Appeal under Section 78(1) of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act Land at Worting Farm LPA Ref 13/02553/FUL PINS REF: APP/H1705/A/14/2219070

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Transportation Issues

Proof of Evidence from Neil Wisher B.Sc (Hons), C Eng, MICE, CMIHT 16 September 2014

100 St John Street, London EC1M 4EH Tel: 0207 250 7500

Contents

Content 1 Introduction ...... 1 2 Planning Policy Context and the implications for Transport Infrastructure at Worting Farm...... 5 2.1 National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) ...... 5 2.2 Basingstoke & Deane’s Local Plan Policies E1 and A2 ...... 7 3 Proposed Transport Infrastructure of the Development ...... 9 3.1 Infrastructure Proposed for the Development ...... 9 3.2 Access Infrastructure ...... 10 3.3 Off-Site Transport Infrastructure ...... 15 3.4 Conclusions ...... 20 4 A Way Forward for viable Sustainable Transport Measures ...... 21 4.1 General Introduction ...... 21 4.2 Four Arm Roundabout and Pedestrian/Cycle Crossing Improvements ...... 21 4.3 Pedestrian and Cycle Access for the Development ...... 26 4.4 Offsite Sustainable Transport Improvements ...... 27 4.5 Outcome of the Suggested Improvements ...... 27 5 Conclusions ...... 28 6 Biography ...... 30

Appendices ...... A Hampshire Definitive Map Extracts B i_Transport email 13 August 2014 C i-Transport – Transport Assessment figure 3.2 with modification D Design Manual for Roads and Bridges TD16/07 – Geometric Design of Roundabouts E Cycling England Design Portfolio A.13, Roundabouts F LTN 1/95, The Assessment of Pedestrian Crossings G LTN2/95 The Design of Pedestrian Crossings H TM6, Assessment of pedestrian & cycle crossings March 2014, Hampshire County Council I Suggested Worting Road Controlled Crossing Arrangements J LTN2/08 Cycle Infrastructure Design, Section 8.5, Width Requirements K CV of Neil Wisher

Core Document References National Planning Policy Framework Manual for Streets, 2007 – Department for Transport Basingstoke Environmental Strategy for Transport 1999 (BEST) Basingstoke Town Action Plan (TAP) March 2011

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

1 Introduction

Background

1.1 This Proof of Evidence has been prepared to address the reason for refusal in respect of access and sustainability, the second reason for refusal, as follows:

‘The proposed development would fail to provide a safe and convenient access for all users, such that walking and cycling to/from the site would not be sufficiently integrated or linked with existing infrastructure and facilities resulting in a scheme that would predominantly encourage the use of the private car without giving people a real choice about how they travel. As such the proposal is considered contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policies E1 and A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2006-2011.

Existing Arrangements

1.2 The site is located in Worting, a small settlement to the west of Basingstoke along the southern side of the B3400 Worting Road and to the north of the 4-track width railway line. The site wraps around the Worting built area that fronts Worting Road and adjoins that road near the mini-roundabout junction with Roman Way in the east and also along Worting Road to the west of the existing dwellings. The southern extent of the site abuts a single, unmade track that serves 4 former railway cottages and allotment. The track emerges on Worting Road to the east of the Roman Way mini-roundabout.

1.3 The B3400 itself in the vicinity of the site is a single carriageway road. Footways are located on both sides of the road between the access to Worting House and the mini-roundabout; to the west of the former the footway is along the north side of the road, only. Between the Worting House access and the junction with Church Lane, the northern footway is situated on a bank at a higher level to the carriageway. The speed limit for Worting Road is 30mph which changes to national speed limit to the west of the Worting settlement as the road’s environment becomes more rural.

1.4 Both footways are approximately 1.5 metres width and narrower in parts. The general footway environment improves on the western approach to the mini-roundabout junction with Roman Way as the road widens and accommodates a pedestrian refuge crossing point and bus stops.

1.5 To the east of the roundabout, Worting Road continues as a single carriageway road with footways of 1.5-1.7 metres width on both sides (the northern footway is slightly wider). The railway line passes over Worting Road; high vehicles are directed to pass through the road arch in the centre of carriageway but

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 1 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

otherwise lower vehicles are able to pass each other in both directions. There is no footway through the arch and pedestrians are provided with a segregated footpath to the north of the road (only) which emerges to the east of the railway arch.

1.6 There are some measures for cyclists in the general location. A shared footway/cycleway route follows the route of Old Kempshot Lane and Roman Road, crossing Worting Road via a Toucan Crossing to the east of the railway arch. At the Roman Way mini-roundabout, there is a protected cycle slip lane for westbound travelling cyclists to 3400 through Worting. However, the slip lane does not link with any other measures specific for cyclists.

1.7 Except for the area of the junction with Church Lane, there are no restrictions on parking or loading along Worting Road, however, parking spaces are marked along the southern kerb line of the road in the vicinity of the existing dwellings.

1.8 Through the site is a public footpath that is listed as Right of Way 20 in Hampshire County Council’s Definitive Map (see extracts of immediate and wider area in Appendix A). Between the Worting dwellings the footpath is surfaced with width varying between 1.5 and 2 metres. Access to the site is via a wooden stile and fence gap and the footpath becomes a trodden ground route through the field until it reaches the footbridge over the railway which is in cutting at this location. The footbridge itself has a 1.5 metres width timber floor and circa 1.4 metres height metal trellis fencing. On passing over the footbridge, the Definitive Map has the footpath following the edge of a field, near the southern side of the railway land, heading in the direction of Oakley and Pack Lane, although there is no formal wayfinding on site. At the footbridge, Right of Way 20 links with Right of Way 21, another public footpath (trodden ground), which follows a south-south-east alignment along the edge of the field to reach Kitehill Cottages and Right of Way 38.

1.9 To the east of the southern end of the footbridge are dwellings at Dorset Crescent and a signed, shared footpath/cycleway passing between apartment blocks, 75-77 and 78-80. The footpath/cycleway stops short of the public right of way and is contained within the residential grounds. However, the fence that used to demarcate the extent of the housing estate has been dismantled and I noted on my site visit of 4 September 2014 that people freely passed across to the footbridge by walking and cycling.

1.10 Where public right of way 20 meets Worting Road, a guard rail has been erected to prevent pedestrians from crossing the carriageway. Parking space has also been marked across the public footpath location access point which, during my site visit, appeared to be in regular use and so acted as a further constraint to pedestrians crossing the road to this location.

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 2 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

1.11 The aforementioned issues have required consideration by the appellant for access and the accessibility of the site by all modes of travel and a Transport Assessment (TA) was submitted as one of the documents supporting the planning submission providing the response. The main access matters identified in the TA include a four-arm roundabout in place of the existing three-arm mini-roundabout as the single point of access for motor vehicles, preservation of the public footpath including the route towards the footbridge and an additional pedestrian route towards the west of the site providing a further access point onto Worting Road. The TA also identifies further sustainable transport measures that the appellant would wish to see progressed to support walking and cycling to and from the site with a strong focus on the B3400 corridor. It is acknowledged that the appellant is seeking assurance from Hampshire County Council, as Highway Authority, that the contribution made through Section 106 Agreement will be spent on those measures which, in an email from the appellant’s transport consultant to Hampshire Highways on 13 August 2014 (see Appendix B) included:

Environmental enhancements to the B3400 route through Worting Village – gateways, crossings and bus stops; Improvements to the footway and footpath route – from Roman Way, via Worting Road and Roman Road to east of the railway bridge and Worting Road; Improved pedestrian route south from the site over the railway footbridge and links to the pedestrian and cyclist network south of the railway line; and Other local improvement schemes listed by HCC for West Ham Roundabout, Worting Road Roundabout, pedestrian and cycle improvements along the B3400 corridor and improved connections to the rights of way and cycle-route networks.

1.12 In this Proof of Evidence, I raise concerns that the strategy adopted for access and site accessibility has not been adequately addressed and falls short of meeting National Planning Policy Framework and the Council’s expectations, as described in Policies E1 and A2, to provide people moving into the development with real choice and opportunity to travel by walking and cycling.

Structure of the Transport Evidence

1.13 This evidence has been prepared to consider various aspects, including: The case that the development is not sustainable development from a transport perspective as defined by the National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF) and is not in accordance with the transport policies of the Local Plan, in particular E1 and A2;

The access proposals give greater prominence to the private car than other sustainable travel modes;

The proposed infrastructure for walking and cycling is inadequate and inconvenient for users;

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 3 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

Further provision could have been made for walking and cycling to achieve a better level of integration with the wider network that would make travel by those modes a stronger choice;

The proposed infrastructure for vehicles undermines safe and convenient access for vulnerable road users. While the vehicle infrastructure has not been given as a reason for refusal, the form it takes does not sufficiently accommodate the needs of vulnerable road users and the consequence of this will be that the development is too car dependent and will fail to take the opportunities afforded walking and cycling by its highly accessible location.

1.14 In this Proof I have discussed the Policy context for sustainability in travel and to support travel by sustainable modes in Section 2. The infrastructure is critiqued in Section 3 and a way forward identified as to how this could have been upgraded to provide better choice for sustainable travel in Section 4. My conclusions are provided in Section 5.

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 4 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

2 Planning Policy Context and the implications for Transport Infrastructure at Worting Farm.

2.1 National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)

2.1.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides guidance within “Delivering sustainable development” and specifically within Section 4, “Promoting sustainable transport”. The NPPF provides useful guidance in what is considered sustainable transport which is defined in Annex 2, Glossary:

Sustainable transport modes: Any efficient, safe and accessible means of transport with overall low impact on the environment, including walking and cycling, low and ultra low emission vehicles, car sharing and public transport.

2.1.2 The NPPF recognises the important role played by transport policy and in encouraging development to place a high priority on sustainable transport which is reflected in paragraphs 29 and 30 that state:

“29. Transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives. Smarter use of technologies can reduce the need to travel. The transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel. However, the Government recognises that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas.

30. Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion. In preparing Local Plans, local planning authorities should therefore support a pattern of development which, where reasonable to do so, facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport.”

2.1.3 Government policy is therefore providing guidance to developers and planning authorities alike to give full attention to addressing the transport needs through sustainable travel modes and that the assessment of those needs takes full regard of the local circumstances in which development is taking place.

2.1.4 Paragraph 32 establishes how transport matters should be evaluated and developed:

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 5 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

“32. All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Plans and decisions should take account of whether:

the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.”

2.1.5 The Transport Assessment for the development has provided a perspective of the transport impacts and needs. In this proof I consider that the objectives identified in the first and second bullet points have been inadequately addressed in that the infrastructure identified should have provided greater encouragement for walking and cycling, and the proposed 4-armed roundabout should have been prepared to be less of an impediment to residents in the development in choosing to walk or cycle rather than using their private motor vehicles for all their journeys. I have assessed this policy further with due regard to the quality of provision for pedestrians and cyclists identified and whether the limited opportunities afforded to walking and cycling could be deemed to have a severe impact in Section 3.

2.1.6 Paragraphs 35 and 36 further elaborate on sustainable transport opportunities and the context for their encouragement:

“35. Plans should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods or people. Therefore, developments should be located and designed where practical to

accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies; give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to high quality public transport facilities; create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and where appropriate establishing home zones; incorporate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles; and consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport.

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 6 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

36. A key tool to facilitate this will be a Travel Plan. All developments which generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a Travel Plan.”

3.1.7 Owing to the size of the development, a Residential Travel Plan was deemed to be not required. This agreement between the developer and officers of the planning authority means that the modal split between travel choices for the development was not established and as such no incentives were identified to establish choice for travel by the more sustainable modes. Equally the opportunities afforded by the site’s good location to exploit walking and cycling to access Basingstoke and its amenities may not have been as vigorously pursued as a result of the lack of incentives to achieve modal shift in favour of sustainable transport. Policy paragraph 35 clearly identifies the requirements that developments should be designed to give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements; this would necessarily include the access arrangements.

2.2 Basingstoke & Deane’s Local Plan Policies E1 and A2

2.2.1 The Borough’s Local Plan sets out a vision of the future development of the Borough and directs on how it expects the impacts of developments are controlled to the wider benefit of the Borough. The Council has highlighted policies E1 (Development Control) and A2 (Encouraging Walking, Cycling and the Use of Public Transport) where the development has failed to meet the objectives from a transport and access perspective.

Policy E1

Proposals for new development will be permitted provided that they are of a high standard of design, make efficient use of land, respect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, and do not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety. All development proposals should therefore:

iii. Not generate traffic of a type or amount inappropriate for roads, properties or settlements in the locality, and provide safe and convenient access for all potential users, integrating into existing movement networks and open spaces;

Policy A2

The Borough Council will only grant planning permission for developments with vehicular and pedestrian generation implications where:

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 7 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

i. cycling and walking infrastructure are integrated with the development and linked with surrounding networks; and

ii. development takes account of the needs of public transport.

Elsewhere within the Plan area opportunities will be examined to improve provision for pedestrians, cyclists and to encourage the use of public transport including community transport in areas not served by conventional public transport. Additionally, the funding of local transport improvements will be sought in conjunction with new development where appropriate.

2.2.2 In respect of the development, the traffic assessed as being generated is not disputed and is considered of the form and proportion that is suitable for the local highway network. The proposals presented however do not provide safe and convenient access for people on foot and bicycle that meets the expectations of the local policies and will not encourage walking and cycling to and from the site over and above the private vehicle. This is particularly the case with the four armed roundabout access but also in respect of other aspects of the infrastructure measures proposed.

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 8 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

3 Proposed Transport Infrastructure of the Development

3.1 Infrastructure Proposed for the Development

3.1.1 The development of the land at Worting Farm requires new transport infrastructure for access and links to the wider network. National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF) and Local Plan policy both direct developments to ensure that the infrastructure is considered as a whole and that the opportunities for infrastructure supporting the more sustainable modes of travel (walking, cycling and public transport) are fully exploited. The policies encourage solutions that provide for safe and convenient use of the sustainable transport modes along with tackling environmental matters including the emission of greenhouse gases and traffic congestion.

3.1.2 The scope of access and infrastructure for the development is presented in the development Transport Assessment (TA) prepared by i-Transport. The proposed infrastructure is presented as that directly required for access to the development (TA, Appendix B) and for off-site sustainable transport improvements (TA, Appendix G). The appellant has sought confirmation from Hampshire County Council that it will use the Section 106 contribution secured under a planning approval specifically for those measures in an email dated 13 August 2014 (see Appendix B of this Proof).

3.1.3 In this section, the proposed infrastructure is judged against policies E2 and A1, and with regard to the NPPF as to: whether the transport measures would lead to generation of traffic inappropriate for the roads, properties or settlements in the locality; whether they provide safe and convenient access for all potential users; whether they effectively integrate with the existing and surrounding movement networks; and, if they fall short of the policy requirement, are the cumulative impacts severe and so lead to the conclusion that the development should be refused on those transport grounds.

3.1.4 The TA has assessed the accessibility of the site in detail and has highlighted walking and cycling times and distances to employment, education, retail, leisure and health facilities. It confirms that the location has substantial opportunity to get to those facilities on foot and cycle. All the journeys are of a distance of 3km or less and the maximum travel time on cycle might be no more than 11 minutes. Figure 3.2 from the TA is modified in the diagram included in Appendix C to this proof to summarise travel route options from the site using Worting Road eastwards, Worting Road westwards and the railway footbridge

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 9 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

for the shortest journey times. It can be seen that the majority of locations identified would involve walking or cycling along Worting Road east of the site.

3.2 Access Infrastructure

3.2.1 The infrastructure proposals for access comprise three elements, namely: Replacement of the three-arm mini-roundabout at Worting Road/Roman Way with a four-arm roundabout; Maintaining the public footpath (public right of way) to access Worting Road and the railway footbridge to the south of the development; and An additional pedestrian footpath on the western side of the site passing between the wildflower and kick about area for access to Worting Road.

Access Roundabout 3.2.2 The appellant has proposed a compact four-armed roundabout for the single point of access for traffic to the site. The design of the roundabout would appear to have been prepared with due regard to the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges TD16/07 – Geometric Design of Roundabouts (TD16/07) (included in Appendix D to this Proof) as a Compact Roundabout. It is acknowledged that the proposed roundabout has been shown to provide substantial betterment to the congestion currently experienced at the Worting Road/Roman Way mini-roundabout junction. Tables 7.3 and 7.4 of the TA clearly show the net improvement for general traffic achieved by the proposals, during the morning and evening peak hours which are replicated below:

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 10 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

3.2.3 Through comparison of the outputs, it is noted that the proposed four arm roundabout would generate average queue lengths significantly below those evaluated and measured for the three arm mini- roundabout The Reference Flow/Capacity Ratios (RFC) for the comparable approaches are also substantially lower and, with the exceptions of Worting Road (West) in the morning peak hour and Roman Way in the evening peak hour, below the 0.85 level for efficient traffic flow conditions.

3.2.4 In respect of traffic, it can be accepted that the traffic generated by the development would be predominantly private vehicles and be at a level of minor impact to the local highway network.

3.2.5 The four arm roundabout proposal is shown in further detail in TA Appendix C. Provision has been made for pedestrians to cross all four arms of the junction via refuges which are uncontrolled. Under the proposed arrangements, pedestrians would need to give priority to road traffic when negotiating the crossing points.

3.2.6 No specific provision has been made within the roundabout layout for cycling. For cyclists to negotiate the roundabout, they would need to do so either on carriageway, along with all traffic movements, or dismount and cross at the uncontrolled pedestrian refuges around the roundabout.

3.2.7 The technical analysis carried out in developing the roundabout arrangement involved using ARCADY analysis software. The inputs and outputs for the ARCADY modelling have been included in the TA Appendix J. ARCADY allows the traffic modeller to input survey data specific to the site including traffic counts per minute and pedestrians per minute, both set within 15 minutes segments. The input data sheets for the baseline (for the existing mini-roundabout) and future year (mini-roundabout and proposed compact roundabout) do not include any values for pedestrians crossing at the approaches. This may be a logical

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 11 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

approach for the junction assessment since the existing pedestrian flows will be small in comparison with traffic flows, and the number of pedestrian movements assessed as generated by the development would result in a small increase in pedestrians in the vicinity of the roundabout. Pedestrian data would influence the outputs of the ARCADY if a controlled crossing was included as part of the desired solution. The number of pedestrians has not been considered a controlling factor since the assessment has been carried out on the basis that pedestrians would only be able to cross on the approaches when there are gaps in traffic flows.

3.2.8 TD16/07 makes reference to unpublished research carried out by TRL (TRL Unpublished Report UPR/SE/194/05) into the safety of roundabouts for all road users. The research acknowledges that roundabouts, as junctions, are generally safer than most other junction types. Between 1999 and 2003, less than 3% of accidents involved pedestrians although nearly 23% of these resulted in death or serious injury. The research identified that low pedestrian crossing activity could be due to roundabouts generally being provided away from busy urban environments and a preference for pedestrians to cross away from flared road areas where roads were narrower and with a greater uniformity in traffic movements. The general assumption is that, while roundabouts are relatively safe, they are not easily negotiated by pedestrians.

3.2.9 TD16/07 highlights the dangerous aspects of roundabouts for cyclists. While cycling accounted for less than 2% of road traffic, cycles were found to be involved in 8% of accidents and 19% of those resulted in death or serious injury. Cycling England’s Design Portfolio Note, A.13, Roundabouts (included in Appendix E to this Proof) similarly highlights roundabouts as a real and perceived barrier for cyclists with 10% of all reported accidents involving pedal cyclists occurring at roundabouts with 11% of that proportion involving fatal or serious injury to a cyclist. It highlights that cyclists’ accident rates at roundabouts are 14 times those for motorists.

3.2.10 The inconvenience of roundabouts for pedestrians and dangers for cyclists are also highlighted in the Department of Transport’s Manual for Streets (Core Document). In this document, Section 7.3, roundabouts are considered inconvenient for pedestrians as there is a need to depart from the desired walking route, and the uncertainty they can cause in people’s minds when anticipating the movement of motor vehicles on the roundabout, whether entering or leaving it. For cyclists the potential for collision due to lack of notice on the part of motor vehicle drivers entering or leaving roundabouts at relatively high speeds is highlighted. In general terms, while roundabouts have relatively good accident records compared with other forms of junctions, this is in part due to their form discouraging use by vulnerable road users.

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 12 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

3.2.11 The conclusion I reach in respect of the main access to the site is that, while the four-arm roundabout would appear to be the reasonable solution from a traffic flow perspective, the roundabout does not provide sufficiently safe and convenient infrastructure that meets the policy requirements of saved policies E2 and A1. The roundabout proposals would not provide residents of the development with the level of choice to travel locally on foot or on cycle to access facilities in Basingstoke as the form of the roundabout would act as an impediment to walking and cycling to and from the site.

Pedestrian Access

3.2.12 In addition to the roundabout, the development highlights three further access points for pedestrians, two onto Worting Road and one to the south via the footbridge over the railway to emerge near Dorset Crescent and Wiltshire Crescent and public footpath 21.

3.2.13 Within the site, the developer has committed to maintain the current route of, and to improve, the public footpath. Similarly, Section 4.2 of the TA identifies upgrading of the footpath through the existing Worting settlement. Offsite improvements to the public footpath would appear to be offered via the off-site sustainable transport package funded through Section 106 contribution which could include upgrading the rough track for pedestrians towards the footbridge. A further pedestrian access is proposed at the western end of the site to connect with Worting Road.

3.2.14 The two pedestrian access proposals to the north and onto Worting Road are consistent with policies E2 and A1, assuming the public footpath through the Worting settlement is included in the proposed upgrade highlighted in the TA. Both provide good connection to the Worting Road footways. Providing the environmental enhancement scheme to Worting Road for the Section 106 contribution is implemented, the links will also provide appropriate access to the bus stops, employment and social opportunities to be found along the north side of Worting Road.

3.2.15 The pedestrian access proposal to the south of the site is compromised by the lack of formal access to the footpath/cycle network at Dorset Crescent. Without access to the network at that point, pedestrians and cyclists would need to follow the public footpath along the edge of a field towards Pack Lane to access facilities in the southeast of Basingstoke, or leave the development at the main access, the roundabout to the north east.

3.2.16 It is therefore my opinion that the approach presented for the development for pedestrians only partially meets the policy objectives. The strategy also relies on facilities being delivered through targeting expenditure of Section 106 contributions on the environmental and sustainable transport measures for

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 13 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

Worting Road and for enabling unfettered access between the footbridge and Dorset Crescent to the south. As discussed earlier, pedestrian safety and convenience for walking to and from Basingstoke in the east is compromised by the lack of a safe and convenient crossing point on Worting Road to the east of the proposed roundabout.

Cycling Access

3.2.17 The TA has ably highlighted the potential for cycling to carry out a wide range of local trips for employment, leisure, retail and education within and around Basingstoke with numerous journey options of between 2 and 11 minutes. Some of these journeys would be undertaken through cycling via the footbridge, for example to Stratton Park, Kempshott Post Office and Chiltern Primary School. The footbridge is currently part of public footpath route 20 and for cyclists to legitimately cycle across the bridge, its status would need to change to bridleway or restricted byway; if its status is left unchanged then cyclists would need to dismount before crossing the footbridge. To the south of the railway track, there is the shared footpath/cycleway passing through Dorset Crescent near the boundary line with the adjoining field, the footbridge and public footpaths 20 and 21. For a cyclist to access the footpath/cycleway from the footbridge it would be necessary to cross the short length of private land behind Dorset Crescent; this length has no status as a public right of way.

3.2.18 The two non-vehicular accesses to Worting Road have been highlighted as being for pedestrians in the TA. Both routes could have been made available for cycle use providing acceptable design standards were applied to enable shared pedestrian and cycle use. It is noted that the width of the public footpath passing through the Worting settlement is constrained by property fence lines and hedge growth and there would need to be a compromise in the standards normally applied for shared pedestrian/cycle use.

3.2.20 The main concern for cycle use of the two footpaths are at the point of intersection with Worting Road; both have their limitations for cyclists for safety and convenience. The public footpath joins with Worting Road in the vicinity of Church Lane and at the centre of the Worting settlement. This location currently accommodates parking space for the Church Hall and local residents, local businesses and a drive way. It would be my recommendation that cyclists dismount at this particular location and negotiate their next manoeuvre on foot. In respect of the proposed footpath to the western end, while the footpath could and should be upgraded for shared pedestrian and cycle use, my concern on the connection with Worting Road is that the shape and form of the highway is potentially a safety issue. The road is rising to the west, has a long bend and with extensive tree and high bush growth that will compromise forward visibility of motorists, and of cyclists who wish to cross or turn across the carriageway.

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 14 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

3.2.21 It is noted that the sustainable transport proposals in the TA Appendix G include informal pedestrian crossing and village gateway features that may encourage slower speeds. As with the public footpath link, cyclists should be advised to dismount and position themselves safely before continuing their journey along Worting Road. However, it should be feasible to cycle to and from Worting Road along the two footpath options. The conclusion I have reached as regards these two routes is that they should be upgraded (as far as practicable in the case of the public footpath) between the point of connection with Worting Road and the proposed residential area to accommodate cycling in order to satisfy local policies E2 and A1.

3.2.22 As presented by the appellant, the main Worting Road access for cycles is therefore the four arm roundabout. As highlighted by commentary provided in TD16/07, Manual for Streets and Cycling England’s A.13 Roundabouts, roundabouts are perceived as being proportionately unsafe for use by cyclists. I consider the roundabout as proposed is an impediment to cycling and will discourage residents from taking up the opportunity to cycle for the journeys to and from Basingstoke or for travelling to the west.

3.2.21 To the south, cyclists would use the footbridge to access facilities in the south of Basingstoke. As in the case for pedestrians, the public footpath track should be improved through the Section 106 contribution along with improvements to the footbridge. It was noted that the footbridge parapet is approximately 1.4 metres height and so at the minimum standard generally accepted for cycle safety; improvements could focus on surface quality and remediation. The main concern is that that cycle trips to the south of the site are compromised by the lack of access to the footpath/cycle network at Dorset Crescent. Securing access across a boundary line which is currently breached appears to be an obvious opportunity for integration which has been missed. The alternative route would be for cyclists to follow the unmade public footpath towards Pack Lane; a route requiring bicycles with sturdy, deep tread, tyres.

3.2.22 It is my opinion that cycle access to the development fails to reach the standards required that would achieve the policy objectives. The proposed roundabout fails to address the safety perceptions of passage through the measure and so will discourage cycling as a means of accessing facilities in Basingstoke. The southern access point via the footbridge relies on upgrade via the Section 106 contribution and a link to the shared footpath/cycle route at Dorset Crescent has not been shown to be secured since it requires passage over privately held land with no right of way established.

3.3 Off-Site Transport Infrastructure

3.3.1 The developer has offered to contribute to the provision of off-site sustainable transport infrastructure through a financial contribution to the sum of £231,846.

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 15 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

3.3.2 Within the TA, a range of sustainable transport measures are suggested that could be funded by the contribution. These have been summarised in Appendix G to the TA and include: Improvements to the railway footbridge connecting the site to Wiltshire Crescent in the south; A footway improvement scheme adjacent to the railway bridge on Worting Road; and An environmental improvement scheme for Worting Road, comprising gateway features, re-marking of on-street car parking and visual speed management measures.

3.3.3 The appellant has been in contact with Hampshire County Council, as Highway Authority, to seek assurance that that the contribution made through Section 106 Agreement will be spent on those measures which has been elaborated upon in an email from the appellant’s transport consultant to Hampshire Highways on 13 August 2014 (see Appendix B to this Proof) to include: Environmental enhancements to the B3400 route through Worting Village – gateways, crossings and bus stops; Improvements to the footway and footpath route – from Roman Way, via Worting Road and Roman Road to east of the railway bridge and Worting Road; Improved pedestrian route south from the site over the railway footbridge and links to the pedestrian and cyclist network south of the railway line; and Other local improvement schemes listed by HCC for West Ham Roundabout, Worting Road Roundabout, pedestrian and cycle improvements along the B3400 corridor and improved connections to the rights of way and cycle-route networks.

3.3.4 While the list of schemes has been raised with Hampshire Highways, there is uncertainty how the County will prioritise spending and also whether the full Section 106 contributions will be sufficient to deliver all of the measures in their entirety.

3.3.5 BDBC policy has included aspiration to enhance the transport network for walking and cycling. Historically, the aspiration was presented in the Basingstoke Environmental Strategy for Transport 1999 (BEST – see Core Document) in which 7 corridors were identified as the focus for bringing about modal change in travel habits to the area, as shown in the following diagram extracted from the BEST document. One of the corridors follows the B3400, Worting Road between the rural settlements of Whitchurch and Overton, and Basingstoke Centre.

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 16 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

3.3.6 BEST 1999 included objectives for cycling and walking. In respect of cycling these included: developing cycle routes connecting to surrounding settlements and the countryside; improving safety for cyclists, particularly by providing new cycle crossings and measures to help cyclists through busy junctions; promoting the health and environmental benefits of cycling;

3.3.7 For walking objectives, BEST identified enhancing safety and security on existing routes with improved surfacing, lighting and road crossings; providing new routes, particularly where they close gaps in the existing network or link to key local destinations or public transport; improving the walking environment; and promoting the health benefits of walking.

3.3.8 The Basingstoke Town Action Plan (TAP – see Core Document) November 2011 includes the objective to invest in walking and cycling routes in Basingstoke. During the consultation process, the desire was raised for cycle routes that would be outside the TAP area, which included Overton to Oakley and Overton to town centre (along the B3400 corridor). While it was acknowledged the route was outside the

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 17 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

TAP area, it was commented that areas outside the TAP boundary the cycle route (along with others outside of Basingstoke TAP area) could be considered through the Hampshire County Council’s Transport Contributions Policy and provided in conjunction with future development if appropriate and justifiable.

3.3.9 The following provides my assessment of the off-site infrastructure measures highlighted in the email of 13 August 2014 to summarise whether they are desirable or essential to capitalise on the good location of the site for access to facilities by cycling and walking in order to achieve objectives of the Council. Off-site Measure Support to Access BEST Objective Environmental enhancements to the The proposals provide good support While the proposals generally improve B3400 route through Worting Village for pedestrians in respect of local the walking environment, they do not – gateways, crossings and bus stops access including the ability to walk to respond to the objective to develop (TA described the measure as “An the bus stops. Surface colouring and the cycle connections along Worting environmental improvement scheme gateway features should further Road. Cyclists wishing not to for Worting Road, comprising highlight the pedestrian crossing dismount to access or pass through gateway features, re-marking of on- points and encourage slower traffic the site would need to travel to and street car parking and visual speed speeds in the locality. from the proposed roundabout which management measures”) While the proposals provide little for in the form currently proposed has no cycle accessibility with this length of specific provision for cycling safely Worting Road, reduced traffic speeds through. should improve the perception of safety of the area for cycling. The informal crossing arrangements in the vicinity of the northern pedestrian accesses should be formed to accommodate cycles entering and leaving Worting Road. Improvements to the footway and This is necessary to reinforce the The proposals improve the walking footpath route – from Roman Way, access opportunities afforded by the environment but are insufficient as a via Worting Road and Roman Road to site’s location for travel to and from cycle route. The current proposals east of the railway bridge and Basingstoke centre. The main would require cyclists to travel around Worting Road (TA described the drawback with the proposals the roundabout and mix with general measure as “A footway improvement identified in Appendix G is the traffic, or dismount and walk to and scheme adjacent to the railway bridge reliance on the informal crossing of from the footway scheme proposals on Worting Road”) Worting Road via the eastern island via roundabout refuges and along the of the proposed four-arm roundabout improved footway, if they wish to

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 18 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

Off-site Measure Support to Access BEST Objective to access the site. avoid the railway overbridge to Worting Road. Improved pedestrian route south Essential to provide stronger Essential to overcome the gap in from the site over the railway encouragement of walking and Basingstoke’s walking and cycling footbridge and links to the pedestrian cycling to facilities south of the networks at this particular location. and cyclist network south of the railway line including access to railway line (TA scheme was established cycle routes “Improvements to the railway The key obstacle to be overcome footbridge connecting the site to would be the link between the Wiltshire Crescent in the south”) footbridge and shared footpath/cycleway at Dorset Crescent which current involves passage across private land without any right of way in place. Other local improvement schemes This measure is desirable to upgrade The measure appears to relate to the listed by HCC for West Ham the cycle and walking networks to B3400 to the east of Roman Road Roundabout, Worting Road enhance the safety and convenience and towards the town centre and Roundabout, pedestrian and cycle for pedestrians and cyclists. The would be consistent with the improvements along the B3400 proposal would benefit all inhabitants Basingstoke TAP aspiration for corridor and improved connections to and access to facilities along the investment in walking and cycle the rights of way and cycle-route B3400 corridor. routes in the town. If this is the case, networks. then the measure supports the sustainable transport aspects of the site although the infrastructure enhancements are away from the main points of access.

