The Manual for Streets: Evidence and Research

The Manual for Streets: evidence and research

Prepared for Traffic Management Division, Department for Transport

I York, A Bradbury, S Reid, T Ewings and R Paradise

TRL Report TRL661 First Published 2007 ISSN 0968-4107 ISBN 1-84608-660-4 Copyright Transport Research Laboratory, 2007.

This report has been produced by TRL Limited, under/as part of a contract placed by the Department for Transport. Any views expressed in it are not necessarily those of the Department.

TRL is committed to optimising energy efficiency, reducing waste and promoting recycling and re-use. In support of these environmental goals, this report has been printed on recycled paper, comprising 100% post-consumer waste, manufactured using a TCF (totally chlorine free) process.

ii CONTENTS

Page

Executive Summary 1

Acronyms 3

1 Introduction 5 1.1 Manual for Streets 5 1.2 Design Bulletin 32 6 1.3 Underlying research 6 1.4 Report structure 6

2 Review of existing literature 7

3 Site selection and measurement 9 3.1 Site selection 9 3.2 CAD measurements 9 3.3 Site surveys 11

4 Speeds and geometry data site ranges 11 4.1 Outliers 12 4.2 Variation within the data 13

5 Speed adaptation 15 5.1 Link speeds 15 5.2 Junction speeds 16

6 Modelled safety impacts 18 6.1 Braking modelling 18 6.2 Stopping distances on links 18 6.3 Stopping distances at junctions 19 6.4 Implications of modelled situations 20

7 Observed safety 21 7.1 Belgravia 21 7.2 Accidents at junctions 22 7.3 Accidents on links 23

8 Household survey 24 8.1 Sampling 24 8.2 Sample composition 25

iii Page

9 Residents opinions 26 9.1 Streetscape 26 9.2 Parking 27 9.2.1 Car use and off-street parking 27 9.2.2 Parking problems 28 9.2.3 Parked vehicles 28 9.2.4 Respondents’ issues with parking in their street 29 9.3 Main safety concerns 30 9.4 Road safety 31 9.4.1 Walking and cycling safety 32 9.4.2 Safety of children 32 9.4.3 Improving road safety in residential streets 33 9.5 Accidents 33 9.6 Non-motorised vs. Motorised users: Access 34 9.7 Footways 34 9.8 Summary of household survey findings 34

10 Testing of network layout using SafeNet 35 10.1 Junction spacing 35 10.1.1 Analysis 36 10.1.2 Overall results 38 10.2 Crossroads analysis 38

11 Conclusions 38

12 Acknowledgements 40

13 References 40

Appendix A: Literature review 43

Appendix B: Case study sites 61

Appendix C: Braking distance matrix 82

Appendix D: Household survey questionnaire 85

Abstract 89

Related publications 89

iv Executive Summary

Demand for the Manual for Streets emerged from the ! Conflicting movements at junctions result in a higher Government research report Better Streets, Better Places number of accidents, but geometry can lower speeds (ODPM, 2003), which was commissioned to establish which reduce both the likelihood and severity of whether there are any problems over the adoption of new accidents. highways meeting the requirements of Planning Policy ! Stopping distances on links and at junctions have a Guidance Note 3, Housing (PPG3). This document focused margin of safety down to a visibility of around 20 m in on new residential streets and identified highway standards the environments studied, unless other speed reduction as a barrier to placemaking in the UK. The report features are incorporated. concluded with a recommendation for development of a Manual for Streets to replace Design Bulletin 32 (DB32) ! The sites included roads with a range of surface types, with an updated set of design guidelines for local roads to varying use of speed restriction measures, different provide a catalyst for innovative design that emphasises levels of on-street parking and a range of forward place over movement. visibilities. The results are consequently applicable to a The resulting Manual for Streets is a guide to the wide range of developments throughout the UK. design, construction, adoption and maintenance of new ! Parking was found to reduce speeds on links and at streets whose aim is to deliver streets that help strengthen junctions by 2 to 5 mph. That is, drivers react to the communities, are pleasant and attractive, are cost- perceived danger by reducing their speed. The effect of effective to construct and maintain, and are safe. The this on safety is unclear. Reducing speed increases Manual for Streets has updated geometric guidelines for relative safety, but parked vehicles reduce lines of sight low trafficked residential streets, examined the effect of and can consequently obscure (crossing) pedestrians. the environment on road user behaviour, and drawn on There was no clear indication that this resulted in higher practice in other countries. numbers of casualties from the accident statistics This research undertaken by TRL provides the evidence analysis. However, many of the reported accidents from base upon which the revised geometric guidelines in the the household survey were related to parked vehicles. Manual for Streets are based, including: ! The largest effect on speeds was found to be associated ! Link widths. with reducing lines of sight. A reduction from 120 to 20 ! Forward visibility. metres reduced approach speeds by approximately 20 mph ! Visibility splays. on links and 11 mph at junctions. Modelling has shown ! Junction spacing. the reduction in approach speed should result in sight distances of 40 metres being safe, i.e. there is an In order to obtain primary data for examining the acceptable safety margin to stop should a danger present relationships between geometry, the environment, speed, itself. However, the margin of safety becomes rapidly and casualties, twenty survey sites were selected smaller below 40 metres. throughout the UK comprising a mixture of new build, Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment In addition, a household survey was undertaken to (CABE) good practice, DB32 compliant and historic obtain the residents’ opinions of their streets at the twenty (pre-war) street layouts, to produce a wide range of case study sites. This was to determine ‘user satisfaction’ development type to ensure the results were applicable to of a variety of residential street layouts, and to consider many developments within the UK. Methods adopted to residents’ transport needs alongside their perceptions of collect data included measurement of X- and Y-distances safety and sustainability of their streets. Three hundred at junctions, visibility on links, road width, manual and household questionnaires were returned for analysis to automated speed data readings and observations on explore the relationship between resident perceptions of parking, signing, lining, and traffic calming. 190 links road safety and highway geometries. and 77 junctions were included in the research. With respect to the perceptions of residents surveyed, The headline findings from the site surveys can be the following can be concluded: summarised as follows: ! Across the sites there were mixed reactions to whether ! Lower vehicle speeds are associated with reduced road personal, or road, safety issues were of most concern. width and reduced visibility, both on links and at Residents at DB32 compliant sites considered personal junctions. safety (in relation to crime) to be of the greatest concern, ! Site type (for example historic, new build, DB32 but this was not the case at other sites. It is unclear compliant etc) is not a significant determinant of speed. whether this was owing to higher crime rates at the Junction and link geometries are the important variables. DB32 sites, the perception of road safety at other sites, ! Speed is known to be a key factor for road safety. The or a combination of both these factors. However, overall findings of this research are consistent with this fact, nearly half the respondents considered road safety to be indicating that higher speeds on links increase the the main issue, compared with nearly 30% who likelihood of injury and its severity. considered personal safety to be the highest concern.

1 These results have been integrated into the Manual for Streets in the form of appropriate standards for residential street design, and will become the focus for Government guidance on new residential streets.

2 Acronyms

ATC Automatic Traffic Count CABE Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment CAD Computer Aided Design DB32 Design Bulletin 32 DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government DEFRA Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DETR Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions DfT Department for Transport DPH Dwellings per hectare HA Hectare MfS Manual for streets MPH Miles per hour ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister PPG Planning Policy Guidance SafeNet Software for Accident Frequency Estimation for Networks

3 4 1 Introduction restrictive criteria imposed in the post-war period that resulted in a high degree of conformity between estates The Manual for Streets (MfS) is intended to consolidate the within the UK. Its purpose was to permit a more flexible necessary components for effective street design into a approach to design that enabled developments to be better single source of information. The MfS builds upon and tailored to the requirements of residents, for example updates the guidance contained in Design Bulletin 32 Home Zones in which a variety of techniques (speed (DB32) and its companion guide ‘Places Streets and reductions and surface treatments) are used to create a Movement: A Companion Guide To Design Bulletin 32, greater impression of shared space. Residential Roads and Footpaths’. Its aim is to provide However, a number of requirements are included to guidance for practitioners who will shape the developments ensure safety of pedestrians and road users within the of the future. It is therefore intended for: estate. These include minimum sight distances in order that ! Developers. vehicles travelling at a design speed are able to react to a ! Local highway authorities. danger and safely stop. The sight distances are specified for an observer’s eye being between 1.05 and 2 metres ! Local planning authorities. above ground level and in the case of a junction, the car ! The emergency services. being 4.5 metres from the stop line. The required visibility ! Utility and drainage companies. distances are summarised in Table 1.1, and Figure 1.1. ! Access officers. Table 1.1 DB32 visibility (Y) distances for different ! Public transport providers. design speeds ! Architects. ! Highway engineers. Speed ( mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30 ! Landscape architects. Speed (kph) 8 16 24 32 40 48 Distance (metres) 6 14 23 33 45 60 ! Town planners. ! Transport planners.

! Urban designers. 70 60

1.1 Manual for Streets 50 The Manual for Streets has been designed to recognise the 40 full range of design criteria necessary for the delivery of 30 multi-functional streets, assisting practitioners in making 20 informed decisions relating to appropriate street design. The Y Distance (metres) 10 Manual will initially cover the design considerations for 0 residential streets and other lightly trafficked local roads. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 The Manual deals with underlying values that can be Speed (mph) creatively deployed by practitioners in order to pursue the Figure 1.1 DB32 visibility (Y) distances for different Government’s ‘placemaking’ agenda of individually design speeds distinctive localities, while ensuring streets remain functional and safe. The Manual for Streets was prepared However, according to ‘Places Streets and Movement: against a backdrop of sustainable development guidance A Companion Guide To Design Bulletin 32, Residential and initiatives, including the Department for Communities Roads and Footpaths’ these should be extended to 45 m and Local Government’s Communities Plan ‘Sustainable in a 20 mph zone and 90 m in a 30 mph zone to allow Communities: Building for the Future’ (ODPM, 2003b) to for drivers exceeding the speed limit by up to 10 kph ensure that it facilitates the long-term sustainability of (Table 1.2). Also the Y-distance should be measured for streets, and contributes to an enhanced sense of place. vehicles at the following distances from the stop line on The Manual for Streets supports the objectives of the the minor arm of the junction: Government’s commitment to sustainable development as expressed in ‘A Better Quality of Life: A Strategy for ! 9.0 m: The normal requirement for major new junctions Sustainable Development in the United Kingdom’ (DETR, and for the improvement of existing junctions 1999) and in the latest document on delivering the UK’s between access roads and district or local distributor sustainable development strategy ‘Securing the Regions’ roads - for instances where the minor road is busy. Futures: Strengthening Delivery of Sustainable ! 4.5 m: For less busy minor roads and busy private Development in the English Regions’ (DEFRA, 2006). access points. This will ensure that residential streets meet the needs of ! 2.4 m: The minimum necessary for junctions within all street users, not just motorised vehicles. development to enable a driver who has stopped at a junction to see down the major road without 1.2 Design Bulletin 32 encroaching onto it. The document DB32 was used to assist in designing new ! 2.0 m: For single dwellings or small groups of up to half housing developments. It was created to remove the a dozen dwellings or thereabouts.

5 Table 1.2 Companion guide Y-distances ! Examins the relationship between driver behaviour and highway geometry. Speed (mph) 20 30 40 50 60 70 ! Establish the safety of roads which do not meet DB32 Speed (kph) 32 48 64 80 97 113 standards in terms of casualty numbers, driver behaviour Distance (metres) 45 90 120 160 215 295 and resident perceptions. allowing speeding Distance (metres) 33 60 120 160 215 295 ! Investigate highway layouts to determine whether more permeable layouts are associated with higher levels of casualties than spine and cul-de-sac layouts. Consequently, consider a residential area with a 30 mph limit. A driver on a minor road approaching a junction Three strands of research were included: should be able to see vehicles at a distance of 60 to 90 1 The first consisted of observations, conducted at twenty metres from the junction on the major road depending on residential developments, to examine links and junctions whether the drivers on the major road remain within the that were either at, or below, the limits specified in DB32. speed limit. Further, they should have this field of view for a distance of 4.5 metres before the junction if showing Observations included detailed information on the caution, or 2.4 metres if they are stopping at the junction. geometry and layout of each link and junction, These calculations assume a design speed and the observations of speed and obtaining accident statistics. standard stopping model of a driver when presented with a Statistical analysis and predictive models based upon danger: i.e. permitting a reaction time and then assuming these observations indicated whether relaxed geometric the driver will apply a constant braking force. However, and visibility values could be incorporated into the MfS. the situation can be considered from the opposite direction. The features also varied in relation to: If sight lines are reduced below the recommendation in ! Road width. these guidelines, do drivers react to the lack of visibility? ! Whether speed humps were present. Suppose drivers reduce their speed when encountering ! Whether parking was permitted. reduced lines of sight and therefore increased risk. This ! Whether lines were present to indicate priorities e.g. could, in effect, result in the housing development being as give way line. safe as one with greater lines of sight and promote lower speeds. That is, the reduction in speed could still permit ! The type of road surfacing used. them to stop the same distance before a hazard even 2 A household postal survey was conducted at the same though they see it when it is closer to them. twenty sites. This explored residents’ opinions on a number of aspects of their living environment. However, 1.3 Underlying research the emphasis of the questionnaire was to consider TRL has performed research into identifying and whether they had any perceived safety or personal investigating design elements whose impact was not fully security concerns. A comparison across the sites could understood, and in particular those not previously based on therefore investigate if junction and road geometries that rigorous research. The study initially performed a literature do not meet DB32 standards are perceived by residents review of local authority design guides: 32 were included. to be as safe as those that conformed to the standards. These indicated designs were constrained by the following 3 Lastly, SafeNet, which can model a road network and critical aspects of highway geometry: consider the effect of changes on safety, was used to ! Link widths. study the effect of junction spacing on casualty rates, ! Forward visibility. and the effect of changing the characteristics of a residential area from a cul-de-sac approach to a more ! Visibility splays. connected layout. ! Junction spacing. Within this report the following terminology is used: Little robust research supporting the DB32 standards was found in the review. Furthermore, the identified ! A site is a housing development that has been surveyed research did not explore detailed design elements, such as in this study. geometric dimensions. ! A feature is defined as being either a link or junction The review revealed the majority of the local within the site. authorities complied with, and recommended, the same standards as DB32. Where standards differed, they were 1.4 Report structure generally more stringent than those in DB32. As Section 2 discusses the research methodology used, including expected, road safety was the most significant barrier to a rationale for selecting the research study sites and the the adoption of standards with relaxed values of width variety of methods used to collect and analyse the field data. and visibility. This research therefore aimed to assist in setting the Section 3 provides a literature review and gap analysis that design standards for MfS and to inform its development supports the development of the primary research with respect to road widths, visual splays, parking, and methodology. removal of road markings. In particular, it aimed to:

6 Section 4 discusses the site surveys conducted, including a ! Materials, street furniture and planting. description of the different sites and the results and ! Lighting. analysis of the surveys, particularly with regard to ! Services and drainage works. visibility on links and at junctions in relation to traffic speed and accident risk. ! Maintenance and management. Section 5 describes the models used to consider whether The literature evidence relating to each element is then any observed speed reductions are sufficient for a link or listed, so that it may be cross-referenced to Appendix A. junction with limited visibility to be safe. This gap analysis is shown in Table 2.1. The review found few references concerned with the Section 6 considers the predicted effect of limited visibility effect of geometric dimensions within the contexts required. on speeds, and models a number of situations to ascertain However, references were located on the theoretical aspects whether the speed reductions compensate for the lack of of creating ‘liveable’ streets. The majority of elements were visibility. assessed as partially covered by current knowledge but Section 7 analyses road accidents statistics (STATS19 needing validation before being used. data) for the research sites and the relationship between One element covered within a number of research speed and geometries on accidents.1 reports was road or carriageway width. However, further research was necessary to determine suitable carriageway Sections 8 and 9 give an overview of results from the widths within residential areas: i.e. those promoting low household survey intended to assess residents’ opinions of traffic speeds, create a safe environment and ensure the streets where they live and to identify particular issues adequate access. that residents have about the design and layout of their Traffic calming measures also have adequate coverage street and built environment. within the literature, again with the objective of slowing Section 10 presents the results and analysis of the junction speeds and creating safer places. Whilst the majority of the spacing research using the Software for Accident robust evidence is concerned with physical traffic calming Frequency Estimation for Networks (SafeNet) to compare measures (humps, pinch points etc), there is recent hypothetical networks based on DB32 compliant and research examining psychological traffic calming ‘organic’ street layouts. measures. These measures use the surroundings to influence driver behaviour (e.g. width of road, coloured Section 11 concludes with an overall summary of the surfaces, location and height of buildings close to the research and a discussion about the proposed standards carriageway edge). However, this research was primarily that will be included in the Manual for Streets. conducted in rural areas and hence its applicability to The report concludes with a summary of results from the residential areas requires further research. research, and how this affects the standards for residential There are a number of publications on Home Zones, or street design, to be revised for the MfS. the Dutch ‘Woonerven’. Research studies have also been undertaken focusing on traffic volumes, accident levels before and after implementation and the views of residents. 2 Review of existing literature However, there are some research gaps within the area of Home Zones, such as the inclusion of disabled people A literature review (see Appendix A) was performed as an (research has recently been commissioned on this topic) initial element of this research to collect together and robust research focusing on the safety implications of information relevant to the Manual for Streets. Its purpose Home Zones (as only limited ‘after’ data was analysed) was to perform a gap analysis. That is, to ascertain where and associated social impacts of schemes. research could underpin the DB32 standards so they could Parking research was fairly extensive, but not considered be directly included in the Manual for Streets, and to robust. Generally, research suggests parking should be identify elements within the current guidance based upon incorporated within the design of residential streets as it can limited research (either needing validating or further act as a traffic calming measure. However, its inclusion in research). Reports and articles on the following subjects residential streets should not create danger for playing were sought: children or crossing residents, especially parking at ! Policy, legal and technical frameworks. junctions, which may obstruct the vision of drivers. ! Objectives for streets. Overall the research review highlighted a lack of robust research supporting DB32 standards and the information to ! Sustainable communities. be incorporated in the Manual for Streets. Where research ! Quality places. has been undertaken, detailed design elements, such as ! Movement. geometric dimensions, have been neglected. Consequently, ! Access. the following design aspects were investigated further: ! Parking. ! Road widths – which widths result in low speeds whilst maintaining safety, access and ease of traffic flow? ! Visual splays – which sight lines result in preferred 1 In this report, accidents are used to denote personal injury incidents. driver behaviours, whilst maintaining safety?

