Pedestrian Crossings

Sharing the urban road space PIARC – C 4-3 Committee Seminar on „Urban Pavements“ Cracow (Poland) – 21-22 September, 2005

Assoc. Prof. Bystrik BEZAK Member of PIARC C 2.3 Committee “Urban areas and integrated urban transport” Slovak University of Technology Bratislava e-mail: [email protected]

Prof. Csaba KOREN Chair of PIARC C 2.3 Committee “Urban areas and integrated urban transport” Szechenyi Istvan University, Gyoer, Hungary e-mail: [email protected]

1 SubSub--GroupGroup 11

Sharing the Main Street

2 Sub-group 1 Sharing the Main Street

Chair Members

Ms. Hillie Talens, Netherlands ! Jürgen Gerlach, Germany ! Anne Sigrid Hamran, Norway ! Thomas Kieliger, Switzerland ! Dominique Thon,France ! Naofumi Takeuchi, Japan ! Bystrík Bezák, Slovakia ! H.K. Srivastava, India

3 Sub-group 1 Sharing the Main Street

Goals Definition " to give an overview of ! A Main Street is mostly different guidelines from an old street leading to a all over the world for city centre (re)designing a Main Street ! Along such a street many activities take place " to make a catalogue of best practice examples " to provide a list for further reading

4 Sub-group 1 Sharing the Main Street

Use of the Main Street Problems ! Through traffic ! All these functions are often hard to combine in ! People live in these what is generally a streets narrow space ! Or they work there ! Everybody has to share ! Shops and restaurants the Main Street ! Resting places ! Road designers, ! Schools and religious economist and planners struggle with a Main buildings Street

5 Sub-group 1 Sharing the Main Street

Definition of an urban main street : It is a (mostly old) street in an urban area leading to a city centre. Along such a street many activities take place; people live in these streets or they work there. There are shops that need to get goods to sell and consumers to buy things and restaurants and resting places. Sometimes you can find schools or religious buildings along the street. And there is through traffic on their way to the city centre.

6 Sub-group 1 Sharing the Main Street

Solutions Outputs " We want to make things ! Guidelines a bit easier for them to ! To draw conclusions offer them a range of about designing a Main possible solutions from Street all over the world; ! Exploring different " both in theory and in possible approaches practice

7 Sub-group 1 Sharing the Main Street

Guidelines Examples ! Australia ! Belgium ! Hikone, Japan ! Canada ! Oslo, Norway ! Denmark ! Finland ! Arnhem, Netherlands ! France ! Utrecht, Netherlands ! Germany ! Hennef, Germany ! Hungary ! Japan ! Bern, Switzerland ! Netherlands ! Bratislava, Slovakia ! Norway ! Scotland ! Orleans, France* ! Slovakia ! Schwerin, Germany* ! South Africa ! Switzerland ! Wuppertal, Germany* ! United Kingdom (Scotland) ! Okayama, Japan ! USA ! Durban, South Africa

8 Sub-group 1 Sharing the Main Street

Outline of report Analyses ! Aim, definitions etc. ! Comparing guidelines on ! Results from guidelines different design elements ! Examples from all over ! Comparing examples on the world effects of (different) ! Bibliography (and measures interesting websites)

9 Sub-group 1 Sharing the Main Street

The analyses of the documents were based on three different themes:

1. The type and approach of the documents 2. How the urban main street is dealt with 3. Design philosophy and subjective evaluation

10 Sub-group 1 Sharing the Main Street

1. The type and approach of the documents

! Standards ! Guidelines ! Handbooks ! Catalogue of examples

11 Sub-group 1 Sharing the Main Street

2. How the urban main street is dealt with

! The definition of an urban main street comprises widely different streets – no precise comparison ! The norm is to divide roads into categories ! Transport function is important for classification ! Focus on the needs of through traffic ! Ways to treat the environmental friendly modes ! No strong policy on the provision for bikes ! Bus stop are often the only PT facility mentioned

12 Sub-group 1 Sharing the Main Street

3. Design philosophy and subjective evaluation

! The relation between transport function and urban setting ! Focus on environment-friendly transport nodes ! Comprehensive documents ! Schematic documents