3.3.10 In conclusion, the offsite transport infrastructure measures identified in the 13 August 2014 email would go towards meeting the sustainable transport accessibility requirements of the site. However, the overall benefits for pedestrians and cyclists would be compromised through lack of safe and convenient crossing provision at the proposed roundabout. The off-site proposals also need to be elaborated upon to address the shortfalls in provision for cycling. The footbridge and improvements to the route south of the development are essential to guarantee the accessibility of facilities to the south of the site. For cyclists, the measures do not sufficiently develop the cycle network in the area and as presented have little specific focus on cycling that can be regarded as a positive measure that encourages travel by that mode of transport.

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 19 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

3.4 Conclusions

3.4.1 There are shortcomings in the access proposals for cycling and walking and these fail to address the policy objectives of the NPPF and local policies E2 and A1. The most significant issue is the principal access point to Worting Road. In its proposed arrangement, the four arm roundabout will not sufficiently encourage residents to travel on foot or to cycle, in spite of the location being very accessible for Basingstoke, particularly through cycling. The roundabout is the primary access point for motor vehicles, pedestrians and cycles and the proposed arrangement does not provide sufficiently attractive facilities for people on foot or bicycle that would overcome perceptions of the facility as being unsafe and inconvenient to cross Worting Road.

3.4.2 The other three access points to the site, which are not available for use by motor vehicles, would accommodate fewer walking and cycle trips. The off-site sustainable transport infrastructure is necessary to provide for pedestrians and cyclists in using safe, secure and convenient routes to various attractions around Basingstoke and in the District, namely westwards towards rural settlements such as Oakley and southwards towards the south west of Basingstoke and eastwards towards Basingstoke. Basingstoke Town Centre is expected to be the main destination to be reached through cycling. The test applied in this section identifies that the non-vehicular access proposals are considered inadequate to meet the safe and convenient objective of the planning policies. The sustainable transport infrastructure proposals might provide the routes for pedestrians and cyclists but the TA is silent on much of the detail to give confidence that they would be shaped to achieve this objective and indeed that they could be provided to the sum identified as the Section 106 contribution.

3.4.3 In my opinion, the cumulative impacts of the lack of provision for cycles at the roundabout, lack of a safe and convenient pedestrian crossing of Worting Road east of the roundabout, lack of focus on cycling needs for the non-motor vehicle access provision, along with the insufficent detail in respect of the proposals for cyclists in the off-site sustainable transport infrastructure and the uncertainty on their entire delivery using the Section 106 contribution would be severe in transportation terms as is referred to within NPPF paragraph 32 . The appellant’s access proposals do not adequately address NPPF paragraph 35 in respect of priority to pedestrians and cycles and do not go far enough to meet Policy objectives described in E2 and A1 as they would not provide sufficiently attractive measures to encourage incoming residents to choose walking or cycling in preference to using their private vehicles.

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 20 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

4 A Way Forward for viable Sustainable Transport Measures

4.1 General Introduction

4.1.1 The Access and Sustainable Transport Infrastructure proposed for the development could have been developed to address the safety and convenience issues for walking and cycling thereby encouraging inhabitants to consider choosing those travel modes for the short journeys with Basingstoke. This section discusses a number of measures to demonstrate how this could have been achieved.

4.2 Four Arm Roundabout and Pedestrian/Cycle Crossing Improvements

4.2.1 In order to provide safe and convenient facilities for pedestrians and cycles, a controlled crossing needs to be introduced. The crossing should be sited on the eastern approach to the roundabout to support East-West travel for access to Basingstoke centre which the TA assessed as having the greatest potential for walking and cycling from the development.

4.2.2 A crossing on Worting Road between the roundabout and the railway bridge would support the site in capitalising on its good location for access to local amenities and address/include the following: Walking to and from the development would involve travelling along the southern footway in the development followed by crossing Worting Road to the east of the junction to continue to walk along the pedestrian route by-passing the narrow and footway-free railway overbridge Under the current proposal, cycling would involve negotiation of the roundabout on carriageway and confronting the safety concerns this raises. The alternative would be to use the southern footway (assuming this is a shared foot/cycle way) to then cross Worting Road east of the roundabout. If walking along Worting Road, east-west, crossing of the roundabout would take place on the southern arm (development access point) where vehicular turning movements are at their lightest then using the southern footway and crossing Worting Road east to access the pedestrian link as above Pedestrians walking along the north side of Worting Road would need to use the pedestrian refuge on the Roman Way approach. For cyclists travelling westwards along Worting Road who would wish to avoid the roundabout, it would be feasible to create an off-carriageway route from the proposed controlled crossing, along a shared footway/cycleway then via the informal crossing of the roundabout on the southern, most lightly trafficked approach. The south-western footway to the roundabout could be improved to

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 21 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

enable shared pedestrian and cycle use and cyclists return to the carriageway at the proposed informal crossing near the bus stops. For cyclists travelling eastwards who would also wish to avoid the roundabout, access to the south side, shared footway/cycleway facility could be supported by enabling cyclists to cross via the same informal crossing to the west of the roundabout and crossing the southern approach to the roundabout. Cyclists could then either return to the carriageway at the proposed controlled crossing or go to the north side to a widened, shared use footway/cycleway that avoids travel through the Worting Road railway arch. Using this route also provides the opportunity to link with the cycle network at Roman Road and Kempshot Lane, away from the busy Worting Road.

4.2.3 In order to address policies E2 and A1, the controlled crossing would need to be either signal controlled (Toucan, Puffin or Pelican) or Zebra. Justification of the type of crossing would be carried out applying assessment criteria presented in the DfT’s guidance LTN 1/95 (The Assessment of Pedestrian Crossings – see Appendix F of this Proof), LTN2/95 (The Design of Pedestrian Crossings – see Appendix G of this Proof) and DMRB TD16/07 (Geometric Design of Roundabouts – see Appendix D of this Proof). Hampshire County Council has also produced guidance for its Transport and Highways Staff with its document, TM6 - Assessment of pedestrian & cycle crossings March 2014 (see Appendix H of this Proof); it is understood that Hampshire County Council also refers to Manual for Streets when approving highway infrastructure associated with development and may use that guidance in preference to DMRB 16/07 for county road issues.

4.2.4 At present the number of pedestrians and cyclists travelling along Worting Road and crossing the road is low. Worting settlement is small and there are few local businesses to generate regular pedestrian activity so the principal justification for a controlled crossing point would be to accommodate future demand from the development site. The TA has provided an assessment on the apportionment of daily trips generated through TRICS database evaluation of similar location and size of residential sites. The safe and convenient crossing point will provide comfort that the proportion of pedestrians and cycle movements can be achieved and further walking and cycling encouraged, and that access to Basingstoke is supported by higher quality infrastructure that would attract more walking and cycling in preference to motor vehicle use from the development and from existing settlements.

4.2.5 Location of the controlled crossing can be based on the application of design criteria and physical constraints and is guided by design criteria in LTN2/95 and TD16/07. In addition, as the B3400 is a local highway authority road, Hampshire County Council would consider design parameters such as Stopping Sight Distances highlighted in Manual for Streets (see Core Document Sections 7.5 – 7.8) that would

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 22 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

provide alternative solutions to the assessments highlighted in the DfT documents. The following summarises assessment criteria applied through those documents.

Criteria Comment

(LTN 2/95, 2.1.3) Consideration given to the A controlled crossing would need to be sited on proximity of the crossing and approach to a Worting Road eastern approach between the roundabout roundabout and the unmade access road to the Railway Cottages.

(LTN 2/95, 2.1.3) Where a crossing must be A Zebra crossing would be a substantial benefit to provided within the junction layout, a Zebra crossing pedestrians although cyclists have with less control is preferred; it avoids any ambiguity as to priority over motor vehicles unless they are seen to that a signal-controlled crossing can create for the dismount and cross as if a pedestrian driver approaching the roundabout Give Way line

(LTN 2/95, 2.1.3) If a signal controlled crossing is The roundabout is of the compact type with single provided, it should preferably be of the staggered lane entry and exit on all arms. The approaches are type to avoid excessive delays at the exit points flared. With the available road width it would appear blocking circulation impracticable to install a staggered signalled crossing and a single crossing would be preferable.

(LTN 2/95, 2.1.3) The pedestrian desire line, vehicle The main pedestrian desire line is likely to follow an speeds, visibility, pedestrian/vehicle flows, size of alignment crossing near the northern footpath used roundabout, and length of crossing/road width by pedestrians to bypass the bridge carrying the should be considered when deciding the optimum railway over the B3400 (no footway). The desire line location would also be influenced by the crossing road width and be to the west of the roundabout approach area.

Vehicle speeds would need to be measured, although these will be different with the introduction of the compact, four arm roundabout. If the controlled crossing point is positioned closer to the roundabout, then vehicle speeds are likely to be

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 23 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

Criteria Comment lower than if positioned closer to the railway bridge.

The roundabout is compact and is located within a 30mph. The design has included for deflections that would encourage slower vehicle speeds passing through the junction. Compared with the three-arm mini-roundabout arrangement, average vehicle speeds throughout the day should be slower

(LTN 2/95, 2.1.3) Crossings away from flared entries The eastern approach to the roundabout includes a are preferable as the carriageway widths are less flare which starts approximately 20 metres from the and the vehicular traffic movements are simpler give way line. The design of the approach indicates it to be for a single lane of vehicles only. No deflection is shown for the exit.

(TD16/07, 5.5) Stand-alone pedestrian crossing The flare starts at approximately 20 metres from the facilities should be located to suit pedestrian desire give way line. If a zebra crossing was preferred it lines. If possible, they should be outside of the would be positioned at the start of the flare where flared section to keep the crossing short. Zebra the road becomes slightly wider. crossings should be located between 5m and 20m from the give way line

(TD16/07, 5.7) Non-staggered signal-controlled The road width would not easily accommodate a crossings should be sited either at 20m or more splitter island and a straight crossing would be than 60m from the give way line. It may be preferred. advantageous to use the splitter island (extended as necessary) as a central refuge. The central refuge can also be used to form a staggered crossing

(TD16/07, 5.9) Zebra crossings should not be used The road is within a 30mph speed limit. Siting a where the 85th percentile speed exceeds 35mph (if zebra crossing closer to the roundabout is likely to it does, a signal controlled crossing will be required). mean that the approach speeds are less than If the 85th percentile speed exceeds 50mph, serious 35mph. It is noted that the roundabout, together

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 24 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

Criteria Comment consideration should be given to speed reduction with the environmental scheme for Worting Road to measures before installing at-grade crossings the west of the roundabout should collectively influence and reduce speeds of vehicle travelling from the west. One of the desired outcomes of installing a Compact roundabout is to reduce traffic speeds compared with a Normal Roundabout.

(TD16/07, Table 6.1) The forecasted highest two- This would require data from the county or way Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) on any measurements from site as they were not provided approach should be between 8,000-12,000 to in the TA. recommend a zebra crossing for pedestrian provision or signal control for combined pedestrian/cycle crossing.

(MfS, Table 7.1) The derived Stopping Site Distance The existing speeds along the B3400 would require for streets is 43m (including adjustment for bonnet measurement. With regards to the roundabout, it is length) for 85%ile speeds of 30 mph. anticipated that eastbound and westbound vehicle speeds would be lower when closer to the roundabout. The deflections designed into the compact roundabout would also encourage drivers to drive more slowly through the junction.

(MfS, Section 7.7) Visibility splays from the minor Approaches to a four-arm roundabout have equal arm of a junction should be based on MfS table 7.1 status to each other. It is noted that approach speeds at the give way marking to the junctions are likely to be low and as drivers accelerate when turning towards and exiting Worting Road east, the speeds are likely to be less than 30mph. It would be reasonable to assume that the visibility splay distance should not exceed 43 metres.

4.2.6 On the basis of the above considerations, in my opinion, justification can be made to install a signalised crossing point on the Worting Road eastern approach to the roundabout. The southern footway

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 25 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

and route to the site would be improved to accommodate use for pedestrians and cyclists, and the footway/footpath on the northern side linking to Roman Road would also require conversion to shared footpath/cycleway standard to create a cycle link to the existing cycle network for the town. To complete the cycle link, the signalised crossing should be installed as a Toucan Crossing.

4.2.7 As an alternative and valid sustainable transport approach, a zebra crossing could be installed to achieve the safe and convenient crossing for pedestrians. The approach footways should still be upgraded to accommodate shared use by cycles and pedestrians, however, cyclists would be required to dismount and use the zebra crossing as pedestrians. The option for installation of a zebra crossing should be progressed if it was considered that the potential number of pedestrians and cyclists would be below an acceptable threshold. However, a signalled crossing upgrade should be progressed with the further developments arising from the Manydown extension to Basingstoke. The layout would need to be agreed by Hampshire County Council and it is understood that this authority tends to defer to design principles identified in Manual for Streets in preference to those contained in DfT’s design guidance for the trunk road network.

4.2.8 The controlled crossing proposal can be delivered within the redline boundary of the development. With the proximity of the crossing to the roundabout, it is considered that the proposal should be incorporated within the Section 278 works for access to the site. I have provided schematic arrangements to demonstrate how either a Toucan or Zebra Crossing could be provided in conjunction with the proposed four arm roundabout in Appendix I to this Proof.

4.3 Pedestrian and Cycle Access for the Development

4.3.1 The two access points on to Worting Road are shown to be for pedestrians only and so exclude legitimate use of those links for cyclists. In order to upgrade the measures to a suitable standard for cycling and walking, the following improvements are suggested: Change public footpath status through the site and to Worting Road to permit cycling; Public footpath to be widened where practicable for shared use by pedestrians and cyclists. Design and Width to accord with LTN 2/08 – Cycle Infrastructure Design (Extract included in Appendix J to this Proof)– the minimum recommended width is 3m – this standard to be applied to its whole length as far as practicable from the footbridge in the south to Worting Road at the north; Footpath on the west of the site to be widened for cycling. Design and Width to accord with LTN 2/08 – Cycle Infrastructure Design – minimum recommended width is 3m;

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 26 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

4.4 Offsite Sustainable Transport Improvements

4.4.1 Improvements to the railway footbridge: This should have been a key access component for the site and enhancements to enable cycling should have been included in the access proposals. A full construction footway/cycleway should have been included in the package of access measures to link the footbridge to the shared path in Dorset Crescent to enable easy access for cycling to facilities to the south of Basingstoke. It is acknowledged that this link involves a short piece of land in private ownership. Every effort should be made to ensure this link can be established either by Agreement or through statutory processes.

4.4.2 Footway improvement scheme adjacent to the railway bridge on Worting Road: This proposal would be substantially improved for the safety and convenience of pedestrians and cyclists by the controlled crossing measure identified above and, as discussed, the footway lengths for shared use should be widened to 3m minimum to enable shared use and the route formally signed as an extension to the local cycle network.

4.4.3 Environmental enhancements to the B3400 route through Worting Village – gateways, crossings and bus stops: On the basis that cyclists are accommodated with the access arrangements for the site, this scheme should provide additional facilities for cyclists at the pedestrian crossing points to enable safe crossing of Worting Road.

4.5 Outcome of the Suggested Improvements

4.5.1 The range of improvements identified in this section should have been included with the access and sustainable transport infrastructure requirements as a minimum. The suggested improvements would address the deficiencies in the proposals and satisfy the planning authority that opportunity for sustainable travel has been addressed to meet the policy objectives of the NPPF and local policies E2 and A1.

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 27 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

5 Conclusions

5.1 The proposed development fails to meet the test of achieving policy objectives sought through local policies E2 and A1 in that it fails to provide safe and convenient access for all potential users, in particular for pedestrians and cyclists. The proposals are insufficient to integrate the development into the surrounding walking and cycling networks.

5.2 The site has been shown to be in a very accessible location for walking and cycling to many facilities around Basingstoke and this is particularly so for cycling which should have the potential to be used for the shorter journeys in preference to the private motor vehicle. Cycle journeys to Basingstoke Town Centre could be in the region of 5-11 minutes.

5.3 Encouragement for walking and cycling is undermined by the proposed four arm roundabout, the principal access to the site. The roundabout design includes informal crossing points on all four approaches which results in pedestrians and cyclists only being able to cross when gaps in traffic movements arise.

5.4 It is widely acknowledged that roundabouts are relatively safe junction arrangements, but they are perceived as unsafe and inconvenient for cyclists and pedestrians who generally prefer to cross away from the junction area. The accident concerns for cyclists and pedestrians has been highlighted in a number of design standard documents, for example, Cycling England’s Design Portfolio Note, A.13, Roundabouts highlights roundabouts as a real and perceived barrier for cyclists with 10% of all reported accidents involving pedal cyclists occurring at roundabouts with 11% of that proportion involving fatal or serious injury to a cyclist. It highlights that cyclists’ accident rates at roundabouts are 14 times those for motorists.

5.5 The two pedestrian access proposals to the north onto Worting Road would provide good connection to the Worting Road footways including access to public transport. However, the proposals do not accommodate cycling although it is acknowledged that a safe, dismount-free connection with Worting Road may be difficult to achieve within the current highway arrangement and footway space available. Nevertheless the ability for cyclists to access the site other than by the roundabout has not been incorporated into the other non-motorised vehicle access points.

5.6 To the south of the site, cyclists and pedestrians would use the footbridge to travel to facilities in the south of Basingstoke. It is noted that the public footpath track may be upgraded for use by pedestrians and cycles through the Section 106 contribution along with improvements to the footbridge over the railway. However, the main failure for this route is that the ability to use this link to access the walking and cycling networks in the south of Basingstoke is compromised by the lack of access to the town’s

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 28 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

footpath/cycle network at Dorset Crescent since this would involve crossing private land which is not a public right of way. The alternative legitimate route would be for pedestrians and cyclists to use an unmade public footpath towards Pack Lane; this route requires suitable footwear or bicycles with sturdy, deep tread, tyres.

5.7 The above concerns could be addressed through a number of measures. A controlled crossing should be provided on the eastern approach to the proposed roundabout. This would provide a safe and convenient measure to encourage walking and cycling for the shorter journeys towards the town centre in the east where the majority of local amenities likely to be used by new residents are located. The crossing would preferably be signal controlled and to toucan standard to accommodate both cycles and pedestrians. However, if this proves impracticable in the short term, then a zebra crossing should be provided (cyclists would need to dismount while waiting to cross the road).

5.8 Other modifications should also be carried out to the appellant’s proposals for the two non-motor vehicle access points and access point to the south to create the level of facility that would support cycling as a preferred mode of travel. These modifications would include changes to layout of the environmental improvement scheme for Worting Road to enable convenient dismounting by cyclists in order to cross or access Worting Road, and providing a full construction footpath/cycleway between the shared facility at Dorset Crescent and the footbridge over the railway. It is acknowledged that this facility would require Agreement with the landowner or statutory process to enable the route to be used as a right of way.

5.9 Some of the footways around the roundabout area would also require upgrading to enable shared use by cyclists and pedestrians to support any concerns of cyclists wishing to avoid riding through the roundabout. The footway and footpath providing the route for pedestrians around the railway arch to the east of the roundabout should similarly be upgraded for use by cyclists and formally established as an extension to the local cycle network.

5.10 As the appellant’s proposals are currently presented, they are deficient in providing for the safety and convenience of pedestrians and cyclists with the likely outcome that the proposed development fails to adequately integrate with the wider walking and cycling networks. If the suggested strategy to overcome the issues raised is not progressed then it is considered that the cumulated impacts on pedestrians and cyclists fail to meet the NPPF severity test and the development should be refused on transport grounds.

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 29 of 30

Proof of Evidence of Neil Wisher

6 Biography

6.1 My name is Neil Wisher. I have worked in the Transportation, Highways and Civil Engineering disciplines for over 30 years in private practices and the public sector. I am a Director in the Transport Solutions Group of WYG Environment, Planning and Transport Ltd. Transport Solutions offers guidance and technical support for transportation, highways and infrastructure schemes for public and private sector organisations throughout the UK.

6.2 I hold a Bachelor of Science (Honours) Degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Birmingham. In 1991 I became a Chartered Engineer and Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers and in 1997 became a Member of the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation. I have held Director positions with consultancies since 2000.

6.3 For much of my professional career, I have worked within and around Greater London and South East England and have led on numerous transportation and highways network projects for Local Authorities. My experience is wide-ranging and includes transport planning, traffic engineering and civil/highways engineering which has been gained with the following organisations: WYG, Project Centre, Capita, JMP Consultants Ltd, London Boroughs of Redbridge, Southwark and Greenwich and the Department of Transport/Highways Agency.

6.4 My full Curriculum Vita is included as Appendix K of this Proof.

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Page 30 of 30

WYG Group part of the WYG group

Appendices

WYG Group part of the WYG group

Appendix A: Hampshire Definitive Map Extracts

WYG Group part of the WYG group

78-80 Dorset Crescent

75-77 Dorset Crescent

WYG Group part of the WYG group

Appendix B i-Transport email 13 August 2014

WYG Group part of the WYG group

From: Drury, Holly Sent: 13 August 2014 16:04 To: 'Emily Pearson' Subject: RE: Land at Worting, Basingstoke - S106

Emily,

That is as discussed. I have sought advise and shall let you know when I hear back from our legal team. Hopefully this will be before the 26th as another solicitor should be able to pick this up.

Kind Regards

Holly

Holly Drury BSc (Hons) MSc MCIHT MSoRSA

Engineer – Highways Development Planning

Strategic Transport

01962 826996 (HPSN 826996)

From: Emily Pearson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 13 August 2014 15:25 To: Drury, Holly Subject: Land at Worting, Basingstoke - S106

Holly I thought it would be helpful to summarise our conversation. Are you happy with my draft summary below? Please let me know if you have any comments and I’ll then resend as soon as I have confirmation of the timescale.

Kind regards

Emily

Holly

I refer to our earlier conversation with regard to the drafting of the S106 Agreement ahead of the Appeal for the above site and thought it would be helpful to provide a brief summary.

I understand that County officers were consulted at the time of the contribution negotiations and are satisfied with both the agreed transport contribution (£231,846) and the agreed schemes list. For the avoidance of doubt, the agreed scheme list is as follows:

WYG Group part of the WYG group

Environmental enhancements to the B3400 route through Worting Village – gateways, crossings and bus stops; Improvements to the footway and footpath route – from Roman Way, via Worting Road and Roman Road to east of the railway bridge and Worting Road; Improved pedestrian route south from the site over the railway footbridge and links to the pedestrian and cyclist network south of the railway line; and Other local improvement schemes listed by HCC for West Ham Roundabout, Worting Road Roundabout, pedestrian and cycle improvements along the B3400 corridor and improved connections to the rights of way and cycle-route networks.

We are seeking the inclusion of this list in the S106 Agreement in place of the current reference to a contribution towards BEST schemes, which would not be CIL compliant.

I understand that HCC and BDBC are aligned on this matter as BDBC are acting for HCC in this regard under your Agency Agreement and that HCC is satisfied with the inclusion of the above list of schemes in the S106 Agreement. Your view is that there may not be a need for HCC to be a signatory to the S106 (as BDBC can sign on your behalf under the Agency agreement) and I understand that you will liaise with your solicitor on this matter. In terms of timescales, I understand that your Solicitor is away until 26 August and [still checking timescales].

Please let me know if you have any comments or queries on the above.

Kind regards

Emily Pearson Associate for i-Transport LLP

i-Transport LLP received a ‘Highly Commended’ award in the 2014 NCE Specialist Consultant of the Year category

Basingstoke Office: Grove House, Lutyens Close, Chineham Court, Basingstoke, RG24 8AG

T: 01256 338640 M: 07867 451455 F: 01256 338644 E: [email protected] W: www.i-transport.co.uk

We use the word “partner” to refer to a member of i-Transport LLP or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications.

WYG Group part of the WYG group

Please note that the information in this e-mail is confidential and unless you are (or authorised to receive it for) the intended recipient, you must not disclose, copy, circulate or in any way use the information it contains. If you have received this e-mail in error please inform us and immediately delete all copies from your system. Whilst it is believed that this e-mail and any attachments are free of any virus or other defect, it is your responsibility to ensure that your computer or IT system are not affected and we accept no responsibility for any loss or damage arising. i-Transport LLP is a limited liability partnership Registered in England under number OC311185. Registered Office: 3rd Floor, One London Square, Cross Lanes, Guildford, Surrey, GU1 1UN. A list of members is available upon request.

WYG Group part of the WYG group

Appendix C: i-Transport – Transport Assessment figure 3.2 with modification:

WYG Group

part of the WYG group

Travel via Worting Road (east)

Travel via Worting Road (west)

Travel via Footbridge

WYG Group part of the WYG group

Appendix D: Design Manual for Roads and Bridges TD16/07 – Geometric Design of Roundabouts

DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES

VOLUME 6 ROAD GEOMETRY SECTION 2 JUNCTIONS

PART 3

TD 16/07

GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF ROUNDABOUTS

SUMMARY

This document sets out the design standards and advice for the geometric design of roundabouts. It supersedes TD 16/93.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE

1. Remove contents pages from Volume 6 and insert new contents pages dated August 2007.

2. Remove TD 16/93 from Volume 6, Section 2.

3. Insert new Advice Note TD 16/07 into Volume 6, Section 2.

4. Please archive this sheet as appropriate.

Note: A quarterly index with a full set of Volume Contents Pages is available separately from The Stationery Office Ltd.

August 2007 DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES TD 16/07 Volume 6, Section 2, Part 3

THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY

TRANSPORT SCOTLAND

WELSH ASSEMBLY GOVERNMENT LLYWODRAETH CYNULLIAD CYMRU

THE DEPARTMENT FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT NORTHERN IRELAND

Geometric Design of Roundabouts

Summary: This document sets out the design standards and advice for the geometric design of roundabouts. It supersedes TD 16/93. Volume 6 Section 2 Part 3 TD 16/07 Registration of Amendments

REGISTRATION OF AMENDMENTS

Amend Page No Signature & Date of Amend Page No Signature & Date of No incorporation of No incorporation of amendments amendments

August 2007 Volume 6 Section 2 Registration of Amendments Part 3 TD 16/07

REGISTRATION OF AMENDMENTS

Amend Page No Signature & Date of Amend Page No Signature & Date of No incorporation of No incorporation of amendments amendments

August 2007 DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES

VOLUME 6 ROAD GEOMETRY SECTION 2 JUNCTIONS

PART 3

TD 16/07

GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF ROUNDABOUTS

Contents

Chapter

1. Introduction

2. Safety at Roundabouts

3. Types of Roundabouts

4. Siting of Roundabouts

5. Road Users’ Specific Requirements

6. Design Hierarchy

7. Geometric Design

8. Other Aspects of Design

9. References

10. Enquiries

August 2007 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 1 Part 3 TD 16/07 Introduction

1. INTRODUCTION

General 1.8 Other changes are as follows:

1.1 Following a major review of the geometric a) greater emphasis on non-motorised users (see design of roundabouts (see TRL Published Project Chapter 5); Report PPR206 ‘International comparison of roundabout design guidelines’) and extensive b) design hierarchy (see Chapter 6); consultation, this document provides details of the c) when assessing entry deflection on a roundabout latest requirements and recommendations on design arm, the entry path radius must be checked for all principles for safe and efficient roundabouts. turning movements (see paragraphs 7.51 – 7.60); 1.2 This document supersedes Standard TD 16/93 d) outward sloping crossfall, such that drainage is (DMRB 6.2.3). away from the centre of the roundabout, may be used at smaller Normal and Compact Scope Roundabouts in urban areas (see paragraph 8.21);

1.3 Roundabouts are junctions with a one-way e) except at Compact Roundabouts in urban areas, circulatory carriageway around a central island. the projection of the kerb line of the splitter Vehicles on the circulatory carriageway have priority island or central reserve on the approach should over those approaching the roundabout. This document guide drivers around the central island (see describes the geometric design of the various types of paragraph 7.30); roundabout for application to new and improved junctions on trunk roads. f) advice is given on limiting visibility to the right on the approach to some roundabout types (see 1.4 The main types of roundabout are Mini, paragraph 8.8); Compact, Normal, Grade Separated, Signalised and Double Roundabouts (the last being a combination of g) on larger roundabouts, the use of additional signs Mini, Compact or Normal Roundabouts) and are and markings is recommended (see paragraph described in Chapter 3. 8.24).

1.5 This standard applies to Compact, Normal and Mandatory Sections Grade Separated Roundabouts. Mini-roundabouts are covered by TD 54 (DMRB 6.2.3) and Signalised 1.9 Mandatory sections of this document are Roundabouts by TD 50 (DMRB 6.2.3). In this contained in boxes. The Design Organisation must document, the term roundabout therefore excludes comply with these sections or obtain agreement to mini-roundabouts and signalised roundabouts unless otherwise stated. a Departure from Standard from the Overseeing Organisation. The remainder of the document 1.6 Recommendations are given on the selection of contains advice and explanation, which is roundabout type, geometric layout, visibility commended to users for consideration. requirements and crossfall, with respect to the speed limit on the approach roads, the traffic flow and the Implementation level of non-motorised user demand. 1.10 This standard must be used forthwith for the 1.7 A significant change from TD 16/93 is the new design of all schemes for the construction and Compact Roundabout which has single-lane entries and exits, so that only one vehicle can enter or leave it from improvement of trunk roads including motorways a given arm at any one time (see Chapter 3). currently being prepared, provided that in the opinion of the Overseeing Organisation, this would not result in any significant additional expense or

August 2007 1/1 Chapter 1 Volume 6 Section 2 Introduction Part 3 TD 16/07

1.14 Roundabouts should be designed to match delay. The Design Organisation must confirm its forecast demand. They work most efficiently when application to particular schemes with the vehicular flows are reasonably balanced between the Overseeing Organisation. arms, but they may also be the optimum choice in other cases, having taken into account the Overseeing Departures from Standard Organisation’s assessment criteria. However, they may not be appropriate for use with Urban Traffic Control 1.11 In exceptional situations, the Overseeing (UTC) or Integrated Demand Management (IDM) Organisation may be prepared to agree to a systems, or for other circumstances where access control is required. Departure from Standard where the Standard, including permitted Relaxations, is not realistically 1.15 Entry width and sharpness of flare are the most achievable. Design Organisations faced by such important determinants of capacity, whereas entry situations and wishing to consider pursuing this deflection is the most important factor for safety as it course must discuss any such option at an early governs the speed of vehicles through the roundabout. stage in design with the Overseeing Organisation. The effect of these variables can be predicted using the Proposals to adopt Departures from Standard must models given in TRL Reports LR942 and LR1120 and be submitted by the Design Organisation to the incorporated into suitable software. Overseeing Organisation and formal approval received before incorporation into a design layout. 1.16 The associated traffic signs and road markings can significantly affect the safety and the capacity of a roundabout. Consequently, designers should consider Relaxations the need for and layout of traffic signs and road markings as an integral part of the design process (see 1.12 In difficult circumstances, Relaxations may paragraphs 8.24 to 8.32). The Traffic Signs be introduced at the discretion of the Design Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) Organisation, having regard to all relevant local prescribe the designs and conditions of use for traffic factors, but only where specifically permitted by signs and road markings. Guidance on the application this Standard. Careful consideration must be given of TSRGD can be found in the Traffic Signs Manual. to layout options incorporating Relaxations, having Advice on signing is also given in Local Transport weighed the benefits and any potential disbenefits. Note LTN 1/94). Particular attention must be given to the safety aspects (including operation, maintenance, 1.17 The legislation referred to in this document may, construction and demolition) and the in some instances, have a specific Northern Ireland environmental and monetary benefits/disbenefits equivalent. For schemes in Northern Ireland, the designer should refer to the Overseeing Organisation that would result from the use of Relaxations. The for advice. consideration process must be recorded. The preferred option must be compared against options that would meet full standards. 1.18 Roundabout design must allow for maintenance issues and activities, including General Principles landscaping and the need for inspection and service of road studs and markings. Any 1.13 The principal objective of roundabout design is implications for activities such as road sweeping, to minimise delay for vehicles whilst maintaining the general routine maintenance, resurfacing and safe passage of all road users through the junction. This winter maintenance operations, and the possible is achieved by a combination of geometric layout need for a maintenance hard standing must be features that, ideally, are matched to the flows in the covered. traffic streams, their speed, and to any local topographical or other constraints such as land availability that apply. Location constraints are often the dominating factor when designing improvements to an existing junction, particularly in urban areas.