7 Table 2.1 Gap analysis of research literature

Supported

Chapter content specifications Fully Partially Not Evidence source (see Appendix A for full details)

Street networks and types

Hierarchies of traffic and place functions " Travel demand by mode " Grids vs cul-de-sac " Block dimensions – find / course grain " Achieving appropriate speeds through See ‘Achieving appropriate speeds’ below network / environmental effects Public transport, walk and cycle networks " Integration / segregation of cars / cycles / people " Guard railing " English partnerships and Llewellyn Davis (2002) Mixed use streets " Shared space " Shared surfaces " Polus and Craus (1996) Home Zones " Barrel and Whitehouse (2004); Tilly et al. (2005); Layfield et al. (2005); Webster et al. (2005) Rural lanes / Quiet lanes " DfT (2004); Kennedy et al. (2004a and b)

Street dimensions

Design vehicles – dimensions, dynamic envelopes " Widths – carriageways, cycleways, footways shared areas " Burrow (1977) Daisa & Peers (1997); Gibbard et al. (2004); Oxley (2002); Lawton et al. (2003) Capacity for vehicle movement " Street in cross-section – kerb height / crossfalls " Absence of centre-line markings " Countryside Agency (2005)

Where streets meet

Place importance of junctions / squares " Visibility splays " Unmarked junctions " Junction spacing " X junctions " T junctions " Roundabouts " Lawton et al. (2003) Signals " Informal squares " Footway crossings " Pedestrian crossings- signal / zebra / refuge / courtesy "

Continued ....

8 Table 2.1 (Continued) Gap analysis of research literature

Supported

Chapter content specifications Fully Partially Not Evidence source (see Appendix A for full details)

Street alignments

Gradients " Curve radii, horizontal and vertical " Forward visibility " Kennedy et al. (1998); Layfield et al. (1996); Summersgill and Layfield (1996); Taylor et al. (1996)

Achieving appropriate speeds

Ideally through network (and natural traffic calming) " Scottish Executive (1999); Grayling et al. (2002); Vis et al. (1990) Kennedy et al. (2005); Hardy (2004); Elliott et al. (2003) Traffic calming as fallback " Engel and Thomsen (1992) Integration of TC with environment "

Access

Access requirements to buildings – people and vehicles " Emergency access. References to building regulations " Servicing: refuse collection, deliveries, removals " DDA/disabled requirements – into buildings, along streets " Oxley (2002) Need to balance the perceived conflict between accessibility " ODPM (2004) and crime – permeability versus security

Parking

Layouts / design of on/off street parking " Noble and Jenks (1996); TRL (1992); Noble et al. (1987); Westdijk (2001); Scottish Executive (2005) Relationship with capacity and safety " Motorcycle / cycle parking "

! Parking – How can parking be best incorporated into ensure the results were applicable to many developments residential design? Can it be successfully used as a within the UK. The full list of sites is shown in Table 3.1, traffic calming measure? What are the impacts on and their distribution within the UK is shown in Figure 3.1 safety? Can the quality of the area be retained? (see Appendix B for a summary of each study site). ! Removal of road markings – What effect does the The sites were initially evaluated from CAD drawings removal of road markings have on driver behaviour? and then assessed in detail during a site visit.

3.2 CAD measurements 3 Site selection and measurement Detailed site characteristics were measured from site plans: technical drawings of the selected sites depicting all 3.1 Site selection structures in the area. Using AutoCAD it was possible to Twenty survey sites were selected throughout the UK; ten take accurate measurements of sight lines, as the drawings of the sites were ‘case study’ and ‘new build’ areas were detailed, accurate and all obscuring features were selected by CABE. The remaining 10 sites were a mix of recorded (see Figure 3.2). historic (pre-War), DB32 compliant and new build sites The X-distance was set at 2.4, 4.5 and 9 m from the selected to produce a wide range of development type to junction measured down the centre line of the road, in

9 Table 3.1 Research study sites

Rural / Housing Land Network Characteristic Town Ward Region urban period use Density type

Historic (pre-war) Reading New Town South East Urban Victorian Mixed High Grid Lavenham Suffolk South East Rural Medieval Residential Low Organic Oxford Jericho South East Urban Victorian Residential High Grid Bloxham Village Oxfordshire South East Rural Victorian Residential Low Organic Chichester West Sussex South East Urban Medieval Mixed High Organic London Belgravia South East Urban Victorian Mixed High Grid

Case study Charlton Down West Dorset South West Rural Post 90s Residential High Organic Lichfield Darwin Park West Midlands Urban Post 90s Residential High Organic Eastleigh Former Pirelli site South East Urban Post 90s Residential High Atypical grid Newhall East Harlow East of England Suburban Post 90z Residential High Organic Guildford Queen’s Park South East Urban Post 90s Residential Mid Organic London Tower Hamlets South East Urban Post 90s Residential High Grid Glasgow Crown St. Scotland Urban Post 90s Residential High Organic Chelmsford Windley Tye East of England Suburban Post 90s Residential Low Court layout Chelmsford Beaulieu Park East of England Urban Post 90s Residential Low Grid Manchester Hulme North West Urban 1990s Residential Low Grid

New build Ipswich Rapier St. South East Suburban Post 90s Residential High Atypical grid Portishead Port Marine South West Suburban Post 90s Residential Mid Organic

DB32 Compliant Leicester Syston East Midlands Urban 1980> Residential Mid Cul-de-sac with spine Reading Lower Earley South East Urban 1980> Residential Mid Cul-de-sac with spine

1: New Town, Reading 2: Lavenham, Suffolk 3:Jericho, Oxford 4: Bloxham Village, Oxfordshire 5: Chichester, West Sussex 6: Belgravia, London 7: Charlton Down, West Dorset 8: Darwin Park, Lichfield 9: Former Pirelli Site, Eastleigh 10: Newhall, East Harlow 11: Queens Park, Guildford 12: Tower Hamlets, London 13:Gorbals, Glasgow 14: Windley Tye, Chelmsford 15: Beaulieu Park, Chelmsford 16: Hulme, Manchester 17: Rapier Street, Ipswich 18: Portmarine, Portishead 19: Syston, Leicester 20: Lower Earley, Reading

Figure 3.1 Distribution of sites

10 5 Any visible obstructions were noted down, these included buildings, brow of a hill, phone boxes, hedges, parked cars etc.

x Centre Link forward visibility Lines 1 A pre-defined place in the road calculated to have minimum visibility from the CAD drawings was located. y 2 All obstructions, including parking, were recorded. 3 Taking the obstructions into account the pre-defined point of minimum visibility was confirmed as correct, or adjusted and recorded. Obscuring Feature 4 The distance between the correct position and the furthest point of visibility was measured: along the road if considered safe, or along the kerb, and the road width was recorded. Figure 3.2 Y-distance at junctions Manual speed measurements (speed gun) accordance with generally accepted practice. From these ! Recorded vehicle speeds for 20 minutes at a sub-sample three distances the line of sight (Y-distance) is measured of links and junctions. left and right looking out of the junction. The Y-distance is the furthest point of visibility on the kerb (the blue line), taking into account any obscuring features, and is Sample sizes measured from the centre line of the side road. Estimates from CAD drawings and measurements from Lines of sight on links were measured using a similar site surveys resulted in geometric information being method. The driver’s (direct) sight line was used to find collected for: the shortest distance ahead of the vehicle that is visible ! 190 junctions, and when on the link. In addition, the width of the road, both ! 77 links. with and without footways, was also measured from the CAD drawings. A speed gun was used to record individual vehicle This information gave a first indication of the range of approach speeds for approximately twenty minutes at a geometries available across the chosen sites. However, this sub-sample of the surveyed features. Exact speeds (to the could not take account of all complications on site. Therefore nearest mph) were recorded above 10 mph, however, this information was validated and enhanced by site surveys. manually collected speeds at, or below, 10 mph were classified into one category. These observations were 3.3 Site surveys collated into an analysable form for All site surveys were conducted from January to March ! 57 junctions, and 2006. Each survey comprised measurements of speed, road ! 23 links. geometry and visibility, at a minimum of 10 junctions and Also, automatic traffic counters (ATCs) were installed 2 links within the site, and speed readings at a minimum of for one week on: 5 junctions and 2 links. The purpose of the surveys was to validate the measurements taken from the CAD drawings ! 18 links. and obtain a sample of speeds from a wide range of ! The approach to 10 junctions. junctions and links throughout the sites. The following The speed gun survey provided a snapshot of the procedures were undertaken at each junction and link: approach speeds of drivers across a wide range of different junctions and links, and therefore a wide range of Junction visibility (Y Distance) geometries. In contrast, the ATC data was restricted to a 1 The centre line of the main road was ascertained. smaller number of features, and therefore geometries, but 2 The three X values were measured and marked off using gave a robust picture of the approach speeds used. chalk on the road. The purpose of the next section is to examine how the speeds varied across the features studied and identify the 3 Y-distances were measured at a height of 1.2 m from characteristics that influenced those speeds. each X chalk mark to the left and right. 4 Where parking was explicitly marked on the road, a second measurement, assuming a parked vehicle was 4 Speeds and geometry data site ranges present, was also recorded. Lines of sight also took into account cars parked on the road, as these were assumed to A general understanding of the effect of road layout, and be the general conditions that drivers would encounter. the resulting visibilities, on drivers’ speeds can only be

11 achieved if a wide range of different site conditions are 60 Mean = 57.187 studied. The selected 20 sites were consequently chosen to Std. Dev. = 69.7081 be representative of developments throughout the country. N = 99 In terms of the type of sites studied there were: 50 ! 6 historic (pre-war) sites. 40 ! 6 sites conforming to CABE good practice guidelines. ! 2 sites conforming to DB32 specifications. 30 ! 6 other (case study) sites. Frequency

Road surfacing within the sites varied from tarmac 20 (12 sites), through to a mixture of tarmac and block paving (3 sites) to wide-scale use of block paving (5 sites). Half 10 the sites had no speed restricting measures present (e.g. road humps or horizontal deflections), whilst some form of 0 speed restricting measures were present in the others. The 450400350300250200150100500 extent of on-street parking also varied across the sites with Forward visibility (metres) 7 sites having no parking near to junctions in evidence during the site visits, whilst some vehicles parked close to Figure 4.2 Range of observed link forward visibilities the junctions at other sites. Also, parking on the links varied between no observed parked vehicles, to parking on Mean = 30.97 one side of the road on some links and parking on both Std. Dev. = 27.717 sides of the road on others. 60 N =194 Forward visibilities on links, and visibility at junctions (Y-distance), were estimated from plans of the developments and measured during the site visits. Often, the observed visibilities were less than those estimated 40 before the site visit (using AutoCAD). This was owing to the presence of street furniture and other obstructions (for Frequency example planting) that limited visibility. This study is considering the effect of actual visibility on drivers’ 20 speeds, therefore the visibilities measured on site have been used in assessing driver adaptive behaviour. The observed ranges of road width, forward visibility on links 0 and visibility at junctions are shown in Figures 4.1 to 4.3. 0 50 100 150 200 Y distance measured at 4.5 metres from junction Road widths (excluding footways) generally varied from (metres) 4 to 10 metres across the studied sites. Visibilities on links, and at junctions, varied from below 10 metres to Figure 4.3 Range of observed junction visibilities approximately 100 metres. The sites can therefore be considered to be representative of the majority of situations 4.1 Outliers occurring within residential developments in the UK. Sites with abnormal characteristics can distort the findings of any statistical analysis. Such sites can produce 40 Mean =6.285 observations that significantly differ from the trends Std. Dev. =1.641 present within, and across, other typical sites: such N =145 observations are referred to as outliers. These observations

30 can therefore affect the statistical models fitted to the data, referred to as points of high influence. The accepted approach in these situations is to exclude these abnormalities from the analysis and produce models 20 that reflect the trends within the majority of situations. The

Frequency previous section shows that nearly all the sites have road widths less than 10 metres (excluding footways) and lines 10 of sight of less than 100 metres on links and at junctions. In addition, the average daily flows and average link speeds at each of the sites studied using ATCs are summarised in Table 4.1. 0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 Observations from Belgravia were anomalous. The road Road width without footways (metres) width where the ATC was situated was 11.4 metres wide (excluding footways), and the average for all links Figure 4.1 Range of observed road widths surveyed in Belgravia was 10.5 metres. In addition, the

12 Table 4.1 Average flows and speeds The site with the next highest average link speed was Leicester where the forward visibility was 65 metres, and Site Average daily flow Average speed (mph) the lowest average link speeds were at Beaulieu Park in Chelmsford, where the forward visibility was 10 metres. Lower Earley 70.4 11.3 Guildford 481.9 18.2 The following sections consider the effect of forward New Town, Reading 242.6 14.4 visibility on links (and visibility at junctions) and other Chichester 1372.8 19.4 relevant influencing factors on speed. Eastleigh 427.7 17.3 Belgravia 2029.5 25.7 Tower Hamlets 627.0 19.1 4.2 Variation within the data Ipswich 121.6 19.0 Ranges in geometry, parking, signing and speed reduction Lavenham 221.4 11.7 methods present within the 20 studied sites have been Newhall 482.9 15.6 Windley Tye 294.9 16.9 explored. The sites (excluding Belgravia) provide a good Beaulieu 83.8 10.2 variation in all these site dependent factors that may Bloxham 112.3 12.5 influence speeds. However, it is important to be able to Portishead 1161.1 15.8 ensure that these are the only factors affecting differences Leicester 528.9 23.5 observed between the sites and features studied, in order Manchester 1060.6 19.3 Lichfield 362.6 16.7 that the results are not confounded by other differences. Glasgow 1575.4 10.3 Other possible influences at a given feature include: ! Time of day, for example night driving. forward visibility on the link where an ATC was installed ! Day of week, weekend driving compared with weekday was 446 metres and generally there was good visibility on driving. the links throughout the Belgravia site. These conditions ! Weather conditions. resulted in the highest average speed in any site. In ! Age of driver. addition, the daily vehicle flows were almost 30% higher ! Driving style. than on any other site. Thus the Belgravia observations are generally excluded from the analysis performed. As a ! Other vehicles present. consequence, the results can be considered to be relevant It is not possible to take account of all these factors within for developments such as shown in Figure 4.4 with road this type of analysis. However, the best consistency was widths up to 10 metres and visibilities on links (and at sought between the manual speeds and loop speeds. All junctions) of up to 100 metres, and not for those with grid manual speeds were collected on weekdays in the daytime. layouts such as Belgravia (see Figure 4.5) with wide roads Consequently, the speed loop analysis was also restricted to and larger visibilities. observations on a weekday between 0700 and 1900.

