DOCSLIB.ORG

Traffic Signs Manual – Chapter 6 Traffic Signs Manual CHAPTER 6 2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Traffic Signs Manual – Chapter 6 Traffic Traffic Signs Manual CHAPTER 6 2019 Traffic Control 2019 ISBN 978-0-11-553744-8 www.tso.co.uk 9 780115 537448 10426 DFT TSM Chapter 6 New Edition v0_2.indd 1-3 28/11/2019 12:55 Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 6 Traffic Control Department for Transport Department for Infrastructure (Northern Ireland) Scottish Government Welsh Government London: TSO Traffic Signs Manual Contents of Chapters 1–8 CHAPTER 1 Introduction CHAPTER 2 Informatory Signs* CHAPTER 3 Regulatory Signs CHAPTER 4 Warning Signs CHAPTER 5 Road Markings CHAPTER 6 Traffic Control CHAPTER 7 The Design of Traffic Signs CHAPTER 8 Traffic Safety Measures and Signs for Road Works and Temporary Situations * To be published at a later date Designers should consult the Department for Transport’s website www.gov.uk for confirmation of current publication dates. Published for The Department for Transport under licence from the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown copyright 2019 All rights reserved Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for non‑commercial research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The copyright source of the material must be acknowledged and the title of the publication specified. First published 2019 ISBN 978 0 11 553744 8 Printed in the United Kingdom for TSO (The Stationery Office) J003631700 c2 12/19 CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 8 1.1 Overview 8 1.2 Legal 9 1.3 Definitions 9 1.4 References 10 1.5 Format 10 1.6 Working drawings 10 1.7 Use of traffic signals 11 1.8 Justification 11 1.9 Consultation and publicity 12 1.10 Control equipment 12 1.11 Post‑installation 13 SECTION I SIGNAL‑CONTROLLED JUNCTIONS 15 2 LAYOUT REQUIREMENTS 16 2.1 General 16 2.2 Junction intervisibility zone 16 2.3 Obstructions 18 2.4 Corner radii 18 2.5 Lane widths 19 2.6 Left turn slip lanes 19 2.7 Separation islands 19 3 LOCATION OF SIGNALS 20 3.1 General 20 3.2 Signal heads 22 3.3 Signal head alignment 23 3.4 Signal posts 23 3.5 Green arrows 25 4 ROAD MARKINGS 27 4.1 General 27 4.2 Stop lines 29 4.3 Longitudinal markings 29 4.4 Lane destination markings 30 5 SIGNING 31 5.1 General 31 5.2 Regulatory signs 31 5.3 Supplementary exception plates 33 5.4 Warning signs 33 6 BASIC PRINCIPLES 35 6.1 General 35 6.2 Cycle 35 6.3 Phase 35 6.4 Stage 36 3 6.5 Intergreen period 38 6.6 Determination of intergreen times 38 6.7 Pedestrian‑to‑traffic intergreens 42 6.8 Interstage period 42 6.9 Parallel stage stream 44 6.10 Dummy phases 44 6.11 Minimum phase green times 44 6.12 Maximum phase green times 45 6.13 Extension times 45 7 ASSESSMENT AND MODELLING 46 7.1 General 46 7.2 Saturation flow 46 7.3 Degree of Saturation 46 7.4 Lost time and effective green time 47 7.5 Preliminary assessment 47 7.6 Modelling 47 8 STAGING ARRANGEMENTS 50 8.1 General 50 8.2 Two vehicular stages 50 8.3 Early cut‑off 51 8.4 Separately signalled right turns 52 8.5 Late start 53 8.6 Part‑time operation 53 8.7 Hurry calls 54 9 CONTROL STRATEGIES 55 9.1 General 55 9.2 Responsive control strategies 55 9.3 Isolated control strategies 55 9.4 Co‑ordinated control strategies: linked systems 56 9.5 Co‑ordinated control strategies: Urban Traffic Control (UTC) 57 9.6 Urban Traffic Management and Control (UTMC) 58 9.7 Master time clock switch 58 10 DETECTION 59 10.1 General 59 10.2 Below ground detection 59 10.3 Above ground detection 59 10.4 System D, Speed Assessment and Speed Discrimination 59 11 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AT SIGNAL‑CONTROLLED JUNCTIONS 62 11.1 General 62 11.2 Signal heads, push buttons and pedestrian demand units 62 11.3 Geometric layout 65 11.4 Stop lines 65 11.5 Crossing studs and tactile paving layouts 66 11.6 Pedestrian crossing sequences and timings 66 11.7 Design walking speed 66 11.8 Clearance period 67 4 11.9 Worked example: farside facilities 68 11.10 Worked example: nearside facilities 68 11.11 Kerbside and on‑crossing detection 69 11.12 Pedestrian countdown signals 69 11.13 Tactile and audible signals 70 11.14 No pedestrian facilities 71 11.15 Full pedestrian stage 71 11.16 ‘Walk with traffic’ pedestrian facility 72 11.17 Staggered or two‑stage pedestrian facility 75 11.18 Displaced pedestrian facility 78 12 FACILITIES FOR PEDAL CYCLE TRAFFIC 80 12.1 General 80 12.2 Signal timings for cyclists 80 12.3 Detection for cyclists 81 12.4 Signal heads for cyclists 82 12.5 Signal‑controlled junction layouts 84 