1/2 August 2007 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 2 Part 3 TD 16/07 Safety at Roundabouts

2. SAFETY AT ROUNDABOUTS

2.1 In 2004 there were about 207,400 personal injury with the number of arms (because of corresponding road accidents in Great Britain (Road Casualties increases in the number of potential conflict points and Great Britain, 2004). Of these, about 18,000 (8.7%) traffic flow. On average, there are more accidents at occurred at roundabouts. The proportion of accidents at roundabouts with at least one approach that is dual roundabouts which were fatal was 0.35%, whereas carriageway compared with roundabouts where none of 0.88% of all other junction accidents and 2.2% of link the approaches are dual carriageway roads. Dual accidents were fatal. This indicates the effectiveness of carriageway roundabouts generally have higher levels roundabouts in reducing accident severity. The average of traffic. accident cost at a roundabout was calculated to be about 68% of that at other junction types and about 47% of 2.3 Overall, single vehicle accidents accounted for that on links. This suggests that on average, 15% of the total in the sample, but they had a higher roundabouts are safer than other junction types. severity than multi-vehicle accidents (which include a However, this will not necessarily be the case for all high proportion of shunt accidents on the approaches). road users or for a particular junction. In general, large roundabouts have a higher proportion of single vehicle accidents than smaller roundabouts. 2.2 A study undertaken in 2004 (TRL Unpublished Report UPR/SE/194/05) determined the accident 2.4 Flow data were only available for 44 high flow frequencies (accidents per year) by severity over a five roundabouts. The average accident rate (accidents per year period (see Table 2/1) for a sample of 1,162 million vehicles passing through the junction) at these roundabouts. The sample comprised all roundabouts in roundabouts was 36.2. some local authorities, but only the busier roundabouts in others, making the analysis slightly biased towards 2.5 Table 2/2 shows the percentage of accidents by busier roundabouts. The table does not include accident type of vehicle and by severity for the sample of 1,162 rates because only limited reliable flow data were roundabouts sampled. available. The number of accidents per year increases

Table 2/1: Average Accident Frequency at Roundabouts Between 1999 and 2003

Accident frequency (accidents per year)

No. of No. of Single Dual Grade All roads Accident arms sites carriageway carriageway separated severity roads roads junctions (% fatal and serious)

3 326 0.63 1.28 2.70 0.79 9.3

4 649 1.08 2.65 5.35 1.79 7.1

5 157 1.72 3.80 7.67 3.66 7.1

6 30 2.11 4.62 8.71 5.95 5.2

All 1162 1.00 2.60 6.28 1.87 7.2

August 2007 2/1 Chapter 2 Volume 6 Section 2 Safety at Roundabouts Part 3 TD 16/07

Table 2/2: Accidents by Type of Vehicle Involved (1999 to 2003)

Percentage of accidents Accident severity (% fatal and serious)

Pedal cycles 8.0% 9.5%

Powered two wheelers 14.4% 19.3%

Cars and taxis 76.7% 6.0%

Public Service Vehicles 2.6% 7.8%

Light goods vehicles 6.4% 5.6%

Large goods vehicles 9.3% 8.0%

Pedestrians 2.8% 22.6%

2.6 On average, accidents involving a pedestrian represent less than 2% of the flow. The severity of accounted for only 3% of the total. This suggests that accidents involving these road users was also much roundabouts are relatively safe for pedestrians. higher than for car occupants (19% of accidents being However, it should be noted that the majority of fatal and serious compared with 7% for all vehicles in roundabouts are sited in rural areas with little or no the sample). pedestrian demand. Even at urban roundabouts, the number of pedestrians crossing the road within 20m of 2.9 A study by Hall and Surl (1981) showed that, on the give way line tends to be low because: busy dual carriageway roads with similar traffic flows, there will generally be fewer accidents at a roundabout • roundabouts are often sited away from city than at a signalised junction. centres; 2.10 The characteristics of roundabout accidents and • pedestrians may prefer to cross away from any their frequencies in relation to geometric layout design flaring, where the road is narrower and traffic requirements were reported in TRL Report LR1120 movements are more uniform and this may be ‘Accidents at Four-Arm Roundabouts’. The more than 20m from the give way line. relationships derived in this report provide insights into the way various aspects of design interact to influence When pedestrians do cross the road within 20m of the the types and frequencies of accidents at roundabouts. give way line, they are aided by the splitter island, by These relationships therefore constitute the the lower vehicle speeds and possibly by increased fundamentals of design for safety. The accident driver alertness in the vicinity of the roundabout. prediction models given in LR1120 can be used to However, accident severity is high for pedestrians (23% compare the safety characteristics of alternative compared with 6% for cars). designs.

2.7 On average, pedal cyclists were involved in about 2.11 Comparative data for accident involvement rates 8% of accidents in the sample, although they typically at different junction types is given in TRL Report constitute less than 2% of the traffic flow, giving them a TRL281 ‘Accidents at Urban Mini-roundabouts’. much higher involvement rate than cars. Research by Layfield and Maycock (1986) showed that the most 2.12 Suggested remedial measures for existing common type of accident for cyclists at roundabouts is roundabouts with a safety problem are given in one in which a cyclist on the circulatory carriageway is Chapter 8 of this Standard. hit by an entering vehicle.

2.8 Powered Two-Wheelers (PTWs) were involved in 14% of accidents in the sample although again they

2/2 August 2007 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 3 Part 3 TD 16/07 Types of Roundabouts

3. TYPES OF ROUNDABOUTS

Normal Roundabouts Compact Roundabouts

3.1 A Normal Roundabout has a kerbed central 3.3 A Compact Roundabout (Figure 3/2) has single island at least 4 metres in diameter (Figure 3/1). Its lane entries and exits on each arm. The width of the approaches may be dual or single carriageway roads. circulatory carriageway is such that it is not possible for Usually, a Normal Roundabout has flared entries and two cars to pass one another. exits to allow two or three vehicles to enter or leave the roundabout on a given arm at the same time. If so, its 3.4 On roads with a speed limit of 40mph or less circulatory carriageway needs to be wide enough for within 100m of the give way line on all approaches, two or three vehicles to travel alongside each other on Compact Roundabouts may have low values of entry the roundabout itself. and exit radii in conjunction with high values of entry deflection. This design has less capacity than that of 3.2 If a Normal Roundabout has more than four Normal Roundabouts, but is particularly suitable where arms, it becomes large with the probability that higher there is a need to accommodate the movement of circulatory speeds will result. Either a Double pedestrians and cyclists. The non-flared entries/exits Roundabout or a Signalised Roundabout is a potential give the designer more flexibility in siting pedestrian solution in these circumstances. crossings.

3.5 On roads with speed limits exceeding 40mph, the design of Compact Roundabouts is similar to that for Normal Roundabouts, but the single-lane entries and exits are retained.

Figure 3/1: Normal Roundabout

August 2007 3/1 Chapter 3 Volume 6 Section 2 Types of Roundabouts Part 3 TD 16/07

Figure 3/2: Compact Roundabout in an Urban Area

Mini-roundabouts 3.9 Installing traffic signals, with either continuous or part-time operation, at some or all of the entry points 3.6 A mini-roundabout does not have a kerbed (see DMRB 8.1) can be appropriate where a central island. In its place is a flush or domed circular roundabout does not naturally self-regulate. This may solid white road marking between 1 and 4 metres in be for a combination of reasons such as: diameter, capable of being driven over where unavoidable. See TD 54 (DMRB 6.2.3). a) a growth in traffic flow; b) an overloading or an unbalanced flow at one or Grade Separated Roundabouts more entries;

3.7 A Grade Separated Roundabout has at least one c) high circulatory speeds; approach coming from a road at a different level. This type of roundabout is frequently employed at motorway d) significantly different flows during peak hour junctions, but can also be used to link underpasses, operation. flyovers and other multiple level intersections. 3.10 In some cases, it may be possible to achieve the desired result by making suitable changes to the layout Signalised Roundabouts and this should be checked using suitable software before installing traffic signals, as this may be cheaper 3.8 A Signalised Roundabout has traffic signals on and more effective. one or more of the approaches and at the corresponding point on the circulatory carriageway itself. Further details on the layout of Signalised Roundabouts are given in TD 50 (DMRB 6.2.3).

3/2 August 2007 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 3 Part 3 TD 16/07 Types of Roundabouts

Double Roundabouts d) at junctions with more than four entries, where they may achieve better capacity and make more 3.11 A Double Roundabout is a junction comprising efficient use of space with better safety two roundabouts separated by a short link (see Figure characteristics compared with a large roundabout 3/3). The roundabouts may be Mini, Compact or which may generate high circulatory speeds Normal Roundabouts. which result in a loss of capacity and safety.

3.12 Double Roundabouts can be particularly useful: 3.13 A Double Roundabout should be designed as a single system rather than as two individual a) for improving an existing staggered junction roundabouts. The link joining the pair of roundabouts is where they avoid the need to realign one of the usually short and there is often insufficient distance to approach roads and can achieve a considerable change lane. The lane use on the link should be construction cost saving compared with a larger, established from the turning volumes feeding it and single island roundabout; should be checked so that lane balance is produced on the common link. Reducing the capacity of the entries b) for joining two parallel routes separated by a that feed the common link can prevent traffic blocking feature such as a river, a railway line or a back onto the roundabouts themselves, thus increasing motorway; the overall capacity. c) at overloaded single roundabouts where, by reducing the circulating flow past critical entries, they increase capacity;

Figure 3/3: Double Roundabout with Short Central Link

August 2007 3/3 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 4 Part 3 TD 16/07 Siting of Roundabouts

4. SITING OF ROUNDABOUTS

4.1 A project appraisal should be carried out in standards have been provided on the approach to the accordance with the Overseeing Organisation’s current give way line. Roundabouts should not be sited at the practices. bottom of or on long descents.

4.2 In addition to its natural function as a junction, a 4.7 Roundabouts in urban areas are not always roundabout may usefully: compatible with Urban Traffic Control (UTC) systems. These systems move vehicles through their controlled a) facilitate a significant change in road standard, areas in platoons by adjusting traffic signal times to suit for example, from dual to single carriageways or the required progress. Roundabouts can interfere with from grade separated junction roads to at-grade platoon movement to the extent that subsequent inflows junction roads, although complete reliance to downstream traffic signals cannot be reliably should not be placed on the roundabout alone to predicted, and thus the sequence breaks down. act as an indicator to drivers; However, in some cases, for example, where there is a heavy right turn flow, the roundabout may be a better b) emphasise the transition from a rural to an urban option. or suburban environment (although using one when there are no joining roads is not 4.8 Where several roundabouts are to be installed on recommended); the same route, they should be of similar design in the interests of route consistency and hence safety, to the c) allow U-turns; extent that this is possible with the traffic volumes concerned. d) facilitate heavy right turn flows. 4.9 Where a proposed roundabout may affect the 4.3 The majority of accidents at major/minor priority operation of an adjacent junction, or vice versa, the junctions are associated with right turns. The interactive effects should be examined. Where inconvenience of banned right turns can be mitigated by appropriate, traffic management measures such as providing a roundabout nearby. prohibited turns or one-way traffic orders may be considered. The effects of queueing should be 4.4 Roundabouts are not recommended for at-grade examined to check that additional risk is not generated. junctions on rural three-lane dual carriageway roads. Under these conditions it is difficult to achieve adequate deflection. However, if a grade separated junction is not achievable, it may be possible to generate suitable deflection by gently curving the approach to the right.

4.5 On single carriageway roads where overtaking opportunity is limited, roundabouts may be sited so as to optimise the length of straight overtaking sections along the route (see TD 9, DMRB 6.1.1). They can also be used to provide an overtaking opportunity by having a short length of two lanes on the exit arms. The length of these sections will depend on site conditions.

4.6 Roundabouts should preferably be sited on level ground or in sags rather than at or near crests because it is difficult for drivers to appreciate the layout when approaching on an up gradient. However, there is no evidence that roundabouts on crests are intrinsically unsafe if correctly signed and where the visibility

August 2007 4/1 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 5 Part 3 TD 16/07 Road Users’ Specific Requirements

5. ROAD USERS’ SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

Pedestrians 5.4 The type of facility selected and its design should be in accordance with current recommendations and 5.1 The types of pedestrian facility available at requirements (LTNs 1/95 and 2/95, TA 90, DMRB roundabouts are as follows: 6.3.5 and TA 91, DMRB 5.2.4) and the design hierarchy in Chapter 6. a) informal crossing; 5.5 If a stand-alone crossing is provided close to the b) zebra crossing; give way line, there will inevitably be consequences for c) stand-alone signal controlled crossing (Pelican, the operation of the roundabout and possibly for safety. Puffin or Toucan); An informal or zebra crossing is normally preferred as d) grade separated crossing (underpass for it avoids the possibility that drivers will confuse the pedestrians, underpass for vehicles or green signal with one controlling flow into the footbridge). roundabout. Where a signal controlled crossing is located close to the give way line and drivers could confuse the crossing with the roundabout entry, the line 5.2 A dropped kerb and tactile paving must be should be supplemented by the use of markings to provided at any crossing (see LTN 2/95). Diagram 1023 and give way signs to Diagram 602 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD). 5.3 Where possible, the splitter island, extended and/ or widened as necessary, should be used as a pedestrian 5.6 Where provided, stand-alone pedestrian crossing refuge. An absolute minimum island width of 1.2m is facilities should be located to suit pedestrian desire required, preferably 2.5m. For a staggered signal- lines. If possible, they should be outside of the flared controlled crossing, 3m is required. See Local section to keep the crossing short, as shown in Figure Transport Notes LTN 2/95, LTN 1/01 and LTN 1/02. 5/1. Zebra crossings should be located between 5m and 20m from the give way line.

Figure 5/1: Measurement of Distance from Roundabout to Pedestrian Crossing

August 2007 5/1 Chapter 5 Volume 6 Section 2 Road Users’ Specific Requirements Part 3 TD 16/07

5.7 Non-staggered signal-controlled crossings should 5.13 For information on the effect of zebra crossings be sited either at 20m or more than 60m from the give on junction capacity, see TRL Report SR724. way line. It may be advantageous to use the splitter island (extended as necessary) as a central refuge. The 5.14 In urban areas, where large numbers of central refuge can also be used to form a staggered pedestrians are present, the use of guard rails or other crossing. See Local Transport Notes 1/95 and 2/95 means of deterring pedestrians from crossing at and Traffic Advisory Leaflets 1/01 ‘Puffin Pedestrian inappropriate locations should be considered. Guard Crossings’ and 1/02 ‘The Installation of Puffin railing should not obstruct drivers’ visibility; guard Pedestrian Crossings’. Note that if a Puffin crossing is railing which is designed to provide intervisibility used, a staggered crossing may not be necessary. between drivers and pedestrians is available, but should be checked in case blind spots do occur. Further 5.8 On the approach to the roundabout, a distance of guidance on the use of guard railing is given in 20m for a signal-controlled crossing will reduce the Inclusive Mobility. likelihood of drivers confusing the signal with one controlling flow into the roundabout and it leaves 5.15 Bridges and underpasses may present problems sufficient storage space for vehicles waiting to enter the for people with a disability and should only be used roundabout. On the exit, a distance of 20m reduces the when at-grade crossings are deemed inappropriate (see likelihood that ‘blocking back’ will occur where traffic TA 91, DMRB 5.2.4). queues extend onto the circulatory carriageway and it helps to ensure that drivers are still travelling slowly as Cyclists they approach the crossing. If the crossing is staggered, the part on the entry arm can be within the 20m to 60m 5.16 When a roundabout intercepts a cycle route, zone. several options are available, none of them without problems. Cyclists can be routed: 5.9 Zebra crossings should not be used where the 85th percentile speed exceeds 35mph (if it does, a signal- th • through the roundabout using the circulatory controlled crossing will be required). If the 85 carriageway; percentile speed exceeds 50mph, serious consideration should be given to speed reduction measures before • around the outside of the roundabout using a installing at-grade crossings. Signal-controlled peripheral cycle track; crossings should be equipped with suitable speed measuring and extension equipment (SA, SD or • onto a grade separated facility; or MOVA) (see Traffic Advisory Leaflet 2/03 and Local Transport Note 1/95). • away from the roundabout altogether.

5.10 The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian 5.17 Using the circulatory carriageway is best suited Crossing Regulations and General Directions lays to relatively lightly-trafficked situations, particularly down the requirements for the general layout of both Compact Roundabouts in urban areas. It is less safe for types of crossing. For areas of carriageway which are cyclists when traffic flows are heavy, especially where tapered, especially those including changes in the the roundabout has been designed to maximise capacity. number of lanes, it is difficult to provide appropriate However, signalising the roundabout mitigates the designs that are not potentially confusing to drivers. problems to some extent and also gives an opportunity to provide a more direct route for cyclists across the central island. 5.11 Zigzag markings are a requirement at Zebra, Pelican, Puffin, Toucan and Equestrian crossings, 5.18 Some authorities have tried providing cycle lanes but must not be used where the crossing is part of a on the circulatory carriageway of Normal Roundabouts Signalised Roundabout. but the results have been mixed and, in some cases, they have made conditions less safe for cyclists. There is insufficient evidence available to be able to advise on 5.12 With the exception of Zebra crossings, central this issue here. hatching or chevron markings may be used alongside zigzag markings in certain conditions – see Section 15, 5.19 The remaining options may be safer but each one Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual. involves additional effort and inconvenience for cyclists. Peripheral cycle tracks increase the distance a

5/2 August 2007 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 5 Part 3 TD 16/07 Road Users’ Specific Requirements cyclist must travel and the tracks have to cross each arm expected to take through the roundabout. This is not the of the roundabout. These crossings can be controlled or same as simply avoiding the wheel tracks of four- informal, but either type requires cyclists to stop. wheeled vehicles.

5.20 Grade separation for cyclists is expensive and 5.28 Access chamber covers for buried services can result in anti-social behaviour. Providing alternative should be infilled using material with similar friction routes so that cyclists can by-pass the roundabout properties to that of the surrounding road surface. altogether can result in cyclists covering much larger Concrete infilled covers in an asphalt road are distances. acceptable in this regard.

5.21 In choosing which option to pursue, the designer 5.29 Further advice on appropriate surfacing materials should take into account the design hierarchy in for safety aspects of drainage features is given in Chapter 6. HD 36 (DMRB 7.5.1) and HA 83 (DMRB 4.2.4). See IHIE Guidelines for Motorcycling for more details on 5.22 The location of Toucan crossings should follow PTW issues. the same guidance as that for pedestrian crossings. Large Goods Vehicles 5.23 Special consideration should be given to cyclists at segregated left turn lanes. See TD 51 (DMRB 6.3.5). 5.30 The problem of large goods vehicles (defined in this Standard as those over 3.5 tonnes) overturning or Equestrians shedding their loads at roundabouts has no simple solution in relation to layout geometry. Whilst there are 5.24 The need to install equestrian facilities should be only about 50 to 60 personal injury accidents a year in assessed in the same way as for pedestrians, using this category, there are thought to be considerably more Local Transport Note LTN 1/95. Traffic Advisory damage-only accidents. Load shedding often leads to Leaflet TAL 3/03 ‘Equestrian Crossings’ covers the congestion and delay and is expensive to clear, additional detail. If a signal controlled crossing for use especially if it occurs at a major roundabout. by riders on horseback is provided, it should preferably be at least 60m from the give way line in order to 5.31 Experience suggests that at roundabouts where ensure suitable intervisibility between drivers and these problems persist, there are frequently equestrians, or at 20m for a non-staggered crossing, as combinations of the following geometric features: for pedestrians and cyclists. Provision of a holding area with appropriate fencing and some strengthening of • long straight high speed approach; verges may be necessary. If there is a requirement to provide facilities for other non-motorised users, they • inadequate entry deflection; should be installed in parallel (see TA 91, DMRB 5.2.4). • low circulating flow combined with excessive visibility to the right; Powered Two-Wheelers • significant tightening of the turn radius partway round the roundabout. 5.25 Accidents involving Powered Two-Wheelers (PTWs) can be mitigated to an extent by the use of 5.32 Additional features that may contribute to the suitable entry deflection, in the same way as for other problem are excessive: vehicles. • crossfall changes on the circulatory carriageway or the exit; 5.26 Materials used on the roundabout and its approaches must have suitable skidding and • outward sloping crossfall on a nearside lane of deformation resistance. Irregular surface features the circulatory carriageway; must be avoided. • entry deflection.

5.27 Ironwork needs to be carefully positioned, 5.33 An incipient problem for some vehicles may be avoiding as far as possible the routes that PTWs can be present even if speeds are low. Research has shown that

August 2007 5/3 Chapter 5 Volume 6 Section 2 Road Users’ Specific Requirements Part 3 TD 16/07 an articulated large goods vehicle with a centre of gravity height of 2.5m above the ground can overturn on a 20m radius bend at speeds as low as 15mph (24kph). See TRL Report LR788.

5.34 Layouts designed in accordance with the recommendations in this document should mitigate the above problems, although particular attention should be paid during construction to ensure that pavement surface tolerances are complied with and that abrupt changes in crossfall are avoided.

5/4 August 2007 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 6 Part 3 TD 16/07 Design Hierarchy

6. DESIGN HIERARCHY

Selection of Roundabout Type and Provision for Non-motorised Users

6.1 The choice of roundabout type is governed by a combination of factors including:

• whether the approach roads are single or dual carriageway (or grade separated);

• the speed limit on the approach roads;

• the level of traffic flow;

• the level of non-motorised user (NMU) flow;

• other constraints such as land-take.

6.2 Reference should be made to the Overseeing Organisation’s current guidance on deriving design flows.

6.3 Table 6/1 gives the attributes of the different roundabout types, and indicates the normal type of provision for cyclists and pedestrians where there is sufficient demand to justify them. Alternatives are given in TA 91 (DMRB 5.2.4) and in Chapter 5. Grade separation for non-motorised users is the best option at high speed roundabouts, but may not be cost-effective.

August 2007 6/1 Chapter 6 Volume 6 Section 2 Design Hierarchy Part 3 TD 16/07 Normal Normal Compact 1 2 1 1 controlled Normal Informal Normal Informal or Normal or ision. grade separated grade separated Combined cycle Roundabout Signal controlled Normal Signal controlled Normal signal-controlled Signal controlled/ Signal controlled 2 2 1 1 1 2 or signal controlled Signal 2 Informal N/A Compact Informal Informal Compact controlled Recommended grade separated grade separated Signal controlled Informal or zebra Informal or zebra 1 1 1 controlled Zebra controlled/ Signal controlled/ traffic traffic Informal Informal grade separated grade separated two- Recommended <8,000 Cyclists mix with <8,000 Cyclists mix with >8,000 Signal controlled >25,000 Signal controlled<16,000 Signal >12,000 Signal controlled Zebra 16,000-25,000 Signal percentile speed exceeds 35mph (see paragraph 5.9). th in way AADT on cyclist pedestrian and pedestrian type 40mph 40mph 40mph 40mph 8,000-12,000 40mph 40mph >40mph >40mph ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ approach Highest speed Highest Table 6/1: Selection of Roundabout Type and Recommended Provision for NMUs for and Recommended Provision Type 6/1: Selection of Roundabout Table entry/exit any approach 100m on any any approach provision provision provision 45 carriageway Single Dual carriageway 8 carriageway Single 9 carriageway Single 7 Dual carriageway 6 Dual carriageway 23 Dual carriageway carriageway Single >40mph Any Signal 1 Grade separated Any Any Signal controlled/ Signal controlled/ Signal controlled/ Grade Separated 10 Single carriageway Signal controlled crossing to be provided only if warranted by site-specific conditions; an alternative is grade separated prov Zebra crossings should not be used where the 85 category on any of road with limit Roundabout Highest class 1 2

6/2 August 2007 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 7 Part 3 TD 16/07 Geometric Design

7. GEOMETRIC DESIGN

Central Area of Roundabout

Inscribed Circle Diameter

7.1 The inscribed circle diameter D of the roundabout is the diameter of the largest circle that can be fitted into the junction outline. Figures 7/1 and 7/2 illustrate this for a circular roundabout and a Double Roundabout at a ‘scissors’ crossroads, respectively.

Figure 7/1: Inscribed Circle Diameter at a Normal or Compact Roundabout with a Symmetric Outline

August 2007 7/1 Chapter 7 Volume 6 Section 2 Geometric Design Part 3 TD 16/07

Figure 7/2: Inscribed Circle Diameter at a Double Roundabout

7.2 Where the outline is asymmetric, the local value should be in line with traffic demand. Tight bends in the region of the entry should be used. should be avoided as they can increase the likelihood of load shedding by large goods vehicles. They can also 7.3 The inscribed circle diameter of a Normal cause loss of control accidents, particularly for powered Roundabout should not exceed 100m. Large inscribed two wheelers. circle diameters can lead to vehicles exceeding 30mph on the circulatory carriageway. 7.8 The width of the circulatory carriageway 7.4 The inscribed circle diameter at existing Grade must be between 1.0 and 1.2 times the maximum Separated Roundabouts typically exceeds 100m and entry width (see paragraphs 7.22 – 7.29), this can result in high circulating speeds which create excluding any overrun area (see Figure 7/4). operational difficulties. Designers need to be mindful of this when designing new Grade Separated Roundabouts and might need to consider mitigation measures. One 7.9 At Normal and Grade Separated Roundabouts, way to avoid the problem is to use a single bridge with the width of the circulatory carriageway should not a roundabout at each end. exceed 15 metres. At Compact Roundabouts, it should not exceed 6m, although an additional overrun area may 7.5 The minimum value of the inscribed circle be required for small values of inscribed circle diameter for a Normal or Compact Roundabout is 28m. diameter, depending on the types of vehicles using the This is the smallest roundabout that can accommodate roundabout (see Figure 7/4). the swept path of the ‘Design Vehicle’. See paragraph 7.15. 7.10 Short lengths of reverse curve, where two consecutive tangential circular arcs curve in opposite 7.6 If the inscribed circle diameter lies between 28m directions, should be avoided between entry and and 36m, a Compact Roundabout should be considered adjacent exits. This can be achieved by linking the if the traffic flows can be accommodated. curves with a short straight section. Reducing the size of the inscribed circle diameter or converting to a Circulatory Carriageway Double Roundabout can also eliminate the problem. Where there is a considerable distance between the 7.7 The circulatory carriageway of Normal or entry and the next exit, such as at three-arm Compact Roundabouts should generally be circular and roundabouts, reverse curvature is acceptable (see Figure of constant width. However, at complex roundabouts, 7/3). for example where spiral markings are used, the width

7/2 August 2007 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 7 Part 3 TD 16/07 Geometric Design

Figure 7/3: Three-arm Roundabout Illustrating Reverse Curvature

7.11 There may be situations where the turning Central Island proportions are such that one section of the circulatory carriageway has a relatively low flow, resulting in an 7.13 The central island should be circular and at least unused area of carriageway, usually adjacent to a 4 metres in diameter. (Mini-roundabouts have central splitter island: markings rather than kerbed islands with diameters of up to 4 metres capable of being be driven over where • For larger roundabouts, the circulatory unavoidable – refer to TD 54, DMRB 6.2.3.) carriageway can be reduced in width by extending the splitter island, preferably using 7.14 The inscribed circle diameter, the width of the kerbs although it can be achieved through circulatory carriageway and the central island diameter markings. This method of reducing circulatory are interdependent: once any two of these are width may also be adopted as an interim measure established, the remaining measurement is determined in the early years of a scheme. At the same time, automatically. the offside entry lane may be taken out of use, for example, by the use of coloured or textured 7.15 The Design Vehicle is an articulated vehicle with surfacing or hatched markings. a single axle at the rear of the trailer, of length 15.5 metres (see TRL Report SR662). The turning • For smaller roundabouts, increasing the size of space requirements of this vehicle on a roundabout with the central island is a more appropriate method of an inscribed circle diameter of between 28m and 36m interim circulatory carriageway reduction, are shown in Figure 7/4. Although this type of vehicle is preferably by physical means but alternatively not common on UK roads, its turning requirements are using coloured surfacing or hatched markings. greater than those for all other vehicles within the normal maximum dimensions permitted in the current 7.12 Hatching should not be used to reduce the entry Vehicle Construction and Use Regulations, or likely width in areas adjacent to pedestrian facilities. It cannot to be permitted in the near future. The requirements for be used in the controlled area of a zebra or signal other vehicles (including an 11 metres long rigid controlled crossing. vehicle, 12m long coach, 15m bus, 17.9m ‘bendibus’, 18.35m drawbar-trailer combination, and a 16.5m articulated vehicle) are less onerous.

August 2007 7/3 Chapter 7 Volume 6 Section 2 Geometric Design Part 3 TD 16/07

7.16 It should be noted that the swept path for the Roundabouts, an overrun area (i.e. a raised low profile Design Vehicle may impinge slightly (by up to 0.3m) area around the central island) may be necessary into either the inner or outer 1m clearance allowance. (Figure 7/4). It should be capable of being mounted by Given the anticipated frequency of this type of vehicle, the trailers of large goods vehicle, but be unattractive to this is not considered to be particularly significant and cars e.g. by having a slope and/or a textured surface. the dimensions in Figure 7/4 should not be increased accordingly. 7.18 The profile dimensions of the overrun area must comply with The Highways (Traffic 7.17 In order to ensure that light vehicles encounter Calming) Regulations (1999) and Traffic sufficient entry deflection at Compact or small Normal Advisory Leaflet TAL 12/93 ‘Overrun areas’.

a Main central island Central Island R1(m) R2(m) Minimum b Central overrun area, where provided Diameter (m) ICD (m) c Remaining circulatory carriageway width = 1.0-1.2 x maximum entry width 4.0 3.0 13.0 28.0 d Vehicle 6.0 4.0 13.4 28.8 e 1m clearance minimum f Inscribed Circle Diameter 8.0 5.0 13.9 29.8 10.0 6.0 14.4 30.8 12.0 7.0 15.0 32.0 14.0 8.0 15.6 33.2 16.0 9.0 16.3 34.6 18.0 10.0 17.0 36.0 In these cases no splitter islands should protrude within the inscribed circle diameter.

Figure 7/4: Turning Widths Required for Smaller Normal or Compact Roundabouts

7/4 August 2007 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 7 Part 3 TD 16/07 Geometric Design

Splitter Islands Approach Half Width

7.19 Splitter islands are used on each arm, located and 7.21 The approach half width, v, is the width of the shaped so as to separate and direct traffic entering and approach carriageway, excluding any hatching, in leaving the roundabout. They are usually kerbed, but if advance of any entry flare (see Figure 7/5). It is the there is insufficient space to accommodate a kerbed shortest distance between the median line, or the edge island, they may consist entirely of markings. Markings of the central reserve on dual carriageway roads, and may also be used to extend a splitter island on the the nearside edge of the road. Where there is white edge approach, the exit or the circulatory carriageway. lining or hatching, the measurement should be taken Kerbed splitter islands can act as pedestrian refuges between markings rather than kerb to kerb. provided that they are large enough to give adequate safe standing space for accompanied wheelchair users Entry Width and pedestrians with pushchairs or pedal cycles (see paragraph 5.3). Signs and other street furniture can be 7.22 The entry width, e, is the width of the sited on kerbed islands provided that there is sufficient carriageway at the point of entry. It is measured from room to maintain the required clearances. the point A at the right hand end of the give way line along the normal to the nearside kerb (see Figure 7/5). Entries For capacity assessment, the measurement should be taken as the total width of the lanes which drivers are 7.20 A number of variables need to be considered in likely to use i.e. the effective width, which is normally selecting an entry design which is safe and has adequate between any white edge lining or hatching. Where the capacity. These variables are: alignment of the entry lanes is as described in paragraph 7.30, the entry width and the effective entry • approach half width; width are the same.