Lichfield = ATC Location = Manual Speed = Junctions Measured Reading Locations

0 1

= ATC I.D. = Links Measured 3

2 2

34 25 3 2 Leomansley Court 1 6 W IE V Y LE S N A M O LE

86.0m 5

AD L RO AL LS WA

LEAMONSLEY

Easter Hill Rookery Court

I C

T The Old O R

I Vicarage A

The Vicarage K L 1 A W N O X A S

89.3m

1 1

6 17 97 A 4

9 9

NE LA

9 1 2 1 4 10

6 0 1 CH

1 1

CHRISTCHUR 0 3

1 2 7

146 a

5 10

1 3 9

1 1 45 27

1 4 7

159 8

92.0m

4 23 45

2 1 6 5 5 8 5 16 1 8a

16 9 12 5 1

4 1 2 26 1

170 5 2

9 El Sub Sta 4

1 17 9

8 7 7 AD 9

ALL

S 1 7 AL 7

W 3 5 2

OW 3

2 E

1 8 M 7 RE

9 O

2 SM 5

1 ALE 9 189 7

194 6 This organic layout is E OS .77m S CL

93 ND M 4 O

C B RM

L O

O 1

S 5

191 5

5 7

2 E P S O LO C O LL 3

DE L R F A 1 characterised by low link B I 11 E L

D 2

0 1 3 R

O 2 A 2

D 1 8 4 2

3 2

1 5 11

19 7 visibilities (see link 2 image).

1 25

12 K

1 14 0 L WA

T 10 U

A 2 2 W 7

4 4 7 Jinction sight lines are also

5 VE 2 N A

TO 9

ER 2 38

T 1 7 AT CH

10 2525 3

52 8

5 shorter compared to the grid

4 1

16 11 9

21 12 0

2 Headland 4

House layout of Belgravia.

6 2

4 10

6 3

4 4 8

3 3

4 3

2 3

0 4

Figure 4.4 Lichfield – non-grid layout (limited visibilities)

13 Belgravia - London 2 3

m 9 7 10 1 .8 1 7 M

B 36

o 103 E liv 107 m ia b n 108 a s sy

7.8m 6 106 T C

= ATC Location B Belgian Embassy 7

8 26 3 0 1 s

rden = Junctions Measured a LB LB n Square G ato E

8.0m 9

2 0 1 1 1

= ATC I.D. 2 m 2 .1 8

B 4 6.9m

1 15

1 6

100

8 U

P N P E 1

R IG

1 B

7.9m 2 0 E L G R H A V E TS 1

S 3

T 4 1 R

1 E

1 T 8 = Links Measured R

2 G

E 98

2 D 1

E E 8 1 D 1 7.5m C LG 1 C

R L

2 A 2 R S T

17 A O 1 N = Manual Speed V

31 VIA W VIA

1 A

7 R A ARE

R 95

115 E LG

S D R EA SQU 11 A T

W U O E 1 Q M N S S STR N N QU 22 O BE 2 T O Reading Locations T AR S A E D E L E EET C C

E 10

BELGRAVE 9

E AN E

3 G 4 1 t EATON PLA o 4

ID 7.1m

CE 1

07 BR

e h

t n TS f ia 1 o r 9 y a g H ss n a u lic b H 32 5 m E IG

9 ple's Repub 0

eo 1 KN

P 35 1

6 1 7.87m 1 7

BM 36 1

Bo 07 103 Emb liv 1 46 ian b 2 108 5 assy 3 It E a m lia b n 7.8m a

ss y 6 106 E 37 T C R LB B A

Belgian Embassy U LB 7 3 EATON SQ

2 46 6 03 3 1 4 Gardens s n e 7 3 d r a G re a aton Square u E LB q LB S n to a

4 E 45

5 4 2

9 0

1 1

2 a

6.9m

1 RE 4 A PLACE 0 U 0

1 Q

ON S

5 EAT 6 ON AT

E 32

98 5

57 14

1 E 8 C C L H E T S R T O O N N S W E M N O T ARE A 95 U

6 8 S T Nuffield Club R E E T 23 ON AT

2 3

3 9

8 9 4 6 8 m 5 .7 7 M E B R A U Q S N O T A

E 2

90 4 6 1 82 7 6.9m

LY A LL S s T n R e E rd E T 2 Ga re a u q S

n 44 to a

9 E E

8 R 4 A U 6 Q 9 8 S 7 N O T A E

86 15 8

3 3

7.4m 4

8 7

7 8 34

4 9 6

4 H 3 T 8 CRITY OF WESTMINSTER LB CITIES OF LONDON AND WESTMINSTER BORO CONST

N 4 6 5

3 S

E 3 LB M 6 N The Irish LB

PH O

T 4 A 7 E Club 2 62 8 9

The Irish LB 4

9 61 Club 8

10 2 6.9m 8 8

1 9 LY A

L 3 9 104 S T WEST CENTRAL GL ASLY CONST R LONDON EER E

T 3

9 0m 40 0 8 5 7. M B

7 8

5 TH to 41

4 3

55 N MEWS NOR O T Tennis

99 Court E 53 A T O 1 N 0 10 8 7 P 7 L A C

to to

4 7.3m ARE 7 U

ields ON SQ The grid layout of Belgravia gives EAT

he Five F

1 48

0 1

3 7 ARE

U rise to high visibility levels at the 103

EATON SQ 72

E R A majority of junctions, as can be U 11 Q S N O T

A E 5 6.9m 1 seen in the image of junction 4.

ardens

5 6

Eaton Square G 7 6 There were also clear views down

E A 60 to 57 T O N S Q U A R

E the lengths of all measured links

6 6 62 (link 1 = 122m, link 2 = 89m, link 3

12LB 3

Figure 4.5 Belgravia – grid layout (large visibilities)

It was also possible that differences could be influenced geometries, speed restriction measures and surface types by the type of site. That is speeds could depend on the explored across all non-anomalous data. Figure 4.7 shows intrinsic design present within a historical site compared the same link speeds according to forward visibility and with one conforming to the DB32 standards: similar to the the sites on which they were measured. effect of the grid layout in Belgravia. If such variations were present the different type of sites would result in distinct Site Number 70 data clusters. The resulting ATC link speeds according to Lower Earley the measured visibility are shown in Figure 4.6. Guildford New Town, Reading Observed speeds, and average speeds, on links within 60 Chichester Eastleigh the sites increased with forward visibility. The type of site Tower Hamlets appeared to have no effect. Therefore, all sites and features 50 Ipswich Lavenham within them were considered together and the effect of Windley Tye 40 Beaulieu Bloxham Portishead Type of site 70 Leicester DB32 compliant Observed speed (km/h) 30 Manchester Historic Lichfield Other 60 Site mean 20 Site 85th percentile

50 10

10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 40 Measured forward visibility

30 Figure 4.7 Speed ATC data for links Observed speed (km/h)

20 Even restricting observations to weekdays during the daytime, it is clear there was a large variation in speeds at 10 each site and on any given link. The variation will have 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 been affected by factors that cannot be accounted for Measured forward visibility within this study, for example, variations in driving style Figure 4.6 Speed ATC data for links (by site type) and individual circumstances occurring on the link.

14 Interestingly, some drivers were observed at approximately other. So, this research considers whether any observed 10 mph at nearly all the sites though this could be owing to speed reductions (through perceived danger) are sufficient particular circumstances encountered by the drivers, for for a link, or junction, with limited visibility to be as example, slowing to permit a vehicle through from the (actually) safe as one with good visibility. other direction. Increasing variation with increases in an independent 5.1 Link speeds variable can be accounted for by transforming the dependent variable. However, even with this approach the size of the Drivers within a development generally negotiate a inherent variation at any one site and feature will ensure that number of links and junctions during their journey. They the percentage of variation accounted for by a model will be would be expected to have a highly variable drive cycle as low. The statistical models therefore investigated they can be stationary at junctions, and possibly on links, explanatory variables whose coefficient was significant, and to give way to other traffic. They would be expected to hence captured a significant trend within the data, without adapt their speed to perceived dangers such as parking and placing any criteria on the overall model’s fit, therefore the horizontal deflections that reduce their forward visibility. regression (R2) value could be low. However, drivers will typically try to maintain the maximum speed to minimise their journey time. Higher speeds, with greater variation, would be expected 5 Speed adaptation on links as vehicles would not be expected to show the same caution as at junctions. Therefore lines of sight are It is probable that drivers adapt their speed according to important on links because if lines of sight are reduced and the perceived danger on the road. Initial investigation in speeds remain high, an unexpected occurrence such as a the previous sections supports this as the observed average pedestrian stepping into the road, is more likely to result in speed on a link decreased with forward visibility. The aim a serious accident. For comparison the observed speeds on of the analysis was therefore to find significant trends in the approach to a junction and on a link in Tower Hamlets speeds explainable by the differences between the are shown in Figure 5.1. junction, and link, layouts. Two (multi-linear) regression models were fitted to the Speed is an indicator of safety on a road. If the average available data. One to the manual speed data from 23 links speed is lower, then arguably the road is safer and less and the other was fitted to the ATC data from 18 links. The intimidating to vulnerable road users. There are two effects forms of the regressions were: that make the road safer. Firstly, the stopping distance of vehicles is less and therefore the probability that a driver In(speed )=+ a b ( road width )+ c ( forward visibility) + will be able to stop and avoid an accident is higher under d()() parking+ e surface type the same conditions. Secondly, should an accident occur, its severity could be less owing to reduced impact speed. The natural logarithm of speed (km/h) was found to Reductions occurring through non-geometric treatments produce the best fit to the data. The results of the models are (including the type of road surface, speed humps and shown in Figures 5.2 and 5.3 respectively, and in Table 5.1. signing) would be expected to increase safety compared The regressions explained only between 20 and 22% of with a similar road without the same measures. However, the total variation in the data. However, all the variables the situation is more complicated with respect to geometric were significantly different from zero at the 95% differences where lines of sight are affected. On the one confidence level. hand drivers may reduce their speeds owing to the The models imply that either permitting parking on a perceived danger, but there is a potential increase in link, or the use of block paving, can reduce link speeds by danger through drivers being unable to see hazards until 2 to 5 mph which could improve safety, though there are they are closer to them. These two effects counteract each clearly issues with pedestrians being obscured by parked

400 Mean = 26.0118 400 Mean = 30.8089 Std. Dev. = 7.69201 Std. Dev. = 8.47612 N = 4,400 N = 4,389

300 300

200 200 Frequency Frequency

100 100

0 0 70605040302010 70605040302010 Observed speed (km/h) Observed speed (km/h) Figure 5.1a Junction speeds Figure 5.1b Link speeds

15 45 60

40 50 35

30 40

25 30 20 Speed (mph) Speed (mph) 20 15 Road Width = 5m Road Width = 5m Road Width = 6m Road Width = 6m 10 Road Width = 7 Road Width = 7 Road Width = 8m 10 Road Width = 8m 5 Road Width = 9m Road Width = 9m Road Width = 10m Road Width = 10m 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 020406080100120 Forward visibility (m) Forward visibility (m)

Figure 5.2 Link model – manual speeds with average site features

40 50

45 35 40 30 35

25 30

20 25

20 Road Width = 5m Speed (mph) 15 Speed (mph) Road Width = 5m Road Width = 6m 15 Road Width = 6m Road Width = 7m 10 Road Width = 7m 10 Road Width = 8m Road Width = 8m Road Width = 9m Road Width = 9m 5 5 Road Width = 10m Road Width = 10m 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Forward visibility (m) Forward visibility (m)

Figure 5.3 Link model – ATC speeds

Table 5.1 Predicted changes across roads with 5 metre reduces their speeds by approximately 20 mph if the forward widths and forward visibilities between 5 and visibility on the link is reduced from 110 to 20 metres. 110 metres 5.2 Junction speeds Decrease ( mph) Approach speeds at junctions were generally found to be No parking to parking less than link speeds, as drivers slowed and showed caution on both sides of link Tarmac to block paving on the approach in case they needed to give way to another driver with priority. The requirement to assess a number of Link model Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum factors during their approach seems to have both heightened Manual speeds with 2.8 4.8 2.5 4.4 awareness and also increased workload on the driver. average site features Overall there appeared to be more accidents on the sites at Loop speeds 1.5 3.5 1.3 3.2 junctions than on links: 110 accidents at 187 junctions compared with 21 accidents on 74 links. Hence reducing speeds and accidents at junctions is clearly important. vehicles. Similarly, reducing road width also has the effect of Information was available on the visibility (Y-distance) reducing vehicle speeds on the link. However, the two models at each junction for a vehicle positioned at 2.4, 4.5 and disagree about the extent of the reduction. The manual speed 9 metres before the junction. Initial tests considered which data implies that a reduction from 10 to 5 metres could reduce visibility was the best predictor for the observed approach the link speeds by between 9 to 20 mph, depending on the speeds. This model indicated that a visibility of 4.5 metres forward visibility on the link. In contrast, the ATC data should be used within the regression modelling. implies the reduction is between 2 and 4 mph. It is the Regression models were formed on both the manually conservative estimate from the ATC data that is most likely to collected speed data and on the ATC data. In addition, be accurate given that the model included nearly as many whilst the ATC data recorded the speeds of all approaching sites and also given that the average number of manual vehicles, the manual data also classified the vehicles as to observations was 32 within any one site. whether they turned at the junction. Therefore a separate Both models agree that drivers do adapt their speed model was also formed for all vehicles that did not turn at according to the forward visibility on the link. According the junction for this data set. A summary of the models is to the model based on the ATC data an average driver shown in Figures 5.4 to 5.6 and Table 5.2.

16 30 40

25 35

30 20 25

15 20

Speed (mph) Road Width = 5m 15 Road Width = 5m 10 Speed (mph) Road Width = 6m Road Width = 6m Road Width = 7m Road Width = 7m 10 Road Width = 8m Road Width = 8m 5 Road Width = 9m Road Width = 9m Road Width = 10m 5 Road Width = 10m

0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 020406080100120 Y Distance (m) Forward visibility (m) Figure 5.4 Junction model – manual speeds with average site features (all vehicles)

30 45

40 25 35

20 30

25 15 20

Speed (mph) Road Width = 5m Speed (mph) Road Width = 5m 15 10 Road Width = 6m Road Width = 6m Road Width = 7m Road Width = 7m 10 Road Width = 8m Road Width = 8m 5 Road Width = 9m Road Width = 9m Road Width = 10m 5 Road Width = 10m

0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Y Distance (m) Forward visibility (m) Figure 5.5 Junction model – manual speeds with average site features (non-turners only)

45 60

40 50 35

30 40

25 30 20 Road Width = 5m Speed (mph)

Speed (mph) Road Width = 5m 15 20 Road Width = 6m Road Width = 6m Road Width = 7m Road Width = 7m Road Width = 8m 10 Road Width = 8m 10 Road Width = 9m Road Width = 9m Road Width = 10m 5 Road Width = 10m 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Y Distance (m) Forward visibility (m) Figure 5.6 Junction model – ATC speeds

Table 5.2 Predicted changes across roads with 5 metre widths and Y-distances between 5 and 110 metres

Decrease (mph)

No parking No junction to parking Tarmac to markings to near junction block paving junction markings

Junction model Min Max Min Max Min Max

Manual speeds with average site features 1.5 2.1 3.7 5.2 -1.1 -0.8 Manual speeds with average site features (non-turners only) 1.8 2.5 3.9 5.5 -1.0 -0.7 ATC speeds 3.5 6.4 2.9 5.4 3.2 5.9