12.6 Cycle bypasses 85 12.7 Dedicated cycle phase for cycle‑only movements 85 12.8 Toucan facilities 86 12.9 Signal‑controlled cycle facility 87 12.10 ‘Hold the left turn’ 89 12.11 Two‑stage right turns 91 12.12 Cycle gates 92 12.13 Priority using green cycle aspects 94 12.14 Advanced stop lines (ASLs) for cyclists 95 12.15 Cycle safety mirrors 97 SECTION II CROSSINGS 99 13 SITE ASSESSMENT 100 13.1 General 100 13.2 Site Survey 101 13.3 Pedestrian survey 101 13.4 Traffic survey 102 13.5 Crossing difficulty 102 13.6 Average crossing time and speed 102 13.7 Road accidents 102 14 OPTION ASSESSMENT 104 14.1 General 104 14.2 Crossing options 104 15 CROSSING DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 106 15.1 General 106 15.2 Accessibility 106 15.3 Uncontrolled or informal crossings 106 15.4 Location 107 15.5 Visibility 107 15.6 Width 108 15.7 Road markings and controlled areas 108 5 15.8 Zig‑zag and terminal lines 111 15.9 Road studs 121 15.10 Surfacing 121 15.11 Guardrailing 121 15.12 Proximity to priority junctions 122 15.13 Approach to a roundabout 122 15.14 Junctions with a yellow box marking 123 15.15 Traffic signal‑controlled junction 123 15.16 School crossing patrols 123 15.17 Tactile and audible signals 123 15.18 Lighting 124 15.19 Provision for bus stops 124 15.20 Crossings placed on road humps 124 16 ZEBRA CROSSINGS 125 16.1 General 125 16.2 Layout considerations 125 17 PARALLEL CROSSINGS 129 17.1 General 129 17.2 Layout considerations 129 18 SIGNAL‑CONTROLLED CROSSINGS 132 18.1 General 132 18.2 Layout considerations 132 18.3 Staggered and two‑stage crossings 133 18.4 Signal operation 135 18.5 Co‑ordinated control 136 18.6 Design walking speed 137 18.7 Detection 137 18.8 Operational cycles and timings 138 19 PUFFIN CROSSINGS 140 19.1 General 140 20 TOUCAN CROSSINGS 141 20.1 General 141 21 SIGNAL‑CONTROLLED PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES (PEDEX) 142 21.1 General 142 21.2 Pedestrian countdown 142 22 EQUESTRIAN CROSSINGS 143 22.1 General 143 22.2 Signal heads, push buttons and pedestrian demand units. 143 22.3 Holding area 143 22.4 Timings 144 22.5 Parallel pedestrian and Toucan facilities 144 6 SECTION III OTHER SIGNALS 147 23 SIGNALS FOR LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEMS (TRAMS) 148 23.1 General 148 24 WIG‑WAG SIGNALS 149 24.1 General 149 24.2 Signal heads 149 24.3 Control equipment 150 24.4 Swinging or lifting (moveable) bridges 150 24.5 Airfields 151 24.6 Premises used by the emergency services 151 24.7 Warning lights: cattle crossing ahead 152 25 SCHOOL CROSSING PATROL WIG‑WAG SIGNALS 153 25.1 General 153 26 SIGNALS FOR LANE CONTROL 155 26.1 General 155 SECTION IV INSTALLATION 159 27 INSTALLATION 160 27.1 General 160 27.2 Relevant legislation 160 27.3 Preparation 161 27.4 Civil engineering works 161 27.5 Electrical installation 161 27.6 Signal heads and posts 161 27.7 Associated equipment 162 27.8 Controller cabinet 162 27.9 Temporary signals 163 27.10 Testing and certification 164 27.11 Completion of works 164 27.12 Acceptance testing 164 27.13 Post completion works 165 27.14 Documentation 165 APPENDIX A 166 LIST OF FIGURES 175 LIST OF TABLES 178 INDEX 179 7 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview 1.1.1. The Traffic Signs Manual (the Manual) offers advice to traffic authorities and their contractors, designers and managing agents in the United Kingdom, on the correct use of traffic signs and road markings on the highway network. Mandatory requirements are set out in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (as amended) (TSRGD). In Northern Ireland the relevant legislation is the Traffic Signs Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1997 (as amended). Whilst the Manual can assist with complying with the mandatory requirements, it cannot provide a definitive legal interpretation, nor can it override them.This remains the prerogative of the courts or parking adjudicators in relation to the appearance and use of specific traffic signs, road markings etc. at specific locations. 1.1.2. The advice is given to assist authorities in the discharge of their duties under section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Part 2 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 in England and under Part 1 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. Subject to compliance with the Directions, which are mandatory (see 1.4.2 and 1.4.3), it is for traffic authorities to determine what signing is necessary to meet those duties.
Recommended publications
  • Training Course Non-Motorised Transport Author