• entry width; 7.23 Entry width is a key factor affecting capacity, in conjunction with length and sharpness of flare (see • entry flaring; TRL Report LR942). One or two extra lanes should be added to the approach at a Normal or Grade Separated • entry angle; Roundabout. However, as a general rule not more than two lanes should be added and no entry should be more and are described below. than four lanes wide.

Figure 7/5: Approach Half Width and Entry Eidth

August 2007 7/5 Chapter 7 Volume 6 Section 2 Geometric Design Part 3 TD 16/07

possible lane bias, since drivers often have a tendency 7.24 Lane widths at the give way line (measured to use the nearside lane. The use of lane bifurcation along the normal to the nearside kerb, as for entry where one lane widens into two should maximise use of width) must be not less than 3m or more than the entry width. The use of very short offside lanes is 4.5m, with the 4.5m value appropriate at single not recommended as they tend to be used infrequently lane entries and values of 3 to 3.5m appropriate at in practice with the result that debris collects on the multilane entries. road surface and forms a safety hazard, particularly for two-wheeled vehicles. 7.25 On a single carriageway approach to a 7.29 For highway improvement schemes on trunk Normal Roundabout, the entry width must not roads, it is usual to consider design year flows exceed 10.5m. On a dual carriageway approach to sometime after opening. This can result in roundabout a Normal Roundabout, the entry width must not entries with too many lanes for initial flows, exceed 15m. subsequently leading to operational problems. A layout based on projected flows will determine the eventual land requirements for the roundabout, but for the early 7.26 If flaring is provided, tapered lanes should have a years it may be necessary for the designer to consider minimum width of 2.5m. an interim stage. This approach can result in reduced entry widths and entry lanes. See paragraph 7.11 for 7.27 On a single-carriageway road, where predicted interim solutions. flows are low and increased lane width is not operationally necessary, a Compact Roundabout with single lane entries should be used. The entry may need Alignment of Entry Lanes to be closed to carry out any form of maintenance so the design of traffic management for maintenance should 7.30 The alignment of entry lanes is critical. Except at be discussed at an early stage in the design process with Compact Roundabouts in urban areas, the kerbline of the Maintaining Organisation. the splitter island (or central reserve in the case of a dual carriageway) should lie on an arc which, when 7.28 The development of entry lanes must take projected forward, meets the central island tangentially account of the anticipated turning proportions and (see Figure 7/6) in order to reduce the likelihood of vehicle paths overlapping.

Figure 7/6: Example Showing an Arc Projected Forwards from the Splitter Island and Tangential to the Central Island

7/6 August 2007 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 7 Part 3 TD 16/07 Geometric Design

Design of Multilane Entries with the addition of one or two lanes at the give way line to increase capacity. Single lane entries e.g. those at 7.31 On multilane entries, it is important to ensure that Compact Roundabouts, should be slightly flared to entries are used equally in order to avoid the situation accommodate large goods vehicles. Even a small where some lanes exceed capacity and others are increase in entry width may increase capacity. underused. On flared entries, the queue from an overused lane may back up and block access to other 7.33 The average effective flare length, l', is the lanes. average length over which the entry widens. It is the length of the curve CF', shown in Figure 7/7. The definition and nomenclature are those used in TRL Entry Flaring Report LR942.

7.32 Entry flaring is localised widening at the point of entry. Normal Roundabouts usually have flared entries

Notes: 1. The nomenclature follows that in TRL Report LR942. 2. AB = e (entry width). 3. GH = v (approach half width at point G which is the best estimate of the start of the flare). 4. GD is parallel to AH and distance v from AH (v is measured along a line perpendicular to both AH and GD and, therefore, the length of AD is only equal to v if AB is perpendicular to the median at A). 5. CF' is parallel to BG and distance ½ BD from the kerbline BG.

Figure 7/7: Average Effective Flare Length

August 2007 7/7 Chapter 7 Volume 6 Section 2 Geometric Design Part 3 TD 16/07

7.34 To determine the average effective flare length, l': 7.41 The entry width and the flare length are related. The capacity of a wide entry combined with a short • construct curve GD parallel to the median HA flare can be similar to that of a narrow entry combined (centre line or edge of central reserve or splitter with a long flare. There are many intermediate island) and distance v from it; combinations of e and l' that will have the same capacity. • construct curve CF' parallel to curve BG (the nearside kerb) and at a constant distance of ½ BD 7.42 Although entry width and sharpness of flare from it, with F' the point where CF' intersects line (which is a function of flare length and widening) have DG; the largest effect on capacity, other variables such as entry angle and entry radius can still be important. • the length of curve CF' is the average effective When capacity is at a premium, small changes in these flare length l'. variables can sometimes provide a bigger increase in capacity than making a large change in a single 7.35 In cases where the line AB is not perpendicular variable. to the median, the length AD will differ slightly from v.

7.36 The total length of the entry widening (BG) will Entry Angle be about twice the average effective flare length. 7.43 The entry angle, ϕ, serves as a geometric proxy 7.37 The capacity of an entry can be improved by for the conflict angle between entering and circulating increasing the average effective flare length. Suitable traffic streams. There are two different methods for its values of l' can be determined using the capacity measurement, depending on the size of the roundabout. relations developed in TRL Report LR942. The results will depend on the available land take as similar levels 7.44 For a large roundabout where the arms are well of capacity can be obtained with a variety of flare separated, the angle measured is in effect that between lengths and entry widths. A minimum length of about the projected path of an entering vehicle and the path of 5m in urban areas and 25m in rural areas is desirable, a circulating vehicle (see Figure 7/8). To determine the but capacity will be the determining factor. entry angle:

7.38 Effective flare lengths greater than 25m may • construct the curve EF as the locus of the mid- improve the geometric layout but have little effect in point between the nearside kerb and the median increasing capacity. If the effective flare length exceeds line (or the edge of any splitter island or central 100m, the design becomes one of link widening. Where reserve); the design speed is high, entry widening should be developed gradually with no sudden changes in • construct BC as the tangent to EF at the give way direction. line;

7.39 The sharpness of flare, S, is defined by the • construct the curve AD as the locus of the mid- relationship: point of (the used section of) the circulatory carriageway (a proxy for the average direction of S = 1.6 [e-v] / l' travel for traffic circulating past the arm);

7.40 It is a measure of the rate at which extra width is • the entry angle, ϕ, is the acute angle between BC developed in the entry flare. The value of S will depend and the tangent to AD. on the available land-take and the capacity required. Values of S greater than unity correspond to sharp flares and smaller values (0 ≤ S ≤ 1) to gradual flares. Long gradual flares are most efficient as they make better use of the extra width but sharp flares are more easily achieved in terms of land take. Sharp flares can still give significant increases in capacity and are appropriate where there is pedestrian crossing demand. See TRL Report LR942.

7/8 August 2007 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 7 Part 3 TD 16/07 Geometric Design

Figure 7/8: Entry Angle at a Larger Roundabout

7.45 For small Normal or Compact Roundabouts, the kerb and the median line (or the edge of any entry angle is measured as shown in Figure 7/9. This splitter island or central reserve); construction is used when there is insufficient separation between entry and adjacent exit to be able to • construct the line GH as the equivalent of line define the path of the circulating vehicle clearly. In this BC i.e. the tangent to the curve JK at the point case, circulating traffic which leaves at the following where JK intersects the border of the inscribed exit will be influenced by the angle at which that arm circle; joins the roundabout. The angle between the projected entry and exit paths is measured and then halved to • the lines BC and GH intersect at L. The entry find ϕ: angle, ϕ, is half of angle HLB.

• construct line BC as in Figure 7/8; ϕ = [angle HLB]/2

• construct the curve JK in the next exit as the Note that if angle GLB exceeds 180 degrees, ϕ is locus of points midway between the nearside defined as zero.

Figure 7/9: Entry Angle at a Smaller Roundabout

August 2007 7/9 Chapter 7 Volume 6 Section 2 Geometric Design Part 3 TD 16/07

7.46 If it is not clear which of the two methods should accompanied by shunt accidents, especially when be used, the following should clarify the situation. All approach speeds are high. three vehicle paths (entry, exit and circulatory carriageway medians) should be constructed, and the Entry Kerb Radius entry and exit paths projected towards the roundabout centre. The choice of construction for ϕ depends on 7.48 The entry kerb radius, r, is the minimum radius of where these projections meet: if the meeting point is curvature of the nearside kerb line over the distance closer to the centre of the roundabout than the arc of the from 25m ahead of the give way line to 10m circulatory carriageway median, then the construction downstream of it (see Figure 7/10). It is the radius of shown in Figure 7/8 should be used; if they meet the best fit circular curve over a length of 25m. outside that area, then the construction illustrated in Figure 7/9 should be used. In the limiting case where all 7.49 The entry kerb radius should be not less than three medians intersect at a point, it is common for the 10m. Except at Compact Roundabouts, if the approach circulatory carriageway median approximately to bisect is intended for regular use by large goods vehicles, the the angle between the other two medians, so that the value should be not less than 20m. However, entry kerb two methods become equivalent. radii of 100m or more will tend to result in inadequate entry deflection. 7.47 The entry angle, ϕ, should lie between 20 and 60 degrees. Low entry angles force drivers to look over 7.50 Although entry capacity can be increased by their shoulders or use their mirrors to merge with increasing the entry kerb radius, once its value reaches circulating traffic. Large entry angles tend to have 20m, further increases only result in very small capacity lower capacity and may produce excessive entry improvements. Reducing the entry kerb radius below deflection which can lead to sharp braking at entries, 15m reduces capacity.

Figure 7/10: Entry Kerb Radius

7/10 August 2007 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 7 Part 3 TD 16/07 Geometric Design

Entry Path Radius least one metre between its centreline and any kerb or edge marking. The path starts 50m in advance of the 7.51 The entry path radius (or its inverse, the entry give way line. path curvature) is a measure of the deflection to the left imposed on vehicles entering a roundabout. It is the 7.54 The construction of the path is a matter of most important determinant of safety at roundabouts personal judgement. Results should be checked by more because it governs the speed of vehicles through the than one designer for comparison. junction and whether drivers are likely to give way to circulating vehicles. 7.55 The smallest radius of this path on entry that occurs as it bends to the left before joining the 7.52 To determine the entry path radius, the fastest circulatory carriageway is called the entry path radius. path allowed by the geometry is drawn. This is the Note that this is different to, and should not be confused smoothest, flattest path that a vehicle can take through with, the entry kerb radius as described in paragraphs the entry, round the central island and through the exit 7.48 to 7.50. The entry path radius can be measured by (in the absence of other traffic) (see Figures 7/11 to applying suitable templates to the curve in the vicinity 7/14). of the give-way line (see Figures 7/11 to 7/14). It is the radius of the best fit circular curve over a length of 7.53 The path is assumed to be 2m wide so that the 25m. vehicle following it would maintain a distance of at

a Entry path radius should be measured over the smallest best fit circular curve over a distance of 25m occurring along the approach entry path in the vicinity of the give way line, but not more than 50m in advance of it. b Commencement point 50m from the give way line and at least 1m from the nearside kerb or centre line (or edge of central reserve)

Figure 7/11: Determination of Entry Path Radius for Ahead Movement at a 4-arm Roundabout

August 2007 7/11 Chapter 7 Volume 6 Section 2 Geometric Design Part 3 TD 16/07

7.57 In urban areas, space restrictions, coupled with 7.56 The entry path radius must be checked for the turning requirements of large goods vehicles, may all turning movements. It must not exceed 70m at necessitate a small Normal or Compact Roundabout Compact Roundabouts in urban areas (where the which cannot provide sufficient entry deflection by speed limit and the design speed within 100m of means of the central island alone. In this case, the give way line on any approach do not exceed deflection should be generated by enlarging splitter 40mph and 70kph respectively). At all other islands or by providing a central overrun area for large roundabout types, the entry path radius must not goods vehicles (see paragraphs 7.17 and 7.18). Where exceed 100m. an overrun area is provided and is effective in deterring drivers of light vehicles from using it, the entry path radius should be measured relative to the perimeter of this area rather than that of the central island.

a Entry path radius should be measured over the smallest best fit circular curve over a distance of 25m occurring along the approach entry path in the vicinity of the give way line, but not more than 50m in advance of it. b Commencement point 50m from the give way line and at least 1m from nearside kerb or centre line

Figure 7/12: Determination of Entry Path Radius for the Left Turn where the Approach Curves to the Left

7/12 August 2007 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 7 Part 3 TD 16/07 Geometric Design

a Entry path radius should be measured over the smallest best fit circular curve over a distance of 25m occurring along the approach entry path in the vicinity of the give way line, but not more than 50m in advance of it. b Commencement point 50m in advance of the give way line and at least 1m from nearside kerb or centre line

Figure 7/13: Determination of Entry Path Radius for the Left Turn where the Approach Curves to the Right

August 2007 7/13 Chapter 7 Volume 6 Section 2 Geometric Design Part 3 TD 16/07

a Entry path radius should be measured over the smallest best fit circular curve over a distance of 25m occurring along the approach entry path in the vicinity of the give way line, but not more than 50m in advance of it. b Commencement point 50m in advance of the give way line and at least 1m from nearside kerb or centre line

Figure 7/14: Determination of Entry Path Radius for the Left Turn at a Roundabout at a Y-junction

7/14 August 2007 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 7 Part 3 TD 16/07 Geometric Design

7.58 A method for creating entry deflection at a measured normal to the nearside kerb. Values are Normal Roundabout is to stagger the arms as shown in typically similar to or slightly less than entry widths Figure 7/15. This will: (exits have less flaring). With the exception of Compact Roundabouts, the exit width should, where possible, • reduce the size of the roundabout; accommodate one more traffic lane than is present on the link downstream. • minimise land acquisition; 7.62 For example, at a Normal Roundabout, if the • help to provide a clear exit route with sufficient downstream link is a single carriageway road with a width to avoid conflicts. long splitter island, the exit width should be between 7m and 7.5m and the exit should taper down to a 7.59 Sharp curves on the approach road should not be minimum of 6m (see Figure 7/16), allowing traffic to introduced to increase entry deflection, although a pass a broken down vehicle. If the link is an all-purpose gentle curve to the right preceding left hand entry two-lane dual carriageway, the exit width should be deflection may be used. between 10m and 11m and the exit should taper down to two lanes wide. 7.60 Approach curvature should follow the requirements on horizontal radii in TD 9 (DMRB 7.63 The width should be reduced in such a way as to 6.1.1). Tight radii will require verge widening to avoid exiting vehicles encroaching onto the opposing provide adequate forward visibility and will add to the lane at the end of the splitter island. Normally the width verge maintenance requirements (see TD 51, DMRB would reduce at a taper of 1:15 to 1:20. Where the exit 6.3.5). is on an up gradient, the exit width may be maintained for a short distance before tapering in. This helps Exit Width reduce intermittent congestion caused by slowly accelerating large goods vehicles by giving other 7.61 The exit width is the width of the carriageway on drivers an opportunity to overtake them. If the exit road the exit and is measured in a similar manner to the entry is on an up gradient combined with an alignment which width. It is the distance between the nearside kerb and bends to the left, it may be necessary to maintain the the exit median (or the edge of any splitter island or exit width over a longer distance to help ensure that central reserve) where it intersects with the outer edge overtaking manoeuvres can be completed before the of the circulatory carriageway. As with entry width, it is merge is encountered.

Figure 7/15: Staggering of East-West Arms to Increase Deflection

August 2007 7/15 Chapter 7 Volume 6 Section 2 Geometric Design Part 3 TD 16/07

Figure 7/16: Typical Single Carriageway Exit at a Normal Roundabout with a Long Splitter Island

7.64 At a Compact Roundabout, the exit width should 7.69 The shortest distance possible between an entry be similar to the entry width. arm and the next exit is governed by the minimum entry radius (10m) and the minimum exit radius for the type 7.65 On exits, the edge line should continue along the of roundabout in question (15m at a Compact projected line of the kerbing once this is terminated (see Roundabout, otherwise 20m). Figures 8/10 and 8/11 in Chapter 8). 7.70 If a roundabout is to be modified to include an Exit Kerb Radius additional arm, care should be taken to ensure that this does not affect safety at the preceding entry and following exit. It may be necessary to redesign the 7.66 The exit kerb radius is shown in Figure 7/16 and whole junction if adequate spacing and deflection is the exit equivalent of the entry kerb radius. Values for between entries and adjacent exits cannot be achieved. the exit kerb radius should exceed the largest entry radius (except at Compact Roundabouts, where they 7.71 Exits should be checked to ensure that vehicle should be equal). paths are smooth and vehicles are not directed towards splitter islands. Splitter islands should end at a tangent 7.67 At a Compact Roundabout, the value of the exit (or, at least, parallel) to the centre line and be long kerb radius should lie between 15m and 20m. enough to prevent an exiting vehicle from crossing the 7.68 At other roundabouts, the exit kerb radius should centre line into oncoming traffic. not be less than 20m or greater than 100m. A value of 7.72 If the peak exit volume approaches the capacity 40m is desirable, but for larger roundabouts on high of the downstream link, tapers longer than 1:20 may be speed roads, a higher value may suit the overall needed to merge the traffic as the traffic density in each junction geometry. A compound curve starting with a lane will be high. 40m radius and developing to a larger radius, of up to 100m, will usually offer the best solution. Larger values 7.73 Sharp turns into exits can increase the likelihood of exit radii may lead to high exit speed, which will not of load shedding by large goods vehicles and decrease be appropriate if there are significant numbers of the traffic capacity of the junction. cyclists using the junction or where pedestrian crossing facilities are located immediately downstream.

7/16 August 2007 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 8 Part 3 TD 16/07 Other Aspects of Design

8. OTHER ASPECTS OF DESIGN

Visibility

8.1 Except for visibility to the right at entry (paragraph 8.7) and across the central island (paragraph 8.9), visibility must be obtainable from a driver’s eye height of between 1.05m and 2m to an object height of between 0.26m and 2m, in accordance with the envelope of visibility for measurement of stopping sight distance in TD 9 (DMRB 6.1.1).

8.2 Where signs are to be erected on a central reserve, verge or splitter island within the envelope of visibility, including to the right, the mounting height must not be less than 2m above the carriageway surface.

Forward Visibility on Approach (Stopping Sight Distance)

8.3 Visibility on the approach (Desirable Minimum Stopping Sight Distance for the design speed of the road) must conform to TD 9 (DMRB 6.1.1) with the position of the object at the give way line indicated in Figure 8/1. Chevron signs on the central island must also be visible to approaching drivers in all lanes from a distance equal to the Desirable Minimum Stopping Sight Distance. Chevron signs should not be stacked. If conspicuity of the signs is a problem, yellow backing boards or larger signs should be used. If the approach to the roundabout is over a crest, a higher mounting height may be used. See Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 4.

August 2007 8/1 Chapter 8 Volume 6 Section 2 Other Aspects of Design Part 3 TD 16/07

Figure 8/1: Measurement of Stopping Sight Distance on Curved Approach

8/2 August 2007 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 8 Part 3 TD 16/07 Other Aspects of Design

Forward Visibility at Entry Visibility to the Right

8.4 Drivers of all vehicles approaching the give 8.5 Drivers of all vehicles approaching the give way line must be able to see objects of height way line must be able to see the full width of the between 0.26m and 2m on the full width of the circulatory carriageway to their right, from the circulatory carriageway for the Visibility Distance centre of the offside lane at the give way line, for given in Table 8/1 (measured along the centre of the Visibility Distance given in Table 8/1 the circulatory carriageway as shown in Figure (measured along the centre of the circulatory 8/2). The visibility must be checked from the carriageway), as shown in Figure 8/3. This centre of the nearside lane at a distance of 15m includes Grade Separated Roundabouts with bridge back from the give way line, as shown in Figure parapets on either side of the circulatory 8/2. carriageway.

8.6 Visibility to the right must also be checked Table 8/1 from the centre of the offside lane at a distance of 15m back from the give way line, as shown in Inscribed Circle Visibility Distance (m) Figure 8/4. Diameter (m) (‘a’ in Figures) 8.7 The envelope of visibility must be <40 Whole junction obtainable from a driver’s eye height of between 40 – 60 40 1.05m and 2m to an object height of between 1.05m and 2m. 60 – 100 50

>100 70

Figure 8/2: Forward Visibility Required at Entry

August 2007 8/3 Chapter 8 Volume 6 Section 2 Other Aspects of Design Part 3 TD 16/07

8.8 Excessive visibility to the right can result in high can be helpful in reducing excessive approach speeds. entry speeds, potentially leading to accidents. On dual The screening should be at least 2m high, in order to carriageway approaches where the speed limit is greater block the view of all road users. Screening can also be than 40mph, limiting visibility to the right by screening used on flared approaches on high speed single- until the vehicle is within 15 metres of the give way line carriageway roads where there is a long splitter island.

Figure 8/3: Visibility to Right Along Circulatory Carriageway Required at Entry (from Give Way Line)

Figure 8/4: Visibility to Right Along Circulatory Carriageway Required at 15m in Advance of Give Way Line

8/4 August 2007 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 8 Part 3 TD 16/07 Other Aspects of Design

Circulatory Visibility Pedestrian Crossing Visibility

8.9 Drivers on the circulatory carriageway must 8.11 Drivers approaching a roundabout with a be able to see the full width of the circulatory Zebra crossing across the entry must be able to see carriageway ahead of them for the Visibility the full width of the crossing so that they can see Distance given in Table 8/1. This visibility must be whether there are pedestrians wishing to cross. For checked at a distance of 2m in from the central a signal-controlled crossing, the driver must also island, as shown in Figure 8/5. The envelope of be able to see at least one signal head. The visibility must be obtainable from a driver’s eye visibility required is the Desirable Minimum height of between 1.05m and 2m to an object Stopping Sight Distance for the design speed of the height of between 1.05m and 2m. link. See TD 9 (DMRB 6.1.1) and Local Transport Note LTN 2/95.

8.10 It is often useful to improve the conspicuity of 8.12 At the give way line, drivers must be able to central islands by landscaping, but the circulatory see the full width of a pedestrian crossing (whether visibility needs to be checked to ensure it is not signal-controlled, zebra or informal) across the obstructed. Normally, at least the outer 2m of the next exit if it is within 20m of the give way line on central island should be hard standing or planted with that arm (crossings should not be sited between grass or similar low level vegetation. 20m and 60m from the give way line). See Figure 8/6.

Figure 8/5: Circulatory Visibility Required

August 2007 8/5 Chapter 8 Volume 6 Section 2 Other Aspects of Design Part 3 TD 16/07

Figure 8/6: Visibility Required at Entry to Pedestrian Crossing at Next Exit

Exit Visibility longitudinal gradient for drainage set out in TD 9, DMRB 6.1.1). 8.13 On the circulatory carriageway, the exit visibility should conform to Table 8/1. Once a vehicle has Crossfall and Longitudinal Gradient crossed the inscribed circle at the exit from the roundabout, the Stopping Sight Distance should 8.16 Steep gradients should be avoided at roundabout conform to TD 9 (DMRB 6.1.1). approaches or flattened to a maximum of 2% before entry. Crossfall and longitudinal gradient combine to Visual Intrusions provide the necessary slope to drain surface water from the carriageway. Although the following paragraphs are 8.14 Signs, street furniture and planting should be written in terms of crossfall for simplicity, the value and located and designed so as not to obstruct visibility. direction of the greatest slope should always be taken However, isolated objects less than 550mm wide such into account when considering drainage. as lamp columns, sign supports or bridge columns are acceptable. 8.17 On the approaches and exits, superelevation can assist drivers in negotiating the associated curves. Its value, when used, should be appropriate to the speed of Visibility at Grade Separated Junctions vehicles, and equal to or greater than those necessary for surface drainage, but should not exceed 5% (1 in 8.15 At Grade Separated Roundabouts in particular, 20). Superelevation should be reduced to 2% at 20m care is needed to ensure that the give way line is clearly from the give way line, since with adequate advance visible to approaching drivers. This can be achieved by signing and entry deflection, speeds on approaches the provision of a short length, say 10m, of level should be reducing. approach road immediately prior to the give way line (subject to the requirements for minimum crossfall and

8/6 August 2007 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 8 Part 3 TD 16/07 Other Aspects of Design

Crossfall on the Circulatory Carriageway drainage, and, therefore, the correct siting and spacing of gullies is critical. 8.18 Except on large Grade Separated Roundabouts (where long sections of circulatory carriageway should 8.19 At Normal Roundabouts on high speed roads, it have appropriate superelevation), crossfall is required is good practice to arrange for crossfall to assist to drain surface water on circulatory carriageways. The vehicles. To do this, a crown line is formed. This line normal value is 2% (1 in 50). It should not exceed 2.5% can either join the ends of the splitter islands as shown (1 in 40). To avoid ponding, longitudinal edge profiles in Figure 8/7, or divide the circulatory carriageway in should be graded at not less than 0.67% (1 in 150), with the proportion 2:1 internal to external (Figure 8/8). In 0.5% (1 in 200) considered the minimum. The design some cases a subsidiary crown line may assist in gradients do not in themselves ensure satisfactory achieving appropriate values of crossfall without giving excessive changes at the main crown line (Figure 8/9).

Figure 8/7: Using One Crown Line to Join Splitter Islands

August 2007 8/7 Chapter 8 Volume 6 Section 2 Other Aspects of Design Part 3 TD 16/07

Figure 8/8: Using One Crown Line to Divide the Carriageway in the Ratio 2:1

Figure 8/9: Using Two Crown Lines

8/8 August 2007 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 8 Part 3 TD 16/07 Other Aspects of Design

8.20 The conflicting crossfalls at the crown lines have 8.26 Road markings are used to channelise traffic and, a direct effect on driver comfort and may also be a where required, to indicate a dedicated lane. Lane contributory factor in load shedding and large goods direction signs complementing the advance direction vehicle roll-over accidents. Over a given section, the signs at entries can be beneficial where heavy flows maximum recommended arithmetic difference in occur in a particular direction. crossfall is 5%. Lower values are desirable, particularly for roundabouts with a small inscribed circle diameter. 8.27 Where any particular lane is dedicated, the other There should be no sharp changes in crossfall and a lanes should also have arrow markings. This smooth crown is essential. arrangement should always be accompanied by direction signing to indicate lane dedication. 8.21 At Compact Roundabouts and small Normal Roundabouts, it is more appropriate to apply constant crossfall in one direction across the full width of the 8.28 The use of right pointing arrows on lane circulatory carriageway. At roundabouts where the dedication signs or as markings on the road is not speed limit within 100m from the give way line does permitted on roundabout approaches (except at not exceed 40mph on any approach, this crossfall can mini-roundabouts). This is to avoid confusing slope outwards to ease drainage and help keep speeds drivers, particularly those from overseas, over down. It also makes the central island more which way to proceed around the roundabout. conspicuous. Where a right hand lane is dedicated to a specific destination, it should be associated with an ahead Crossfall at Exits arrow on the approach. A right pointing arrow may be used on the circulatory carriageway. 8.22 At exits, superelevation should be provided where necessary to allow vehicles to accelerate safely away from the roundabout. However, as with entries, 8.29 Left turn arrows should only be used with crossfall adjacent to the roundabout should not exceed caution on the circulatory carriageway, to avoid drivers 2%. If the exit leads into a right hand curve, mistakenly turning into roundabout entries. superelevation should be introduced gradually. 8.30 Chapter 4 of the Traffic Signs Manual Lighting (Sections 2, 3 and 5) provides guidance on the warning signs to be used at roundabouts. Directional signs for use at roundabouts are prescribed in the Traffic Signs 8.23 In Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD). road lighting must be provided at roundabouts. Guidance on the design of directional traffic signs is given in Local Transport Note LTN 1/94 and Chapter 8.24 In England, the provision of road lighting at 7 of the Traffic Signs Manual. Where additional road roundabouts must be considered in accordance markings are used to designate lanes on the approaches with DMRB 8.3. and circulatory carriageways, complementary signs to TSRGD Diagram 2019 or 2114 (non-motorways) and Road Marking and Signing Diagram 2913.3 (motorways) are recommended. On wide approaches or circulatory carriageway where tall 8.25 Guidance on the appropriate use of road vehicles could obscure post mounted signs, gantry markings at various types of roundabout is contained in mounted signs to Diagram 2021.1 or 2114.1 (non- Section 8 of Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual. A Motorways) or 2913.4 (Motorways) are recommended. well-designed Normal Roundabout with balanced traffic movements will operate effectively under the 8.31 Passively safe signposts and signal posts may be marking schemes shown in Figure 8.1 of the Traffic appropriate at roundabouts on high speed roads where Signs Manual Chapter 5. However roundabouts with there is not enough room for full safety barrier high flows and inscribed circle diameters close to the provision. The use of passively safe chevron signs to recommended maximum and Grade Separated Diagram 515.1 of the TSRGD should also be Roundabouts with large inscribed circle diameters will considered. See TA 89 (DMRB 8.2.2). need additional markings and signs on the approaches 8.32 In urban areas, a sloping ring of block paving laid and circulatory carriageway. TA 78 (DMRB 6.2.3) in a black and white chevron pattern around the central gives advice on their design. island can improve its conspicuity. See TSRGD

August 2007 8/9 Chapter 8 Volume 6 Section 2 Other Aspects of Design Part 3 TD 16/07

Diagram 515.2. Details and further guidance on its use 8.38 Apart from the amenity benefits, the landscape can be found in the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 4. treatment of roundabouts can have practical advantages Regular maintenance inspections of this type of from a traffic engineering point of view by making the treatment are required as weather conditions can fade presence of the roundabout more obvious to this type of blockwork. Normal chevron signs should be approaching traffic. Planting on the central reserve or included. splitter island within 15m of the give way line is generally discouraged although the screening of traffic 8.33 Chevron signs can impinge on circulatory on the opposite side of the roundabout to the point of visibility but the effects can be minimised by entry can, without restricting necessary visibility, avoid positioning the signs 2m back from the central island distraction and confusion caused by traffic movements kerbline (see paragraphs 3.12 to 3.22 of Chapter 4 of of no concern to a driver. Planting can provide a the Traffic Signs Manual for advice). positive background to chevron signs on the central island while visually uniting the various vertical Segregated Left Turn Lanes features and reducing any appearance of clutter. 8.39 The areas required for visibility envelopes should 8.34 The use of segregated left turn lanes is covered in be either hard surface or planted with grass or species TD 51 (DMRB 6.3.5). having a low mature height and low maintenance characteristics. Higher and denser species of shrubs and Skidding Resistance coppiced trees, without thick trunks, can be planted towards the centre of the island. Planting of an 8.35 For information on skidding resistance on the ornamental nature, which might be more appropriate in approaches to roundabouts and the circulatory an urban area, generally requires greater maintenance if carriageway, refer to HD 28 (DMRB 7.3.1). HD 36 it is to be successful. Any planting should have bulk and (DMRB 7.5.1) gives advice on appropriate surfacing substance in winter as well as during the summer materials giving the required skid resistance properties. months. The provision of high friction surfacing should be considered on the immediate approaches and 8.40 In rural areas, planting should generally be circulatory carriageway for roundabouts on roads with restricted to indigenous species and be related to the high approach speeds. surrounding landscape, although the final choice of species also depends on the particular objectives of the scheme. In open moorland, for example, tree and shrub 8.36 Materials with appropriate skid resistance planting would appear incongruous with the must be used for road markings at roundabouts. surroundings and landscape treatment would normally Details of the requirements for these are given in be restricted to localised ground modelling and planting Clause 1212 of MCHW 1. or seeding of low-growing moorland-type vegetation to reflect the local characteristics. If trees are proposed, Landscaping leaf mulch on the carriageway should be avoided by careful choice of species and by locating the planting 8.37 The design of landscaping within the away from the roundabout edge. highway limits must be carried out in consultation with appropriate specialists. The designer must 8.41 Planting on a central island of less than 10 metres diameter is not generally appropriate due to the develop clear objectives for the design and must visibility requirements. As the size of the island consider the long-term maintenance implications increases, the visibility splays for drivers approaching of the scheme. Where the responsibility for and negotiating the roundabout leave a greater area maintenance is passed to a third party, such as a available for landscaping. local council, maintenance standards must be agreed. If a third party wishes to enhance the 8.42 In order to minimise the consequences of standard of planting or landscaping at roundabouts, accidents in which a vehicle runs off the road, solid for example, using special floral displays, this must obstructions such as statues, trees or rocks should not only be with the agreement of the Overseeing be placed on the central islands of roundabouts with Organisation, and must not compromise visibility high speed approaches, or anywhere within the highway or safety. Further advice is given in DMRB boundary where there is a high risk of collision. Volume 10.