17 Parking and block paving were found to reduce vehicle about 1.5 seconds after first possible visibility of the speeds by approximately 2 to 5 mph, though there is an object or condition of concern’. Guidance in DB32 is indication from the ATC data that parking near junctions based on an assumed time of 2 seconds. could have a slightly stronger effect on speeds than ! The average deceleration rate of drivers stopping is parking on a link. The models disagree as to the effect of 4.5 ms-2. This is approximately half the maximum junction markings. The manual data implies that without decelleration that can be achieved by cars under favourable junction markings, speeds were slightly greater. However, conditions, and is consistent with firm braking (see, for the ATC data indicates drivers reduced their speeds by example, Auto Express, 2005). Guidance in DB32 is based between 3 and 6 mph when markings were absent. on an assumed rate of 2.5 ms-2, approximately equivalent to The models agree on the order of magnitude of speed stopping on snow without skidding. reductions through width reductions. For example at a junction with Y-distance at 4.5 metres of 40 metres, a For example, consider a driver travelling at 30 mph -1 reduction of road width from 10 to 5 metres would be (13.4 ms ). If the driver reacts to a danger by stopping expected to reduce approach speeds by between 6 and 9 mph. then they take 13.4 × 1.4 = 18.8 metres to react to the Both models also agree that drivers reduced their danger. Using standard equations of motion the driver approach speed if the visibility at the junction (Y-distance) takes (13.4 × 13.4)/(2 × 4.5) = 20 metres to become was less. The manual data predicts a reduction of stationary when travelling at a constant rate of approximately 5 mph if the Y-distance is reduced from deceleration. That is, it takes a driver a total distance of 110 to 20 metres at a junction where the road width is 38.8 metres to stop from a speed of 30 mph. 5 metres. However, the ATC data considers that drivers are more sensitive to a lack of visibility. Under the same 6.2 Stopping distances on links conditions the resulting model predicts that drivers would A range of links have been examined in which the reduce their speed by 11 mph. forward visibility generally varied from less than 10 metres to approximately 100 metres. It was found that the 6 Modelled safety impacts average speed of drivers reduced with forward visibility. In addition, block paving and parking on the link were Drivers have been shown to alter their speed according to found to affect speeds. To remove this complication, the conditions on the road. Reductions through the type of within this modelling it is assumed that the link has a road surface and speed reduction measures (for example tarmac surface and no parking is permitted on the link. speed humps) almost certainly improve safety at a site. Furthermore, it was found that link width also influences However, the implication of reduced speeds owing to speeds. It is therefore assumed that the link is either 5 or 9 reductions in forward visibility on links and visibility at metres wide, i.e. a narrow or wide road. junctions is less clear. The reduced speed results in a The situation considered is if an event occurs, for smaller stopping distance requirement, but less distance example a pedestrian stepping into the road at the limit of will generally be available for stopping when a hazard the driver’s forward visibility. It is assumed that the driver becomes visible. So, it is a question of whether drivers will react as fast as possible and apply a fairly high average slow enough to make the junctions and links with limited deceleration to stop their vehicle, as discussed in Section 6.1 visibility as safe as those with greater visibility. above. The distance required to stop is compared with the This section considers the predicted effect of limited distance available for road widths of 5 and 9 metres in visibility on speeds, and models a number of critical Figures 6.1 and 6.2 respectively, and Table 6.1. Further, the situations to ascertain whether the speed reductions distance required to stop assuming drivers had not altered compensate for the lack of visibility. The average speeds their speeds owing to the reduced forward visibility is predicted by the regression models formed on the ATC included for reference. data are assumed within this modelling as they are based Initially it was assumed that drivers did not adapt their upon the largest data set, and the predictions are in speeds as forward visibility reduced, i.e. that they did not approximate agreement with those formed on the manually perceive limited visibility as a danger and react to it. Then collected data. the model predicts that a collision would occur if visibility was less than 40 to 50 metres depending on the width of the road. 6.1 Braking modelling According to the regression modelling, drivers adapted It is possible to model relative safety of the schemes by their speeds. However, the reduction does not fully considering the ability of the drivers to stop under different compensate for the reduction in forward visibility. That is conditions. In order to create these braking models the the margin for error is reduced as visibility falls. For following has been assumed (see Appendix C): example, with a forward visibility of 100 metres, should a ! The average perception-reaction time of a driver is 1.4 pedestrian appear at the limit of their vision a driver is seconds when stopping in response to a hazard. This is a modelled as being able to stop at a distance of conservative estimate for the average driver, for example approximately 60 metres before the pedestrian. However, Olson (1997) reviewed 27 driver perception-reaction time the model predicts that the driver would be able to stop studies and concludes ‘a great deal of data suggest that with just over 20 metres to spare under the same most drivers (i.e. about 85%) should begin to respond by conditions if the forward visibility was 40 metres. This

18 120 Total stopping distance (m) Stopping distance if speeds not altered (m) 100 Available distance (m)

20 Total stopping distance (metres) Total

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Forward visibility (metres) Figure 6.1 Modelled stopping distances on a link of width 5 metres

120 Total stopping distance (m) Stopping distance if speeds not altered (m) 100 Available distance (m)

20 Total stopping distance (metres) Total

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Forward visibility (metres)

Figure 6.2 Modelled stopping distances on a link of width 9 metres

Table 6.1 Modelled stopping distances for links of reduces to only 5 metres to spare with a forward visibility varying width of 20 metres. Given the driver behaviour observed and the modelling Stopping assumptions, it would be expected that schemes in which distance Estimated Forward Road if speeds stopping Distance forward visibility is less than 40 metres could be visibility width not altered distance remaining reasonably safe for average drivers under these conditions (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) owing to the reduction in drivers’ approach speed. However, the margin for error decreases continually with 20 5 41.1 13.2 6.8 forward visibility, and schemes with forward visibility on 7 44.0 14.1 5.9 9 47.1 14.9 5.1 links of less than 20 metres are relatively unsafe, in the environments studied, unless other speed reduction 40 5 41.1 16.8 23.2 features are incorporated. 7 44.0 17.9 22.1 9 47.1 19.0 21.0 6.3 Stopping distances at junctions 60 5 41.1 21.5 38.5 A range of junctions has been examined in which the 7 44.0 22.9 37.1 9 47.1 24.4 35.6 Y-distance generally varied from less than 10 metres to approximately 100 metres. It was found that the average 80 5 41.1 27.7 52.3 speed of drivers reduced with Y-distance. Also, block 7 44.0 29.6 50.4 paving, parking and the presence of lines to indicate 9 47.1 31.6 48.4 priority at the junction were found to affect speeds. Within 100 5 41.1 35.9 64.1 this modelling it is assumed that the junction has a tarmac 7 44.0 38.4 61.6 surface, there is no parking at the junctions and no lines to 9 47.1 41.1 58.9 indicate priority.

19 The situation considered is when two vehicles approach a or continue at the junction based upon the information they junction. The first vehicle is on a minor arm of the junction have available at this distance. and the driver is assumed to show caution. They therefore Modelling has also been used to consider the effect of decrease speed from the modelled (regression) approach the second driver seeing the first vehicle on its approach. It speed (to 5 mph) as they approach over the 50 metres before considers the deceleration required for the vehicle to stop the junction. The other vehicle has priority and the driver before the junction if the driver sees the first vehicle when will approach at the modelled approach speed. at the ‘Y-distance’ before the junction and then decelerates Modelling has been used to consider the effect of the after the reaction time of 1.4 seconds, Figure 6.4. first driver seeing the second vehicle on its approach. It If the visibility at the junction is greater than 40 metres considers the distance before the stop line at which they a driver travelling at 30 mph should easily be able to need to see the vehicle in order that the driver can react stop. Drivers have been shown to reduce their approach (taking 1.4 seconds) and then apply a higher deceleration speed as the Y-distance reduces. However, it is (4.5 m/s-2) and be stationary at the stop line. These have insufficient to fully compensate for the potential reduced been calculated using standard equations of motion, and stopping distance available. The predicted reduction in approach speed results in are shown in Figure 6.3. drivers being able to stop using reasonable deceleration rates The driver approaching on the minor arm of the junction (less than 4.5 ms-2) under the modelled conditions if the and showing caution needs to see the vehicle approaching Y-distance is between 20 and 40 metres. Below 20 metres on the major arm when they are more than approximately the model implies it is unlikely that the driver will be able 4 and 6 metres from the junction in order to stop. Once to stop before the junction, and an accident would be more closer to the junction they are committed to entering it. likely to occur. That is, drivers make a decision at or before 4 metres from the junction as to whether to stop or continue. This is in agreement with the regression modelling findings. The 6.4 Implications of modelled situations regression models found that the visibilities measured at DB32 guidelines indicate that the Y-distance at a junction 4.5 metres were the best predictors of approach speed, so where the speeds are 25 to 30 mph should not be less than drivers appear to be making a decision on whether to stop 45 to 60 metres. Regression modelling on a road with a

1 Distance from stop line (metres) 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Y Distance (metres)

Figure 6.3 Distance at which first vehicle must see second vehicle in order to stop

1 Deceleration required (m/s/s) Deceleration 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Y Distance = Distance when driver decides to stop (metres)

Figure 6.4 Deceleration rate required by second vehicle to stop if seeing first vehicle at ‘Y-distance’ metres from junction

20 width of 9 metres indicates that the average approach 7 Observed safety speed of a vehicle travelling towards a junction with such lines of sight would be 27 to 29 mph. Road safety can be explored by observing behaviour and Modelling indicates that a vehicle approaching from a analysing trends in accident statistics. An investigation into minor road has a decision point at approximately 4 to 6 observed behaviour showed that drivers adapted their metres from the junction after which they are committed speed on links where forward visibility was low and in response to road width and other speed limiting factors. to entering the junction. However, a vehicle on the major The same was also seen at junctions where visibility, the arm of the junction with a Y-distance of 45 to 60 metres Y-distance, was low. However, although these modelled should be able to comfortably stop should such a responses indicated relatively small visibilities could be circumstance occur. considered, drivers adapted insufficiently for visibilities With smaller Y-distances, down to approximately below 20 metres (and possibly higher) to be as safe as 20 metres, the situation also appears relatively safe for links and junctions with higher visibilities. average drivers. The extra caution shown by drivers on the The actual effect on the number of accidents was also minor road, and therefore the reduced approach speeds, explored by collecting information on the number of result in them needing to decelerate at up to 3ms-2 in order accidents each year between 1995 and 2005 on all the 20 to stop safely: less than the usually acceptable limit. sites (excluding Ipswich). However, where sites were built, Below Y-distances of 20 metres, the modelling indicates or modified, between these dates, only data from the years that the reduction in speed observed amongst drivers is since the site was in its current form were considered. insufficient for the junction to be safe. Within the 19 sites, 261 links and junctions were studied, Observed standard deviations in approach speed imply and at these features there was an average of 8.6 years of that the 85th percentile of approach speeds could be accident data at the 187 junctions and 8.3 years of data on 4 to 6 mph greater than the average assuming a normal the 74 links. distribution. Modelling implies drivers at these higher Over all junctions there was an average of 0.07 accidents speeds would be able to safely stop if the Y-distance is per year, whilst at links the average was 0.03 accidents per 30 to 35 metres. Consequently, Y-distances between 20 year. Consequently, it would appear that accidents are more and 40 metres, and slightly below the recommended values prevalent at junctions than on links. For this reason, may be possible, but caution needs to be shown as the junctions can be considered the most important feature with percentage of drivers approaching at speeds that require respect to the number of accidents occurring on the large decelerations if a conflict occurs quickly increases as residential sites studied. Y-distance decreases. The STATS19 database classifies all accidents according to the severity of the injury to each of the casualties. The Considering links with a forward visibility of over total number of accidents for all ten years at the 19 sites (i.e. 40 metres, modelling indicates average drivers would be including dates before the sites were inhabited) shows that able to react to and stop safely before reaching a stationary 98% of the casualties at junctions were slightly (and 2% object (say a pedestrian) appearing at the limit of their were fatally) injured, but just over half the casualties on visibility. In fact the braking model indicates that an links were seriously injured and the others were slightly average driver would be able to stop with a margin for injured. It is possible that this difference in severity is due to error (i.e. expected distance between the resulting the lower speeds of vehicles approaching junctions. Overall stationary vehicle and stationary object) of over 20 metres. only 27 casualties were seriously, or fatally, injured. Hence However, this margin of error reduces to approximately all accidents are considered together. 5 metres if the forward visibility reduces to 20 metres even taking into account the reduction in speed observed 7.1 Belgravia amongst drivers in these situations. That is, the extent that drivers slow down as forward visibility reduces is Section 4.1 showed that Belgravia was anomalous. The insufficient to result in geometries with a forward visibility development had a grid layout which resulted in large visibilities on the links and at junctions. This combined of less than 20 metres being safe. This modelling was with wide roads resulted in high vehicle speeds. In based upon a tarmac surface and no parking on the link: addition, the vehicle flows within this site were both of which reduced link speeds. Therefore a significantly higher than those at the other sites. combination of speed reducing measures may further Considering all these factors, it is not surprising that reduce speeds to safely permit lower forward visibilities. Belgravia also has anomalous accident data (in that it had Observed standard deviations in link speeds indicate that more accidents than the other sites). Of the 131 accidents the 85th percentile of link speeds could be 3 to 8 mph occurring on all 19 sites, 65 occurred within Belgravia. The greater than the average. Modelling implies drivers at these high incidence of accidents is shown in Figure 7.1 (note that higher speeds would be able to stop with a margin of error the stars indicate the location of the accidents, some of of 8 metres when the forward visibility is 40 metres and which denote multiple accidents at the same location). 4 metres if the forward visibility was 35 metres. Excluding Belgravia, over all junctions there was an Consequently, forward visibilities of between 20 and 40 average of 0.034 accidents per year, whilst on links the metres might be considered, but again caution needs to be average was 0.028 accidents per year. Consequently, on shown as the percentage of drivers approaching at speeds the remaining sites there appears to be an approximately where the margin of error is small quickly increase. equal likelihood of an accident at a junction, or on a link.

21 54

Accident locations 9 8.0m 40

1 1

2 36 m 2 .1 8 M

B 4 5

11 1 6

KNIGHTSBRIDGE AND 32.6m

8 U P ESSEX COUNTY CHELMSFORD DISTRICT ST ANDREWS WARD P E R 1 B 2

7.9m 1 2 0 L ROXWELL ROAD G R A V E S T 1 R 3

4 E

1 T

1 8 32.3m 1 2

BELGRA

2 1

8 1 7.5m 1

VIA W

2 2 7 1 1

ARD

31 ARD

1 7

VIA W VIA 5 Foremans 11 Upleatham E

E A

S 1 T BM 32.56m

1 AR O 1 U N EW Q S M Q 22 U ON ON S A EER EST CHELMSFORD CO CONST R EASTERN W AT E ST E CLE C

1 House

5 9

13 to 14 to 13 9

B 1

E 2 to L 1 G R

A V 34 1 E P to L 4 A C 7.1m

E 1 07

El Sub Sta

n 1 ria 9 a

g n 2

u 3

bassy of theH lic 5

pub 1

to Em e 6

9 ple's R 0 o m 1 5 7 BELGRA AND KNIGHTSBRIDGE

3 1 .8

Pe 1 7

6 1 M 7

B 7 o 0 2

l 1 1

1 iv 4

0 E 8

ia 6 3 3 m 0 b n 1 b a 5 I s 3 ta s

E lia y

m b n 7.8m a 3 s

sy 6 6 0 7 1 3 T CB E R LB A Belgian Embassy U LB Q S N

O 7 T A E

s 8 26

4 3 n 6 e 3 10 rd 4 a G s re n a e rd qu a S G n to re a a LB u E LB q S

n to

a E 9

2 5

4 9

1 102

2 a

6.9m

E 1 AC 4 L RE P 0 A 0 N 1 QU O 2b

T S A 56

E ON

T A

E 8

3 2

5 1

8 9

7 4

5 1

1 E 8 C C 19 L E 10 S T H O RT N O N S W E M N E O R T 95 A A U

E Q

6 8 S T Nuf R E field E T Cl u b N O T A

3 20

8 22

2 3

3 9 8 4 69 m 1 8

7.75 BM E R A U Q S N

TO 7 A 1

1 2

0 4

8 1 2 7 6.9m

LY A L L S T R E E ns T 2 arde re G qua

4 9 4 aton

E E 84 R A 6 U 9 8 Q 7 S N O T A

E 8

6 8

3 3 7.4m

84 7

8 3

4 4

9 4 3 8 18 CITYH OF WESTMINSTER LB CITIES OF LONDON AND WESTMINSTER BORO CONST T

R O 46 5 N 3 S

E 3 4 LB M The Irish 6 PH N LB

O 2 T 47 A E Club 2 2 6 82

The Irish LB

4 8 1 8

6 Club 9

8 2 3

1 8 6.9m 8

02 WINDLEY TYE

1 9 LY A L

S 39

1 T

0 R 4 WEST CENTRAL GL ASLY CONST E LONDON EER

9 m 4

.00 0

M 7 ER PLACE

B 23 0 3 T

H 1 1

T t

R o

4 AC O 3 KV N ILLE C

S L 1 OS W E

5 E 5 M 3 N O Tennis T

9 Court

5 EAT 3

O N 10 PL 8 7 7 AC FITZWAL

44 to to 44

E 47 7.3m R 1 A 1 QU s S ld N ie O F T e A iv

E F e

h T

4 1

8 0 1

3 E 7 R A U Q S

N 13

O 103 T

2 7

E AR

SQU

6.9m EATON 5 1

s n rde

e 5

r 3

ua o

q 5 S 6 ton a

7 6

1 1 9

E 2 A 57

T O 6 to N

S 0 Q

U A

R E

3 1

a 6

6 th (um)

61 Pa

66 62

6 2

® Crown Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449 Figure 7.1 Accidents in Belgravia Accident locations Figure 7.3 Accidents in Windley Tye 7.2 Accidents at junctions There are distinct variations in the number of accidents Table 7.1 Accidents with respect to visibility occurring at junctions in the sites, even when excluding Belgravia. For example, the number occurring in Glasgow Total Average number is relatively high and the number in Windley Tye is low, Y Distance Number of accidents of accidents per (metres) junctions per year junction per year see Figures 7.2 and 7.3 respectively. Previous sections have shown that drivers alter their speed 0 to 25 107 2.7 0.03 according to the junction’s geometry. An investigation was 25 to 50 48 2.6 0.05 therefore conducted into whether junction layout affected 50 to 80 14 0.3 0.02 the number of accidents. Visibility would be expected to be Over 80 15 0.3 0.02 one of the most important variables with respect to accidents at junctions. The average number of accidents per year at There appears to be little correlation between the sites with different Y-distances at 4.5 metres from the number of accidents and visibility. Figure 7.4 shows the junction is shown in Table 7.1. high variability present in the data. Although a trend in the number of accidents appear to Accident locations be present, the variation and sample size preclude any possibility of these being significant. A number of tests were performed. These included examining the percentage

of junctions where accidents were observed according to

3 E 6 C

A 4 R 0 R E T N A I N I N

S different ranges of Y-distances. The conclusion was that

2 2

0 the observed accident trends could have occurred as part of

2 1

6 7 1 PO 5

1 6

1 13 t URT o 117

7 1 19 to YNCH CO 12 3 Y L natural variation and it is possible that the actual number 125 to BENN 129