    Training Course Non-Motorised Transport Author

    Division 44 Environment and Infrastructure Sector Project „Transport Policy Advice“ Training Course: Non-motorised Transport Training Course on Non-motorised Transport Training Course Non-motorised Transport Author: Walter Hook Findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this document are based on infor- Editor: mation gathered by GTZ and its consultants, Deutsche Gesellschaft für partners, and contributors from reliable Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH sources. P.O. Box 5180 GTZ does not, however, guarantee the D-65726 Eschborn, Germany accuracy or completeness of information in http://www.gtz.de this document, and cannot be held responsible Division 44 for any errors, omissions or losses which Environment and Infrastructure emerge from its use. Sector Project „Transport Policy Advice“ Commissioned by About the author Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ) Walter Hook received his PhD in Urban Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 40 Planning from Columbia University in 1996. D-53113 Bonn, Germany He has served as the Executive Director of the http://www.bmz.de Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) since 1994. He has also served Manager: as adjunct faculty at Columbia University’s Manfred Breithaupt Graduate School of Urban Planning. ITDP is a non-governmental organization dedicated to Comments or feedback? encouraging and implementing We would welcome any of your comments or environmentally sustainable transportation suggestions, on any aspect of the Training policies and projects in developing countries. Course, by e-mail to [email protected], or by surface mail to: Additional contributors Manfred Breithaupt This Module also contains chapters and GTZ, Division 44 material from: P.O. Box 5180 Oscar Diaz D-65726 Eschborn Michael King Germany (Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates) Cover Photo: Dr.
  • Oxfordshire Cycling Design Standards