8/10 August 2007 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 8 Part 3 TD 16/07 Other Aspects of Design

Vehicle Restraint Systems Figures 8/10 and 8/11). On the exit, the kerbing can terminate where the hard strip starts. 8.43 The need for a vehicle restraint system should be considered in accordance with TD 19 (DMRB 2.2.8). 8.46 The verge width should be at least 2.5m and should generally be consistent around the roundabout. 8.44 At Grade Separated Roundabouts, where there a Further advice is given in TD 27 (DMRB 6.3.2). possibility of an errant vehicle reaching the road below, Factors that should be taken into account in determining a risk assessment should be undertaken to evaluate this verge width include: possibility and the consequent need for mitigation measures, for example a vehicle restraint. • visibility requirements (paragraphs 8.1 to 8.16); • needs of Non-Motorised Users (see TA 90 and Kerbing and Verge Width TA 91, DMRB 5.2.4);

8.45 Roundabout entries and exits should be kerbed, • space required to accommodate buried services, and hard strips or hard shoulders on each approach road signs and other street furniture; should terminate where entry widening begins. The simplest procedure is to start the kerbs on the approach • maintenance access (see paragraph 1.18); at the back of the hardstrip and then terminate the hard strip edge line in a short smooth curve or taper (see • any likely future traffic increases that could require an increase in carriageway width.

Figure 8/10: Method of Terminating Edge Strips on a Single Carriageway Approach to a Roundabout

August 2007 8/11 Chapter 8 Volume 6 Section 2 Other Aspects of Design Part 3 TD 16/07

Figure 8/11: Method of Terminating Edge Strips on a Dual Carriageway Approach to a Roundabout

8.47 At dual carriageway and grade separated 8.49 On roundabouts where flow patterns have junctions, there is a need to consider the possibility of changed since design, road markings may help to: vehicles exiting a motorway or dual carriageway road via the on-slip during major incidents and under Police • improve throughput at high levels of traffic flow; direction. These vehicles will need to proceed around the roundabout in the normal direction. In order to • cater for particularly high turning movements; cover this eventuality for large vehicles, an area of hard standing may be used either side of the exit arm as • smooth the flow at roundabouts with irregular appropriate, or possibly on the central island. The geometry; optimum arrangement will be site specific and should be checked using swept paths, whilst ensuring that the • improve safety. layout is safe and does not confuse road users during Spiral markings in particular can improve lane normal day to day operation. The designer should check discipline on the circulatory carriageway. Designation with the Overseeing Organisation’s staff responsible for of lanes on the approach can also help. Further incident planning to ensure that these issues are guidance is given in TA 78 (DMRB 6.2.3). considered.

Improvement Measures at Existing Roundabouts 8.50 If, as part of an improvement scheme, changes are proposed to lane assignments on a roundabout approach and circulatory carriageway, 8.48 When considering improvements to roundabouts, an accident investigation should be undertaken and the the designer must review the safety and capacity of improvements developed with advice from a specialist the overall roundabout layout, including analysis road safety engineer. Levels of skidding resistance on of swept paths through entries and around the the approaches and the circulatory carriageways should central island. be checked.

8/12 August 2007 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 8 Part 3 TD 16/07 Other Aspects of Design

8.51 The provision of Transverse Yellow Bar 8.57 Single vehicle, powered two-wheeler and Markings on high speed dual carriageway approaches overshoot accidents can be partly mitigated by good can reduce rear shunt and overshoot accidents by signing and marking, by limiting visibility to the right helping to alert the driver to the presence of the until 15m before entry using suitable screening, and by roundabout (see Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 5, ensuring that the layout guides drivers around the section 11, and TRL Report LR1010). Their use may central island. be considered where the conditions given in Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 5 are met. On high speed single 8.58 Reverse curves (to the right and then to the left carriageway roads on which drivers fail to adjust their on the approach) can be effective in providing speed in time to negotiate the roundabout safely or, if additional deflection on poorly aligned existing necessary, stop, the provision of ‘Reduce Speed Now’ roundabouts, but sharp curves are not good practice and signs to Diagram 511 of the TSRGD can have a similar could induce large goods vehicle rollover or accidents effect (see Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 4). involving powered two wheelers.

8.52 The following can all help to reduce accidents at 8.59 Various mitigation measures for the safety of roundabouts, although the overprovision of signs should particular road user types including powered two be avoided: wheelers, large goods vehicles and non-motorised users are suggested in Chapter 5 of this Standard. • repositioning and/or repeating (e.g. nearside and offside) of warning signs;

• on high speed dual carriageways, providing additional map type direction signs at ½ mile in advance of the roundabout;

• making the give way line more conspicuous;

• extending the central island chevron sign further to the left to emphasise the angle of turn;

• on dual carriageway roads, placing additional chevron signs in the central reserve in line with the offside lane approach.

8.53 The reduction of excessive entry width by extending the splitter island can reduce accidents at some roundabouts with poor safety records. This should be achieved by physical means wherever possible.

8.54 Where inadequate entry deflection is leading to operational and safety problems and it is not possible to improve deflection by increasing the size of the central island and/or extending the splitter islands, subsidiary deflection islands may be used (see TD 51, DMRB 6.3.5). Alternatively, it may be possible to signalise the roundabout.

8.55 Accident problems resulting from high circulatory speeds on large roundabouts may indicate that a Signalised Roundabout is required.

8.56 If entry problems are caused by poor visibility to the right, good results may be achieved by extending the splitter island to narrow the circulatory carriageway and moving the give way line forward.

August 2007 8/13 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 9 Part 3 TD 16/07 References

9. REFERENCES

DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES l) DMRB Volume 7 Pavement Design and (DMRB) Maintenance. Section 5. Part 1. HD 36/99. Surfacing Materials for New and Maintenance a) DMRB Volume 2 Highway Structures: Design Construction. (Substructures and Special Structures) Materials Section 2. Part 2. TD 19/06. Requirement for m) DMRB Volume 8 Traffic Signs and Lighting. Road Restraint Systems. Section 1. Traffic signals and Control Equipment. b) DMRB Volume 5 Assessment and Preparation of n) DMRB Volume 8 Traffic Signs and Lighting. Road Schemes. Section 1. Part 4. TA 22/81. Section 2. Traffic signs and road markings. Vehicle Speed Measurement on All-Purpose Part 2. TA 89/05. Use of Passively Safe Roads. Signposts, Lighting Columns and Traffic Signal Posts to BS EN 12767. c) DMRB Volume 5 Assessment and Preparation of Road Schemes. Section 2. Part 4. TA 91/05. o) DMRB Volume 8 Traffic Signs and Lighting. Provision for Non-motorised Users. Section 3. Lighting. d) DMRB Volume 6 Road Geometry. Section 1 p) DMRB Volume 10 Environmental Design and Links. Part 2. TD 9/93. Highway Link Design. Management. e) DMRB Volume 6 Road Geometry. Section 2 DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT Junctions. Part 3. TD 50/04. The Geometric Layout of Signal Controlled Junctions and a) Road Casualties Great Britain (The Casualty Signalised Roundabouts. Report). The Stationery Office. f) DMRB Volume 6 Road Geometry. Section 1 b) Local Transport Note LTN 1/94 – The Design Links. Part 1. TD 27/05. Cross sections and and Use of Directional Informatory Signs: The Headrooms. Stationery Office. g) DMRB Volume 6 Road Geometry. Section 2 c) Local Transport Note LTN 1/95 – The Junctions. Part 3. Design of Road Markings at Assessment of Pedestrian Crossings: The Roundabouts. Stationery Office. h) DMRB Volume 6 Road Geometry. Section 2 d) Local Transport Note LTN 2/95 – The Design of Junctions. Part 3. TD 54/07. Mini-roundabouts. Pedestrian Crossings: The Stationery Office. i) DMRB Volume 6 Road Geometry. Section 3. e) Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces. Part 5. TD 51/03. Segregated Left Turn Lanes and Subsidiary Deflection Islands at f) Traffic Signs Manual. Chapters 4, 5 and 7. Roundabouts. g) Traffic Advisory Leaflet TAL 1/02. The j) DMRB Volume 6 Road Geometry. Section 3. Installation of Puffin Pedestrian Crossings. Part 5. TA 90/05. The Geometric Design of Pedestrian, Cycle and Equestrian Routes. h) Traffic Advisory Leaflet TAL 1/01. Puffin Pedestrian Crossing. k) DMRB Volume 7 Pavement Design and Maintenance. Section 3. Part 1. HD 28/04. i) Traffic Advisory Leaflet TAL 2/03. Signal- Skidding Resistance. control at Junctions on High Speed Roads.

j) Traffic Advisory Leaflet TAL 3/03. Equestrian Crossings.

August 2007 9/1 Chapter 9 Volume 6 Section 2 References Part 3 TD 16/07 k) Traffic Advisory Leaflet TAL 5/05. Pedestrian i) TRL Report TRL281. Accidents at Urban Mini- Facilities and Signal Controlled Junctions. roundabouts. l) Traffic Advisory Leaflet TAL 12/93. Overrun j) TRL Report LR942. The Traffic Capacity of areas. Roundabouts. m) Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions k) TRL Published Project Report PPR206. (2002). The Stationery Office. International comparison of roundabout design guidelines. Available on request from Overseeing n) Highways (Traffic Calming) Regulations (1999). Organisation. The Stationery Office. l) Layfield, R. and Maycock, G. (1986). Pedal o) Inclusive Mobility: A Guide to Best Practice on cyclists at roundabouts. Traffic Engineering and Access to Pedestrian and Transport Control 27(6). pp 343-9. Infrastructure. p) The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossing Regulations and General Directions. q) Vehicle Construction and Use Regulations.

MISCELLANEOUS a) Brown, M. (1995). The Design of Roundabouts. TRL State-of-the-art Review. The Stationery Office, London. b) Hall, R.D. and Surl, R.A.J. (1981). Accidents at Four Arm Roundabouts and Dual Carriageway Intersections – some Preliminary Findings. Traffic Engineering and Control. Vol 22 (6), p339-44. c) IHIE Guidelines for Motorcycling – Improving Safety through Engineering and Integration. (April 2005). d) TRL Report LR788. Articulated Vehicle Roll Stability – Methods of Assessments and Effects of Vehicle Characteristics. e) TRL Report LR1010. Yellow Bar Experimental Carriageway Markings – Accident Study. f) TRL Report LR1120. Accidents at 4 Arm Roundabouts. g) TRL Report SR662. Goods Vehicle Manoeuvres: a Computer Simulation and its Application to Roundabout Design. h) TRL Report SR724. The Effects of Zebra Crossings on Junction Entry Capacities.

9/2 August 2007 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 10 Part 3 TD 16/07 Enquiries

10. ENQUIRIES

All technical enquiries or comments on this Standard should be sent in writing as appropriate to:

Chief Highway Engineer The Highways Agency 123 Buckingham Palace Road London G CLARKE SW1W 9HA Chief Highway Engineer

Director of Trunk Roads: Infrastructure and Professional Services Transport Scotland Trunk Road Network Management 8th Floor, Buchanan House 58 Port Dundas Road A C McLAUGHLIN Glasgow Director of Trunk Roads: Infrastructure G4 0HF and Professional Services

Chief Highway Engineer Transport Wales Welsh Assembly Government Cathays Parks M J A PARKER Cardiff Chief Highway Engineer CF10 3NQ Transport Wales

Director of Engineering The Department for Regional Development Roads Service Clarence Court 10-18 Adelaide Street R J M CAIRNS Belfast BT2 8GB Director of Engineering

August 2007 10/1 WYG Group part of the WYG group

Appendix E: Cycling England Design Portfolio A.13, Roundabouts

Design Portfolio A.13 Roundabouts

A.13 Roundabouts

Key Principle

The use of continental-style design should be considered where roundabouts are to be introduced on cycle routes with entry flows of up to 2500 vehicles per hour.

Design Guidance

Background

Roundabouts can act as a real and perceived barrier for cyclists and there are many instances where cyclists dismount voluntarily and walk their bicycles around them or cycle on the footways. 10% of all reported accidents involving pedal cyclists occur at roundabouts. Of that proportion, 11% involve fatal or serious injury to a cyclist. Cyclists’ accident rates at roundabouts are 14 times those for motorists.

The most common accident type involves a motor vehicle entering the roundabout colliding with a cyclist on the circulating carriageway. This often appears to be because the motorist fails to see the cyclist because he/she is concentrating on the movements of other motor traffic. This may explain why cyclists’ accident rates tend to fall where there are high flows of cyclists.

Continental Roundabouts

Roundabouts have been introduced more recently in mainland Europe and their designs often aim to cater for their higher levels of cycling. These generally seek to reduce entry, exit and circulatory speeds to remove the differential between cyclists and other traffic and to make cyclists more visible.

Key features of continental designs are:

 Arms that are perpendicular, rather than tangential to the roundabout  Single lane entry and exits (4-5m)  Minimal flare on entry  Inscribed circle diameter 25-35m  Narrow circulatory carriageway 5-7m

The (desirable) reduction of the circulatory carriageway to a single lane circulatory width may result in the need for central over-run areas to accommodate large vehicles. These should have an upstand that discourages over running by cars but hatching may serve as an interim measure.

Dual and multi-lane roundabouts

Multi-lane roundabouts can present the most formidable barriers to cycling. They introduce a range of potential conflict situations that do not occur with single lane roundabouts. It is not possible to achieve sufficient deflection at all times on these roundabouts because, when traffic flows are light, motorists tend to straighten out their path through the junction by using the available lanes.

Page 1 of 6 A13_Roundabouts 100802.doc Design Portfolio A.13 Roundabouts

Where a multi-lane roundabout lies on an existing or a potential cycle route and it needs to be made safer for cyclists, the designer should consider the following questions:

 Would the roundabout still have enough capacity if it were to be reduced to single-lane operation throughout?  Is there scope for reducing individual entrances or exits to single lane operation (possibly by hatching or the introduction of a bus lane)?  Can geometric alterations be introduced to reduce vehicle speeds to 12mph (maximum 20mph)  Is it possible to introduce peripheral cycle tracks including, where necessary, Toucan crossings?

Where traffic flows are high and none of the on-road options above is feasible, the best option may be to signalise the roundabout. If the roundabout is signalised, ASLs and their lead-in lanes should be included.

Signalised roundabout and ASLs, York

Picture: Tony Russell, CTC

Excessive visibility to the right for motorists approaching the roundabout can result in high speeds. Where this is a problem, it can be mitigated by installing sight screens on the right of the entry road so that this visibility is reduced.

Visibility to the right reduced by means of sight screens, Taunton

Picture: Alex Sully, ERCDT

Flat-topped humps across the entrances and exits could be considered for reducing vehicle speeds and helping pedestrians to cross. These could be combined with Zebra crossings if close to the roundabout or Puffins, Pelicans or Toucans if positioned a little further away. Raised crossings can also be used for priority or non-priority cycle crossings.

Page 2 of 6 A13_Roundabouts 100802.doc Design Portfolio A.13 Roundabouts

Annular cycle lanes

Research suggests that annular cycle lanes in themselves offer no safety benefit to cyclists. In fact, unless accompanied by a safe roundabout design they may introduce extra hazards. Some cyclists may feel safer using cycle lanes, but these feelings may be unfounded if the lanes put them in an unsafe position.

Annular cycle lanes have been introduced onto a number of UK roundabouts. Some of these have been very poorly designed, having narrow lanes very close to the perimeter. This is the worst possible position for cyclists to take up if they do not want to leave at the next exit. Others, such as York’s "Magic Roundabout”, have wide cycle lanes set in from the edge of the roundabout, a reduced circulatory carriageway width, tight geometry and a smaller overall size of roundabout. In this case, the cycle lanes only position a cyclist close to the perimeter when they intend leaving at the next exit; otherwise, the cyclist is positioned away from the perimeter.

Whilst successful in reducing accidents and attracting cyclists to what had previously been a hazardous junction, the York solution, and in particular annular cycle lanes, should not be seen as the solution for every problem site. It is unlikely that any single element would create a cycle-friendly environment. It should be noted that the York design might only be operating so successfully because the large numbers of cyclists using the junction mean that motorists have become accustomed to interacting with them.

Because of the doubts over the potential benefits of annular cycle lanes, a highway authority wishing to improve conditions for cyclists at an existing roundabout should first consider whether changes to the geometry could achieve the required result. Where there are budget constraints, it may be possible to make low cost adaptations by using hatching or overrun areas to reduce the number of lanes, increase deflection, and alter the speed profile. Annular cycle lanes should only be introduced where they are accompanied by measures which reduce the circulatory carriageway to a single lane and encourage low speeds.

York “Magic Roundabout”

Picture: Patrick Lingwood, ERCDT

Page 3 of 6 A13_Roundabouts 100802.doc Design Portfolio A.13 Roundabouts

Cycle track crossings

It should be a primary design objective to create roundabouts that can accommodate cyclists safely within the carriageway. Peripheral cycle tracks remove the possibility of cyclists coming into conflict with motor vehicles on the circulatory carriageway.

Cyclists prefer priority crossings in terms of safety, comfort and speed. Although they have rarely been implemented in UK, they are used extensively in urban areas in the Netherlands. Typically these crossings are located around 5m from the junction line, so that motorists entering the roundabout do not have to concentrate on cyclists using the crossing and circulating traffic at the same time.

However, potential safety problems can arise if a peripheral cycle track is connected by 2-way cycle crossings which have priority over traffic on the roundabout arms. Cyclists riding contra-flow (anti-clockwise) are particularly vulnerable to going un-noticed by motorists entering the roundabout.

The design of the roundabout can have a major influence on the safety of such facilities. It is a legal requirement that cycle crossings with priority over other traffic are mounted on a flat-topped road hump constructed in accordance with the Road Hump regulations. The recommended height of the hump is 75mm (100mm max). In order to enhance safety, the crossing point can be surfaced in a contrasting colour. It is also worth considering introducing a lateral deflection or “dogleg” where the cycle track approaches the crossing to slow cyclists down. This gives motorists time to react to the presence of cyclists about to use the crossing.

The Road Hump regulations limit the use of humps to roads with speed limits of 30mph or less. As TSRGD requires cycle-priority crossings to be placed on a road hump, they are similarly limited. Regardless of the speed limit, in rural areas non-priority cycle track crossings are more appropriate and are likely to result in greater safety for cyclists. In urban areas, Toucan crossings can be used.

Peripheral cycle tracks almost invariably result in a greater distance to be travelled, with additional delay and inconvenience for cyclists at crossing points. Because of this, some may decide to remain on the carriageway. Peripheral cycle tracks should therefore not be used as an alternative to modifying the design of a roundabout to make it cycle-friendly if this is practicable. They should only be implemented if other factors preclude modifying the roundabout design or if the tracks match the cyclists' desire line more closely than the route through the roundabout.

Mini-roundabouts

Mini-roundabouts share many characteristics with other roundabouts, the major difference being that the central island is small (normally a radius of 2-4m) and can be over-run, both by larger and smaller vehicles. In this way, mini- roundabouts can be fitted into the space of normal junctions.

Provided they operate with single lane approaches, mini-roundabouts do not generally carry much higher risk to cyclists than signalised junctions. They can be used as a speed reducing feature in urban areas for the benefit of all road users. As with larger roundabout types, there should be adequate deflection on all arms to ensure low entry speeds.

Page 4 of 6 A13_Roundabouts 100802.doc Design Portfolio A.13 Roundabouts

For cyclists, they are particularly useful for facilitating right hand turns off major roads or right turns onto major roads from side roads. A mini-roundabout allows cyclists to make these manoeuvres in relative safety because the stream of traffic being crossed is obliged to give way, whereas it can be difficult for cyclists to cross the main traffic stream at a priority junction.

Mini roundabout, Portsmouth

Picture: Patrick Lingwood, ERCDT

References

LTN 2/08 Cycle Infrastructure Design DfT 2008

TAL 9/97 Cyclists at Roundabouts: continental Geometry DfT 1997

TD 16/93 Geometric Design of Roundabouts Highways Agency 1993

TAL 8/93 Advanced stop lines for cyclists DfT 1993

TAL 5/96 Further development of Advanced Stop Lines DfT 1996

Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions DfT 2002

Cycling England Gallery pictorial examples

London Cycling Design Standards – A guide to the design of a better cycling environment (Sections 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6) TfL 2005

Lancashire - The Cyclists' County (part 1, part 2) – creating pleasant road conditions Lancashire County Council, 2005

CTC Benchmarking – Best practice case studies

National Cycle Network – Guidelines and Practical details, Issue 2 Sustrans 1997

Page 5 of 6 A13_Roundabouts 100802.doc Design Portfolio A.13 Roundabouts

Other references

Promotion of mobility and safety of vulnerable road users (pdf – 4.5Mb) Wittink R, PROMISING 2001

Sharing road Space Scottish Government, 2001

Cyclists at continental style roundabouts: report on four trial sites TRL Report 584 Lawton BJ et al. 2003

Accidents at urban mini-roundabouts TRL Report 281 Kennedy JV & Hall RD 1997

Cyclists and Roundabouts: A Review of the Literature Allott & Lomax 1993

Traffic signals at roundabouts cut cycle casualties LTT 409 20 January 2005

Do traffic signals at roundabouts save lives? (pdf – 63kb) TfL Street Management 2005

Heworth Green Roundabout Case Study Pheby T 2004

Cycle Friendly Infrastructure - Guidelines for Planning and Design, Bicycle Association et al 1996

The Safety of Roundabouts in the Netherlands Schoon C & Minnen JV 1994

Collection of Cycle Concepts (pdf - 7.12Mb) Danish Road Directorate 2000

Roundabouts – the state of the Art in Germany Brilon W & Vendehey M 1998

The traffic safety of cyclists at roundabouts – a comparison between Swedish, Danish and Dutch results Brüde U & Larsson J 1997

Sustainable Safety a new approach for road safety in the Netherlands (pdf – 148kb) Vliet P & Schermers G 2000

The influence of strong pedestrian and bicycle flow on the capacity of roundabouts Tollazzi T, Velocity 1999

Page 6 of 6 A13_Roundabouts 100802.doc WYG Group part of the WYG group

Appendix F: LTN 1/95, The Assessment of Pedestrian Crossings

Department for Transport The National Assembly for Wales The Scottish Executive Development Department The Department for Regional Development Northern Ireland

Local Transport Note 1/95

The Assessment of Pedestrian Crossings

London: TSO Published by The Stationery Office and available from:

Online www.tso.co.uk/bookshop

Mail,Telephone, Fax & E-mail TSO PO Box 29. Norwich NR3 IGN Telephone orders/General enquiries: 0870 600 5522 Fax orders: 0870 600 5533 E-mail: [email protected] Textphone 0870 240 3701

TSO Shops 123 Kingsway. London WC2B 6PQ 020 7242 6393 Fax 020 7242 6394 68-69 Bull Street, Birmingham B4 6AD 0121 236 9696 Fax 0121 236 9699 9-21 Princess Street, Manchester M60 8AS 0161834 7201 Fax 0161 833 0634 16 Arthur Street Belfast BT 1 4GD 028 9023 8451 Fax 028 9023 5401 18-19 High Street,Cardiff CF1 2BZ 029 2039 5548 Fax 029 2038 4347 71 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9AZ 0870 606 5566 Fax 0870 606 5588

TSO Accredited Agents (see Yellow Pages) and through good booksellers

Published for the Department for Transport under licence from the Queen’s printer and Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

© Crown Copyright 1995

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 research, private study or for internal circulation with an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified.

For any other use of this material, please write to HMSO Licensing, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax: 01603 723000 or e-mail: [email protected].

First published 1995

Second impression 2003

ISBN 0 11 551625 5

Following the reorganisation of the government in May 2002, the responsibilities of the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) and latterly Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) in this area were transferred to the Department for Transport.

Printed in Great Britain on material containing 75% post-consumer waste and 25% ECF pulp. Department for Transport/The National Assembly for Wales/The Scottish Executive Development Department/The Department for Regional Development Northern Ireland Local Transport Note 1/95

TITLE - THE ASSESSMENT OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS

Department for Transport, The National Assembly of Wales, The Scottish Executive, The Department for Regional Development

ISSUING DIVISION Driver Information & Traffic Management Division

CONTACT POINT Department for Transport: Traffic Management Division, Zone 3/23, Great Minster House 76 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DR Telephone 020 7944 2599 Email: [email protected]

ENQUIRIES

All enquiries on the general applicability of this Local Transport Note should be directed, in England to the appropriate Regional Government Office of the Department for Transport, in Wales to Welsh Assembly Government, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF99 1NA, in Scotland to the Scottish Executive, Development Department, St Andrews House, Edinburgh EH1 3DG, or in Northern Ireland to the Department for Regional Development Roads Service, Clarence Court, 10- 18 Adelaide Street, Belfast, BT2 8GB. Enquiries about authorisation for non- prescribed crossings should be made to the above offices.

ABSTRACT

This note recommends the practices to be followed when planning at - grade pedestrian crossings. It describes all types of crossings, including shared facilities with cyclists, other than those at signalled junctions.

PUBLICATIONS SUPERSEDED

Departmental Advice Note TA 52 and Standard TD 28 (DMRB Vol.8, Section 5). CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 General ...... 1 1.2 Statutory Instruments ...... 1

2 ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE ...... 2 2.1 General ...... 2

3 SITE ASSESSMENT ...... 2 3.1 General ...... 2 3.2 Carriageway and Footway Type and Width ...... 2 3.3 Surroundings, Vehicular/Pedestrian Flow and Composition ...... 2 3.4 Average Crossing Time and Difficulty of crossing ...... 3 3.5 Road Accidents ...... 3 3.6 Site Record ...... 3 3.7 Assessment Framework ...... 4

4 OPTION ASSESSMENT ...... 4 4.1 Quantification of Factors ...... 4 4.2 Crossing Options ...... 5

5 ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK ...... 6

6 REFERENCES ...... 6

APPENDIX A - METHODS FOR DETERMINING THE DIFFICULTY OF CROSSING .. 8 Acceptable Gap ...... 8 Data Logger Method ...... 8 Manual Method ...... 8

APPENDIX B - EXAMPLE SITE ASSESSMENT RECORD ...... 9 SITE CHARACTERISTICS ...... 9 CROSSING TRAFFIC INFORMATION ...... 10 VEHICLE TRAFFIC INFORMATION ...... 10 ROAD ACCIDENTS ...... 10

APPENDIX C - EXAMPLE ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK ...... 11 SITE ASSESSMENT ...... 11 OPTION ASSESSMENT ...... 11 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General 1.1.1 This note describes an assessment method to be used when considering the provision and type of ‘stand-alone’ at-grade pedestrian crossings. 1.1.2 There are various types and combinations of crossings that can be used for pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists. ‘Stand-alone’ crossings may be implemented specifically for cyclists or equestrians but their legality is then as determined by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994(6) and not by pedestrian crossing Regulations. The principles of this assessment method can however be applied to those crossings. 1.1.3 The responsibility for the provision of pedestrian facilities rests with the relevant Pedestrian crossing facilities highway/roads authority. This note describes a method for assessing the need for a crossing at traffic signal controlled junctions are covered in which is recommended for use by highway authorities and their agents. TA15(1). 1.1.4 Crossings are provided as amenities to give access and easier movement to pedestrians. Generally the provision of crossings should be targeted at the needs of those people who experience most difficulty and danger. It should not be assumed that the provision of a crossing alone will necessarily lead to a reduction in road accidents. 1.1.5 The assessment method uses a framework to encourage informed decisions to be made as to whether a crossing is necessary and if so which type should be used. Site information is collected to form the basis of a SITE ASSESSMENT RECORD. This is used to complete an ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK which is in two parts, THE SITE ASSESSMENT and the OPTION ASSESSMENT. Decision makers will already have been taking these into account implicitly; the explicit framework means that the grounds for decisions and their consequences should be made clear and visible. The framework is used to collate all the relevant information relating to a proposal. Installation and maintenance costs are included together with the consideration of road user needs and road safety aspects. 1.1.6 Light Signal Controlled Pedestrian Crossings (signal-controlled crossings) and Zebra Pedestrian Crossings (Zebra crossings) provide pedestrian crossing points on roads carrying significant volumes of traffic. Vehicles and pedestrians are positively controlled by signal-controlled crossings, whereas pedestrians are given precedence over vehicles at Zebra crossings Signal- controlled crossings may also be used to When considering a crossing for equestrians, provide crossing points for cyclists and cyclists and/or pedestrians, equestrians. The majority of crossings then the general references described are Zebra and signal-controlled to pedestrians in this types. However, the assessment procedure document can be read to include all groups. should also consider refuge islands and However, only pedestrians other traffic management measures. may use pedestrian crossings. 1.2 Statutory Instruments For Northern Ireland see section 6 REFERENCES. • Statutory powers are defined by the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984(2). • The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian(3) Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997. • The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002(4). This does not apply in Northern Ireland where site specific authorisation for Toucan crossings is requred.

1 2 ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE

2.1 General 2.2.1 Where there are sufficient crossing opportunities in the vehicle flow most people are able to cross without the provision of a crossing. At sites with higher vehicular flows, pedestrians, in some cases particular groups of pedestrians may require a crossing facility before they feel secure enough to cross. There is little difference in the average rate of personal injury accidents at Zebra and signal-controlled types. At individual sites however, the type of crossing selected and its location may have a considerable effect on the future accident record. 2.2.2 The purpose of a crossing is to provide pedestrians with a passage across a carriageway. Each type of crossing has advantages and disadvantages; the type chosen should be appropriate to the circumstances of the site and the demands and behaviour of road users.

2.2.3 The procedures lead via a SITE ASSESSMENT to the production of an ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK. The decision whether or not to provide a crossing, and its The procedures should include the collection of site information, photographs maps records of type, should be a balanced any representations etc. All relevant factors included in the framework should be considered judgement based on when deciding whether to provide a crossing and, if so, its nature. The framework should consideration of all the include factors quantifying the difficulties experienced by vulnerable road users. information included in the framework. 3 SITE ASSESSMENT

3.1 General 3.1.1 It is recommended that a site survey and record of all relevant local and traffic factors is made by an experienced traffic engineer. An example of a SITE ASSESSMENT RECORD is shown in Appendix B. The record will form the basis for the ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK and as much background information as possible should be gathered so that a fully informed decision can be made. In the case of roads not yet built, or where future development is likely, the information should be estimated and the basis noted. For existing roads the information should be measured. 3.1.2 The survey should include approximately 50 metres of road either side of the site. The exact length may be dictated by the existence of side roads, major entrances/exits etc. It may be necessary to measure several 100 metre lengths if there is no one specific crossing place proposed. If only one crossing is to be provided great care must be taken to select the site likely to attract most pedestrians. Once a crossing is installed the site will become a focus of concentration for drivers and the areas either side of the new crossing could become potentially hazardous for pedestrians. here random crossing patterns exist, a number of central refuges may be more suitable than a single pedestrian crossing.