13 ExamplesExamples

Space and traffic characteristics of selected examples

Traffic volume 10,000-30,000 30,000-50,000 # Width $ 20 – 30 m Hennef, Germany

30 – 40 m Bratislava, Slovakia Wuppertal, Germany Durban, South Africa

No example 14 Examples:Examples: WuppertalWuppertal // GermanyGermany

Deficiencies before conversion ! high traffic volume ! predominance of car-traffic ! unattractive pedestrian tunnels ! insufficient recreation areas for pedestrians ! high velocity ! high exhaust impact ! unused areas because of trolley line ceasing 15 Examples:Examples: WuppertalWuppertal // GermanyGermany

Conversion measures: ! lane width reduction from 3.50m to 3.25m ! building of additional overground pedestrian crossings ! reduction of lane numbers ! setup of bus lanes and busgates ! creating of recreation and rest areas for pedestrians ! building of a planted middle section ! bicyle lanes diverted from pedestrians ! new bus station 16 Examples:Examples: WuppertalWuppertal // GermanyGermany Pedestrian Crossings

before conversion

after conversion

17 Examples:Examples: WuppertalWuppertal // GermanyGermany

Results of the evaluation ! relative constant loading ! reduction of delays ! reduction of traffic congestions ! homogenisation of traffic flow ! but: interference of emergency vehicles because of the reduced lane width

18 Examples:Examples: WuppertalWuppertal // GermanyGermany

c h h c l i a n

b g z h r

Results of the evaluation a a

u w

c r 568 640

y 938 736

6 2 2 4 7 7

0 8 1 5

4 8 1 8 7 0

d ]

4 9 5 8

3 2 2 2

! 5 3 3 3 6

h relative constant loading ß 8

g 3 1878 3 1837 e

o n 1407 8 1584 1583 i 1451 6 1546

r .

7 284 212 o 385 1098 1098 1 1098 1098 540

309 282 386 1199 1199 123 146

! 1451 1451 78 90

reduction71 of delays 139 Berliner Straße

e 71 1749 1749 139 78 90

3 1319 1319 351 398 346 207

. m 387 359 1285 1285 1041 1041

6 u 218 111

p reduction of traffic

7 2 9 9 1449

8 6 3

i 1

c 8 8 0 5 1683 1706 r 1749 1749

2 1 7 4 2 f 1775

[

3 2 3 3

8 1 2 7 1 1

T 669 668 441 316

ö r congestionst

n n 591 734 580 432 ä

o r

5 2 5 5 2 3

5 4 7 9

9 2 1 B 0 3 4

2 4 4 0

2 3 2

]

3 3 2 4

h ! homogenisation of traffic

o 1369 (-3%) 1400 (-4%) 1400 (-24%) 1458 (-22%) 1388 (-12%) 1390 (-12%)

o 1161 ()-25%

. c 305 115

7 r 1060 1060 344 325 959 959

d 1 1063 75 74 e 304 1063

309 flow

- 51 13 f 36 51 g Berliner Straße

a 36 51 51 13

i 1314 1314 409 247 295 243

e r . 420 362 1272 1272 1104 1104

o 6 69 63

u /

l !

h but: interference of

2 0 4 9

p 1423 (-2%) v 1519 (-10%)

6 2 0 0 1712 (-2%) 1732 (-2%)

2 3 1734 (+ 2%) 9 2 4 5

3 4 3 3

[

2 6 6 3 7 7

f f 724 671 175 160 a emergency vehicles

T 2000 because of the reduced lane 1000 No essential difference of traffic volume increase of traffic volume > 10% decrease of traffic volume > 10% 500 to “before”width analysis to “before” analysis to “before” analysis Kfz

19 Examples:Examples: HennefHennef // GermanyGermany

Deficiencies before conversion ! historical buildings and ensembles are ignored ! roadway controlled the street space ! heavy traffic during peak hours ! cyclists and pedestrians needs are ignored

20 Examples:Examples: HennefHennef // GermanyGermany

Conversion measures: ! smaller driving lanes ! more space for pedestrians and cyclists ! creating of recreation and rest areas for pedestrians ! building of a paved middle section for easier pedestrian crossing and speed reduction