    Oxfordshire Cycling Design Standards

    OXFORDSHIRE CYCLING DESIGN STANDARDS Rail Station School Shops A guide for Developers, Planners and Engineers Summer 2017 OXFORDSHIRE CYCLING DESIGN STANDARDS FOREWORD Oxfordshire County Council aims to make cycling and walking a central part of transport, planning, health and clean air strategies. We are doing this through our Local Transport Plan: Connecting Oxfordshire, Active & Healthy Travel Strategy, Air Quality Strategy and working together with Oxfordshire’s Local Planning Authorities to ensure walking and cycling considerations are designed into masterplans and development designs from the outset. The Council recognises that good highway design, which prioritises and creates dedicated space for cycling and walking, will signifcantly contribute to: - improving people’s health and wellbeing, - improving safety for pedestrians and cyclists, - reducing congestion, - improving air quality, - boosting the local economy, and - creating attractive environments where people wish to live Working together with cycling, walking and physical activity associations and City and District Councils, as well as planning, transport and public health offcers through the Active & Healthy Travel Steering Group, Oxfordshire County Council has produced Design Standards for both cycling and walking respectively. These two documents together convey our vision for better active travel infrastructure in Oxfordshire to support decision makers and set out more clearly what is expected of developers. Research commissioned by British Cycling (2014)1, found that
  • Dallas Avenue Traffic Calming Department of Mobility and Infrastructure

    Dallas Avenue Traffic Calming Department of Mobility and Infrastructure

    Dallas Avenue Traffic Calming Department of Mobility and Infrastructure Katy Sawyer, P.E., Project Engineer Craig Toocheck, Staff Engineer August 1, 2018 South Dallas Ave characteristics: • Focus area: Wilkins to Forbes • 30 feet wide • About 8,000 vehicles/day • Speed limit 25 MPH • Median speed ~37 MPH • Parking lane on west side, minimally used • Cemetery on east side SAFE CROSSINGS Crosswalk Policy + Traffic Calming High-visibility crosswalks can improve A concrete pedestrian refuge island provides a yielding to pedestrians when speeds are slow. place to wait and slows traffic (New York City) • Elements like high-visibility crosswalks and pedestrian refuge islands can, under the right conditions, slow traffic speeds and make crossing the street safer and easier. SAFE CROSSINGS Permanent Refuge Island (Capital Construction) A refuge island with plantings (Vancouver, BC) A refuge island with pedestrian crossing signs (Silver Spring, MD) SAFE CROSSINGS Interim Refuge Islands A high-visibility crosswalk and pedestrian refuge island, Trial pedestrian refuge islands built from rubber curbs and built using interim materials (Seattle, WA) pedestrian crossing signs (Atchison, KS) BULBOUT/BUMPOUT Horizontal Control • Characteristics • Extension of the curbline toward the centerline of the street • Can be achieved via physical curb, paint, pavement removal or other techniques • Typical use • Appropriate on most street types • Paired with crosswalks can narrow pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility • Considerations • Street cleaning
  • Amherst Multimodal Master Plan Utilizing Systematic Safety Principles to Develop a Town-Wide Multimodal Network

    Amherst Multimodal Master Plan Utilizing Systematic Safety Principles to Develop a Town-Wide Multimodal Network

    Amherst Multimodal Master Plan Utilizing Systematic Safety Principles to Develop a Town-wide Multimodal Network Amherst Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee Amherst Multimodal Master Plan Multimodal Master Plan Version 9.2.1 June 1, 2019 Amherst Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee Amherst, New Hampshire Principal Authors Christopher Buchanan and Simon Corson Amherst Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee Members George Bower Christopher Buchanan, chairman Patrick Daniel, recreation commission ex-officio Richard Katzenberg, vice chair Wesley Robertson, conservation commission ex-officio Judy Shenk Christopher Shenk Alternate Members Mark Bender Jared Hardner, alternate conservation commission ex-officio John Harvey Carolyn Mitchell Wendy Rannenberg, alternate recreation commission ex-officio With the Assistance of Bruce Berry Susan Durling Matthew Waitkins, Senior Transportation Planner, Nashua Regional Planning Commission Page i Amherst Multimodal Master Plan Table of Contents 1 A Town-Wide Multimodal Network ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Amherst Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee .......................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Plan Outreach & Engagement .......................................................................................................... 1 1.4
  • City of Nashua Guide to Traffic Calming