1 8 31 to 135

1 37 to 143

OLD

RU 0 1 T 1 H ER GL 14 EN 7 t

4 R o 1 O 1

5 A 5

1 5 D 1

- 5 1

0 o t

8 4 1

1 1

1 1 6

7 of accidents is independent of the junction geometry. This 1

4 o

o 1

6 0

3 7 169 1

WN STREET

CRO 4

o 1

7 3

18 0

1 6 4 1

ERR 7

OL GARDENS Supermarket

AD 1 O 1 R E 1 5 C A L 1 GLASGOW CITY 7 P E 19 to 27 IN P

SANDIEFIELD 1 7 GORBALS0

Play Area

1 Play Area Supermarket 9 to 2 GLASGO7 W 6

7 18 2 0 SCOTLAND EER GLASGOW PER 9

to 3

200 1

9 D 5 A ERR O R OL GARDENS

D 35 to 4 4

L 6 2

E 2

1 F t

9 E 2 3

2 0.40 I

El Sub Sta 7 D El Sub to

A 2

Sta 0

to 3 to

8 4 2

2 5

3 to

to 4

Play Area 9

0 3 7

TCB

09 to 21 to 09

3 3

T E

R 6

S t

N 2

W 4 O

G R

O C 8 4

R 9.1m

A 0 L 5

7 CE

o t PLA

6 2 1 19 7 2 3 PINE

20 1 t o 2

05 4

o t

1 207 to 211

1 7

CUMBERLAND 215 to 21

GLASGO 9 STREET

2 5

1 4 21 5 9

2 to

2 2

t 2

W SHETTLESTON P CONST

o 5

E 2 6 C 3 1

R 2 27

E 2 2

1 6

E t o 2

L 2

T 2

S 2 166 to 170 to 166

I 5

H 6 T 1

230 2

7 2

19 o

to 23

11 15 3 7 3 2 35 29

33 8 to 18 to

A 184 LEX

AND

ER 190 ER 235

AND X 192 ALE NT SCE CRE

3 7 C R E 39 S 3 C 9 E N T 0.20

4 S 9 O U T H S ID E C 7 R 2 E S C E N

7 E 1 C A

R 4 R

TE N E D

AM 5 C

1 7

GLASGO

4 SO -1 1 UT 8 HSID E C 9

RES

6 CE 1 NT 1

0-1 8 4

1 1

7 - NA 5 BU R 4-8 N

2 2

6 2 3

28 1

5 1 2

E 0

C 1

o 19 to R t 15 6

E 5 10.0m

t o

T 9

L 11 o 6 t 9 A 1

M o t

1 2

9 1

E K

C 1 D

A 1

L t

o T P

O L 1 2

E 7 N

D P 2 N L 2 A A o H t C

8 1

1 9

2 2

1 3 4

8 2 o t 4 2

23 (at junctions) Accidents per year 19 HUTCHESONTOWN WARD 15 0 1 3 1 3 7

E TERRAC KIDSTON 0.00

250 50 75 100 125 150

Figure 7.2 Accidents in Glasgow Figure 7.4 Junction accidents – according to Y-distance

Accident locations 8.6m

could have occurred because of the behavioural to 1

0 1

1 3

TREET 78 HALLEY S es Elsa Cottag 30

modifications explored in previous sections; alternatively, 7.9m

28 6

BM 9.12m 1

1 to 2 to

15 69 7 96 9

6 9 6 4

E 2

R 1 it is possible that the sample size was insufficient given the T 0 9 0 8 S 7

N 4 8

1 6

2 6

3 6 size of the effect compared with the variation. Posts 9.1m

Burroughs Cottages 3

2 0

1 3 5

76 9

8 6

VENU

HY A 7 AR 3

It would also be expected that the number of accidents T

17 R S R

E T

16 RE

17 R 5

7 ET

3 GALSW

1 1

A 16

3 4

tta

T E

L o

A O 1

14 1 S

C 2

e at a feature would be dependent on the traffic flow. The T

u F

es Cottages

h I

2 E

n 9 D

Playground 0

o 2 S

Greav

74 T

T 9 observed link flows were used to calculate the average 26

6 Limehouse

5 8

Fields Estate 19

52 to

34 1 to 3 to 1

9.9m 5

22 6 number of accidents per year for 1000 vehicles, these are 3 m 4

6 3

to 3 0 129

1 2

36 79 81 M

D 62 27 to 33 41 53 WAR

1 5 73 87 2 shown in Figure 7.5. 1 Channel TCB 55 to 65 107 to 1 95 to 105 67 to 71 10.1m 89 to 93 117 House 119 to 123

MAROON STREET

1 16

BETHNAL GREEN AND BOW BORO CONST BORO BETHNAL GREEN AND BOW

1 76 to 72

1 8 9

to 4

6 9

60 to 70 to 60 GREEN STEPNEY AND DUNSTAN'S ST

4 3 1 o t 4 2 1 2 2 1 to 2 1 1

100 to 110 to 100

Bailey Cottages 2 3

g E

U ta

t 8

N 6 tta 84

Site Number o

o 5 E

C 2

C V

W STREET

s 30

n e A

o 26 Y

t m 11

u TOWER HAMLETS LB 1 T BETHNAL GREEN AND BOW BORO CONST a

6 C 2

4 1

HEARNSHA 1

Lower Earley S Batten C 1

ottages L 8

A 23

1 3

1.4 3 20 18

Guildford to 3 s LIMEHOUSE

e 9

m 12

ottag

BETHNAL GREEN AND BOW BORO CONST 5 New Town, Reading 1 1 Berry Cottages

4 SHAW CRESCENT

8 R

4 3 6

Chichester N S

U 6 6

C 2 W

E 4 A 13

1.2 V

S R

T R

H S E

E R R

Eastleigh T E

O E

W T

Causton Cottages

G Tower Hamlets 51

1 27 2 6 41 1

9 2 1.0 Lavenham 17 Bradshaw Cottages 10.4m

Newhall REPTON STREET

4 6 4

32 8 Windley Tye 1 0.8 Beaulieu Jericho ® Crown Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449 0.6 Bloxham Portishead Figure 7.6 Accidents in Tower Hamlets Leicester 0.4 Manchester Lichfield Glasgow 0.2 Accident locations Accidents per year per 1000 vehicles (at junctions) per 1000 vehicles Accidents per year

1 6

250 50 75 100 125 150 6

Y distance at 4.5 metres O 4 6 R

C 10 CLOSE FEN EL NEL NN FE CLO S SE A 3 G

1 3 6 C

2 O 24 1 S

E 1

Figure 7.5 Junction accidents weighted by flow – according 1 1

S D OA S R

HILLSIDE WARD 20

AY W

D R 1

I 1 CARA 1 V to Y-distance E 19

1 3

Y 12

5 4

1 R CLOSE Once again there are no statistical relationships between 27 D THYME CE MA AVENUE

ARY

SEM

2 1 C

C O

A S

R E A Y-distance and number of accidents. However, the sites with 6 R W

1 O

4 A

AD 1 Y 6

ROS

12 EMARY 10 8

A 8

over 0.8 accidents per year per 1000 vehicles were Lower VENUE 16

Y A 35

NDE

OR Earley, New Town, Lavenham and Bloxham. These four C

3 2 4

4 1

sites all had low flows of below 250 vehicles per day and 5 4

low average speeds, and Beaulieu was the only other site 5 4 with such small flows. There is therefore an implication that 7 there are other factors affecting junction safety. ® Crown Copyright 2005. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449 Figure 7.7 Accidents in Lower Earley 7.3 Accidents on links There were only a small number of accidents observed on links. The differences between sites with a relatively large Site Number 0.30 number of accidents (e.g. Tower Hamlets) and those with a Lower Earley Guildford small number of accidents is small (e.g. Lower Earley), as New Town, Reading 0.25 Chichester shown in Figures 7.6 and 7.7. Eastleigh Strong statistical differences between accident rates Tower Hamlets 0.20 Lavenham owing to the site characteristics would not be expected Newhall given the small number of accidents. The accident rates Windley Tye 0.15 Beaulieu per 100 metres of link according to the road width is Jericho shown in Figure 7.8, and the accidents per 100 metres of Bloxham Portishead 0.10 link and 1000 vehicles are shown in Figure 7.9. Charlton Down Leicester Consequently, apart from the relatively high number of Manchester accidents given the flow in Lower Earley, there are no 0.05 Lichfield major differences between the sites. In agreement with per 100 metres (links) Accidents per year Glasgow this, a statistical analysis could not find any significant 0.00 relationships between site characteristics and accidents. 2 4 6 8 10 However, one interesting relationship was identified Road width excluding footways (metres) between the percentage of links within a site having at least one accident and the observed amount of parking on Figure 7.8 Link accidents per 100 m – according to road the links (Table 7.2). width

23 Site Number 2.00 transport needs alongside their perceptions of safety and Lower Earley Guildford sustainability of their streets. New Town, Reading The content, format and layout of the household survey Chichester Eastleigh were derived from previous surveys that had been 1.50 Tower Hamlets Lavenham conducted by TRL and by Leicestershire County Council. Newhall The TRL survey focused on a Home Zone site in Ealing. A Windley Tye Beaulieu ‘Home Zone’ is a street or a group of streets designed 1.00 Jericho primarily to meet the interests of pedestrians and cyclists Bloxham Portishead rather than motorists, opening up the street for social use. Charlton Down The TRL survey tried to gain residents’ perceptions of Leicester 0.50 Manchester their street and also how they used the street since the Lichfield Glasgow Home Zone had been built. The Home Zone survey has been extensively developed and trialled because of its use Accidents per year per 100 metres 1000 vehicles Accidents per year 0.00 in a previous project and as a result was used to develop 2 4 6 8 10 the household survey for this research in terms of the Road width excluding footways (metres) format and content of the questions used. Figure 7.9 Link accident rates per 100 m and per 1000 The Leicestershire County Council survey was again vehicles – according to road width designed to address similar topics to this research. It concentrated on housing estate road design, focusing on the layout of estates including road designs, house Table 7.2 Personal injury incidents according to parking driveway designs and car parking spaces. This survey was intended to assist the council in preparing and developing Whether any Percentage accidents on link of links with new design standards. Sample personal injury The topics surveyed were further developed, based on Link parking No Yes size incidents the particular objectives and research questions for this report. Residents’ views were sought for the Manual for No parking 32 3 35 8.6 Streets research on the following topics: Parking on one side 18 4 22 18.2 Parking on both sides 9 5 14 35.7 ! What they like and dislike about the street. ! How they spend their time in the street. ! Parked vehicles. A test on the difference in the proportion of links with accidents occurring was significantly greater on those links ! Convenience of travel by a variety of transport methods. with parking on both sides of the road compared to links ! Road safety and personal safety issues. without parking. ! Behaviour of motorists. Modelling based upon site observations has shown that ! Safety of children. drivers adapt and reduce their speeds when sight lines and road widths are reduced. This in turn results in sites with ! Whether they had been involved in an accident on their limited visibility being safer than if this behavioural change street. did not occur. Therefore the analysis indicates developments ! The changes they would make to improve the street. with visibilities less than those considered in DB32 and its companion guide can be considered. The actual effect of 8.1 Sampling reduced visibilities on accidents is not fully resolved in this Two thousand survey forms were distributed across the study. There was no large and significant difference in twenty case study sites (100 questionnaires per site) in an accidents on sites with limited visibility which again attempt to obtain a statistically significant sample. Based indicates that such designs can be considered, however, on previous experience, it was estimated that the response parking on links appears to be detrimental to safety. rate to the surveys would be approximately 15-30%. An Residents’ opinions were collected in addition to these added incentive to complete and return the survey was observations. The next sections explore their opinions and provided with residents being able to enter a free prize investigate whether they perceive safety issues owing to draw to win £100 of shopping vouchers on the return of reduced visibility or other geometric aspects of their living the survey in an attempt to improve response rates. environment. To ensure a representative sample across all twenty case study sites, one hundred households in each case study site 8 Household survey were selected using purposive sampling, whereby the sample was limited to the geographical boundaries of the A household survey was undertaken to obtain the case study sites (see Appendix B). The boundaries of the residents’ opinions of their streets at the twenty case study sites cut across postcodes, and so the addresses were sites (see Appendix D for the household questionnaire). selected using maps of the case study sites. A spread of This was to determine ‘user satisfaction’ of a variety of households was selected to ensure the sample was residential street layouts, and to consider residents’ representative of the site, and the addresses were obtained

24 using ‘Address Management Software’. Any addresses that Table 8.1 Distribution of questionnaires from each site were not present in this software package due to their relatively recent development (post-2003) were obtained Site Frequency Percent using the Royal Mail’s online ‘Postcode Finder’ service. Lower Earley, Reading 29 9.8 Addresses registered with the ‘Mail Preference Service’ Chichester 29 9.8 had to be excluded from the sample. Guildford 26 8.8 Due to the variation in the number of households at each Lichfield 25 8.4 Portishead 19 6.4 case study site, for small villages and sites that had been Leicester 18 6.1 built very recently, it was not feasible to sample 100 Eastleigh 18 6.1 households. To compensate, the shortfall in questionnaires Bloxham Village 18 6.1 were posted to other larger and more populous sites. Glasgow 17 5.7 Charlton Down, Dorset 16 5.4 Manchester 15 5.1 8.2 Sample composition Beaulieu Park, Chelmsford 11 3.7 Lavenham 10 3.4 Out of the 2000 questionnaires distributed, only 1948 New Town, Reading 10 3.4 reached their destination (52 questionnaires were returned Newhall, Harlow 10 3.4 unopened) and a total of 296 completed responses (15%) Jericho, Oxford 9 3.0 were received.2 Table 8.1 shows the distribution of Tower Hamlets 6 2.0 questionnaires received from each site. Belgravia 3 1.0 Of these respondents, 54% were female and 46% were Ipswich 1 0.3 Windley Tye, Chelmsford 1 0.3 male. A breakdown of the respondents’ age groups is shown in Figure 8.1. This shows that most of the respondents were aged 25 or over, with relatively even amounts responding in were constructed in the last three years). each age group over 25. The highest proportion of The survey findings were categorised according to respondents lived in detached and terraced properties and aspects of: Figure 8.2 shows that the most common number of people ! Streetscape. residing in a property was 2. Figure 8.3 indicates that most ! Parking. respondents (41%) have lived in their property for less than ! Main safety concerns. 3 years, which is consistent with the number of new build sites surveyed (five of the housing developments studied ! Road safety. ! Non-motorised road users.

2 The household survey sample did not provide any statistically ! Accidents. significant responses because of the small number of questionnaires ! Pavement. completed at each site. For this reason, caution should be taken when referring to the percentage of responses in the analysis. These are discussed in the next section.