3.1.3 Local Transport Note 2/95, The Design of Pedestrian Crossings(5) considers practical difficulties, such as proximity to junctions, visibility, skidding resistance, road lighting, bus stops, Statutory Undertakers’ plant, nearby crossings and the needs of vulnerable pedestrians, including young, elderly and disabled people, and cyclists. The document should be read before visiting the site. Other suggested factors to be taken into account are:

3.2 Carriageway and Footway Type and Width

Allow sufficient footway 3.2.1 The width of carriageway and its arrangement into lanes should be recorded as this width for pushchairs, prams will relate to the degree of difficulty that people have in crossing. and cycles. Where crossings are to be 3.2.2 It is important that the usable footway width will be sufficient for pedestrians both provided specifically for equestrians or cyclists waiting to cross and walking along the footway. A minimum of two metres is recommended. additional width will be required; see TA57, 3.3 Surroundings, Vehicular/Pedestrian Flow and Composition DMRB Vol 6 section 6.3(6). Remember that 3.3.1 The type of surroundings will determine the profile of pedestrian movements and the guard railing will reduce most representative day of the week for a vehicular/pedestrian count. Time of year may also be the effective width. critical. The length of time over which the count should be taken will vary from site to site. However, a 12 hour count from, say, 07.00 - 19.00 would be suitable at most sites and analysis of the data will identify the peak periods. Both flow and composition of pedestrians should be recorded noting the numbers in any distinct groups. These groups are particularly

2 significant when assessing the difficulty of crossing at a site. The possibility that the present situation suppresses crossing demand because of difficulties in crossing the road should be considered. If the overall pedestrian count is increased to take this into account the facts should be recorded and the assumptions noted. 3.3.2 The level of traffic flow should be assessed, particularly at peak flow periods of the day. Estimates of the proportion of particular classes of vehicles, such as heavy goods, and the Where the 85 percentile number of public service vehicles in the vehicle flow can be useful. Vehicle speeds should be speed is greater than 50 recorded at peak and off-peak periods. The measured speed of vehicles (for each direction) miles per hour, serious taken, say, 50 metres before the crossing site should be recorded and the highest 85 percentile consideration should be given to speed reduction speed used in the assessment. The actual speed restrictions in force should also be noted. These measures before installing will affect both the decision as to whether to install a crossing and, if so, the type. at-grade crossings. 3.4 Average Crossing Time and Difficulty of Crossing The average time to cross from kerb to kerb, or kerb to refuge for staggered crossings, depends on the vehicular flow, the crossing speed for each group of pedestrians and the width of the carriageway. It is recommended that the average crossing speed be measured on site. The difficulty of crossing that pedestrians experience at a site can be assessed by considering the number of acceptable gaps in the vehicular flow which are available to pedestrians, and the consequences that this has for the average period that a pedestrian has to wait before crossing. This should be determined for all anticipated groups of users. Methods of determining the difficulty of crossing are given in Appendix A.

3.5 Road Accidents

3.5.1 The existing injury accident record for the proposed location, including 50 metres Where a crossing is being either side, should be noted. It is often useful to record details such as age, any special considered because of a vulnerability such as a particular type of disability, location of accident and time of day to high number of accidents, an investigation should be see if any pattern emerges. State the period over which the figures apply and describe any undertaken to establish the significant local changes in that time. real cause. It may be that other measures are needed, 3.5.2 When assessing the effect of introducing a crossing on accidents, a comparison with such as traffic calming or statistics for other local sites should be made. The accident statistics from a large sample of improving visibility, either similar crossings will give an average for a yearly period. The average should then be instead of or in conjunction with a formal crossing. compared with the site in question. If the number of accidents at the site is below average then it may not be reasonable to predict a benefit in accident terms, although there may be other advantages, if a crossing is installed. Caution should be exercised that in improving access for pedestrians the accident potential is not made worse by installing a crossing. Reference should be made to The Design of Pedestrian Crossings(5) for advice. 3.5.3 It has not yet proved possible to make general predictions about how the accident incidence or rates at a site might change following the introduction or change of type of crossing. It is recommended that a safety audit is completed for the option being considered.

3.6 Site Record The site layout and its major features should be recorded in the form of photographs and a map having of scale of at least 1:2500. Photographs are particularly useful as an aide-memoire. Drivers’ view

Pedestrians’ view

3 for the assessment and later when designing the crossing. They should show such details as the drivers views of the crossing site from say 30 and 100 metres, the pedestrians views, and any accesses or side roads. The positions of any obvious ducting chambers, gullies etc. should be noted. The exact location and date should be recorded for each photograph.

3.7 Assessment Framework

A précis of the information recorded in the SITE ASSESSMENT RECORD should be included in the SITE ASSESSMENT section of the ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK.

4 OPTION ASSESSMENT Examples of factors most likely to have a bearing on the choice of pedestrian crossing type are: • difficulty in crossing; • vehicle delays during peak periods; • carriageway capacity; • local representations; • cost (including maintenance); • vehicle speeds. There are a number of possible options for action when considering the provision of pedestrian crossings. These include: • do nothing; • provide traffic management (including refuge island); • provide a Zebra crossing; • provide a signal-controlled crossing.

The example ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK given at Appendix C shows a summary of the relevant site information and options available.

4.1 Quantification of Factors

The effect of delays on 4.1.1 Difficulty in Crossing vehicles must be considered but should not This is a factor related to the average time that a person normally has to wait at the site for normally over-rule the an acceptable gap before crossing. The value will differ according to traffic levels, age and provision of a crossing mobility. It can be assessed by the methods described in Appendix A. The highest factor at where there is a clear an appropriate time of the day should be used in the appraisal. difficulty for pedestrians. 4.1.2 Vehicle Delay Vehicle delay is assessed by estimating the number of stops each minute, and the average duration of each stop, which the crossing flow levels would produce for each of the options. For example, if a Zebra is installed and crossing flows are very high the number of stops and their duration will be far higher than with a signalled crossing. 4.1.3 Carriageway Capacity In addition to delays at the crossing, the reduction of carriageway capacity may have an effect on the local network. If problems are expected this factor should be noted. 4.1.4 Representations The source of a request and any supporting correspondence should be recorded. This is not only to enable the correspondents to be informed of the decision but incoming correspondence may often give detailed local knowledge of problems. 4.1.5 Costs The total cost of installation of the crossing should be estimated, including all civil, electrical and specialist contractors work, and considered in the ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK. Costs may include traffic management during the works, moving road lighting columns, improving road lighting, installing supplementary lighting and upgrading skid resistance. Ancillary works by statutory undertakers may also be needed to move existing pipes and ducts.

4 The annual cost of maintenance of the crossing, including increases in the maintenance costs of any ancillary facilities necessary, should be estimated and included in the ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK for consideration. The whole life cost of the crossing may also be calculated and included in the analysis.

4.2 Crossing Options 4.2.1 Do Nothing The existing situation is already known and delays to vehicles and pedestrians, injury accidents and perceived difficulties can be noted. The impact of the following options should, therefore, be considered and quantified so that a valued judgement can be made. 4.2.2 Traffic Management/Traffic Calming It may be possible to create more crossing opportunities by: • the provision of a refuge or • installing traffic calming measures or • narrowing the carriageway (to reduce the crossing time). The last method can have the advantage of allowing the footway to be widened thus enhancing visibility past permanent obstructions, such as trees, post boxes, etc. Vehicle speeds and the percentage of heavy vehicles may influence the local acceptability of either option. 4.2.3 Zebra Crossing

Where a crossing is thought necessary but People sometimes defer crossing flows are relatively low and traffic flows establishing a right of way are no more than moderate, then a Zebra at Zebra crossings by waiting at the crossing side crossing may be suitable. Pedestrians establish until a suitable gap occurs precedence by stepping onto the crossing and so in the vehicle flow because delays to them are minimal. Vehicle delays are of concerns over personal safety or of causing traffic typically five seconds for a single able person delay. crossing but can be much more where irregular streams of people cross over extended periods. The likely effect of installing a Zebra crossing can be tested by checking the availability of sufficient gaps in the traffic flow. Where gaps are few, and waiting times long because people feel it may be hazardous to establish precedence, a Zebra crossing is likely to be unsuitable. The number of people at the site will also give an indication of the likely performance of a Zebra crossing. Higher flows of pedestrians will cause substantial delay to vehicles and a Zebra crossing is less likely to be a satisfactory choice. Where traffic speeds are higher than 30 m.p.h., people will require longer gaps in the traffic flow or be exposed to the risk of more serious injury if precedence is not conceded for any reason. Zebra crossings should not be installed on roads with an 85 percentile speed of 35 m.p.h. or above. In some situations it may be appropriate to install Care should be taken at unusual sites, such as contra-flow bus lanes and one-way streets, as road humps, providing uncertainty can be caused. A signal-controlled crossing may be more suitable. these conform to the requirements of the 4.2.4 Signal-Controlled Crossing Highways (Road Humps) Regulations(7), to slow This option can be in the form of a Pelican, Puffin or Toucan crossing. The Puffin crossing speeds to below 30 m.p.h. is planned to replace the Pelican type, as the standard stand alone pedestrian crossing, once The Regulations in these the initial trials are complete. The Toucan crossing provides pedestrians and cyclists with a circumstances allow crossings to be humped. See shared crossing. Site specific authorisation is required in Northern Ireland for Puffin and LTN The Design of Toucan crossings and for special crossings for equestrians. Pedestrian Crossings(7).

5 Signal-controlled crossings are used where: • vehicle speeds are high, and other options are thought unsuitable; • there is normally a greater than average proportion of elderly or disabled pedestrians; • vehicle flows are very high and pedestrians have difficulty in asserting precedence; • there is a specific need for a crossing for cyclists or equestrians; • pedestrians could be confused by traffic management measures such as a contra-flow bus lane; • there is a need to link with adjacent controlled junctions or crossings; • pedestrian flows are high and delays to vehicular Puffin crossing traffic would otherwise be excessive.

Caution should be exercised where pedestrian flows are generally light or light for long periods of the day. Drivers who become accustomed to not being stopped at the crossing may begin to ignore its existence, with dangerous consequences. The problems are accentuated as vehicle speeds increase.

5 ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK 5.1 The assessment framework should present clearly the effects of each proposed option under consideration. The final decision as to whether to install a crossing and the choice of option will depend on a combination of factors. Examples are: the number of accidents, delays, local representations, Toucan crossing local interest groups, cost and relative priority with other sites. 5.2 The use of a formal cost benefit methodology is not thought necessarily appropriate to the assessment of individual crossings. The costs of delays to road users are generally not reduced by the introduction of a pedestrian crossing. Neither can the road safety benefits be quantified with any degree of certainty and it should not be assumed that provision of a crossing will necessarily lead to a reduction in road accidents.

5.3 Appendix C illustrates the general form of the ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK recommended. Relevant local features and factors given in the framework will help in making an objective decision.

6 REFERENCES Note: * References are for Northern Ireland

Introduction 1. DfT Advice Note TA 15, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Vol. 8 Section 1 - Pedestrian Facilities at Traffic Signal Installations. 2. Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 * The Road Traffic Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 3. The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997. * ‘Zebra’ Pedestrian Crossings Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1974 * The (Pelican) Pedestrian Crossings Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1989

6 4. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. * The Traffic Signs Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1997

Site Assessment 5. The Design of Pedestrian Crossings. Local Transport Note 2/95. 6. DfT Advice Note TA 57, DMRB Vol. 6 Section 6.3 - Road Side Features. 7. The Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1999. The Scottish Executive equivalent is the Road Humps (Scotland) Regulations 1998. * The Road Humps Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999

7 APPENDIX A - METHODS FOR DETERMINING THE DIFFICULTY OF CROSSING The difficulty of crossing at a site can be assessed by considering the number of gaps in the traffic flow which are acceptable to pedestrians. Where vehicles enjoy free-flow conditions the gaps between successive arrivals are randomly distributed and the waiting time for an acceptable gap may be found to be relatively short. However, in such conditions speeds are likely to be higher than normal and, in consequence, the length of the gap required will be longer. Nearby traffic signal controlled junctions, or other pedestrian crossings, will often produce a vehicle traffic flow in which platoons of vehicles are identifiable at regular intervals. At sites where periods of very heavily platooned flow occurs, crossing may be impossible whilst the platoon is passing. These periods will usually be followed by others where there is less difficulty in crossing; the waiting time may be longer but the first available gap is likely to be greater.

Acceptable Gap An acceptable gap in which to cross, from kerb to kerb (or refuge), varies from person to person. The majority of pedestrians will accept a gap of 4-6 seconds at normal urban vehicle speeds to cross two lanes of traffic and even shorter gaps at slow vehicle approach speeds. Other groups may require somewhat larger gaps, of around 10 to 12 seconds or even longer. For these reasons the waiting times for various gap durations should be established for all types of users. Two methods, ‘Data Logger’ and ‘Manual’, are described to gather the data from which an estimate of degree of difficulty of crossing can be determined. The method selected should be compatible with the complexity of the situation.

Data Logger Method Comprehensive measurements of headway, flow and speed can be recorded automatically by a data-logger connected to vehicle detectors. The logger should record the arrival time and speed of each vehicle in each direction for a period during a typical weekday. The recorded data file can then be analysed to provide the following information: • a table of the mean time for a gap to occur between vehicles greater than a specified range of values; • a count profile of the vehicle flow throughout the day; • a distribution of vehicle speeds throughout the day.

Important factors may then be extracted from the table for recording in the SITE ASSESSMENT RECORD and use in the ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK.

Manual Method The manual method for estimating the difficulty of crossing at a site relies on judgement by an experienced traffic engineer. The factor should be assessed on a descriptive scale from, say, ‘Impossible to cross safely at all times’ to ‘No difficulty in crossing within a second or two’ for the period of greatest concern.

8 APPENDIX B - EXAMPLE SITE ASSESSMENT RECORD

This check list and record sheet is recommended for use when assessing the need for an at-grade pedestrian crossing or changing an existing pedestrian crossing for another type.

SITE CHARACTERISTICS

1.1 Site Location Description

Ordnance Survey Grid Reference

1.2 Carriageway Type Single Double One Way Two Way Number of lanes

1.3 Carriageway Width metres

1.4 Footway Width Side 1 metres Side 2 metres

1.5 Refuge Island Yes No

1.6 Road Lighting Standard BS5489 classification Category Is lighting to above standard? Yes No Any re-arrangement necessary? Yes No Better lighting standard needed? Yes No Supplementary lighting needed? Yes No

1.7 Minimum Visibility Pedestrian to Vehicle Direction 1 metres Direction 2 metres Vehicle to crossing Direction 1 metres Direction 2 metres

1.8 Waiting/Loading/Stopping Restrictions At prospective site Yes No Within 50 metres of the site Yes No

1.9 Public Transport Stopping Points At prospective site Yes No Within 50 metres of the site Yes No Relationship to crossing [in direction of travel] Direction 1 approach/exit Direction 2 approach/exit

1.10 Nearby Junctions Distance to nearest significant Direction 1 metres traffic junction Direction 2 metres

1.11 Other Pedestrian Crossings Distance to next crossing Direction 1 metres Direction 2 metres Type of crossing Zebra / Pelican / Puffin / Toucan / Other

1.12 School Crossing Patrol Distance if less than 100 metres metres

1.13 Skid Risk Does surface meet skid resistance requirements Yes No

9 I.14 Surroundings (entrances within 100 metres) Hospital/Sheltered housing/Workshop for disabled people Yes No School Yes No Post Office Yes No Railway/Bus Station Yes No Pedestrian leisure/shopping area Yes No Sports stadia/entertainment venue Yes No Junction with cycle route Yes No Equestrian centre or junction with Bridle Path Yes No Others (for example a Fire Station)

CROSSING TRAFFIC INFORMATION

2.1 Flow and Composition Pedestrian count number per - - hours Prams/pushchairs % Percent elderly % Unaccompanied young children % Severe mobility difficulties number per day Visually impaired number per day Crossing cyclists number per day Equestrians number per day Others number per day

2.2 Time to cross the road (measured sample) Able pedestrians seconds Elderly or disabled people seconds

2.3 Difficulty of Crossing Able pedestrians Elderly or disabled people (units as for selected method)

2.4 Latent Crossing Demand Estimate Unlikely / number per - - hours

VEHICLE TRAFFIC INFORMATION

3.1 Flow and Composition Vehicle count number per - - hours Cyclists number per day Heavy goods vehicles % Public service vehicles number per day

3.2 Vehicle Speed 85 percentile m.p.h. Speed Limit m.p.h.

ROAD ACCIDENTS

4.1 Mean Personal Injury Accident Frequency Number per year at site P. l. accidents/year (over 5 years if available) Number per year at an average local site P. I. accidents/year (over 5 years if available)

10 APPENDIX C - EXAMPLE ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK

SITE ASSESSMENT

Characteristic Data and comments at 31 March 1995

Location The site at 555333 is a single two way, 2 lane (each approach) carriageway, total width 11.3 metres with 2.5, 2.3 metre footways.

Highway facilities Road lighting is recent to a traffic route standard and no re-arrangement is needed. The road surface gives adequate skid resistance.

Visibility Desirable visibility standards can be met. There is no need to further restrict parking, on visibility grounds, and the road is not a bus route.

Complexity There are no road junctions, other pedestrian crossings, public buildings or facilities, other than the local primary school, within 250 metres.

Crossing traffic About 1250 people cross the road daily with an average breakdown into groups. Crossing time and difficulty of crossing are typical for roads of this character in this area.

Vehicles 5600 vehicles a day with 2% of heavy goods. Highest two way peak hour flow 985. Highest 85 percentile in peak periods is 33 m.p.h. There is a 30 m.p.h. speed limit.

Road accidents There were 3 P.I. accidents in 1994, none in the previous 4 years. None have been recorded this year.

OPTION ASSESSMENT

Factor Do Nothing Refuge Island Zebra Signalled Crossing

Difficulty of 20 (able) / 120 15 (able) /40 1 to 3 for all 1 to 3 after end of Crossing, (elderly) in peak (elderly) in peak groups vehicle minimum average wait in periods periods green period seconds

Vehicle Delay in None None 3 stops/minute of 2 stops/minute of 12 peak periods 10 seconds seconds

Road Capacity Not reduced Not reduced 50% reduction 40% reduction

Representations Police suggest Police do not Local elected Public petition and consideration of favour because of representatives individual letters speed reduction uncontrolled think best favour to meet measures may be bunching of balance between safety needs of correct course of schoolchildren on needs and costs children, elderly action island and disabled people. Stimulated by accident to girl on crutches after other incidents in 1994

Installation cost None at this 1000 3000 20000

Operating cost 100 300 2000

Printed in the United Kingdom for TSO 129606 02/03 11 WYG Group part of the WYG group

Appendix G: LTN2/95 The Design of Pedestrian Crossings

L TN 2/95 THE

DESIGN THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS OF PEDESTRIAN CR OSSINGS

LOCAL TRANSPORT NOTE 2/95

APRIL 1995

£15 www.tso.co.uk Department of Transport The Welsh Office The Scottish Office The Department of the Environment for Northern lreland

Local Transport Note 2/95 The Design of Pedestrian Crossings

London: TSO Published by The Stationery Office and available from:

Online www.tso.co.uk/bookshop

MaiI,Telephone, Fax & E-mail TSO P0 Box 29. Norwich NR3 IGN Telephone orders/General enquiries: 0870 600 5522 Fax orders: 0870 600 5533 E-mail: [email protected] Textphone 0870 240 3701

TSO Shops 123 Kingsway. London WC2B 6PQ 020 7242 6393 Fax 020 7242 6394 68-69 Bull Street, Birmingham 84 6AD 0121 236 9696 Fax 0l2l 236 9699 9-21 Princess Street, Manchester M60 8A5 01618347201 Fax 0161 833 0634 16 Arthur Street Belfast BT I 4GD 028 9023 8451 Fax 028 9023 5401 18-19 High Street,CardiffCFl 2BZ 029 2039 5548 Fax 029 2038 4347 71 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9AZ 0870 606 5566 Fax 0870 606 5588

TSO Accredited Agents (see Yellow Pages) and through good booksellers

Published for the Department for Transport under licence from the Queen’s printer and Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

© Crown Copyright 1995

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 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 material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified.

For any other use of this material, please write to The HMSO Licensing Division, HMSO St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 IBQ Fax: 01603 723000 or e-mail: [email protected]

First published 1995

Third impression 2005

ISBN 0 11 551626 3

The responsibilities of the Department of Transport, the Welsh Office, the Scottish Office and the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland covered by this document have been transferred to Department for Transport, the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Department for Regional Development.

Printed in Great Britain on material containing 75% post-consumer waste and 25% ECF pulp. Department of Transport/The Welsh Office/The Scottish Office/ The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland Local Transport Note 2/95

TITLE - THE DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS

Department of Transport, The Welsh Office, The Scottish Office, The Department for the Environment for Northern Ireland

ISSUING DIVISION Driver Information & Traffic Management Division

CONTACT POINT Department of Transport: Mr D J Williams, Driver Information & Traffic Management Division, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 3EB Telephone 020 7276 4983

ENQUIRIES

All enquiries on the general applicability of this Local Transport Note should be directed, in England to the appropriate Regional Government Office of the Department of Transport, in Wales to the Welsh Office, Highways Directorate, Phase I, Government Buildings, Ty Glas Road, Cardiff, in Scotland to the Scottish Office, Industry Department, Roads Directorate, New St Andrews House, Edinburgh, or in Northern Ireland to The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, Roads Service Headquarters, Clarence Court, 10-18 Adelaide Street, Belfast, BT2 8GB. Enquiries about authorisation for non-prescribed crossings should be made to the above offices.

ABSTRACT

This note recommends the practices to be followed when planning, designing and installing at-grade pedestrian crossings. It describes all types of crossings, including shared facilities with cyclists, other than those at signalled junctions.

PUBLICATIONS SUPERSEDED

Departmental Advice Note TA 52 and Standard TD 28 (DMRB Vol.8, Section 5).

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ...... 1 2.1 Proximity of Junctions ...... 1 2.2 School Crossing Patrols...... 2 2.3 Visibility...... 2 2.4 Crossing Width ...... 3 2.5 Guard Railing ...... 3 2.6 Crossing Approach Surfaces for Footways and Carriageways...... 3 2.7 Facilities for Disabled Pedestrians ...... 4 2.8 Lighting...... 4 2.9 Signing ...... 5 2.10 Provision for Bus Stops ...... 5 2.11 Street Furniture...... 5

3 PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLANDS...... 5

4 ZEBRA CROSSINGS...... 6

5 SIGNAL-CONTROLLED CROSSINGS ...... 6 5.1 Installation...... 6 5.2 Typical Layouts...... 7 5.3 Vehicle Actuation ...... 8 5.4 Linking with other Signalling Systems...... 8

6 PELICAN CROSSINGS ...... 9 6.1 Timings ...... 9

7 PUFFIN CROSSING ...... 10 7.1 General Arrangement...... 10 7.2 Timings ...... 10

8 TOUCAN CROSSINGS...... 11 8.1 General arrangement ...... 11 8.2 Timings...... 11

9 CONSULTATION...... 13

10 PUBLICITY...... 13

11 REFERENCES ...... 13

12 TABLES...... 15 Table 1 ALL TYPES OF CROSSING - VISIBILITY REQUIREMENTS ...... 15 Table 2 PELICAN, PUFFIN & TOUCAN CROSSINGS - VEHICLE DETECTION REQUIREMENTS .....15 Table 3 PELICAN CROSSINGS - OPERATIONAL CYCLE, USE & VARIATIONS...... 17 Table 4 PELICAN CROSSINGS - OPERATIONAL CYCLE & TIMINGS...... 17 Table 5 PUFFIN CROSSINGS - OPERATIONAL CYCLE, USE & VARIATIONS...... 19 Table 6 PUFFIN CROSSINGS - OPERATIONAL CYCLE & TIMINGS...... 19 Table 7 TOUCAN CROSSINGS - OPERATIONAL CYCLE, USE & VARIATIONS ...... 21 Table 8 TOUCAN CROSSINGS - OPERATIONAL CYCLE & TIMINGS ...... 21

1 INTRODUCTION Reference to ‘pedestrians’ in this document should be read to include pedal 1.1 This note recommends the practices to be followed when planning, designing and installing cyclists and equestrians. at-grade pedestrian crossings. It describes all types of crossings, including shared facilities However, it should be with cyclists, other than those at signalled junctions. remembered that only pedestrians may use 1.2 This note replaces the recommendations for the design of pedestrian crossings contained Pedestrian Crossings. in Departmental Standard TD 28 and Departmental Advice Note TA 52.

1.3 Advice is given on the design of pedestrian crossings in general and the operation of signal-controlled (Pelican, Puffin or Toucan) crossings in particular.

1.4 This publication complements the Statutory Instruments which set out the Regulations controlling the use of Zebra, Pelican, Puffin and Toucan Crossings and the Regulations for traffic signs.

1.5 Statutory Instruments

For Northern Ireland see section 11 REFERENCES. • The ‘Zebra’ Pedestrian Crossing Regulations 1971(1). • The ‘Pelican’ Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1987(2) • The ‘Puffin’ Pedestrian Crossings Regulations(3). (in preparation - authorisation is required in the interim) - not available in Northern Ireland. • The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions l994(4) for ‘Toucan’ Crossings - (authorisation required at present) - not available in Northern Ireland.

1.6 All signal-controlled crossings must use Approved equipment. The technical requirements are contained in technical specification TR 0l41(5) the latest issue of which will incorporate Pelican crossing requirements currently specified in MCE 0125, and Puffin and Toucan.

1.7 The Assessment of Pedestrian Crossings(6) sets out a method for deciding the need for providing a stand-alone crossing at an at-grade site and the options available. 2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

This section contains advice on the design of pedestrian crossings generally. Advice which is specific to one type of crossing is presented in the appropriate section.

2.1 Proximity of Junctions When planning improved 2.1.1 Approach to a Side Road pedestrian facilities it is important to understand 2.1.1.1 Crossings should be located away from conflict points at uncontrolled junctions. where pedestrians may wish to cross. Consideration This will give drivers an adequate opportunity to appreciate the existence of a crossing and should be given to to brake safely. The ‘safe’ distance will depend on the geometry of the junction and type of established and possible side road. However, a minimum distance of 20 metres is suggested for a signalled-controlled new pedestrian routes. crossing and an absolute minimum of 5 metres for a Zebra crossing. It is suggested that the These are often referred to distance be measured from the position of a driver waiting at the give-way line of the side as ‘desire lines’. road. Where it is impossible to obtain a ‘safe’ distance, consider banning turning movements towards the crossing or make the side road one way away from the junction.

2.1.2 Minor Road Approach

2.1.2.1 Crossings on a minor road should not be sited very close to a ‘GIVE WAY’or ‘STOP’ line. Generally the nearer the crossing is to the major road the greater will be the distance to be crossed. Drivers of vehicles turning into the minor road need time to judge the situation and space in which to stop.

If there is a strategic 2.1.2.2 There should be sufficient distance between the crossing and the priority marking for network for pedestrian at least one waiting vehicle; the optimum will depend on the volume of turning vehicles. routes this should be Care should be taken to ensure that drivers do not mistake a vehicular green signal on the referred to before final signal-controlled crossing as a priority signal over traffic on the major road. decisions are made

1 2.1.3 Approach to a Roundabout

2.1.3.1 When crossings are needed on the approaches to a roundabout, special care is needed in the siting. The use of different types of facility at the game junction is not recommended as this could lead to confusion. Where a crossing must be provided within the junction layout, a Zebra crossing is preferred; it avoids any ambiguity as to priority that a signal-controlled crossing can create for the driver approaching the roundabout Give Way line. If a signal- controlled crossing is provided, it should preferably be of the staggered type to avoid excessive delays at the exit points blocking circulation. The pedestrian desire line, vehicle speeds, visibility, pedestrian/vehicle flows, size of roundabout, and length of crossing/road width should be considered when deciding the optimum location. Crossings away from flared entries are preferable as the carriageway widths are less and the vehicular traffic movements are simpler. It may be necessary in urban areas, where large numbers of pedestrians are present, to provide guard rails or other means of deterring pedestrians to prevent indiscriminate crossing of the carriageway.

2.1.4 Junction with a Yellow Box Marking

2.1.4.1 Where a pedestrian crossing is provided near to a junction with a yellow box marking, the location of the crossing must be chosen to ensure that the zig-zag markings do not overlap the yellow box markings. Note the Regulations allow for the overall length of the zig-zag markings to be varied.

2.1.5 Traffic Signal Controlled Junction

2.1.5.1 The decision to use a signal controlled crossing is often made because of the close proximity to a traffic signalled junction. Neither Zebra crossings nor refuges are suitable as there is a conflict of control methods. Even with a signal-controlled crossing care should be taken to ensure that queues do not build back from one installation to block the other. See the section 5.4 ‘Linking with other Signalling Systems’.

2.2 School Crossing Patrols

2.2.1 If there is an existing school crossing within 100 metres then a mutually convenient site should be found to accommodate both the patrol and other pedestrians. It may he necessary to install a greater number of guard rail sections to achieve a suitably safe site.

2.2.2 Where a School Crossing Patrol is located at a signal-controlled crossing the operator should be given appropriate instructions for the specific equipment in use.

2.3 Visibility

2.3.1 Minimum distances for drivers’ visibility of crossings are set out in Table 1.

2.3.2 Pedestrians must be able to see and be seen by approaching traffic. Visibility should not be obscured or restricted by, for example, parked vehicles, trees or street furniture. If it is not possible to site the crossing elsewhere consideration must be given to either removing/resiting the obstacle or, if the Additional signal heads carriageway is sufficiently wide, to building may be employed at a out the kerb-line to provide enhanced sight signal-controlled crossing lines. Particular care should be taken when where this will improve driver awareness drawing up the layout for a new crossing. For example, the controller should not be in a position that obstructs the intervisibility between pedestrians and approaching vehicles. The designer is responsible for anticipating not only the problems for maintenance but also the particular visibility problems for wheelchair users and children. If visibility is restricted by parked/loading vehicles, it may be necessary to make a Traffic Regulation Order or impose the maximum waiting and loading restrictions Built out kerb to improve the sight lines. in the appropriate Crossing Regulations.

2 2.3.3 Where there is an alignment problem, vehicles queueing back from a crossing can be a hazard. The expected queue length should, therefore, be estimated so that an adequate safety distance can be achieved in the design.

2.4 Crossing Width

2.4.1 The minimum width (between the two rows of studs) for a Zebra, Pelican or Puffin pedestrian crossing is 2.4 metres. If the crossing is of the Toucan type, or is used by a substantial number of cyclists on foot, the minimum width should ideally be 4 metres. However, narrower widths, down to 3 metres, have been successfully tried at some sites. Where pedestrian flows over 600 per hour are encountered wider crossings should be used. Regulations allow for the crossing width at a Zebra crossing to be increased to 5 metres and to 10.1 metres with the authorisation of the Secretary of State. Regulations allow Pelican crossings to have a maximum width of 10 metres. There are no regulations defining the width at a refuge island. However, 2 metres is considered a reasonable minimum to allow for two wheelchairs to pass each other. The use of wide crossings also may help prevent overcrowding of narrow footways.

2.5 Guard Railing

2.5.1 Many accidents at pedestrian crossings occur on the approach to the crossing. The provision of guard railing at such positions should be considered. Guard railing may also provide useful guidance for blind and The introduction of guardrail may require footways to partially sighted pedestrians. be improved to maintain adequate width. 2.5.2 Guard railing manufactured to British Standard (BS) 3049(7) should be used. Intervisibility is important and should be a major factor in deciding whether guard railing should be provided, the physical layout of the railing and its specific type.

2.5.3 The effectiveness of guard railing is lessened if gaps have to be left for access for vehicles and the loading/unloading of goods. Where possible, crossings should be sited to avoid the necessity for such gaps. An example of bad site layout. 2.5.4 Guard railing, at signal controlled crossings, should start at the signal post but not encroach past the push button position.

2.6 Crossing Approach Surfaces for Footways and Carriageways

2.6.1 Crossings should be installed so that adjacent drainage collects surface water from the crossing area. Care should be taken to ensure that, even after remedial surface treatment, excess water does not collect at the crossing point. Dropped kerbs must always be provided across the crossing width and the section of footway between the lowered kerb-line and the adjacent footway should be ramped with a slope having a desired gradient of 1 in 20 but not steeper than 1 in 12. Tactile paving should be installed across the dropped kerb and in a strip stretching back to the building line. (See 2.7 ‘Facilities for Disabled Pedestrians’.)

2.6.2 Both the carriageway and footway crossing areas should be free of surface obstructions such as cable drawpits, access covers to underground services, gratings and gullies. Street furniture, such as supply pillars should not be placed within the tactile paving area. As far as possible such items should be sited in an area not used by pedestrians.

2.6.3 It is recommended that high skid resistance surfaces be provided on the carriageway approaches to pedestrian crossings. Guidance on the choice of Polished Stone Value and Aggregate Abrasion Value for the aggregates exposed on the surface of flexible roads is given in publication HD28(8). The specification for the application of the flexible surfacing material is the 900 Series of the Specification for Highway Works(9).

2.6.4 Consider both the approach speed and accident record when determining the length over which high skid resistance surfacing should be applied.