    City of Nashua Guide to Traffic Calming

    City of Nashua Guide to Traffic Calming Prepared with assistance from the Nashua Regional Planning Commission iTRaC Program March 2008 Photos: Nashua Regional Planning Commission Staff Guide to Traffic Calming March 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES ..........................................................................................1 1.1 BULBOUT AND CURB EXTENSIONS ............................................................................................................4 1.2 CHICANES ..................................................................................................................................................5 1.3 CHOKERS/NECKDOWNS ...........................................................................................................................6 1.4 GATEWAYS .................................................................................................................................................7 1.5 LANDSCAPING ...........................................................................................................................................8 1.6 MEDIANS....................................................................................................................................................9 1.7 MODIFIED T-INTERSECTIONS...................................................................................................................10 1.8 PARTIAL STREET CLOSURE/ENTRANCE BARRIERS .................................................................................11
  • Highway Design Manual

    Highway Design Manual

    HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Chapter 18 Pedestrian Facility Design Revision 49 March 30, 2006 This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 18 PEDESTRIAN FACILITY DESIGN Contents Page 18.1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................18-1 18.2 CHAPTER OBJECTIVES ...............................................................................................18-1 18.3 POLICY...........................................................................................................................18-1 18.4 DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................18-2 18.5 PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS.................................................................................18-4 18.5.1 Pedestrian Generator Checklist .......................................................................18-4 18.5.2 Pedestrian Data Acquisition .............................................................................18-7 18.5.3 Pedestrian Traffic Forecasting .........................................................................18-8 18.5.4 Pedestrian Level of Service..............................................................................18-8 18.5.5 Pedestrian Facility Documentation.................................................................18-11 18.6 PEDESTRIAN FACILITY DESIGN ...............................................................................18-14 18.6.1 Pedestrian Facility Design under Americans
  • Chapter 5 Design Elements I Have Met but One Or Two People Who Understand the Art of Walking

    Chapter 5 Design Elements I Have Met but One Or Two People Who Understand the Art of Walking

    Chapter 5 Design Elements I have met but one or two people who understand the art of walking. Henry David Thoreau, American Philosopher This section identifies design elements The Design Elements are organized for improving Oakland streets, side- into the following three sections. First, walks, and paths. Rather than propos- the Sidewalk Guidelines section gives ing design standards, the Pedestrian minimum requirements for sidewalks Master Plan presents design elements and utility zones. Second, the Crossing to inform designers, planners, and pol- Treatments section explains best prac- icymakers on available design treat- tices for crosswalks and corners. And ments and best practices for pedestri- third, the Traffic Calming section ans. When implementing these ele- presents concepts for reducing motor ments, engineering judgment will vehicle speeds. determine the specific locations and features of each design. Pedestrian Master Plan | 65 Sidewalk Guidelines Proposed sidewalk guidelines apply aids. It should also be proportionate to to new development and depend upon street size and pedestrian volumes. available street width, motor vehicle volumes, surrounding land uses, and All streets require a utility zone pedestrian activity levels. Standardizing to accommodate above ground 72" sidewalk guidelines ensures a minimum public infrastructure including street level of quality for all sidewalks. ILLUSTRATION 13 furniture, lampposts, street trees, SIDEWALK FOR TWO PEDESTRIANS and signs. Locating this infrastructure IN WHEELCHAIRS The City of Oakland currently in the utility zone prevents it from requires a minimum 48" wide side- encroaching on the through passage minimum widths for passage, not walk with a 36" through passage for zone. The utility zone also creates an sidewalk width recommendations.
  • Guidelines on the Implementation of Pedestrian Refuge Island Along National Roads

    Guidelines on the Implementation of Pedestrian Refuge Island Along National Roads

