–91 risk and liability 29–30
Heavy goods vehicles (HGV) road markings 98, 99
carriageway width 53 stopping sight distance (SSD) 8, 73–5
stopping sight distance (SSD) 73–4 traffic signs
High streets 17–18, 21–3 backing boards 70
case studies 103–12 size and height 95–6
design context 18 Level surface 28, 55–6
Highway authorities Liability and risk see Risk and liability
design responsibility 30 Lighting, street 93–4
Quality Audit (QA) 34 ‘Link and Place’ methodology 13–14
Road Safety Audit (RSA) 38 Local policies and standards 30
street furniture rationalisation 84, 95 London Borough of Hackney 91
Highway Code 29 London Borough of Hounslow 39
Highway networks 14 Maintenance issues 38–9
Highway Risk and Liability Claims 29, 30 Manual for Streets (MfS)
Historic areas principles 7–8
conserving the suburbs 17 scope 8–9
understanding place 14 Materials see Surface materials
use of natural materials 28 Medians 54, 97, 128
Historic features 28, 33 Mini-roundabouts 67–8
kerbstones 56 Mixed Priority Routes (MPR) (see also Shared space)
street audits 34 community involvement 31
Horizontal alignment 52, 54, 109, 111 demonstration projects 10, 44, 89, 103–7
Hull, Newland Avenue project 44 Mobility impairment (see also Wheelchair users)
Implementation process 31–40 bus boarders 50
Improvement stages 32–3 footway crossovers 65
Informal crossings 59 kerb heights 55, 59
Informatory signs see Signage Motor vehicles see Vehicle
Index
Movement function 13–14 PERS (Pedestrian Environment Review Software) 23