21 Examples:Examples: DurbanDurban // SouthSouth AfricaAfrica

Situation before redesign of the Marine Parade: ! major through road ! City is cut off from the beachfront ! conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular traffic

22 Examples:Examples: DurbanDurban // SouthSouth AfricaAfrica

Situation after redesign of the Marine Parade: ! new crossing facilities with traffic lights and zebra stripes ! People places along the route ! New designed street furniture

23 Examples:Examples: BratislavaBratislava /Slovakia/Slovakia

Krizna-Vajnorska Street Historical Radial Road

Krizna - spot measures at Benka square Vajnorska – linie measures of 900 m

24 Examples:Examples: BratislavaBratislava /Slovakia/Slovakia

Traffic Load

Daily variations of motor car traffic in Bratislava

6,9 7 6,9 7 7 6,4 6,3 6,2 6,5 6,1 6,2 6,3 6 5,4 5 4,5 4,4 4 3,4

3 2,6 2,1 2 1,8 1,3 0,8 1 0,6 0,5 0,5 0,4 percent (100%=0-24h) 0 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-13 14-15 16-17 18-19 20-21 22-23 hour

25 Examples:Examples: BratislavaBratislava // SlovakiaSlovakia

Deficiencies before conversion of Benka square at Krizna street:

! busy road traffic during whole day ! very high speed ! irregular on-street parking ! strong pedestrian transversal and longitudinal traffic ! ignored cyclists and pedestrians needs

26 Examples:Examples: BratislavaBratislava /Slovakia/Slovakia

M. Benka square before

Krizna street – cross section

M. Benka square after 27 Examples:Examples: BratislavaBratislava /Slovakia/Slovakia

Conversion measures at Krizna –Benka square :

! barrierless pedestrian crossing ! subterranean parking in storeyed garage ! new greenery, fountain and street architecture ! rest places for pedestrians ! new polyfunctional building – housing, shops, restaurants, offices

28 M. Benka square today - new street architecture

Ideas on Krizna street for future

M. Benka square today - greenery and rest facilities 29 Examples:Examples: BratislavaBratislava // SlovakiaSlovakia

Deficiencies before conversion of Vajnorska street: ! busy road traffic during whole day ! very high speed ! very high accident rate ! unemployed space of P&R facility ! insufficient location of PT stops ! monofunctional buildings and areas ! ignored cyclists and pedestrians needs ! but many attractive pedestrian and cyclists destination (sports and recreational areas)

30 Examples:Examples: BratislavaBratislava /Slovakia/Slovakia

ACCIDENTS - roads with the highest number of accidents 1990-2000 400

350

300

250 accidents per year

200

150

100

0 ská č avská ianska ň ianska, č Žitná Pražská Šancová č Špiálska Trnavská Bajkalská Svobodu Vajnorská Brnianska Panónska Lama Ra Rož Karloveská Gagarinova Ra Štefánikova Nábrežie L. Prístavný most Prístavný Devínska cesta Devínska cesta na Senec

31 Inter football stadium in the adjoing sport area

Old blocks of houses alongside P&R Vajnorska street

Lake Kuchajda in the adjoing rest complex

32 Examples:Examples: BratislavaBratislava // SlovakiaSlovakia

Conversion measures at Vajnorska street: ! reconstruction of tram track in middle section with anti-noise measures ! better location of PT tram and bus stops combined with barrierless pedestrian crossings ! more space for pedestrians and cyclists ! creating of recreation and rest areas for pedestrians with greenery, waterworks and street architecture ! new of polyfunctional building complex and new POLUS city shopping centre

33 View over Vajnorska radial in the direction to the city centre

Milenium Tower II.

Fountain in front of entrance of the centre

34 Polyfunctional building and off-street parking

Bus stop in front of the POLUS shopping centre – Vajnorska street

Busy access traffic to the shopping centre 35 Sub-group 1 Sharing the Main Street

Conclusions:

! Redesign only when problems show necessity ! Combine selected functions carefully ! Avoid boring uniformity ! World wide trend: more space for cyclist and pedestrian and time sharing ! Allow motorized traffic than allow parking ! Public involvement = acceptance

36 Thank you for your attention!