    Republic of the Philippines DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS -O\f ....t1-;U; /1.- OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Manila DEPARTMENT ORDER ) SUBJECT GUIDELINES ON THE ) IMPLEMENTATION OF PEDESTRIAN REFUGE No. 34 ~ ISLAND ALONG Series of 2012 ~t>t-~f'1J. ) NATIONAL ROADS In order to provide additional safety measures for pedestrians crossing the national road and as a suppletory to D.O. No. 62, series of 2011, pedestrian refuge island shall be provided along the center of the carriageway where pedestrians may safely wait until vehicular traffic clears. Henceforth, the following guidelines on the proper location and installation of pedestrian refuge island in conjunction with the pedestrian crossing markings are hereby prescribed: 1. Pedestrian refuge island shall be provided in roadways having clear carriageway width of at least 4 lanes. 2. The island shall be installed at the following locations where there are concentration of pedestrians: 2.1 In front of school, church, market and other areas for public use. 2.2 At approaches of unsignalized intersection. 3. The island shall have a minimum width of 1.50 meters and total length of 30.0 meters, (Figures 1 and 2). 4. Minimum distance between two consecutive pedestrian refuge island along the highway shall not be less than 500 meters. 5. At-grade crosswalk passage shall be provided for the entire width of refuge island having width of less than 5.0 meters in order to provide convenient accessibility for Persons With Disabilities (PWD), (Figures 3 and 4). For refuge island having width of more than 5.0 meters, ramp for PWD shall be provided.
  • Traffic-Light Intersections

    Traffic-Light Intersections

    Give Cycling a Push Infrastructure Implementation Fact Sheet INFRASTRUCTURE/ INTERSECTIONS AND CROSSINGS TRAFFIC-LIGHT INTERSECTIONS Overview Traffic-light intersections are inherently dangerous for cyclists. However, they are indispensable when cyclists cross heavy traffic flows. Cycle-friendly design must make cyclists clearly visible, allow short and easy maneuvers and reduce waiting time, such as a right-turn bypass or an advanced stop-line. On main cycle links, separate cycle traffic light and cycle-friendly light regulation can privilege cycle flows over motorized traffic. Background and Objectives Function Intersections are equipped with a traffic control system when they need to handle large flows of motorized traffic on the busiest urban roads, often with multiple lanes. A cycle-friendly design can greatly improve safety, speed and comfort, by increasing visibility, facilitating maneuvers and reducing waiting time. Scope Traffic-light intersections are always a second-best solution for cyclists, in terms of safety. Actually, traffic light intersections with four branches are very dangerous and should be avoided in general. Dutch guidance states that roundabouts are significantly safer than traffic lights for four- branch intersections of 10,000 to 20,000 pcu/day. In practice, traffic lights are used when an intersection needs to handle large flows of motorized traffic speedily. They can handle up to 30,000 pcu/day, more than is possible with a roundabout. These will typically include at least one very busy distributor road with multiple traffic lanes (50 km/h in the built-up area, higher outside the built-up area). Often, these busy roads are also of great interest as cycle links.
  • Living Streets

    Living Streets

    November 2009 Living Streets Policy Briefing 03/09 Pedestrians and Cyclists Living Streets is the national charity that stands up for pedestrians. With our supporters we work to create safe, attractive and enjoyable streets, where people want to walk. Contents Executive Summary 3 Recommendations & policy calls 3 National action 3 Local action 3 Introduction 4 Glossary 5 Footway 5 Shared use 5 Adjacent, or segregated use 6 Government Policy 7 Pavement cycling 7 Wanton or Furious? 7 Our Policy 9 People-friendly streets 9 Addressing illegal and anti-social cycling 9 Pavement cycling 9 In general 9 Children 10 Design and engineering recommendations 12 Route planning 12 Parks 13 Signs 13 Space 13 Sightlines 14 Towpaths 14 Maintenance 15 References and useful links 16 Living Streets 2 Executive Summary Walking and cycling are healthy, environmentally friendly, and inexpensive modes of transport. Living Streets believes that getting more people walking and cycling is a solution to many of our urban transport problems. Additionally both can help to address other public policy concerns such as obesity, air pollution, quality of life, and climate change. However they are also highly vulnerable to, and restricted by, motor traffic. We want to see more people cycling, and there is more that unites cyclists and pedestrians than divides them. However, we need to work towards a transport system and built environment that prioritises the needs of pedestrians over all other modes, including cyclists – a principle firmly established in Manual for Streets 1. The main points of this paper can be summarised as follows: • Pedestrians and cyclists share many common objectives when it comes to urban planning – both forms of transport have been marginalised at the expense of motor vehicles; • Pavement cycling is illegal and the law must be better enforced; • Off-carriageway provision for cyclists must never come at the expense of pedestrian space, safety, or amenity.
  • Effects of Traffic Calming Measures on Pedestrian and Motorist Behavior