3 2.7 Facilities for Disabled Pedestrians

2.7.1 The needs of disabled pedestrians should be considered when designing the layout of crossings. If these are well provided then a better crossing will probably result for all users.

2.7.2 Dropped kerbs provide easy access for wheelchair users and people with walking difficulties. Care should be exercised, therefore, when laying the kerbs which form the crossing boundary. To ensure the safety of blind and partially sighted people at these sites it is important to provide tactile paving to the recommended layouts in Disability Unit Circular DUl/91 [SOID 2/1994](10). If the main area of footway is the same colour 2.7.3 The ramped section, leading to the crossing and the immediate approaches, should be as the recommended tactile surface, a band of lighter/ indicated by contrasting coloured tactile surfaces. Recommendations for the design and use (10) darker coloured bricks/ of tactile pavement are also detailed in Circular No. DU 1/91 [SOlD 2/1994] . blocks can be used, as an edging, to provide contrast. 2.7.4 At signal-controlled crossings audible signals or bleepers in the form of a pulsed tone and/or tactile signals are normally used during the green figure or “invitation to cross” period. The signals are intended for the benefit of blind or partially sighted pedestrians although they can also be helpful to others.

2.7.5 In residential areas objections to audible signals may be encountered. It is important that the audible unit is adjusted to suit the local conditions. There can be particular annoyance at night. A time switch may be incorporated to enable the sound to be reduced in level, or, if appropriate, switched off.

2.7.6 At adjacent sites, such as at a staggered crossing, there is a risk that the signal at one crossing may be heard and mistaken for another and so the standard audible signal must not be used. An alternative which is suitable for use at staggered crossings is the facility known as ‘bleep and sweep’. The tone produced by the unit has been specially designed to be distinctive and the audible range has been restricted. By monitoring the ambient level of traffic noise the unit adjusts the level of the audible tone to that which is loud enough to be heard only near the crossing in use.

2.7.7 If audible signals cannot be used then tactile signals should always be provided. These are small cones mounted beneath the push button box which rotate when the steady green figure is shown. Reference should be made to local mobility officers/representative groups. If there are local people with vision and hearing difficulties, tactile signals are strongly recommended. Also if audible signals are to be switched off at night, then tactile signals should be considered.

2.7.8 All the above devices, whether audible or tactile, must conform to TR 0141(5) including the requirements for lamp monitoring. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 4/91(11) gives further information.

2.7.9 An embossed ‘Z’ on the beacon post is being trialled to help blind pedestrians recognize Zebra crossings. This may be introduced as an option in the future.

2.8 Lighting

2.8.1 It should be remembered that pedestrian crossings are often used at night as well as during the day. It is necessary to ensure that the crossing can readily be seen against the background of other lights and signs.

2.8.2 Good road lighting will reduce the majority of the problems related to extraneous light sources. An experienced lighting engineer should ensure that the level recommended in the appropriate part of BS 5489(12) is used at all pedestrian crossing sites. BS 5489 also gives details of lighting column positions and spacings, in relation to crossings. Reference should also be made to the current version of Technical Report No. 12, ‘Lighting of Pedestrian Crossings’(13).

2.8.3 At night drivers may not be able to see pedestrians waiting to cross unless the road lighting is to the standard recommended above. If there is still doubt about the visibility of pedestrians then supplementary lighting can be provided to illuminate the crossing.

2.8.4 If supplementary lighting is employed it must be designed to prevent glare to drivers which could hide or “veil” pedestrians standing behind it, thus defeating the objective of its installation. The pedestrian approach (at least the area covered by the tactile paving surface) and the carriageway crossing area must be illuminated to a uniform level. 4 2.8.5 Supplementary lighting units appear to be especially susceptible to vandalism and should be checked regularly to see that they are aligned and operating correctly. It is essential that all units are operating correctly to ensure that uniform lighting of the crossing is achieved.

2.9 Signing

2.9.1 Where a signal-controlled crossing is sited on a road where the speed limit or 85 percentile speed on any approach is 50 m.p.h. or greater, advance warning signs to diagram 543, Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions l994(4) should always be used.

2.9.2 Where a Zebra crossing is sited on a road where the speed limit or 85 percentile speed on any approach is greater than 30 m.p.h., advance warning signs to diagram 544, Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994(4), are recommended.

2.9.3 On roads where the 85 percentile speed is lower, advance warning signs should only be erected where visibility of the crossing is impaired. The siting details for warning signs Diagram 543 are given in the Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 4, Table A(14).

Note: This advice on the placement of signs modifies that given in the Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 4.

2.9.4 Where a School Crossing Patrol is operating at a Zebra or signal-controlled crossing, the relevant Regulations and Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 4 should be referred to.

2.9.5 Examples of zig-zag markings are given (or will be given in the case of Puffin Crossings) in the relevant Regulations. It is not possible to cover all layouts that will be experienced and the designer will need to make individual decisions within the Regulations and the spirit of the examples given. It should be remembered that restrictions imposed by Diagram 544 zig-zag markings apply to laybys as well as the main carriageway. Any part of an affected layby, used by general traffic, should be hatched or physically infilled to prevent ambiguity.

2.10 Provision for Bus Stops

2.10.1 A pedestrian crossing may be sited near a bus stop. Close coordination should be maintained between the highway authority, the police and the bus operator during the planning process to ensure that stopped buses do not obscure the vision of pedestrians or drivers. Generally a bus stop is better sited on the exit side.

2.11 Street Furniture

2.11.1 Adequate clearance is required between the kerb edge and the closest part of any street furniture. A minimum of 0.5 metre is recommended but this should be increased in cases where the road camber or speed of vehicles necessitates. Particular care is needed at refuge islands on bends or where vehicles may be turning. 3 PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLANDS

3.1 Refuge islands are a relatively inexpensive method of improving crossing facilities for pedestrians.

3.2 Where they are to be provided it is essential they are large enough. An absolute minimum of 1.2 metres width is needed but the standing area for pedestrians must be sufficient for the location. Near a school, for example, large numbers of children and parents with prams and pushchairs may need to be accommodated. Good lighting will ensure clear visibility for 3.3 The carriageway width at the crossing should be approaching drivers. To sufficient to prevent vehicles passing too close to the enhance this, or if there is a refuge or the footway as this can be intimidating for problem with vertical A clear conflict: a refuge intended for alignment, a central marker pedestrians. Consider also the needs of cyclists who beacon is sometimes used. could be overtaken alongside a refuge. A single pedestrians but unsuitable kerbing opposite. Care should be taken that the carriageway approach width of 4 to 4.5 metres adjacent beacon column does not to a refuge is recommended although refuges have been obstruct pedestrians.

5 used successfully with narrower widths. If the refuge island is not on a straight stretch of carriageway, the width either side of the refuge may need to be greater.

3.4 The width of the crossing should be maintained across the full carriageway. This should include the refuge island which will have either openings or dropped kerbs. Under no circumstances should a pedestrian be encouraged to cross with dropped kerbs on one footway only to find a lesser provision on the refuge or the other footway. See also Disability Unit Circular DU 1/91 [SOID 2/1994](10).

3.5 Pedestrians can be tempted to cross near or in the ‘shadow’ of the refuge. This can be potentially dangerous. In these cases, if the refuge cannot be located where there is a clear desire line, measures such as guard railing should be considered.

3.6 Vehicles parking adjacent to the refuge may reduce intervisibility or block the free flow of vehicular traffic. If considered a problem then waiting and loading restrictions may need to be imposed. For the same reason care should be taken if the refuge is to be near a bus stop.

3.7 If a refuge is to be on the approach to a junction the existence and extent of the average vehicle queue should be recorded. Queueing vehicles can block access to a refuge resulting in the pedestrian having the choice of either crossing through the queue or away from the refuge. The positioning of the refuge is, therefore, important. For disabled pedestrians the dangers are accentuated. 4 ZEBRA CROSSINGS

4.1 Road markings and details of studs and materials are given in the Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 5(l5). Dimensions for road markings and studs are given in the ‘Zebra’ Pedestrian Crossing Regulations 197l(1).

4.2 Flashing rates, the photometric performance of globes and construction and electrical requirements are set out in BS 873(16).

4.3 The Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1990 do permit the use of a road hump in connection with a Zebra crossing, though not in the Zebra zig-zag area, provided that the location of the road hump would conform to the other requirements of the regulations. Where these requirements can be met there is some advantage in providing a road hump, as vehicle speed will be slower on the approach, and pedestrians can cross the carriageway at the same level as the footway.

4.4 Refuge islands can be used with Zebra crossings Street furniture and a well established tree (but see the section on signal-controlled crossings). obstructing the approach to a Zebra crossing.

4.5 As with refuges and signal-controlled crossings, it is important to keep the approaches to the Zebra crossing clear. Trees and street furniture are a hazard for pedestrians, especially those with disabilities. 5 SIGNAL-CONTROLLED CROSSINGS

This chapter gives general advice regarding the design of signal controlled pedestrian and Toucan crossings. This Note does not expressly cover the design of pedestrian facilities at junctions although many of the comments are applicable.

5.1 Installation

5.1.1 The minimum requirements for positioning and the restrictions on the mounting height for signals are contained in the relevant Regulations (see Introduction).

5.1.2 Departmental Advice Notes TA 13(18) and TA 14(19) provide recommendations for good Where mast arm signals are employed, structural working practice on all roads. approval of the mast arm will be required. 5.1.3 Staggered crossings are considered as two separate crossings. For electrical safety Departmental Standard during maintenance, a post on the central refuge must have equipment for only one crossing BD 2(23) refers. mounted on it.

6 5.1.4 Accessibility for maintenance of crossings is important. Although written primarily for use on trunk roads, the requirements for maintenance are detailed in Departmental Standards TD 24(20), TD 25(21) and TD 26(22).

5.1.5 Drivers must have a clear view of at least one signal head on approaching, and when stationary at, the stop line. Where the view of the vehicular signals is reduced by the vertical or horizontal alignment of the road or other situations such as masking of signals in heavy traffic conditions or by overhanging trees, the conspicuity should be enhanced. This can be done, for example, by the provision of additional secondary heads, tall posts, building out kerb-lines if the carriageway width is sufficient or installing signals over the carriageway. Such overhead signals should be considered as supplementary to and not replacements for those listed as minimum in the relevant Regulations. If the overhead signal option is to be considered the problems of maintenance should be taken into account.

5.1.6 To assist partially sighted pedestrians, posts may have one white or yellow band as detailed in the appropriate General Directions.

5.1.7 To assist blind and partially sighted pedestrians, as they approach the crossing, the primary push button/indicator panel should normally be located on the right hand side. The alignment should encourage them to face oncoming vehicles. The centre of the push button should between 1.0 and 1.1 metres above the footway level.

5.1.8 At Toucan crossings it is normal to install a push button unit either side of the crossing place at the height quoted above. Special arrangements may be needed if an equestrian push button is required.

5.1.9 The push button unit should be close enough to the tactile surface to allow all pedestrians, The push button should be readily accessible. who could reasonably be expected to use the crossing, to reach it easily. This is particularly important for crossings with kerb-side detectors.

5.2 Typical Layouts

5.2.1 Details of road markings and the minimum requirements for equipment are given in the relevant Regulations.

5.2.2 The use of a refuge at a non-staggered crossing is not recommended. They can be confusing for pedestrians and drivers and there is often insufficient space, particularly for prams and push chairs. They should, therefore, only be used if the road width cannot be increased locally to accommodate a staggered crossing. If used the refuge should be provided with push button(s) and signals as required.

5.2.3 Where the road is more than 15 metres wide a staggered layout should be provided. If the road width is greater than 11 metres a staggered layout should be considered.

5.2.4 Staggered signal-controlled crossings are not recommended for one-way roads. If unavoidable, such as within a town centre gyratory system, adequate road markings should be provided in order to deter drivers from weaving when approaching the crossings. Such crossings can also be confusing for pedestrians and consideration should be given to providing informatory signs. Such signs may need authorisation.

5.2.5 Staggered crossings on two-way roads should have a left handed stagger so that pedestrians on the central refuge are guided to face the approaching traffic stream. At some crossings a right handed stagger may be unavoidable. Where this is the case, and there are far-side pedestrian signals, confusion can be caused if the pedestrian signals can be seen simultaneously. Staggered crossings are not A waiting pedestrian may “see through” a red signal suitable for equestrians and special arrangements may to a green signal at the opposite crossing. Careful have to be made. alignment and special precautions to limit the field of view may be needed. Left handed stagger installation.

7 5.2.6 When calculating the settings for signal-controlled crossings, the crossing length used is the distance between footway kerbs except in the case of staggered crossings where each carriageway should be treated as a separate crossing.

5.2.7 Areas where pedestrians are waiting to cross should be of a sufficient size. The area should cater both for those waiting and any wishing to pass by. The central refuge of a staggered crossing should be :- long enough to indicate the segregation of the crossings. A minimum of 3 metres between crossing limits is recommended; wide enough to allow pedestrians to pass each other between the crossings. A recommended minimum width of 3 metres will give 2 metres between guard railing; of sufficient capacity to accommodate pedestrians waiting to cross.

5.3 Vehicle Actuation

5.3.1 Unless part of a linked scheme, vehicle actuation is the normal method of signal operation. The use of both the microwave and inductive loop types of detector are covered in Department of Transport specifications MCK 2123(28) and MCE 0108(29) respectively. Vehicle actuation may be desirable within a linked scheme depending mainly on whether the linking is full time. Each case should be considered on its merits.

5.3.2 On roads subject to a speed limit of 30 m.p.h. and where the 85 percentile approach speeds do not exceed 35 m.p.h., fixed time operation is still an option. Under fixed time operation a pedestrian demand will initiate the Operational Cycle and the vehicle precedence period will terminate when a preset time has expired. The preset time is normally set low, say 20 to 30 seconds, but can be extended during peak periods if the pedestrian waiting area is sufficient. Linked systems are dealt with in the following section 5.4.

5.3.3 Vehicle actuation is essential on roads with higher speed limits or 85 percentile approach speeds. The recommended options are described in Table 2. The “Approach Speed” should be taken to mean the 85 percentile speed under free flow conditions. For further information reference should be made to Departmental Advice Note TA 22(24).

5.3.4 Microwave vehicle detection should not be used with either Speed Assessment or Speed Discrimination equipment.

5.4 Linking with other Signalling Systems

5.4.1 Where it is proposed to site a crossing close to a signalled junction, consideration should be given to a linked system. The distance at which this should be considered will vary with traffic conditions but 100 metres would be a likely minimum.

5.4.2 Crossings within the overall boundary of an Urban Traffic Control (UTC) area may be:- a) omitted from the UTC scheme and remain on isolated control when coordination is not justified. This may be a permanent or part-time arrangement; or b) operated as part of an adjacent controlled junction; c) controlled directly by the computer.

5.4.3 If controlled directly, the normal method employed for a Pelican crossing is to control the change to the start of the pedestrian stage. It is either allowed or inhibited (by use of the “PV bit”). Where a kerb-side detector strategy is used, improved control may also be achieved by modelling the crossing as a junction with the pedestrian stage entered as a stage with a call/cancel facility. This method will also allow for the variable all-red.

5.4.4 The vehicle precedence time of the crossing should be matched to the timings of the adjacent installations.

5.4.5 It may be necessary, and desirable, for a complete crossing sequence to operate more than once within the area cycle time to avoid long pedestrian waiting times.

5.4.6 Under UTC it may be possible to insert artificial pedestrian demands. This practice is to be deprecated because the driver could be presented with an unexpected loss of right of way.

5.4.7 The options for crossings within a local linked scheme are the same as for UTC.

8 6 PELICAN CROSSINGS

The Pelican Crossing uses far-side pedestrian signal heads and a flashing amber/flashing green crossing period, of a fixed duration, which is demanded solely by push button.

6.1 Timings

The Operational Cycle use and variations are described in Table 3 and the timings in Table 4. The cycle is initiated by a pedestrian demand.

Period A

Under vehicle actuation:- a) The minimum time will normally be 7 seconds. Exceptionally this may be adjusted for site conditions between the limits of 6 to 15 seconds in increments of not less than 1 second. b) The maximum time will normally be preset at 40 seconds or less. This may be adjusted for site conditions up to a maximum of 60 seconds. c) The maximum time will start at the commencement of the minimum time (‘pretimed max.’) on roads subject to speed limits up to and including 30 m.p.h. and at the pedestrian demand for other roads. d) Termination will be subject to a pedestrian demand either at the end of the minimum time, when a gap is detected in traffic (gap change), or on the expiry of the preset maximum time (forced change). e) The extension times for vehicles will be determined by the type of detection system used (see Table 2).

Period B

This is the mandatory 3 second stopping amber signal to vehicles.

Period C

Where the 85 percentile speed exceeds 35 m.p.h., period C will normally be 3 seconds. For other roads it will normally be 1 second for a gap change and 1, 2 or 3 seconds for a forced change.

Period D

The timing for the Pedestrian green walking figure period, with the option of the audible/tactile signal, should normally be set as follows:-

a) 4 seconds for crossings up to 7.5 metres in length. b) 5 seconds for crossings over 7.5 metres and up to 10.5 metres. c) 6 seconds for crossings over 10.5 metres and up to 12.5 metres. d) 7 seconds for crossings over 12.5 metres.

It may be desirable to extend the period by two seconds if- • the appearance of Period E habitually causes pedestrians to hesitate or turn back; • it is expected that there will be considerable use by disabled pedestrians; • a non-staggered central refuge is provided thus enabling pedestrians to get established on the second half of the crossing before the flashing amber signal appears to the vehicle; • waiting pedestrians have difficulty establishing themselves on the crossing.

Period E

The overlap arrangement may be preferred to that in the previous period: • to maximise the efficiency of the crossing for both pedestrians and vehicles where there is a traffic capacity problem; • where pedestrians constantly experience difficulty because of encroachment by vehicles at the commencement of period F. A short period of overlap is allowed between the flashing green figure and vehicle red. This is achieved by extending the vehicle red period by 2 seconds (at the expense of the normal flashing amber time) to run concurrently with the first 2 seconds of the flashing green figure time. The loss of flashing amber time is not compensated for by extending the flashing amber/red standing figure time (Period G). 9 The steady green figure (Period D) extension and the overlap facility (Period E) should not normally be used together at the same crossing.

Period F

The timing for the flashing green figure/flashing amber period should normally be set at 6 seconds plus 1 second for each 1.2 metres of crossing over 6 metres in length.

NOTE: The controller is capable of extending the timing to a maximum of 18 seconds. It would, however, be unacceptable and impracticable to provide an undivided Pelican crossing of 20.4 metres. Equally it would adversely affect the balance of vehicle and pedestrian delay to depart from the preceding advice.

Period G

The timing for the red standing figure/flashing amber period should normally be set at 1 second for crossings up to 10.5 metres in length and 2 seconds for crossings exceeding this. 7 PUFFIN CROSSING

7.1 General Arrangement

7.1.1 Puffin crossings use near-side pedestrian signal heads and an extendable all-red crossing period which is instigated by a push button request accompanied by a pedestrian detector demand. It is intended that the Puffin operational cycle will become the standard form of pedestrian crossing at stand-alone crossings and junctions.

7.1.2 Puffin crossings have two forms of detection for pedestrians. These are: a) kerb-side detectors. These cancel pedestrian demands which are no longer required. b) on-crossing detectors. These extend the all-red time, Period 5.

7.2 Timings

The Operational Cycle use and variations are described in Table 5 and timings in Table 6.

The cycle is initiated by a pedestrian demand formed by both the push button being pressed and occupancy of the kerb-side detector zone. The delay time, after which the call is cancelled if the kerb-side detector does not detect a pedestrian, should be set to a value between 2 and 4 seconds depending on site conditions.

Period 1

Under vehicle actuation:- • The minimum time will normally be 7 seconds. Exceptionally this may be adjusted for site conditions between the limits of 6 to 15 seconds. • The maximum time will normally be set between 10 and 30 seconds. Only in exceptional circumstances should a value greater than 30 seconds be used. The highest value available is 60 seconds. • The maximum period will normally start at the pedestrian demand but may start at the commencement of the vehicle green (‘pretimed max.’) on roads subject to speed limits up to and including 30 m.p.h. • it will terminate, subject to a pedestrian demand, either at the end of the minimum time; when a gap is detected in traffic (gap change); or on the expiry of the preset maximum time (forced change). • The extension times for vehicles will be determined by the type of detection system used (see Table 2).

10 Period 2

This is the mandatory 3 second stopping amber signal to vehicles.

Period 3

Where the 85 percentile speed exceeds 35 m.p.h., this period will be 3 seconds. For other roads it will normally be 1 second for a gap change and 1, 2 or 3 seconds for a forced change.

Period 4

The timing for the Pedestrian green walking figure period, with the option of the audible and/or tactile signal, should normally be set to 4 or 5 seconds at crossings with light to moderate pedestrian flows. Where one or more of the following conditions occur the length of this period should be increased to 6–9 seconds as appropriate: • the crossing is in an area where heavy pedestrian flows are generated; • the distance between kerbs is greater than 11 metres; • a central refuge is provided; • space in the pedestrian waiting area is limited. • areas where there is a higher proportion of disabled or elderly people.

Period 5

The all-red period of 1-5 seconds.

Period 6

The all-red is extended by the on-crossing detectors up to 25 seconds.

The extension period for the pedestrian on-crossing detector should normally be set within the range 1.6 to 2.2 seconds.

Period 7

If the normal maximum of the clearance period is reached when pedestrians are still being detected on the crossing, this operates to permit the pedestrians to clear before the Period 9 commences. The duration of this period is normally 3 seconds but can be adjusted between 0-3 seconds.

The maximum duration of the pedestrian extendable clearance period (Periods 6 and 7 together), in seconds, should normally be set to 5 + 1.67 (the length of crossing - 3 metres).

Period 8

If the normal maximum of the clearance period is not reached Period 7 will be followed by this period. Normally set to 0 seconds but can be adjusted in steps of 1 second to a maximum of 3 seconds.

Period 9

The red/amber period is fixed at 2 seconds. 8 TOUCAN CROSSINGS

8.1 General arrangement

The Toucan Crossing has the same form of vehicular detection as the Pelican and Puffin crossings and normally the same form of pedestrian on-crossing detector as the Puffin crossing. It is intended to develop kerb-side detectors. The method of operation given in this document is interim and it is intended that the method now used for the Puffin crossings will become standard once development of the Toucan is far enough advanced. A Toucan crossing is an unsegregated signal- 8.2 Timings controlled crossing for pedestrians and cyclists, The Operational Cycle use and variations are described in Table 7 and the timings in Table 8. linking cycle track and footway systems on The Operational Cycle is initiated by a demand by a pedestrian or cyclist. opposite sides of a carriageway. 11 Period I

Under vehicle actuation: a) The minimum time will start at the commencement of the vehicular green and should normally be 6 seconds but is adjustable up to 15 seconds to suit unusual site conditions. b) The maximum time will start at the commencement of the minimum time on roads where the 85 percentile speed is 35 miles per hour or less and at the pedestrian/cyclist demand for other roads. c) The maximum time should normally be set to 40 seconds or less. This may be adjusted for site conditions up to 60 seconds. d) It will terminate subject to a pedestrian/cyclist demand either at the end of the minimum time, when a gap is detected in traffic (gap change) or on the expiry of the maximum time (forced change). e) The extension times for vehicles will be determined by the type of detector system used (see Table 2).

Period II

This is the mandatory 3 second stopping amber signal to vehicles.

Period III

Where the 85 percentile speed exceeds 35 m.p.h., this will normally be 3 seconds. For other roads it will normally be 1 second for a gap change and 1, 2 or 3 seconds for a forced change.

Period IV

The timing for the green figure/cycle, with the option of the audible and/or tactile signal, should normally be set as follows: a) 4 seconds for crossings up to 7.5 metres in length. b) 5 seconds for crossings over 7.5 metres and up to 10.5 metres. c) 6 seconds for crossings over 10.5 metres and up to 12.5 metres. d) 7 seconds for crossings over 12.5 metres.

It may be desirable to extend the period by 2 seconds. The circumstances are outlined for Period D of the Pelican operational cycle.

Period V

The fixed black-out of 3 seconds.

Period VI

The black-out is extended by the on-crossing detectors from between 3 to 22 seconds.

The extension period for the on-crossing detector should normally be set within the range 1.6 to 2.2 seconds.

Period VII

If the normal maximum of the clearance period is reached when pedestrians/cyclists are still being detected on the crossing, this operates to permit the pedestrians/cyclists to clear before Period VIII commences. The duration of this period is fixed at 3 seconds. A near-side mounted signal may replace the far-side one The maximum duration of the pedestrian extendable clearance period (VI & VII together), in for future Toucan crossings. seconds, should normally be set to 5 + 1.67 (the length of crossing - 3 metres).

Period VIII

The all-red should be 1, 2 or 3 seconds.

Period IX

The red/amber period is fixed at 2 seconds. 12 9 CONSULTATION

Submission of pedestrian crossing schemes is no longer required, but consultation with the police, public notice and written notification to the Secretary of State are necessary before a crossing is established, altered or removed. (The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984(25)).

It is possible that the installation of a pedestrian crossing may, under certain circumstances, provide liabilities under the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973(26), to which reference should be made. 10 PUBLICITY

General guidance is given in the Highway Code(30). Specific information on Puffin pedestrian crossings, is available in ‘How To Use a Puffin Crossing’(31), (Bilingual versions available in Wales), and ‘The Use of Puffin Pedestrian Crossings’(32). Reference to the Toucan crossings is made in Traffic Advisory Leaflet 10/93, “Toucan” An Unsegregated Crossing for Pedestrians and Cyclists’(33). It is most important when installing or modifying a crossing that local publicity is provided. Visits, by Road Safety Officers, to schools and centres for elderly or disabled people help to inform the more vulnerable. Posters designed and produced by local authorities have been very successful in getting the message across. These have been displayed in schools, centres, libraries, surgeries, etc. and together with a localised postal distribution of ‘How to Use a Puffin Crossing’ can reach a wide audience. 11 REFERENCES

Note: * References are for Northern Ireland.

Introduction 1 The ‘Zebra’ Pedestrian Crossing Regulations 1971, updated by the Amendment Regulations 1990 * ‘Zebra’ Pedestrian Crossings Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1974 2 The ‘Pelican’ Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1987 * The (Pelican) Pedestrian Crossings Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1982 3 The ‘Puffin’ Pedestrian Crossings Regulations (in preparation) 4 The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994 * The Traffic Signs Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1979 5 Department of Transport Specification TR 0141B,( in preparation at time of this publication). 6 Department of Transport Local Transport Note 1/95 The Assessment of Pedestrian Crossings

General Requirements 7 BS 3049: 1976 Pedestrian Guard Rails (Metal) 8 HD28 (Design Manual for Roads & Bridges [DMRB] 7.3.1) Skidding Resistance 9 Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works Vol. 1 [MCHW -1] 10 Disability Unit Circular No DU 1/91. The Scottish Office equivalent is SOID Circular 2/1994. 11 Traffic Advisory Leaflet 4/91 - Audible and Tactile Signals at Pelican Crossings. 12 BS 5489 Part 2:1992 Code of Practice for Road Lighting - Lighting for Traffic Routes. 13 Institution of Lighting Engineers, Technical Report No. 12, Lighting of Pedestrian Crossings. 14 Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 4, Warning Signs, Table A.

‘Zebra’ Pedestrian Crossings 15 Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 5, Road Markings.

13 16 British Standard 873 Part 2:1984. Road Traffic Signs and Internally Illuminated Bollards - Specification for Miscellaneous Signs. 17 The Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1990. The Scottish Office equivalent is The Road Humps (Scotland) Regulations 1990. * The Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1992

Signal-controlled Crossings

18 Departmental Advice Note TA 13, (DMRB Vol.8, Section 1). Requirements for the Installation of Traffic Signals and Associated Control Equipment.

19 Departmental Advice Note TA 14, (DMRB Vol.8, Section 1). Procedures for the Installation of Traffic Signals and Associated Control Equipment.

20 Departmental Standard TD 24, (DMRB Vol.8, Section 1). All Purpose Trunk Roads and Trunk Road Motorways. Maintenance of Traffic Signals.

21 Departmental Standard TD 25, (DMRB Vol.1, Section 2). All Purpose Trunk Roads and Trunk Road Motorways. Maintenance of Traffic Signs.

22 Departmental Standard TD 26, (DMRB Vol.8, Section 2). All Purpose Trunk Roads and Trunk Road Motorways. Maintenance of Road Markings.

23 Standard BD 2 (DMRB Vol.1, Section 1) - Technical Approval of Highway Structures on Trunk Roads (including Motorways).

24 Departmental Advice Note TA 22, (DMRB Vol.8, Section 1) - Vehicle Speed Measurement on All Purpose Roads.

Consultation

25 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

* The Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981

26 Land Compensation Act 1973. The equivalent in Scotland is the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973.

Visibility Requirements

27 Departmental Advice Note TA 12, (DMRB Vol.8, Section 1). Traffic Signals on High Speed Roads.

Vehicle Detection Requirements

28 Department of Transport Specification MCK 2123

29 Department of Transport Specification MCE 0108/MCK 1030 - Siting of Inductive Loops for Vehicle Detecting Equipment at Permanent Road Traffic Signal Installations.

Publicity

30 The Highway Code - HMSO

31 ‘How to Use a Puffin Crossing’ - Departmental pamphlet

32 Department of Transport Advisory Leaflet ‘The Use of Puffin Pedestrian Crossings’.

33 Department of Transport Traffic Advisory Leaflet 10/93 “Toucan” An Unsegregated Crossing for Pedestrians and Cyclists.

14 12 TABLES

Table 1 ALL TYPES OF CROSSING - VISIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

Reference should be made to Departmental Advice Note TA 12/81(27)

85 Percentile Approach Speed 25 30 35 40 45 50 (m.p.h.)

Desirable Minimum Visibility 50 65 80 100 125 150 (metres)

Absolute Minimum Visibility 40 50 65 80 95 115 (metres)

Table 2 PELICAN, PUFFIN & TOUCAN CROSSINGS - VEHICLE DETECTION REQUIREMENTS

Speed Limit 85 percentile Recommended Operation (m.p.h.) approach speed (m.p.h)

Up to and Up to and (a) Fixed time operation, or including 30 including 35

(b) Microwave vehicle detection (MVD) in accordance with Department of Transport Specification MCK 2123(27) & (28), or

(c) With a single loop sited 39m from the stop line with a 4.0 second extension time for vehicles, (see Note 1) or

(d) With a multi loop configuration such as System D, (see Note 1)

Above 30 Up to and Vehicle actuation as in (c) or (d) above including 35

Not Greater than 35 Vehicle actuation as in (c) or (d) above. In addition, relevant and up to and Speed Discrimination loops spaced at 79m from the including 45 stop line (vehicles travelling in excess of 30 m.p.h. being granted 3.0 second extensions) should be used (see Note 1).

Not Greater than 45 Vehicle actuation as in (c) or (d) above. In addition, relevant (see paragraph 2.1) Speed Assessment loops sited 151m from the stopline should always be used (see Note 1).

Note 1: In accordance with Department of Transport Specification MCE 0108(27) & (28)

Note 2: In Scotland, microwave vehicle detection may be used on higher speed roads but signal settings must be adjusted to ensure safe clearance periods are introduced. The adoption of this form of strategy must be agreed with the Scottish Office.