Frequency 20

0 Under 18 19 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or over Age

Figure 8.1 Age of respondents

120

100

Frequency 40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 No. people living in property Figure 8.2 Number of people living in property

25 13% disliked about their streets with respect to the liveability of the streetscape. These are shown in Figures 9.1 and 9.2. 7% Less than 3 years Over 120 (40%) of respondents liked their street 41% 3 to 4 years because it was quiet. Other aspects of their streets that 5 to 9 years were liked included friendly neighbours, pleasant location 9% 10 to 14 years and proximity to local amenities. Personal safety and 15 to 19 years security issues were also cited as positive aspects, for 20 years or over example ‘security awareness/safety’ was in ninth position, and ‘community spirit’ in sixteenth position which 16% included participation in ‘Neighbourhood Watch’ schemes. 14% For example, one respondent suggested as a way to Figure 8.3 Length of time lived in property improve safety: ‘A “homewatch” scheme should be introduced – it would get the neighbours talking’ (Manchester resident). 9 Residents opinions Figure 9.2 shows that parking issues were the most frequent issue disliked by 97 respondents. This included 9.1 Streetscape having problems parking, other people parking The Manual for Streets is intended to deliver safe and inconsiderately and problems with other residents using functional streets and meet the Government’s designated parking spaces. Other stated concerns related to ‘placemaking’ agenda, hence the respondents were asked road traffic, including high traffic speeds and through to list the three things they liked and the three things they traffic. The design of streets was also frequently disliked,

140

120

100

60 Frequency 40

ety view quiet clean privacy housing gardens wide street street design good upkeepchild friendly close to family not much traffic plentiful parking community spirit friendly neighbours convenience to work

security awareness/saf connection to house/area Proximitycul-de-sac/no to town/cityopen centrespace through and traffic green areas new scheme/modernblic transport/transport scheme routes pleasant environment/locationconvenience to local amenities

Likes

convenience to pu Figure 9.1 Respondents’ ‘likes’ about their streets

120

100

60 Frequency 40

te ts ris litter other none design traffic youths HGVs

neighbours narrow road traffic noise dog fouling parking issues through traffic street lighting dust/pollution poor amenities access issues vandalism/crime children playing high traffic speeds proximity to railway turning point for cars poor pavements/roads school traffic/parking lack of communityinconsiderate feel moto Dislike Building/construction si not enough green/poor views Figure 9.2 Respondents’ ‘dislikes’ about their streets

26 including issues such as house frontages opening out onto 9.2.1 Car use and off-street parking roads, the design of isolated footpaths and houses being The survey revealed that 82% of residents have access to a too close to footpaths. car as the driver, with 90% of respondents having access to Personal safety and security were also stipulated as a car as either the driver or a passenger. Figure 9.4 shows concerns amongst residents. For example, the presence of that over 125 respondents have one vehicle per household ‘youths’ was the thirteenth most stated dislike, crime the and 110 respondents have two vehicles per household. A fifteenth, and street lighting the seventeenth. significant number of respondents therefore are motorists Respondents were asked to what extent elements of and require parking for at least one or two cars. street design are a concern to them and their responses are Figure 9.5 indicates that over a third of respondents reflected in Figure 9.3. have access to two off-street car park spaces. Over a fifth of respondents have access to one off-street parking space. 9.2 Parking As only 17.4% of respondents have no off-street parking facilities one might assume that parking is not a significant ‘When designing new towns and streets, more consider- issue as the majority have one car and two car parking ation should be given to parking’ (Lower Earley resident). spaces. However, the respondents’ comments suggest that The survey revealed that parked vehicles were major some residents might not effectively use their allocated concerns for residents about their streets. This is not parking spaces. For example: unsurprising given that 37% of respondents have two vehicles ! ‘People with garages or off-street parking that do not use per household, hence it is likely that parking facilities for them and park on the street instead’ (Lavenham resident). residents are stretched to capacity, especially at historic sites, ! ‘People do not use their allocated parking spaces’ where off-road parking is at a premium and the majority of (Portishead resident). vehicles are parked on the street. Parking is a factor that residents believe should be incorporated into street design, as Hence, the provision of allocated off-street parking spaces the above quote illustrates. is not a guarantee that people will use them effectively.

100

40 Not at all concerned Not very concerned 20 Quite concerned Percentage of respondents Percentage Very concerned

ys ays

ootwa

ootway/verge no. vehicles vehicle speeds large vehicles lack of f isolated footways lack of cycle paths poor street lighting shared parking areas Vehicles parked on road lack of visibility for drivers confined narrow alleyw lack of pedestrian crossingsetation obstructing footways lack of visibility for pedestrians veg Vehicles obstructing f Concern Figure 9.3 Respondents’ road safety / personal safety concerns

125

100

Frequency 50

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 No. vehicles in household Figure 9.4 Number of vehicles per household

27 100

40 Frequency

0 129876543210 No. off street parking spaces on property Figure 9.5 Number of off-street parking spaces on respondents’ properties

Figure 9.5 further illustrates that over 50 respondents Table 9.1 Parking problems at specific sites (17.4%) have no off-street parking at all, of whom 34 reside in the ‘historic’ sites. This implies that parking is Sites without parking problems Belgravia 100% of respondents said there was no problem. more likely to be an issue at these sites, especially for households with multiple car ownership. However, 18% of Beaulieu Park 73% of respondents said there was no problem. respondents from the historic sites claimed not to have Sites with parking problems access to a car, which could indicate that residents are less New Town 90% of respondents said there was a problem, of reliant on cars and possibly that historic sites are closer to which 50% said it was a ‘big problem’. town centres and amenities. Eastleigh 62% of respondents said there was a problem, of which 40% said it was a big problem.

9.2.2 Parking problems

Figure 9.6 shows that the majority of respondents (42%) 15% claimed that being able to park outside their home was not a problem, with 31% stating there was ‘sometimes a problem’ and 17% that there was ‘a big problem’. Yes, a lot of the time 10% Yes, sometimes 17% 52% No 33% Yes, a big problem Yes, sometimes a problem No Not applicable Figure 9.7 Do many vehicles park on the road/footway 42% 31% near your home?

of respondents said that vehicles parked on the road near Figure 9.6 Is parking outside your home a problem? their home ‘a lot of the time’, 22.5% said ‘sometimes’ and 14.5% said that drivers did not park near their home at all. There was found to be little variation between sites, 53% Figure 9.8 illustrates the extent of on-street parking, with of residents at the historic sites stated that they have a vehicles parking on both sides of the street and parking on problem with parking compared with 46% and 47% for kerbs and pavements, reducing the width of footways. new build and DB32 compliant sites respectively, which Fifty five percent of respondents in new build sites and correlates with the proportion of residents who have off- 56% in historic sites said that people park their vehicles on road parking. Residents at historic sites have less off-street the road/footway near their home ‘a lot of the time’, parking capacity and are therefore more likely to compared with 36% of respondents at DB32 compliant experience problems parking in limited on-street parking sites (these are summarised for specific sites in Table 9.2). spaces. Table 9.1 summarises individual sites where In addition, when asked whether vehicles parked on the parking is and is not deemed to be a problem. road caused concern in terms of road safety or personal security, 51% of all respondents said they were concerned 9.2.3 Parked vehicles with vehicles parked on the road (see Figure 9.3). New Residents were asked about whether many vehicles park build sites were shown to be more concerned about on the road outside their home. Figure 9.7 shows that 52% vehicles parked on the road in comparison to other sites

28 gave ‘plentiful parking’ as one of the factors they liked about their street. In contrast, 19% of respondents gave parking issues as a ‘dislike’ about their street.

9.2.4 Respondents’ issues with parking in their street The issues respondents have with parking relate to access, safety and aesthetics. Firstly, parking is identified as a main culprit in restricting access to streets. For example: ! ‘Access to my drive is often affected by cars parked on the street’ (Lichfield resident). ! ‘There are not enough parking spaces, so cars sometimes block drives’ (Guildford resident).

Respondents also refer to the reduced visibility that parked Figure 9.8 Parking in New Town cars cause, which both restricts access and has an effect on safety: Table 9.2 Sites with vehicles parked outside their home ! ‘You can’t drive through. Cars park on bends and block ‘a lot of the time’ and ‘sometimes’ the footpath’ (Beaulieu resident). ! ‘Cars parked on double yellow lines at street corners Site Percentage of respondents obstruct the view of the driver’ (Chichester resident).

Lichfield 100.0% ! ‘There is a slalom effect driving down the road and New Town 90.0% vision is obscured on the bend of the road’ (Lower Eastleigh 83.3% Earley resident). Jericho 66.7% Belgravia 66.7% ! ‘Cars are unable to drive straight through and wait to Chichester 58.6% take their chance to pass’ (Chichester resident). Manchester 57.1% Lavenham 55.6% This implies that these streets are not functioning as they Guildford 52.0% should because, according to the perceptions of residents in these streets, on-street parking creates hazardous driving conditions and impacts on access. (by a factor of 10%). Specific sites showed high Respondents also commented on the impact of narrow proportions of concern over parked vehicles in the road roads. Respondents referred to how difficult it is to and are summarised in Table 9.3. manoeuvre in narrow roads and how narrow roads plus on-street parking leads to congestion. For example: Table 9.3 Case study sites with high proportions of ! ‘The streets are too narrow for the masses of people concern over parked vehicles living in the area and visitors have to park elsewhere’ (Portishead resident). Site Percentage of respondents concerned ! ‘The neighbours opposite have a terrible time, often having Portishead 78.9% damage done to their cars by traffic squeezing by. They Lichfield 72.0% park on one side of the road, but traffic has to go up on New Town 60.0% (50.0% ‘very concerned’) Chichester 60.7% pavements on our side of the road’ (Guildford resident). Manchester 60.0% Figure 9.9 reflects respondents’ concerns about narrow roads and parking, where parking has transformed the road Figure 9.3 also shows the following respondent into a single-traffic road and created hazards for drivers concerns with regard to parking: attempting to negotiate the road. These issues raised are supported by the accident and ! Over 50% of all respondents revealed concern about near miss incidents reported by respondents in the survey. vehicles obstructing the footway. Residents in Lichfield 20 out of 66 of those respondents who provided details of and Eastleigh showed most concern about vehicles the accident/near miss they were involved in were related parked and obstructing footways (68% and 61.1% of to parking. When describing these accidents, respondents respondents respectively). referred to street parking on blind bends, narrow roads ! 27% of all respondents were concerned about shared forcing one vehicle onto the other side of the road and parking areas. In Eastleigh, 68% of respondents were where parked cars significantly reduce visibility. concerned over shared parking areas. Indeed, the primary research documented in Section 7 Parking as a prime issue is also shown in respondents’ suggests that, while parking on links appears to be comments about what they like and dislike about their detrimental to safety, there is also a correlation between street (see Figures 9.1 and 9.2). Only 1.3% of respondents roads with no on-street parking and higher speeds,

29 parking is haphazard. All rules of the road are not adhered to’ (Chichester resident). To resolve parking issues, residents highlighted two main points. Firstly, parking should be restricted: ! ‘Lines to stop on street parking where dangerous to do so or where double parking may occur’ (Beaulieu Park resident). ! ‘No more street parking at all. Cars could go in an underground car park’ (resident’s location unknown). ! ‘Stop cars from parking on both sides of the road – encourage people to use driveways and garages’ (Portishead resident). ! ‘Widen road or put double yellow lines down so two cars can pass on the road without having to drive on Figure 9.9 Parking on a narrow road in Jericho, Oxford pathway’ (Portishead resident). ! ‘Council enforcement of parking regulations. Too many indicating that drivers adapt and reduce their speeds when householders think they have a right to park as many sight lines and road widths are reduced. Hence, for roads vehicles as they please, despite others having paid to where sight lines and road widths are increased because park’ (Eastleigh resident). there are no parked cars to reduce visibility, arguably These comments convey a desire to limit parking by drivers will adapt and increase their speeds leading to a using road markings, better enforcement or alternative more risky environment. designs to deal with the problem. Secondly, to improve Respondents also commented on the design of parking safety, residents would like to see more off-street parking in the street. Issues were raised about there not being designated, for example: enough off-road parking: ! ‘Allocate more off street parking for each home at time ! ‘There is not enough parking provided for houses, some of build. Why would any Local Authority think homes houses on the street are four bedroomed, with only one selling for £300K plus will attract purchasers with only off-street parking space’ (Portishead resident). one vehicle. Madness!’ (Portishead resident). ! ‘With only having one parking space and two cars, ! ‘If parking was sorted, this would improve safety. I would like to park outside, but can’t’ (Manchester Maybe a car park for residents would help’ (Guildford resident). resident). However, some respondents note that it is people who This implies that residents feel that street design should have too many cars that cause the problem and not the accommodate cars, rather than attempting to restrict car design: parking and promote more sustainable travel modes such as provision for cyclists and bus routes. ! ‘People in executive houses use the road mainly to park Aesthetically, respondents highlight how parking, cars and some appear to have two or more’ (Manchester ‘spoils the look’ (Bloxham resident) of their street and, resident). ‘makes it congested and looks very ugly’ (Guildford ! ‘Many old houses with single frontages own 2 or 3 cars, resident). This further adds to respondents’ unpleasant so they have to park in front of someone else’s house’ experiences of their streets due to parking issues. (Lichfield resident). However, one resident commented: A further issue raised about the lack of parking is ! ‘Parking is provided away from road to improve residents’ frustration at not having anywhere for visitors to aesthetics. Of course people don’t use it and park on the park and others who are frustrated by non-residents narrow street. This is ridiculous, people want to park parking in their spaces: near the door, especially when they have kids/shopping/ elderly. Improving aesthetics has caused the problem in ! ‘Too many cars park here as there is no parking our street’ (Lichfield resident). restriction, so other people from other streets come and park there and leave it’ (Tower Hamlets resident). Street design therefore faces a dilemma: how to improve aesthetics by providing parking away from houses and yet School traffic is a particular issue: still allowing access for those who need it, especially ! ‘School run parking causes double parking, pavement vulnerable groups, notably elderly and disabled people. parking and blocks driveways’ (Lichfield resident). ! ‘School run mindless parking’ (Lichfield resident). 9.3 Main safety concerns ! ‘It is a school location and there is easy access through Respondents were asked what they considered the main the close, but there should be better parking access for safety threat to be on their street. Figure 9.10 shows that parents. When off loading and loading at school time, the highest proportion of respondents (46%) considered

30 9% Road traffic as the main safety threat is supported by respondents’ comments about what they dislike about their

16% streets (Figure 9.2) including: Danger from road traffic ! High traffic speeds. 46% Danger from crime ! Through traffic. Both ! Traffic volume. Other ! Narrow roads.

29% ! Poor roads. ! School traffic. Figure 9.10 Main safety threat ! Inconsiderate motorists. ! Street being a turning point for cars. ‘danger from road traffic’ to be the main safety threat in their street. For example, one respondent commented: Over half of respondents referred to road safety issues as a dislike about their street. The accident and near miss data ‘Road safety is the main issue and with further show that 26% of respondents said they had been involved development proposed within the immediate in an incident, which might be considered high considering location it is sure to escalate further. We have had the low trafficked streets surveyed. a number of street protests and we are petitioning Table 9.5 indicates new build sites had the highest as much as possible for a solution to this growing proportion of reported accidents and near misses from problem’ (Guildford resident). amongst the residents surveyed. However, this difference is small and not statistically significant. Table 9.4 illustrates the ‘other’ safety threats that respondents provided. Of these ‘other’ threats, poor Table 9.5 Accidents / near misses recorded by site driving, parked cars and narrow roads relate to road safety characteristic issues. Hence, 48.2% of respondents considered road safety issues to be the main safety threat. Number of reported Site No accidents/ Percentage Table 9.4 Main safety threat ‘other’ responses characteristic respondents near misses of respondents

Main safety threat ‘other’ responses Percentage New build 162 56 34.6% Historic 79 25 31.6% Poor driving 0.4% DB32 compliant 47 10 21.3% Parked cars 1.1% Drugs 0.7% Isolated cycle path 0.4% Poor street lighting 0.7% 9.4 Road safety Narrow roads 0.7% Pavements 0.7% Residents generally considered that road safety was the Children playing 0.4% main aspect of concern within their neighbourhood. The None 4.3% questionnaire explored the underlying reasons for these concerns. One of the key issues that arose was traffic speed Given that the Manual for Streets is intended to deliver in the residential area, and over half (52.8%) of respondents safe and functional streets and meet the Government’s claimed to be either ‘very’ or ‘quite’ concerned about ‘place making’ agenda, personal safety and security issues speeds when asked about road and personal safety issues in are an important part of the analysis: their street. In New Town (Reading), this was of particular ! ‘In future, design out back alleys – I always refer to concern: 80% of respondents were either ‘very’ or ‘quite’ them as ‘burglar paradise’ as it allows access via the concerned about vehicle speeds. Other sites where higher side of the house’ (Eastleigh resident). percentages of respondents indicated concern over high ! ‘There is a bus that comes near to the area, but you have vehicle speeds include: to walk along a long lonely road or across a very lonely ! Eastleigh (77.8% of respondents concerned). field to get to the local bus service’ (Newhall resident). ! Lichfield (72% of respondents concerned). ! ‘Street lighting is not very well placed for cut through walkway opposite. One street light could be moved a Confirmation of the issue with speeds was obtained from comments about how residents would improve safety small distance, which would make all the difference’ in their streets. Over 100 comments were received (Lower Earley resident). referring directly to improving speed calming measures At DB32 compliant sites (Lower Earley, Reading and such as road humps, lower speed limits and enforcing Leicester), the main threat is considered to be ‘danger from speed limits. For example, respondents requested: crime’ (45.7%), with 32% of respondents citing ‘danger ! ‘More traffic calming schemes in the narrow streets on from road traffic’ as being the main threat to safety. new estates’ (Eastleigh resident).

