Pedestrian Crossings
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 Traffic volume after conversion Traffic volume - working day working day [cph/16.3o - 17.3o h] [cph/16.3o - 17.3o h] ! ! ! ! ! Results oftheevaluation 1734 (+1734 2%) 1369 (-3%) 1369 1706 to “before”to analysis Nodifference essential volume of traffic 1407 width because ofthe reduced lane emergency vehicles but: interference of flow homogenisation oftraffic congestions reduction of traffic reduction ofdelays relative constantloading Examples: Examples: 387 1319 309 1098 420 1314 309 1060 Brändströmstraße 724 420 669 387 304 282 671 309 668 309 362 359 1314 1060 1319 1098 362 304 359 282 36 36 71 71 1451 1749 1749 1400 (-4%) 1400 1749 1451 to “before”to analysis increase of traffic volume > 10% 3 1712 (-2%) 1712 86 3 8 6 1400 1400 1749 1451 Wuppertal 386 Wuppertal (-24%) 1837 1458 1458 1732 (-2%) 1732 1878 1775 (-22%) 1272 409 51 51 1063 344 1285 351 139 139 1199 540 938 736 344 591 734 540 247 398 409 351 325 385 W i c h l i n g h t r a e a ß u S r e s to “before” analysis decrease of volume traffic > 10% 1272 1063 1285 1199 385 247 325 398 1388 1388 / Germany / Germany Berliner Straße Berliner Straße 1584 1583 (-12%) 1519 (-10%) 1519 1683 1390 1390 (-12%) 218 1041 346 78 78 123 1098 284 69 1104 295 51 51 75 959 305 Schwa rzba 580 432 568 640 175 69 305 441 218 284 ch 2000 32 32 77 77 74 243 146 207 160 75 295 316 123 346 22 22 82 82 63 115 111 212 19 1000 1098 1041 1104 146 212 243 959 207 115 111 90 90 63 13 13 74 500 1161 1161 1423 (-2%) 1423 1449 1546 Kfz () -25% 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