    Effects of Traffic Calming Measures on Pedestrian and Motorist Behavior

    26 I Transportation Research Record 1705 Paper No. 00-0443 Effects of Traffic Calming Measures on Pedestrian and Motorist Behavior Herman F. Huang and Michael J. Cynecki By slowing down vehicle traffic, shortening crossing distances, and Past Research on the Effects of Speed Humps enhancing motorist and pedestrian visibility, traffic calming treatments may benefit pedestrians who are crossing the street. The effects of selected Also known as road humps, undulations, or “sleeping policemen,” traffic calming treatments on pedestrian and motorist behavior were eval- speed humps have the purpose of promoting the smooth flow of traf- uated at both intersection and midblock locations. Before and after data fic at speeds of about 32 to 40 km/h (20 to 25 mph). The speed hump were collected in Cambridge, Massachusetts (bulbouts and raised inter- is an elongated bump with a circular arc cross-section (round top) or section), Corvallis, Oregon (pedestrian refuge island), Seattle, Wash- flat top, rising to a height of 76 mm (3 in) above the normal pave- ington (bulbouts), and Sacramento, California (refuge islands). The key ment surface and having a length of 3.7 m to 6.7 m (12 ft to 22 ft) in findings include that none of the treatments had a significant effect on the the direction of vehicular travel (Figure 1). Speed humps usually percentage of pedestrians for whom motorists yielded, the treatments usu- extend the full width of the road, excluding the gutter to allow for ally did not have a significant effect on average pedestrian waiting time, drainage (1). and refuge islands often served to channelize pedestrians into marked Raised crosswalks are flat-top speed humps with crosswalk mark- crosswalks.
  • The Place of Complete Streets

    The Place of Complete Streets

    The Place of Complete Streets: Aligning urban street design practices with pedestrian and cycling priorities by Jeana Klassen A practicum submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies University of Manitoba In partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of MASTER OF CITY PLANNING Department of City Planning Faculty of Architecture University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Canada Copyright © 2015 by Jeana Klassen Abstract Many Canadian cities are collectively considering pedestrians, cyclists, public transit, automobiles, and the movement of goods through complete streets, aspiring to enable all people, regardless of age, income, abilities, or lifestyle choices to use streets. Canadian municipal transportation practices are largely based on conventional approaches, where the movement of motor vehicles is a priority. The purpose of this practicum is to identify ways that selected precedents from Canadian and European municipal practices, may inform Canadian municipalities as they seek to incorporate the needs of pedestrians and cyclists – encompassing city planning, transportation engineering, architecture, and urban design considerations. The results of this research exemplify the interdisciplinary involvement required for creating streets as both links and places. Recommendations for Canadian municipalities include aligning municipal design practices with complete streets practices and incorporating interdisciplinary inputs in street design. Ensuring an interdisciplinary university education is recommended for street design professions. Key words: complete streets; interdisciplinary design; scales of design; multimodal mobility, accessibility, and sojournability; classification systems; design criteria i Acknowledgements Thank you to those who walked with me through this adventure, and now celebrate the milestone. To my family and friends, you will never know how much your encouragement, support, and wisdom meant – thank you.