31 ! ‘Road humps or speed signs that light up on excess 100 speed’ (Lichfield resident). 90 80 ! ‘Clear signs and well enforced 10 mph speed limit’ 70 Very safe 60 (Eastleigh resident). Fairly safe 50 ! Fairly unsafe ‘Advance warning to motorists that the area is a 20 mph 40 Percentage zone’ (Leicester resident). 30 Very unsafe 20 Another lesser impact that influenced residents’ 10 perception of traffic safety was flow: 27.3% of respondents 0 Children Children Adults Adults expressed concern over the number of vehicles passing walking cycling walking cycling through the street. This appeared to be a particular issue Street user for residents in the historic sites. This could be a result of the lack of off-street parking spaces at historic sites and the Figure 9.11 Safety of different street users with regards to narrow road widths, leading to congestion. Specific sites danger from road traffic with notable concerns about the number of vehicles in their street include: same proportion also considered adults to be unsafe whilst ! New Town (50% of respondents concerned). cycling. Twenty seven percent of respondents consider their streets to be unsafe for children walking and 41% of ! Eastleigh (44.4% of respondents concerned). respondents considered children cycling to be unsafe as a ! Bloxham village (44.4% respondents concerned). result of road traffic. Two of these were historic sites, and the other was a DB32 compliant sites reported the lowest amount of new development. Furthermore, none of these sites had ‘unsafe’ responses to this question. 8.5% of respondents particularly high flows (see Section 4), particularly in considered it unsafe for adults to cycle, compared to relation to the other sites. Residential perception of high 25.5% for new build and 15.6% for historic sites. flows must therefore be influenced by other factors in the Over 50% of respondents were either ‘very’ or ‘quite’ street design. concerned about ‘vehicles parked obstructing footways’ Other concerns relating to road safety include: (see Figure 9.3). Vehicles obstructing footways was also a ! 38% of all respondents were concerned about the lack of common theme that emerged from the respondents’ visibility for drivers. comments, for example: ! 15% of all respondents were concerned about the lack of ! ‘Cars park fully on the pavement so you have no choice footways. but to walk in the road, others park on bends so you ! Over 33% of all respondents were concerned about large cannot see what is coming’ (Charlton Down resident). vehicles. ! ‘Children have to walk on the road to get round cars ! 28% of all respondents were concerned about the lack of parked on the pavement’ (Leicester resident). cycle paths. Figure 9.3 illustrates respondents’ concerns relating to ! 29% of all respondents were concerned about the lack of non-motorised road users. These are summarised as follows: visibility for pedestrians. ! 15.2% of all respondents were concerned about the lack ! 19% of all respondents were concerned about the lack of of footways. pedestrian crossings. ! 28.0% of all respondents were concerned about the lack Once more the greatest other safety concern for of cycle paths. residents was over traffic, in this case the lack of visibility ! 29.0% of all respondents were concerned about the lack for drivers. All main aspects of traffic that result in higher of visibility for pedestrians. accident rates (flow, speed and visibility) were cited ! 18.6% of all respondents were concerned about the lack amongst the highest concerns. of pedestrian crossings.

9.4.1 Walking and cycling safety In terms of concern over the lack of cycle paths, over a fifth of respondents consider this question ‘not applicable’ The Manual for Streets is intended to act as a guide to indicating that cycle use is minimal among the resident ensure streets are functional and safe for all road users. It sample. has also been prepared against a backdrop of sustainable development initiatives and guidance. As a result, the issues and experiences of non-motorised users (comprising 9.5% 9.4.2 Safety of children of the sample) are vital components and are now discussed. The survey also considered the safety of children of Respondents were asked to comment on how safe they different ages. Figure 9.12 shows that 70.8% of considered their street to be, with regards to danger from respondents consider it unsafe for pre-school children to road traffic for both children and adults to walk and cycle. play unsupervised. Many respondents criticised this Figure 9.11 shows that 12% of respondents consider their question, suggesting that pre-school children should never streets unsafe for adults walking due to road traffic (this be left unsupervised. Over half (54.1%) of respondents includes both ‘very’ and ‘quite’ unsafe responses). The believed their street is unsafe for primary age pupils to

32 100 9.5 Accidents 90 80 Respondents’ perceptions about the safety of non-motorised 70 users in their street is reflected in the accident/near miss 60 Very safe incidents reported in the survey. 13.3% of accidents/near Fairly safe 50 Fairly unsafe misses recorded involved non-motorised road users 40

Percentage Very unsafe (pedestrians or cyclists). All of the non-motorised incidents 30 20 recorded involved a motorised road user. For example: 10 ! ‘My daughter was riding her bike on the pavement and 0 Pre-school age Primary school Secondary a car reversed out of the drive and did not see her’ age school age (Lichfield resident). Age grouping ! ‘Leaving my car on foot and a car travelling on the Figure 9.12 Safety of children spending time in their street pavement at speed. I had to pull my children back’ unsupervised by an adult (Guildford resident). Non-motorised users are shown to be vulnerable to play unsupervised, while 27% of respondents considered motorised users. Clearly, there are issues with regard to their streets to be unsafe for secondary school age children. sharing the street space. Respondents were asked to provide reasons if they gave Figure 9.13 conveys how considerate respondents ‘unsafe’ as a response. These are summarised in Table 9.6. believe motorists are to non-motorised street users. The main reason given for ‘unsafe’ responses across all 100 age groups was the speed of traffic. This correlates with respondents’ concerns about road safety in their street. 80 Respondents were most concerned about high traffic Very considerate 60 speeds (as previously discussed). Fairly considerate Fairly inconsiderate Eighty percent of New Town respondents considered 40

Percentage Very inconsiderate their streets unsafe for pre-school age children, with 70% 20 providing speed of traffic as the reason. 0 Children Children Children Adults Adults walking cycling playing in walking cycling 9.4.3 Improving road safety in residential streets street In addition to improving road safety by the speed calming Non-motorised road user measures discussed in section 9.4, other common themes Figure 9.13 How considerate respondents perceive motorists were cited by respondents. These include: to be towards non-motorised road users ! Making the street ‘one-way’: ‘A solution would be to Approximately three quarters of respondents considered adopt a one way system in part of the area. This would motorists to be considerate to children walking, cycling allow an element of on street parking without and playing in the street. Three quarters of respondents compromising traffic safety and flow’ (Portishead also considered motorists to be considerate towards adults resident). walking and cycling. Respondents who cited motorists as ! Better road maintenance: potholes in the road are being considerate to non-motorised users are summarised dangerous for all road users. by site type in Table 9.7. ! Prohibiting large vehicles, including buses: ‘Stop buses Table 9.7 How considerate are motorists towards non- entering estates – roads are not wide enough and are too motorised road users by site type? winding to accommodate large single-decker buses’ (Leicester resident). DB32 compliant New build Historic ! Restricting access to the street: ‘Removal of all vehicles Children walking 76.6% 70.0% 68.4% would considerably improve safety, access and Children cycling 74.5% 63.1% 61.8% aesthetics’ (Newhall resident). Children playing in the street 72.3% 57.5% 53.9% Adults walking 83.0% 73.1% 76.6% ! Road safety issues related to parking. Adults cycling 72.3% 66.9% 64.9%

Table 9.6 Reasons for ‘unsafe’ responses

Pre-school age Primary school age Secondary school age

Reason for unsafe response Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Speed of traffic 135 46.7% 105 36.6% 53 18.5% Amount of traffic 80 27.7% 56 19.5% 29 10.1% Stranger danger 62 21.5% 47 16.4% 18 6.3% Crime/mugging/physical assault 23 8.0% 24 8.4% 25 8.7% Bullying from other children 19 6.6% 20 7.0% 19 6.6%

33 9.6 Non-motorised vs. Motorised users: Access ! ‘Pavement on both sides is grassed, therefore people An overwhelming majority of the sample considered tend to walk in the middle of the road, which is very travelling on foot or by bicycle to be easy and convenient. unsafe’ (Lichfield resident). Figure 9.14 illustrates that only 5% of respondents ! ‘The council should get rid of grass pavements and consider the ease and convenience of travelling around provide a proper tarmac style pavement all around the their street by foot to be either ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’. road. These grass pavements force pedestrians into the Equally, 7% of respondents consider cycling to be ‘bad’ or road because it is impossible to push prams etc in the ‘very bad’. A surprising 29.1% of respondents considered soft surface – more pedestrians in the road will this question not applicable, which might indicate that they eventually result in an accident’ (Lichfield resident). do not regularly use these modes of travel around the Figure 9.15 shows the grass verges in Lichfield. streets in which they live. Some respondents criticised pedestrian and cycle access

100 routes for encouraging crime: ! ‘Due to the cycle path, kids have thrown stones and 80 N/A eggs, and broken fences as well as damaging trees and Very good shrubs’ (Lower Earley resident). 60 Good ! ‘Our small set of local streets for a cul-de-sac with a Reasonable 40 pathway through which is not needed at the end. Percentage Bad Closing this off would virtually eliminate crime’ (Lower 20 Very bad Earley resident).

0 By foot By bike By car Transport mode Figure 9.14 Ease and convenience of travelling around the street by different transport modes

Conversely, 15% of respondents said that the ease and convenience of travelling by car around their streets is ‘bad’ and ‘very bad’. An additional third of respondents said that travelling around their street by car was ‘reasonable’. Respondents also highlighted how hard it was to travel around the street using ‘other’ modes of transport. These included travelling by wheelchair and with a pram/buggy. This is reflected in the respondents’ comments: ! ‘People in wheelchairs have their right of way blocked by parked cars’ (Lavenham resident). Figure 9.15 Grass verges as pedestrian walkways in ! ‘I can’t get past with a double buggy and can’t see Lichfield properly when crossing the road’ (Leicester resident). Non-motorised users with specific needs therefore need The design of pedestrian and cycle access routes for considering in street design, in particular those with non-motorised users could be exacerbating personal safety mobility constraints and vulnerable groups (people with fears for residents. This might particularly be the case for children and buggies, wheelchair users, deaf, blind and DB32 compliant sites in Reading and Leicester, which partially sighted people, and older people). have spine and cul-de-sac road layouts. These layouts are more likely to have isolated pedestrian and cycle routes 9.7 Footways compared to more permeable and shared use streets, such as Charlton Down. Figure 9.2 conveys respondents’ dislikes about their street. This shows that respondents considered poor footways and poor amenities as pertinent issues after parking and traffic. 9.8 Summary of household survey findings Poor footways affect pedestrian use and how safe The primary objective of this household survey was to pedestrians feel using the footway. Poor amenities mean explore residents’ perceiptions. Results of the attitudinal that people without motorised transport can feel excluded. survey provide a better understanding of how highway The need for better pedestrian and cycle routes emerged layouts that are considered successful, in terms of as an issue from respondents’ comments. Respondents casualties and driver behaviour (for instance sites would like ‘more cycle friendly facilities’ and also criticise considered to be best practice by CABE) perform from the the design of ‘grass verges’ as pavements, for example: perspective of street users and residents.

34 The headline concern from the survey is that the majority Arguably, the Manual for Streets, which is aimed at of residents have little appreciation for the attributes that transport practitioners in their various capacities, will make streetscapes liveable, desirable and safe places to live reflect the user needs. However, it may be necessary to (for example, reduced clutter, public areas to encourage inform the public of advancements in street design children’s play, neighbourly interaction, reduced congestion contained within the Manual for Streets, in order to and sustainable travel). manage their expectations about street function over form. Many respondents take particular issue with parking, The next section explores the effect of crossroads and which reflects the bias in the sample of residents who own junction spacing on predicted accident risk using a software a car, and in particular, households with multiple car model to predict accidents on urban road networks. ownership. Other key findings are listed as follows: ! Danger from road traffic is considered to be the main safety threat in the streets sampled. 10 Testing of network layout using SafeNet ! The main concern for respondents is high traffic speeds 10.1 Junction spacing in their streets. High traffic speeds are also given as the main reason why roads are considered unsafe for It has been identified by work carried out to date that the form children of all ages. of highway layouts is to a significant degree shaped by highway safety concerns, with some engineers keen to ! Non-motorised road users are vulnerable to motor maximise junction spacing and concentrate vehicle flows onto vehicles. Accidents and near misses reported by non- links higher in the road hierarchy. The negative consequence motorised users all involve a motorised user. Children of this approach however can be to reduce permeability to cycling are perceived to be the most vulnerable. pedestrians and to concentrate the negative impacts of traffic. However, the findings suggest that cycling as a mode of A secondary element of research will therefore be to test transport is not widespread amongst respondents. different highway layouts to determine whether, making ! In terms of personal safety and security, respondents are reasonable assumptions about the distribution of traffic particularly concerned about poor street lighting and within those hypothetical networks, more casualties on pedestrian walkways. Poor street lighting and deserted aggregate could be expected. This test was carried out walkways increase insecurity, encourage crime and using SafeNet (TRL, 2006). prevent residents from using their streets effectively and SafeNet (Software for Accident Frequency Estimation using more sustainable modes of transport. for Networks) was originally developed in 1999 with the ! The presence of parked vehicles in their street is a major support of the Department for Transport and was primarily issue of concern for residents. On-street parking reduces designed to predict the number of accidents per year that safety, access and the aesthetic qualities of streets but would occur on an urban road network. SafeNet2 has been conversely encourages lower speeds. The respondents developed over the past six years with the support of the would prefer more off-street parking or for parking to be Highways Agency and extends the capability of SafeNet to restricted. The dilemma is how to respond to residents’ cover the trunk road network. needs whilst attempting to prioritise non-motorised users SafeNet is based on extensively researched accident-risk and more sustainable modes of transport. models which started in the 1980s with the study of roundabouts (see Maycock and Hall, 1984) and continued ! DB32 compliant sites performed consistently well in the with most of the junction and link types found on UK household survey with regard to road safety and roads, and in particular urban priority junctions and link parking. These sites were viewed as safer from traffic by sections used here (Summersgill et al., 1996; Summersgill respondents compared to historic sites and new build and Layfield, 1996; Layfield et al., 1996). The studies sites but generated more negative responses with regard related accidents to traffic flow and to road geometry and to personal security. In fact, the hypothetical analysis of control variables. junction spacing in Section 10 of this report indicates SafeNet2 can be used to model road networks which that there are only small differences in the effect on include: accidents using different road network layouts (when comparing DB32 compliant spine and cul-de-sac layouts ! Urban single carriageway roads. with organic layouts that have more junctions and ! Urban roads including minor junctions. greater permeability for pedestrians and cyclists). ! Roundabouts and mini-roundabouts. ! Specific case study sites that stand out are New Town, ! Traffic signal junctions. Eastleigh and Lichfield. Respondents from these sites ! Traffic calming measures. considered them to be consistently unsafe, showing concerns over vehicle speeds, the number of vehicles in It can be used to determine the safety implication of their street, the lack of footways, the lack of cycle paths, changes to a network or the effect on safety of increased or the lack of visibility for drivers and the lack of visibility for decreased traffic flows. pedestrians. Both adults and children were considered to be SafeNet2 uses vehicle flow, pedestrian flow and geometric unsafe at these sites as a result of road traffic. Parking and data for each junction and road link within the road network. the resultant safety issues were also major concerns for a There are 4 levels at which the model can be used, ranging high proportion of respondents at these sites. from simple inflow data (Level 0) to vehicle turning flows,

35 pedestrian flows, and geometrical data (Level 3). The analysis estimated by Phil Jones Associates for all the junctions and here uses Level 1 models. The number of expected accidents links within the given network, based on trip rates of 3 and casualties (fatal, serious, slight) can then be calculated for journeys inward bound and 3 journeys outward bound from a given junction or link. These values can then be summed to each house (see Figure 10.1). These values were then give an estimate of the number of accidents that would be entered into SafeNet2 together with the length of each link. expected to occur across the network as a whole. Pedestrian flows were not included in the analysis. Geometric data was not included. The results showed that 10.1.1 Analysis the total vehicle casualties per year expected would be 0.03 The area chosen for analysis was Thorpe Astley in (fatal), 0.40 (serious) and 1.89 (slight) giving an estimated Leicester. This site is a typical DB32 layout with cul-de-sacs total of 2.32 casualties per year or 1.78 accidents per year. and roundabouts onto the highway network. Flows were Personal accident data was supplied by Leicestershire

Figure 10.1 DB32 network for SafeNet analysis

36 County Council for 5 years which showed that there had been is ‘an on-going settlement’ and the effect of this on the 5 year 3 slight accidents on the residential estate road junctions onto accident data was unknown. the highway network and 2 slight accidents on the residential Connected network (2) estate roads giving an average of 1 accident per year overall. The roads in the DB32 compliant network (1) (see Figure Unconnected network (1) 10.1) were connected so that the area was made more permeable and the street layout more organic. The flows Estimated by SafeNet 1.78 accidents per year (1) through each line and junction were estimated, using the Actual recorded 1 accident per year same assumptions as in the original network, for the new These results show good agreement with the observed connected network (see Figure 10.2) and the SafeNet analysis was repeated. accidents. It should be noted that the accident data supplied by Leicestershire County Council stated that Thorpe Astley Estimated by SafeNet 1.85 accidents per year (2)

Figure 10.2 Connected network for SafeNet analysis (organic)

37 Connected network (3) Table 10.2 Effect of varying major and minor flows on It was noted that two crossroads in the connected network accidents per year predicted by SafeNet (2) (marked as solid black circles in Figure 10.2) had a relatively high number of accidents per year. These two Accidents per year for given percentage flow on minor arm crossroads were replaced by two roundabouts and the Flow on major arm SafeNet analysis was repeated. (vehicles per day) 50% 25% 10%

Estimated by SafeNet 1.69 accidents per year (3) 5000 3.31 1.93 0.99 4000 2.48 1.45 0.75 3000 1.72 1.01 0.52 10.1.2 Overall results 2000 1.03 0.61 0.32 The overall link and junction results for the various networks 1000 0.44 0.26 0.14 estimated by SafeNet are summarised in Table 10.1, together 500 0.19 0.12 0.07 with the average number of actual accidents recorded per 250 0.09 0.05 0.03 125 0.04 0.02 0.02 year over a 5 year period.