boulevards 21 Place function 13–14
high streets 18, 22 boulevards 21
interchanges 23 high streets 18, 22
relief/ring roads 19 interchanges 23
residential streets 22 relief/ring roads 19
rural roads and lanes 26 residential streets 22
shared space 28 rural roads and lanes 26
town and city centres 15 shared space 28
village centres 24–5 town and city centres 15
Movement/place diagram 13–14 village centres 24–5
Multifunctional streets and spaces 15 Place/movement matrix 13–14
Networks see Highway networks; Pedestrian networks Planning policies 30
New-build schemes 18 Planting see Landscaping; Trees
No entry signs 99 Policy context 30
Nottingham, Maid Marian Way 124–8 Priority junctions 63–5
Obstructions (see also Visibility) signs and markings 98–9
on footways 85–7, 94 visibility 76–8, 80
On-street parking 81–2 X and Y distances 78
echelon and right angle parking 81–2, 111 Public consultation 31–2, 111, 126–7
on footways 89 Public space 15, 28, 65
in visibility splays 80 Public squares 65
yellow lines 99 Public transport (see also Buses)
One-way streets 70–1 in case studies 104, 110
Outcomes 10 interchanges 23
case studies 107, 111–12, 118, 122–3, 127–8 urban extensions 21
Overrunning Quality Audit (QA) 34–7
central median 53 Raised crossings 59–60
footways 89 Refuges 54, 59, 60, 64
hatched areas 98 Regulations see Design standards; Legal requirements
Parking see On-street parking Relief roads 18–20
Partially-sighted people see Visual impairment Residential streets 21–3, 51
Pavement parking 89 Responsible driving 29
Pavements see Footways Right turning lanes 63–4
Paving materials (see also Tactile paving) 28, 34, 56 Ring roads 18–20, 115
Pedestrian barriers 61, 84, 87–91 case study 124–8
Pedestrian bridges 57 Risk and liability (see also Road safety) 29–30
Pedestrian crossing points 58–63 Risk assessment 37–8
ghost islands 64 Risk compensation 30
grade separation 57 Road markings 95
granite blocks 107 centrelines 97
mini-roundabouts 68 coloured surfacing 95, 98
and on-street parking 82 cycle lanes 46
roundabouts 66 for parking 99–100
surface level crossings 16, 57, 62, 116 tabled crossings 100
tabled crossings 100 zig-zag markings 98
Pedestrian desire lines 58, 59, 60, 66 Road safety (see also Risk and liability; Speed reduction)
Pedestrian Environment Review Software (PERS) 23 cycling 63, 65, 69, 76
Pedestrian gradients 44 in demonstration projects 10, 106, 107, 111, 117,
Pedestrian guardrailing 61, 84, 87–91 122, 127
Pedestrian needs 43 direct frontage access 71
Pedestrian networks 15, 23, 43 drivers’ responsibility 29
Pedestrian refuges 54, 59, 60, 64 guard railing 87–90
Pedestrian underpasses 57, 124 highway authority’s responsibility 30, 38
Pedestrianised areas 16 horizontal deflection 65
case studies 113–23 junctions 63, 68, 71, 80
pedestrian crossing points 59
135
Permeable street layouts see Connectivity
roundabouts 65, 68 Street types 13
street furniture removal 84 arterial routes 17
traffic signal junctions 68 boulevards 21
and visibility 71, 77, 80 high streets 17, 21
Road Safety Audit (RSA) 34, 37–8 multifunctional streets and spaces 15
Road surfacing, coloured see Surface materials relief road/ring road 18–19
Road types see Street types residential streets 21
Roundabouts 65–8, 98 rural roads and lanes 26
RSA (Road Safety Audit) 34, 37–8 shared space 27–8
Rural roads and lanes 26–7 village streets 24
design speed 51 Streets For All 28, 34
signs and road markings 95 Suburban areas 17–21
Rural settlements 27–8 Suburbs and the Historic Environment 17
Safety see Road safety Subways see Underpasses
Safety audits 37–8 Surface level crossings 16, 57, 62, 116
Security measures 94 Surface materials
Servicing bays 82 coloured road surfacing 95, 98
Shared space paving materials 28, 34, 56
benefits 9, 11 pedestrian crossing points 107
definition 28 Surveillance 34
design issues 28 Sustainability 9, 21, 93
Manual for Streets principles 7–8 Sustrans DIY Streets project 32
typical characteristics 27–8 Tabled crossings 63, 100
Shared use footway/cycle space 16, 46, 121 Tactile paving 28, 58
Sheffield, Sheaf Square & Howard Street 113–18 Town centres 15–16
Sight distance see Stopping sight distance (SSD) Traffic management systems 70–1, 83
Signage (see also Traffic signs) Traffic signals 68–70
‘de-cluttering’ 83–7 Traffic signs 95–7
Signalised crossings 59, 61 at junctions 98–9
Single lane working 70–1 keep left/right signs 96–7
Solihul, quality audit process 36 reducing ‘clutter’ 83–7
Southampton, London Road 108–12 size and mounting height 95–6
Speed limits 51–2 yellow backing boards 96
Speed reduction Traffic Signs Manual (TSM) 95
horizontal alignment 52, 54 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD)
at junctions 63, 64 95
speed tables 63, 100 Traffic speeds see Vehicle speeds
vertical curvature 53 Transport for London (TfL)
Squares 65 Streetscape Guidance 85
SSD (Stopping sight distance) 8, 73–5 Walking Good Practice 23
Staged approach 32–3 Transport integration 23
Staggered crossings 61, 89, 112 Trees (see also Landscaping) 91–3, 128
Standards see Design standards ‘Trief’ kerbs 56
Stopping sight distance (SSD) 8, 73–5 Types of streets see Street types
Straight ahead crossings 60–2 Uncontrolled crossings 59
Street audits 23, 34 Uncontrolled junctions 63–5
Street character assessments 34 Underpasses, pedestrian 57, 124
Street furniture 83–91, 125 Urban areas (see also City centres; Suburban areas)
audits 34 context 17–21
‘footprint in use’ 86 design speed 51–2
reducing ‘clutter’ 83–7 Urban extensions 21–3
Street lighting 93–4 Urban settlements 27–8
Street networks 14, 17, 23, 43 Vehicle access
Street trees 91–3 direct frontage access 8, 64–5, 71, 79
restrictions 16

Index
Vehicle braking 73–4

Vehicle crossovers 64–5
Vehicle-lane width 45, 49, 53
Vehicle speeds (see also Speed reduction)
and carriageway width 30, 77
design speed 51–2
Vertical curvature 53
Village centres 24
Village gateways 95
Village streets 24
Visibility (see also Stopping sight distance (SSD)) 75–80
along the street edge 79
forward visibility 75
at junctions 76–7, 80
and vehicle speeds 52
visibility splays 79, 80
Visual impairment
bollard height 87
kerb loss 121
raised tables 111
signalised crossings 59
Walking (see also Pedestrian) 43–4
Wheelchair users
central reservations/medians and refuges 54
footway crossovers 65
maximum gradient 44
Width
bus boarders 50
carriageways
changes in 59, 64
junctions 64
roundabouts 66
vehicle lanes 45, 49, 53
central reservations/medians and refuges 54
cycle lanes 45
footways 43, 82, 87
echelon and right angle parking 82
and street furniture 86–7
and street trees 92
informal crossings 59
Yellow lines 99
Zebra crossings 59
Zig-zag markings 98
137

Wider Application of the Principles
www.ciht.org.uk

Manual For Streets 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manual For Streets 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manual For Streets 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manual for Streets 2