15

Table 3 PELICAN CROSSINGS - OPERATIONAL CYCLE, USE & VARIATIONS

PERIOD USE VARIATION FOR

A Vehicle running time Traffic volume

B Standard stop warning to vehicles None

C Vehicle clearance period Vehicle actuation

D Pedestrian invitation to cross Road width, disabled pedestrians, crossings with central refuge

E Warning to pedestrian to clear the Site conditions crossing and not to cross. Vehicles remain stopped. For use with divided crossing

F As period E above but with Road width vehicles allowed to proceed provided the crossing is clear of pedestrians ahead of them

G Additional pedestrian clearance Road width time before vehicle running period

Table 4 PELICAN CROSSINGS - OPERATIONAL CYCLE & TIMINGS

PERIOD SIGNALS SHOWN TIMINGS (Seconds)

TO PEDESTRIANS TO VEHICLES

A Red Standing Figure Steady Green (proceed 20-60 (fixed) (wait) if way is clear) 6-60 (VA)

B Red Standing Figure Steady Amber (stop 3 (Mandatory) unless not safe to do so)

C Red Standing Figure Steady Red (stop, wait 1 to 3 behind Stop line on carriageway)

D Green Walking Figure Steady Red 4 to 7 (in some with audible signal if circumstances provided (cross with care) plus 2)

E Flashing Green Figure Steady Red 0 or 2 (do not start to cross)

F Flashing Green Figure Flashing Amber (give 6 to 18 way to pedestrians on the crossing - they have priority)

G Red Standing Figure Flashing Amber 1 or 2

17

Table 5 PUFFIN CROSSINGS - OPERATIONAL CYCLE, USE & VARIATIONS

PERIOD USE VARIATION FOR

1 Vehicle running time Traffic volumes

2 Standard amber to vehicles None

3 Vehicle clearance period Vehicle actuation

4 Pedestrian invitation to cross Road width, disabled pedestrians, crossings with central refuge

5 Pedestrians must not start to cross Type of detector

6 Completion of pedestrian crossing Road width time

7 Additional pedestrian clearance time Pedestrian detection

8 Additional pedestrian clearance time Pedestrian gap change

9 Standard red/amber to vehicles None

Table 6 PUFFIN CROSSINGS - OPERATIONAL CYCLE & TIMINGS

PERIOD SIGNALS SHOWN TIMINGS (Seconds)

TO PEDESTRIANS TO VEHICLES

1 Red Standing Figure Green (proceed if way 20-60 (fixed) (Wait) is clear) 6-60 (VA)

2 Red Standing Figure Amber (stop unless not 3 safe to do so)

3 Red Standing Figure Red (stop, wait behind 1 to 3 Stop line on carriageway)

4 Green Walking Figure Red 4 to 9 with audible signal if provided (cross with care)

5 Red Standing Figure Red 1-5 (do not start to cross)

6 Red Standing Figure Red 0-22 (pedestrian extendable period)

7 Red Standing Figure Red 0-3 (only appears on a maximum change if pedestrians are still being detected)

8 Red Standing Figure Red 0-3 (only appears at a pedestrian gap change)

9 Red Standing Figure Red with Amber (stop) 2

19

Table 7 TOUCAN CROSSINGS - OPERATIONAL CYCLE, USE & VARIATIONS

PERIOD USE VARIATION FOR

I Vehicle running time Traffic volumes

II Standard amber to vehicles None

III Vehicle clearance period Vehicle actuation

IV Pedestrian invitation to cross Road width, disabled pedestrians, crossings with central refuge

V Pedestrians must not start crossing None

VI Completion of pedestrian crossing time Road width

VII Additional pedestrian clearance time Pedestrian detection

VIII All red Pedestrian clearance

IX Standard red/amber to vehicles None

Table 8 TOUCAN CROSSINGS - OPERATIONAL CYCLE & TIMINGS

PERIOD SIGNALS SHOWN TIMINGS (Seconds)

TO PEDESTRIANS TO VEHICLES

I Red Standing Figure Green (proceed if 20-60 (fixed) (Wait) way is clear) 6-60 (VA)

II Red Standing Figure Amber (stop 3 (mandatory) unless not safe to do so)

III Red Standing Figure Red (stop, wait 1 to 3 behind stop line on carriageway)

IV Green Walking Figure Red 4 to 7 with audible signal if provided (cross with care)

V Black-out - no signal shown Red 3 (fixed period) (Do not start to cross)

VI Black-out Red 0 to 22 pedestrian extendable period)

VII Black-out Red 0-3 (only appears on a maximum change if pedestrians are still being detected)

VIII Red Red 1-3

IX Red Standing Red with Amber 2 Figure (stop)

Printed in the United Kingdom for TSO

N 178582 C2 05/05 876605 19585

21 WYG Group part of the WYG group

Appendix H - TM6 - Assessment of pedestrian & cycle crossings March 2014

Economy, Transport and Environment Department

Traffic Management Policy & Guidance

TM6 - Assessment of pedestrian & cycle crossings

Guidance for Highways & Transport Staff

Version 1, March 2014

Guidance for Highway Staff

TM6 Pedestrian and cycle crossings

Signal controlled crossings  Background  Scope  Legislation  Previous PV2 assessment 2  PmV assessment  Ranking  Other considerations

Zebra crossings  Assessment

2

Guidance for Highway Staff Policy TM6: Pedestrian and cycle crossings

Signal controlled crossings Background The County Council has a well established policy for considering requests for new pedestrian crossings based on an objective numerical assessment known as PV2, which is intended to indicate to decision makers the difficulty pedestrians would be expected to encounter crossing a road, where ‘P’ is the number of pedestrian and ‘V’ the number of vehicles. The current policy states that for a controlled crossing to be justified the value of PV2 should be greater than or equal to 1.0 x 108 over the four busiest hours.

This policy, which was approved in January 2001, retained this method of assessment and threshold value from an earlier policy dating from 1978, but introduced a new flexibility by permitting controlled crossings where the PV2 is greater than, or equal to, 0.5 x 108 where special circumstances exist. This was in line with revised guidance published by the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in 1995, but also reflected the consideration already given in Hampshire to the needs of vulnerable pedestrians when determining the appropriate type of crossing to be provided.

This policy has been reviewed in light of experience from responding to requests for new crossings since this policy was introduced in 2001, and in considering expected budget pressures that will require future requests to be prioritised and the value for money robustly assessed.

The amended procedure described in this revised guidance provides a standardised methodology for assessing these requests and for prioritising schemes for subsequent implementation.

This procedure supersedes the previous policy from 2001 and expands on the established use of PV2 to broaden the assessment beyond a simple numerical analysis of P and V, which has been recognised as inflexible, and will be used to assess all requests for controlled pedestrian, cycle and equestrian crossings within the jurisdiction of the County Council.

Scope The assessment process described here uses a modified form of PV2 to assess the degree of difficulty likely to be experienced by users crossing as a function of the vehicle flow (V) along a road, and assesses the justification based on this and the number of people (P) crossing, so that an informed decision can be made on the most appropriate facility and prioritised according to need.

Legislation and guidance documents The statutory requirements for controlled pedestrian crossings are set out in the Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossing Regulations and General Directions, and in the Traffic Sign Regulations and General Directions.

3

In addition, Section 23 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 imposes statutory requirements for consultation when new controlled crossings are proposed, and when existing controlled crossing facilities are altered or removed, including that a public notice be produced and displayed on street.

Previous PV2 assessment PV2 as an assessment tool is not included in Local Transport Note 1/95: The Assessment of Pedestrian Crossings, and its use by local authorities appears generally to be qualified. One reason may be that a numerical measurement that simply multiplies the number of pedestrians and vehicles (squared) does not necessarily quantify either the value for money of a facility as it provides no information on the number of potential beneficiaries or the degree of difficulty currently experienced. For instance, if a crossing were generally considered justified where PV2 is greater or equal to 1.0 x 108, then a crossing could be installed in either of the following circumstances:

Pedestrians per hour (P) Vehicles per hour (V) Example 1 40 1,590 Example 2 180 750

The 40 pedestrians would be expected to experience significantly more difficulty crossing against a flow of 1,590 vehicles than the 180 crossing against 750. The likely gaps in a flow of 750 vehicles also suggests a crossing would be unlikely to be used by all 180 pedestrians, while the lack of crossing opportunities presented by 1,590 vehicles would probably ensure it was used by the majority of the 40 pedestrians. It is also conceivable that a higher volume of traffic combined with the absence of a crossing facility is a significant deterrent to crossing, and that there may be a suppressed demand.

The assessment is based on an average figure to ensure a crossing is justified for more than just a short period of the day. This is a reasonable approach to determining the value for money of a facility, but may exacerbate the tendency to ignore the barrier effect of a busy and difficult to cross road. Taking an average of the four busiest hours could result in a request being rejected despite a demonstrable need. For instance, if as above a crossing would be justified where PV2 is greater or equal to 1.0 x 108, then a crossing could be rejected in the following circumstances:

4

Pedestrians per hour (P) Vehicles per hour (V) PV2 x108 Busiest hour 40 1,590 1.01 Next busiest hour 35 1,550 0.84 Next busiest hour 35 1,550 0.84 Next busiest hour 35 1,550 0.84 Average over the four busiest hours = 0.88

The average PV2 for the four busiest hours is 0.88 x 108, and on this basis the request would be rejected, yet the numbers of pedestrians do not vary dramatically, and the marginally lower vehicle flow is not likely to make it any easier to cross. The use of the discretionary threshold, agreed in 2001, for PV2 values of 0.5 to 1.0 x 108 reduces the likelihood of this problem occurring in practice.

2 PmV assessment PV2 is a useful measure for sifting requests for crossings to either limit further costly assessment work, or as an indicator of the likely appropriate facility given anticipated pedestrian behaviour.

Those seeking new crossings will want to be assured that their requests are treated fairly. Adopting a clearly documented and consistent approach to assessing applications is more likely to demonstrate this. PV2 provides the desired consistency, but the rigid numerical assessment lacks the flexibility to deal with an increasingly diverse built environment, or to support an enabling strategy seeking to improve accessibility or promote walking and cycling. For this reason, a more flexible approach to assessment is being used.

2 Using the PmV assessment should provide a transparent and logical framework for assessing and prioritising requests for new crossings, which is also able to be used by the local authority to determine whether to include new crossing facilities as part of other schemes, that is, not in response to a specific request. This latter consideration is important if the system of assessment is to be seen by the public as being applied fairly. The assessment framework can also provide guidance to developers preparing planning submissions.

The two step procedure described below shall be used by the Intelligent Transport Systems Team for assessing the need for a pedestrian, cycle and equestrian controlled crossing:

Step 1 - Initial site survey and preliminary assessment Step 2 - Assessment of need

Further guidance for officers is also provided for borderline cases.

Step 1: Initial site survey and preliminary assessment:

An initial site survey shall be undertaken to determine whether a crossing could be physically constructed at the requested location, and to assess whether the likely

5

usage and degree of difficulty currently experienced crossing the road justifies a costly full assessment.

As a basic premise, encouraging pedestrians or cyclists to cross a road in a particular place, whether using a formal, controlled crossing or an informal crossing place, should make crossing the road safer. Pedestrians and/or cyclists waiting to cross should be clearly visible to approaching drivers. Crossings located too close to bends, roundabouts, in dips or over crests, are unlikely to have adequate visibility, reducing drivers’ ability to respond to people in the road, leading to late braking or drivers failing to stop entirely. Any problems are likely to be exacerbated where speeds are higher.

Signal controlled crossings are not a means of overcoming poor visibility, and design standards specify the appropriate forward visibility for the prevailing speed of traffic. An initial site assessment shall establish whether these basic site conditions are met, and whether other features, such as adjoining roads and accesses to premises, would prevent a crossing from being constructed in that location.

New crossings should be located as close as possible to where pedestrians and/or cyclists are already crossing. People are unlikely to use them if not. Where this cannot be done, perhaps because of visibility, vehicle accesses or similarly limiting factors, then measures to persuade pedestrians to use the crossing where it can be constructed may need to be considered. Pedestrians and/or cyclists crossing through gaps in the traffic in the immediate vicinity of the crossing put themselves at a greater risk as drivers will not anticipate them crossing. The degree of difficulty crossing a road is likely to be the deciding factor in whether or not they will walk to a formal crossing. If crossing the road is not generally a problem, then people are likely to cross without diverting to use the formal crossing. Consideration therefore needs to be given to the overall safety of the pedestrian/cyclist environment rather than relying on a formal crossing that may not be used.

Where a crossing could be physically constructed then an initial one hour survey shall be undertaken, and an indicative PV2 value obtained. The period chosen shall be an hour when a large number of pedestrians and/or cyclists are anticipated to cross, and coinciding with peak traffic volumes. Pedestrians and cyclists shall be counted crossing 50 metres either side of the proposed crossing location. For simplicity no weighting factors shall be applied to this initial site survey. An assessment of suppressed demand, either because of the barrier effect of a busy road, or pending a new development, should be included in this initial assessment. Guidance on the assessment of suppressed demand is provided in the following section, ‘assessment of need’.

A further assessment is generally only appropriate where the initial PV2 is greater or equal to 0.25 x 108. This ensures that requests that do not warrant further consideration are quickly discounted, saving both officer time in undertaking a detailed assessment and the cost of a full 12 hour survey.

In exceptional cases a further full assessment may be appropriate where the indicative PV2 is less than 0.25 x 108, for instance where the road is an abnormal load route and other informal crossings such as footway build-outs or pedestrian

6

refuges cannot be provided, or where there has been a serious accident involving a pedestrian or cyclist crossing at that location.

Where a crossing is requested across a dual carriageway the PV2 value shall be applied to each carriageway independently. Both values would need to meet the criteria to be considered further and an initial combined PV2 value of 0.5 should be achieved to warrant a full assessment to be made.

Step 2: Assessment of need:

(a) Traffic and pedestrian/cycle/equestrian survey

A survey will be carried out at the location to determine the numbers of pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians crossing and the number of passing vehicles. The survey will normally be carried out over a 12 hour period between 07:00 and 19:00 on a weekday outside of the school holidays, taking care to avoid planned events or road works that could alter the numbers of crossing movements and passing vehicles at the location.

Pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians shall be counted crossing 50 metres either side of the proposed crossing location. The figure for the total number of users crossing shall be adjusted to take account of vulnerable pedestrians/cyclists and equestrians in the following way:

 Children (under 16 years) on foot or cycling, weighted by a factor of 4  Older people (aged 65 years or above) on foot or cycling, weighted by a factor of 4  Equestrians weighted by a factor of 4  Pedestrians with a disability weighted by a factor of 6

NB Only one weighting factor shall be applied per user. The highest applicable weighting factor shall be used.

<16 E H D T PA = (P x 4) + (P x 4) + (P x 4) + (P x 6) + (P )

Where PA = Number of users adjusted for vulnerability P<16 = Number of pedestrians and cyclists aged up to 16 years PE = Number of older pedestrians and cyclists aged 65 years or above PH = Number of equestrians PD = Number of pedestrians with a disability PT = Total number of users crossing minus P<16, PE, PH, PD

(b) Quantifying the barrier effect

Modelling the barrier effect of a busy, difficult to cross road is less straightforward, but making an allowance for traffic volume, speed and carriageway width will provide a basic indication of degree of difficulty to cross.

7

Speed

An assessment of vehicle speed shall be based on the speed limit in place as follows:

30 mph = 1.0 40 mph = 1.5 50 mph = 2.0

Controlled crossings will not be installed on roads with speed limits in excess of 50 mph (30 mph for zebra crossings).

Width

The carriageway width (excluding any islands) shall be measured and a figure obtained as follows:

Less than or equal to 7.3 metres = 1.00 Greater than 7.4 metres and less than 10.2 metres = 1.50 Greater than 10.3 metres and less than 14.9 metres = 1.75 Greater than 15 metres = 2.00

(c) Injury accidents involving pedestrians

A=(1+N) 10

Where N = the number of pedestrian injury accidents in last three years

Example

The values of the individual assessments of vehicle speed and carriageway width shall be summed and averaged to determine the value for the barrier effect of a busy or difficult to cross road. For example a 12 metre wide carriageway subject to a 40 mph speed limit, and with an average waiting time to cross of 25 seconds, would have a barrier effect obtained as follows:

Actual measured value Policy range Value 12 metre carriageway greater than 10.3 metres and 1.75 less than 14.9 metres 40 mph A 40 mph speed limit 1.50 Total weighting factor 3.25 Average value of difficulty to cross (Q) 1.63

8

This factor shall be used to adjust the value of PA determined in the assessment of need as follows:

PM = PA x Q x A, where

PM = Modified pedestrian/cyclist/equestrian value PA = Number of pedestrians/cyclists/equestrians adjusted for vulnerability Q = Average value of the barrier effect of a busy or difficultly to cross road A = Accident weighting factor

2 The value obtained shall be used to determine a value for PMV averaged over the four busiest hours. Controlled crossings are only appropriate where this value is greater, or equal to, 1.0 x 108. This ensures that crossings are only provided where the degree of difficulty pedestrians and/or cyclists would experience is assessed over a sufficiently long period to reduce the likelihood that they would generally cross without waiting for the crossing to operate.

2 8 Where the PMV averaged over the four busiest hours is less than 1.0 x 10 a crossing may be appropriate where there are specific site circumstances. Guidance provided for officers will enable a number of these specific site circumstances to be quantified.

Ranking Requests for new crossings will need to be prioritised where the number of locations where new crossings are justified exceeds the available funding. Requests will be 2 ranked in ascending order of their PMV value, with the highest values receiving priority for implementation.

(a) Sites exceeding 1.0 x 108

2 8 Where the revised value of PmV equals or exceeds 1 x 10 , then a crossing is considered to be justified, and subject to physical constraints on site, be added to a primary list for consideration as part of the works programme.

2 8 (b) Sites between PMV 0.5 and 1.0 x 10

Where this value is between 0.5 and 1.0 x 108, then the crossing would be added to a secondary list for review and monitoring as part of a forward programme.

As under the previous policy, dual carriageway sites will require double the level of 2 8 justification, i.e. PmV to equal or exceed 2.0 x 10 for consideration on the primary list, and 1.0 x 108 for adding to the secondary list.

(c) Sites between 0.2 and 0.5 x108

2 8 Where the value of PmV is between 0.2 and 0.5 x 10 , then a controlled crossing would not normally be recommended, and alternatives such as a pedestrian refuge or zebra crossing should be considered.

9

(d) Sites below 0.2 x 108

2 8 Where the value of PmV is below 0.2 x 10 , then a crossing facility would not normally be justified, but the site may be reviewed on its merits with regard to local and/or special needs and may be considered subject to funding.

Crossings for cyclists Toucan crossings allow cyclists to cross roads between cycle routes. The crossing facility is shared with pedestrians. Cyclists are not permitted to use Pelican, Puffin or Zebra crossings unless they dismount.

Crossing facilities for cyclists shall be evaluated using the two step process outlined 2 in the PmV assessment. It will only be possible to provide a Toucan crossing when 2 the PmV value is met and the crossing location forms part of a designated cycle route.

Crossings for equestrians Signal controlled crossings for equestrians are known as Pegasus crossings. These crossings can be for horse and rider only or provided alongside pedestrian and/or cycle facilities.

Crossing facilities for equestrians shall be evaluated using the two step process 2 outlined in the PmV assessment. It will only be possible to provide a Pegasus 2 crossing when the PmV value is met and the crossing has a clearly evident level of equestrian usage.

Other considerations The following areas should be included in a full assessment of borderline cases:

(a) Is there a clear need for the crossing?

The assessment of need should examine the degree of difficulty experienced crossing the road, along with an analysis of likely pedestrian/cyclist behaviour. The following questions may help clarify this:

 Will users divert to a crossing if it is away from the immediate desire line?

 Will users approaching the crossing ignore opportunities to cross? Users walking or cycling towards a crossing may see a gap in traffic and cross at the first opportunity rather than continuing to the crossing. This is more likely where the crossing is farther from the desire line;

 Will pedestrians/cyclists wait to cross the road if there are clear gaps in traffic? A person may press the pushbutton, but then cross before the crossing operates, causing delay and frustration for motorists.

The aim of this assessment of need is to establish whether the crossing is fit for purpose given observed pedestrian/cyclist behaviour.

10

(b) Are there any site specific features to be considered?

The assessment should highlight the impact on the local road environment of providing alternative crossing types, for example, loss of parking, removal of trees, relocation of bus stops, banned turning moves at adjacent junctions or other local access difficulties.

Different options are likely to have varying impact both on the local road environment and on different road users. For instance, building out the footway into the carriageway will reduce the crossing width and may improve visibility in tree lined streets or where there is on-street parking, but narrowing the carriageway may be unpopular with on road cyclists. Pedestrian refuges, may be effective in reducing the crossing width and increasing the opportunities to cross, but may be equally unpopular with on road cyclists if it creates a local constriction. If the road is an abnormal load route, then this too will limit options that reduce the carriageway width.

Speed is another consideration. Current advice from the Department for Transport is that controlled crossings are inappropriate on roads where the 85th percentile vehicle speed is 50 mph or higher. On roads subject to a 40 mph speed limit where speeds regularly exceed 50 mph in the vicinity of the crossing for example, on long, straight, downhill gradients with good visibility beyond the proposed crossing, or in rural locations where the crossing would be in an area that provides an opportunity for overtaking, then further engineering works could be required to reduce speeds to less than 50 mph.

New crossings would not normally be justified where there is another crossing facility within 100 metres of the proposal. This general exclusion does not include facilities provided at signal controlled junctions, or where there may be special circumstances, for example, alternative exits from a centre that generates significant pedestrian or cycle movements.

(c) Does the proposal directly support an agreed corporate policy or strategy?

The following statements may help clarify this:

 If implemented, this proposal is expected to increase the numbers of pedestrians and cyclists, helping to reduce reliance on the private car;

 If implemented, the proposal will support the use of public transport by facilitating a safe access route to a public transport interchange;

 The proposal is included in a school travel plan and provides a safe route to school;

 The proposal is included in a workplace travel plan and provides a safe route to business premises;

 The proposal is a specific accident remedial measure, or part of a casualty reduction programme.

11

Supporting evidence will be readily available where a proposal is included in a school or workplace travel plan. Where a proposal is part of a strategy aiming to encourage walking or improve pedestrian permeability, then local development frameworks or similar may be useful.

(d) Is the proposal likely to improve road safety?

A risk assessment of current crossing activity should be carried out, with accident records examined to identify any existing road safety issues to ensure any proposal takes into account known difficulties. The risk assessment should quantify how long pedestrians wait, and the extent to which they cross in inappropriate gaps, or cross in two halves where there is no physical island (for example, at ghost islands).

A scheme design will have a developed safety case (road safety audit, hazard assessments) demonstrating how road users will interact with the facility. In determining whether the proposal will improve road safety, the assessment should consider people crossing in the shadow of the facility.

Hazard assessments should be undertaken to determine the impact of known safety issues, and to identify appropriate measures to remove or control these hazards. This is likely to be particularly appropriate where a school crossing patrol is proposed to operate.

(e) What is the traffic impact of the proposal?

New crossings are likely to increase short-term congestion as vehicles will be required to stop and wait whilst the crossing is in operation. Traffic modelling based on the traffic flows and numbers of users crossing recorded in the survey can predict the average queue and additional journey time for vehicles. The maximum time a vehicle would normally be delayed in free flow conditions is approximately 16 seconds, and would occur if a vehicle is forced to stop just as the signals are changing to the pedestrian phase. Puffin and Toucan crossings provide a variable stop period that allows for variations in the time that different pedestrians take in crossing from one footway to the other. This normal maximum will therefore increase in some circumstances.

The traffic impact assessment should also determine the extent to which drivers are likely to divert to less suitable roads to avoid excessive delay. At the other extreme, the assessment should consider whether drivers will ignore the crossing or become complacent if it operates infrequently.

Zebra crossings The guidance above for controlled crossings shall also apply to zebra crossings, taking account of the additional factors highlighted in the Supporting Information section for Policy TM6.

12 WYG Group part of the WYG group

Appendix I: Suggested Worting Road Controlled Crossing Arrangements

WYG Group part of the WYG group

WYG Group part of the WYG group

WYG Group part of the WYG group

Appendix J – LTN2/08, Cycle Infrastructure Design, Section 8.5 – Width Requirements

WYG Group part of the WYG group

WYG Group part of the WYG group

WYG Group part of the WYG group

WYG Group part of the WYG group

Appendix K: CV of Neil Wisher

Curriculum Vitae: Neil Wisher

ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS BSc (Hons) – civil engineering

PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Chartered Engineer Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers Member of the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation

POSITION Director

Email: [email protected]

Experience Relevant to the Project Neil is a Chartered Civil Engineer with the Institution of Civil Engineers and Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation and has over 30 years experience in civil, highways, transport and traffic engineering. Since joining WYG, Neil has worked within the Transport Solutions Group which provides transport planning and engineering services for various public and commercial developments, and other infrastructure projects. Schemes include retail, commercial and residential developments, highways design (S38 and S278 works), traffic management systems and parking capacity improvements. Services include advice on infrastructure for masterplanning, addressing transport planning matters, travel plans, all from concept through to detailed design and construction. Neil acts as Project Director and lead consultant on complex and multi-disciplinary schemes integrating transport issues with the wider needs to take schemes through planning and approvals processes. He acts as an expert witness covering transport and highways issues. Some examples of his recent experiences are summarised below

Relevant Project Experience Vauxhall Island Public Inquiry Expert witness for Lambeth Council for public inquiry into 32 and 42 storey development in Vauxhall, South London. Responsibilities included evidence preparation, negotiation and agreement on statement of common ground, rebuttal of opposition evidence, presenting evidence, supporting Counsel cross- examination. Shoreditch High Street Mediation Expert witness for client in land and access dispute to protect operation of a car park and future development interests. Involvement included evidence preparation and presentation, rebuttals and negotiations on common way forward.

Heybridge Drive Public Right of Way Council witness for application to close public right of way in Barkingside defending Council position against various interest groups. Involvement included evidence preparation and presentation/examination.

WYG Group creative minds safe hands www.wyg.com

Curriculum Vitae: Neil Wisher

Honor Oak Rise Private Streetworks Act Court Hearing Council witness for adoption of a private road in South London covering highways, drainage and cost apportionments. Clapham Old Town Public Realm Review. Expert advice and case preparation including negotiation with Transport for London to unlock public realm improvement opportunities in Clapham Old Town. Project involved traffic management analysis, bus operational assessment and road space reallocation. Provided support to Council to pass through Council Scrutiny Committee including design principles review and health check. Southall Broadway Boulevard – Project Director, Technical Lead and Expert Advisor. Following an initial corridor study for the A4020, an innovative public realm scheme was developed to bring about significant benefits in road safety; enhance visitor and pedestrian environment through road space reallocation and complementary traffic management strategies. As well as establishing concept and design philosophy, prepared justification for bid to Mayor for London’s Regeneration Fund (successful outcome) and represented the Council at TfL Scrutiny Board to secure scheme authorisation for the Council. Twickenham Rugby Football Stadium Planning Application – Expert Lead. Expert lead in the review and appraisal of a complex planning submission from the English Rugby Football Union for the expansion of Twickenham stadium. Responsibilities included scrutiny of the transport and highways aspects of the application leading to provision of objective advice on the proposals to increase ground capacity and facilities at the Rugby Stadium, Twickenham. To establish the assessment basis, a transport strategy of Richmond and Twickenham Town Centres was developed in conjunction of assessment of RFU’s own Transport Assessment, evaluation of junction modelling, multi-modal trip growth review, crowd management. Lead the council in negotiations with the developer to secure acceptable Section 106 planning gain contributions. Other Experience

Transport Planning and Policy Analysis and investigation of strategic transport planning studies:- Redhill Action Plan - Development of traffic management strategy to support potential growth through regeneration of the town centre. Measures included conversion of one way systems to two way operation of town centre ring road, development of cycle and walking routes, and strategy for significant public realm enhancements at key rail station/high street gateway. Support included a series of Member Workshops and presentation to key County and Borough Committees to secure scheme approval. Mitcham Urban Village Initiative - Development of transport and environmental strategy to support regeneration of town centre and surrounding areas. The study involved real time modelling (VISSIM) of options for bus routes through currently pedestrianised high street, development of cycle network, road space reallocation to improve pedestrian amenity, options development for town green enhancement, 20mph zones and development of public transport integration options. Following feasibility the proposals were consulted upon and preferred options developed to detailed design. Vauxhall Cross Gyratory Removal - Detailed analysis of traffic management measures, integrating bus station, cycle superhighway and upgraded pedestrian facilities in the context of the Vauxhall Nine Elms and Battersea Opportunity Area for growth within Central London. The scheme has involved establishment of significant public realm space and developable land as part of

WYG Group creative minds safe hands www.wyg.com

Curriculum Vitae: Neil Wisher

Lambeth Council’s intention to establish a new town centre in Vauxhall. Key issues include balancing public realm and development aspirations with maintaining bus operations and the integrity of the Central London Inner Ring Road. London Bridge Environs – Working within a multi-disciplinary consultancy team for London Borough of Southwark, development of highway and traffic management arrangements to accommodate and enhance the streetscape in the vicinity of London Bridge station. Following initial study the project evolved to development of construction details and appointment for supervision of construction acting as Engineer for the Works. Clapham Estate, South London – Member of multi-disciplinary team for 900 unit residential development. Provision of advice and preparation of transport feasibility study including scoping and presentation of the transport aspects for an Environmental Statement for the site including discussions with GLA, TfL and LB Lambeth. Key issues included impacts associated with on-street parking, site permeability for pedestrians and cumulated impacts of the development with other nearby strategic development. Church Road Regeneration in Harlesden, North West London – Development of traffic management strategy and road space reallocation for regeneration area to enhance development opportunities including public realm. Development included new and improved retail and residential accommodation. The process included area Master Planning, evaluation against borough UDP criteria, Growth Area Funding bid preparation, parking assessments and traffic analysis leading to detailed design and construction of the highway changes (reduction of dual carriageways and roundabouts, new bus service provision, cycle infrastructure and pedestrian facilities). Raunds Development, Northants - Urban extension to town involving zoned commercial and residential accommodation (1,600 units). Provision of transport and access advice to support development of the Masterplan, investigation of utilities and foul water requirements leading to preparation of transport assessments and environmental statement to support planning submission of development phases. Clapham Estate, South London - Transportation advice to support masterplanning process and planning submissions on residential complex (900 units) Imperial Wharf, West London – Transport Assessment and transportation advice on 1,000 unit residential development incorporating retail and leisure use. Lambeth College – Clapham, Vauxhall and Brixton campuses. Transport assessment, access development, parking arrangements and college travel plan to support education investment strategy, including Section 106 agreement negotiations. Harris Academy, Upper Norwood – Transport Assessment, car parking, public transport provision and school travel plan for new city academy. Development of transport assessment including access, parking and negotiations with public transport providers for temporary bus service to decant site. Luton Airport. Transport Assessment review of proposals to expand capacity of the Airport to 5 million passengers per annum. Rye Lane, Hoddesdon. Provision of advice on access arrangements for residential development and negotiations with the highway authority. Sovereign Harbour, Eastbourne. Review of transport planning and infrastructure improvements to Eastbourne BC to improve pedestrian access, parking and provision of community facilities.

WYG Group creative minds safe hands www.wyg.com

Curriculum Vitae: Neil Wisher

Bromley South Central. Transport Assessment, Travel Plan and Access Strategy for Mixed Use development on site near South Bromley Station. Hailsham, East Sussex. Highway design for Section 278 works for junctions, cycle and walking measures for 250 units estate.

Regeneration Project manager and expert advice for area regeneration studies for local authorities and the private sector as follows:- Regeneration Bids. Preparation of bids under various funding opportunities for local authorities, including preparation of supporting technical information. Projects have included Southall (Mayor’s Regeneration Fund and Major Schemes Fund), Harlesden (Growth Area Fund), Roding Valley Way (Single Regeneration Budget) and Southwark (City Challenge). Brixton Town Centre Master Plan - Technical review of the deliverability of masterplan for town centre regeneration, focusing on accessibility and travel growth. Romford Town Centre Master Plan. Expert advice and development of transportation strategy for master planning of the town centre to cover the future 10 years. Advice and analysis on integration of travel modes, modifications to ring road, alternative bus routing, development of cycle network, improved pedestrian access and safety. Crane Valley Master Plan, Twickenham. Assessment on the impact of a number of proposals for the Crane Valley in Twickenham leading to modifications to the borough Unitary Development Plan. Canning Town. Feasibility study and economic analysis of pedestrian underground link between Canning Town station and development sites to support regeneration masterplan for area.

Employment History

Year Company Position 2013 - present WYG Director 2012 - 2013 Neil Wisher Consultancy Ltd Director 2010 - 2012 Project Centre Director for Transport Planning 2008 - 2010 Capita Symonds Operations Director 1996 - 2008 JMP Consultants Director 1994 - 1996 LB Redbridge Principal Engineer 1993 – 1994 DfT/Highways Agency Project Manager 1986 – 1993 LB Southwark Principal Engineer 1984 – 1986 LB Greenwich Engineer

WYG Group creative minds safe hands www.wyg.com