Table 10.1 Results of SafeNet analysis compared with actual accidents Accidents per year at crossroads 3.5 Accidents per year Accs/year (50% flow on minor arm) 3 Accs/year (25% flow on minor arm) Network type Links Junctions Total Accs/year (10% flow on minor arm) 2.5 Actual 0.40 0.60 1.00 Estimated DB32 (1) 1.08 0.70 1.78 2 Estimated organic (2) 0.92 0.92 1.85 Estimated organic (3) 0.92 0.76 1.69 1.5

Accidents per year 1 The SafeNet analysis showed that some of the data used was outside the lower limits of the validated working range 0.5 of SafeNet (See Figures 10.1 and 10.2). The lower limit for ‘T’ junctions in SafeNet is 200 vehicles per day for the 0 main road and the lower limit for circulating flows for 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 roundabouts in SafeNet is 276 vehicles per day and for the Vehicle flow (1000s per day each direction) entry/exit to an arm is 305 vehicles per day. Figure 10.3 Effect of varying major and minor flows on There were slightly more accidents predicted by SafeNet accidents per year predicted by SafeNet for the DB32 network (1) compared with the connected organic network (2), but it should be noted that some of the data used was outside the lower limits of the normal of 1000 vehicles per day the predicted accidents are less working range of SafeNet. than 0.5 per year. Substituting two roundabouts for two crossroads, the In summary, the hypothetical analysis exercise, organic network (3) was predicted to have fewer accidents undertaken using SafeNet, found that these types of than the original DB32 network (1). network (DB32 compliant versus organic) appear to Bearing in mind that, for these networks, SafeNet is produce only small differences in the effect on accidents, being used outside its normal working range (for some except when crossroads were substituted for roundabouts. junctions) there appear to be only small differences in the In support of this, an analysis of crossroad data found that effect on accidents using the different networks. However, accidents markedly increase to over one per year when it is encouraging that the actual numbers of accidents per flows on the minor arm exceed 1000 vehicles per day. year are below those predicted by SafeNet. However, it should be noted that the number of accidents overall was very low, no geometric or pedestrian flow variables were included, and only one sample network 10.2 Crossroads analysis was tested. SafeNet was used to study the effect of varying the vehicle The next section summarises the conclusions from this flows on the major and minor arms of a hypothetical research and offers some possible recommendations. crossroads to see how the predicted accidents per year varied, based on speeds of up to and including 40 mph. Major road flows were varied from 125 to 5000 vehicles 11 Conclusions per day in each direction and the flows on the minor arm were varied from 10% to 50% of the major road flow. All This report constitutes the evidence base for the standards movements were across the junction only i.e. no turning. proposed in the Manual for Streets. Arguably, its radical Pedestrian flows were set to zero for the analysis. findings are ground breaking because they demonstrate The results of the analysis are given in Table 10.2 and that residential street design can indeed be innovative, as Figure 10.3. The results show that for the major road flows evidenced by the headline findings:

38 ! Lower speeds are associated with reduced road width is an acceptable safety margin to stop should a danger and reduced visibility, on both links and junctions. present itself. However, the margin of safety becomes ! Site type (for example historic, new build, DB32 rapidly smaller below 40 metres, and sight distances of 20 compliant etc) is not a significant determinant of speed. metres are predicted to be unsafe unless other features are Junction and link geometries (width and forward employed to further reduce vehicle speed. visibility) are the important variables. ! Other factors that can affect speeds at junctions were ! Speed is known to be a key factor for road safety. The found to be block paving and junction markings. Block findings of this research are consistent with this fact, paving was found to reduce approach speeds by indicating that higher speeds on links increase the approximately 5 mph. The effect of having no junction likelihood of injury and its severity. markings was less clear with the models disagreeing as to whether removing them reduces speeds. The model ! Conflicting movements at junctions result in a higher number of accidents, but geometry can lower speeds based upon ATC data, and therefore the most robust which reduce both the chance and severity of accidents. dataset, predicted that removing junction marking reduced approach speeds by between 3 and 6 mph. ! Stopping distances on links and at junctions have a margin of safety down to a visibility of a round 20 m in the environments study, unless other speed reduction Residents’ concerns features are incorporated. With respect to the perceptions of residents surveyed, the ! The sites included roads with a range of surface types, following can be concluded: varying use of speed restriction measures, different ! Residents’ opinions of their area, in particular with levels of on-street parking and a range of forward respect to safety, were investigated in twenty housing visibilities. The results are consequently applicable to a estates. The estates covered a mixture of historic sites, wide range of estates throughout the UK. However, the new build sites and ones that were DB32 compliant. study could not encompass all situations. One site (Belgravia) was significantly different from the others, ! The main reasons for residents choosing to live in these with wide road widths, large forward visibilities and estates were because of the ambiance (quietness, high traffic speeds. This site had to be excluded from the friendly neighbours) and the location of the houses in analysis and therefore other exceptions could exist. relation to amenities. ! Parking was found to reduce speeds on links and at ! Across the sites there were mixed reactions to whether junctions by in the region of 2 to 5 mph. That is, drivers personal, or road, safety issues were of most concern. react to the perceived danger by reducing their speed. Residents at DB32 compliant sites considered personal The effect of this on safety is unclear. Reducing speed safety (in relation to crime) to be of the greatest concern, increases relative safety, but parked vehicles reduce but this was not the case at other sites. It is unclear lines of sight and can consequently obscure (crossing) whether this was owing to higher crime rates at the pedestrians. Double parking was associated with higher DB32 sites, the perception of road safety at other sites, numbers of casualties in the STATS19 analysis. or a combination of both these factors. However, overall Moreover, many of the reported near misses from the nearly half the respondents considered road safety to be household survey were related to parked vehicles. On the main issue, compared with nearly 30% who balance it would appear prudent to manage parking considered personal safety to be the highest concern. within an estate design. The household survey ! One consistent comment stemming from this research in confirmed the importance to residents of having relation to crime was the association of youth crime with adequate provision close to their home, but that pedestrian and cycle routes. It was considered that these unmanaged on-street parking can cause issues and resulted in various forms of vandalism, presumably if possibly dangers. Design could therefore aim to either these were off the main thoroughfares where use off-street parking, or reduce the interaction of perpetrators are less likely to be observed. pedestrians with parked vehicles near to a thoroughfare. ! Generally, respondents considered their street to be safe ! Reducing road width reduces drivers approach speeds, a for adults walking, but less so for children. As would be reduction from 10 to 5 metres was predicted to reduce expected, they considered the danger to children playing speeds on links by up to 4 mph and speeds approaching increased as age decreased. They also considered junctions by up to 10 mph. Though these were absolute cyclists to be at risk, with over 40% considering child width measurements, it is possible that the same results cyclists unsafe. may be achievable using psychological measures to give ! Residents’ strongest dislikes about their area were the appearance of reduced width. related to parking, in particular, inconsiderate parking ! The largest effect on speeds was found to be associated causing difficulties of access, or the misuse of with reducing lines of sight. A reduction from 120 to 20 designated parking spaces. Inconsiderate parking metres reduced approach speeds by approximately included parking on the footway and therefore impeding 20 mph on links and 11 mph at junctions. Modelling has pedestrians, parking on corners and reducing lines of shown the reduction in approach speed should result in sight and parking resulting in difficulty for other sight distances of 40 metres being relatively safe, i.e. there vehicles passing. Furthermore, respondents considered

39 that available off-street parking was not often optimally Burrow I J (1977). Delays on single-lane roads with utilised, and nearly half of them had difficulties parking passing places. Working Paper WP/TSN/29R. outside their home. Wokingham: TRL. (Unpublished report available on ! Parking on-street can result in streets not functioning in direct personal application only) the way they were designed, and this can create hazardous driving conditions. Twenty of the sixty-six Chinn L and Elliott M (2002). The effect of road incidents reported by respondents, who gave details of appearance on perceived safe travel speed: Final report. accidents and near-misses, were related to parking. Papers & Articles PA3827/20. Wokingham: TRL. ! Through traffic, particularly the high speeds of vehicles, Chorlton E (2000). Just whose street is it anyway? was another major concern for residents: second only to Surveyor, 20th July 2000, pp.15-18 parking. Overall approximately half the respondents were concerned about speeds, and in New Town Countryside Agency (2005). Mini guide to rural road (Reading) 80% expressed a concern over speeds. safety and traffic calming. St. Albans: Faber Maunsell. These results have been integrated into the Manual for Streets in the form of appropriate standards for residential Daisa J M and Peers J B (1997). Narrow residential street design, and will become the focus for Government streets: do they really slow down speeds? ITE 6th Annual guidance on new residential streets. Meeting Compendium of Technical Papers.

Department for Communities and Local Government 12 Acknowledgements (DCLG) (2006). Tree roots in the built environment. London: Department for Communities and Local Government. The work described in this report was carried out in the Sustainable Communities Group of TRL Limited. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs authors are grateful to Janet Kennedy, the Technical (DEFRA (2006). Securing the Regions’ futures: Referee who carried out the quality review and auditing strengthening delivery of sustainable development in the of this report. We would also like to acknowledge the English regions. London: Department for Environment, contribution of Phil Jones. Food and Rural Affairs.

DeRobertis M and Wachtel A (1996). Traffic calming 13 References dos and don'ts to encourage bicycling. ITE Annual Meeting Compendium. Washington DC: Institute of Aburahmah A E and Al Assar R. (1998). Evaluation of Transportation Engineers. neighborhood traffic calming techniques in residential areas. ITE Annual Meeting Compendium. Washington DC: Department for the Environment, Transport and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Regions (DETR) and Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) (2000). By design: urban ACPO (2004). Secured by design. Retrieved: December design in the planning system: towards better practice. 2006, from www.securedbydesign.com. London: Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Commission for Architecture and the Auto Express, 9-15 November 2005, Issue 883. Built Environment.

Barrel J and Whitehouse J (2004). Home Zones - An Department of the Environment, Transport and the evolving approach to community streets. Proceedings of Regions (DETR) (1999). A better quality of life: a the Institution of Civil Engineers, 157, pp. 257-265 strategy for sustainable development in the United Kingdom. London: Department of the Environment, Ben-Joseph E (1995). Changing the residential street Transport and the Regions. scene: adapting the shared streets concept to the suburban environment. Journal of the American Planning Department for Transport (DfT) (2004). Quiet lanes. Association, 61 (4) Traffic Advisory Leaflet 3/04. London: Department for Transport. Boulter P G, Hickman A J, Latham S, Layfield R, Davison P and Whiteman P (2001). The impacts of traffic Department of Transport (DOT) (1993). Pavement calming measures on vehicle exhaust emissions. TRL parking. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 04/93. London: Report TRL482. Wokingham: TRL. Department of Transport.

Brindle R E (1996). Designing for moderate speeds in Department for Transport, Local Government and the new neighbourhoods. ARRB Special Report No. 53. Regions (DTLR) (2002). Green spaces, better places: Australia: Australian Road Research Board Final report of the Urban Green Spaces Taskforce. London: Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

40 Department for Transport, Local Government and the Kennedy J V, Hall R D and Barnard S R (1998). Regions (DTLR) and Commission for Architecture and Accidents at urban mini-roundabouts. TRL Report TRL281. the Built Environment (CABE) (2001). By design: better Wokingham: TRL. places to live. London: Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Commission for Lawton B J, Webb P J, Wall G T and Davies D G (2003). Architecture and the Built Environment. Cyclists at ‘Continental’ style roundabouts: report on four trial sites. TRL Report TRL584. Wokingham: TRL. Elliott M A, McColl V A and Kennedy J V (2003). Road design measures to reduce drivers' speed via ‘psychological’ Layfield R, Webster D and Buttress S (2005). Pilot processes: a literature review. TRL Report TRL564. home zone schemes: evaluation of Magor Village, Wokingham: TRL. Monmouthshire. TRL Report TRL633. Wokingham: TRL. Layfield R, Summersgill I and Chatterjee K (1996). Engel U and Thomsen L K (1992). Safety effects of speed Accidents at urban priority crossroads and staggered reducing measures in Danish residential areas. Accident junctions. TRL Report TRL185. Wokingham: TRL. Analysis and Prevention, 24 (1), pp. 17-28 Maycock G and Hall R D (1984). Accidents at 4-arm English Partnerships and Llewelyn Davies (2000). Urban roundabouts. Laboratory Report LR1120. Wokingham: TRL. Design Compendium. London: English Partnerships. Noble J and Jenks M (1996). Parking: demand and Engwicht D (2003). Intrigue and uncertainty: towards provision of private sector housing developments. Oxford: new traffic-taming tools. Version 2.1. Creative School of Architecture, Oxford Brooks University. Communities International. Noble J, Bennett G and Jenks M (1987). Roads and Gibbard A, Reid S, Mitchell J, Lawton B, Brown E and parking in private sector housing schemes: studies of Harper H (2004). The effect of road narrowings on accident records, innovative layouts and parking cyclists. TRL Report TRL621. Wokingham: TRL. provision. UK: Housing Research Foundation.

Grayling T, Hallam K, Graham D, Anderson R and Noordzij P C and Hagenzieker M P (1996). Glaister S (2002). Streets ahead: safe and liveable streets Verkeersborden, bebakening en verkeersveiligheid. for children. Institute for Public Policy Research Leidschendam: SWOV.

Hardy S (2004). Pushing the boundaries. Surveyor, 1st Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2003a). July 2004. Better streets, better places: delivering sustainable residential environments. London: Office of the Deputy Harris G J, Stait R E, Abbott P G and Watts G R Prime Minister. (1999). Traffic calming: vehicle generated noise and ground-borne vibration alongside sinusoidal, round-top Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2003b). and flat-top road humps. TRL Report TRL416. Sustainable communities: building for the future. London: Wokingham: TRL. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Home Office (2000). An evaluation of secured by design Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2003c). housing within West Yorkshire. Briefing Note 7/00. Delivering planning policy for housing: PPG3 Implementation Study. London: Office of the Deputy London: Home Office Prime Minister Kallberg V and Ranta S (2000). Impacts of urban speed- Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2004). reducing measures. 2nd International Symposium on Safer places: the planning system and crime prevention. Highway Geometric Design, Mainz, Germany, June 14-17 London: The Stationery Office. 2000, pp. 93-109 Olson P (1997). Driver perception-response time. Institute Kennedy J V, Gorell R, Crinson L, Wheeler A and of Traffic Accident Investigators. Proceedings of the 3rd Elliott M (2005). Psychological traffic calming. TRL National Conference, Telford, 14 - 16 November 1997. Report TRL641. Wokingham: TRL. Oxley P R (2002). Inclusive mobility: a guide to best Kennedy J V, Wheeler A H and Inwood C M (2004a). practice on access to pedestrian and transport Norfolk Quiet Lanes Scheme. TRL Report TRL603. infrastructure. London: Department for Transport. Wokingham: TRL. Polus A and Craus J (1996). Planning and geometric Kennedy J V, Wheeler A H and Inwood C M (2004b). aspects of shared streets. Washington DC: Transportation Kent Quiet Lanes Scheme. TRL Report TRL602. Research Board. Wokingham: TRL.

41 Scottish Executive (2005). Residential streets. Planning Advice Note 74. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Planning and Building.

Scottish Executive (1999). Natural traffic calming: guidance and research report. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Development Department.

Summersgill I and Layfield R (1996). Non-junction accidents on urban single-carriageway roads. TRL Report TRL183. Wokingham: TRL.

Summersgill I, Kennedy J V, Baynes D (1996). Accidents at 3-arm priority junctions on urban single- carriageway roads. TRL Report TRL184. Wokingham: TRL.

Svensson T (2000). Balancing car accessibility and good urban environment, transport systems organisation and planning. Proceedings of 3rd KFB Research Conference, Stockholm, June 2000

Taylor M, Hall R and Chatterjee K (1996). Accidents at 3-arm traffic signals on urban single-carriageway roads. TRL Report TRL135. Wokingham: TRL.

Tilly A, Webster D and Buttress S (2005). Pilot home zone schemes: evaluation of Northmoor, Manchester. TRL Report TRL625. Wokingham: TRL.

Vis A A, Dijkstra A and Slop M (1992). Safety effects of 30 km/h zones in the Netherlands. Accidents Analysis and Prevention, 24, pp. 75-86.

Webster D, Tilly A and Buttress S (2005). Pilot home zone schemes: evaluation of Cavell Way, Sittingbourne. TRL Report TRL626. Wokingham: TRL.

Westdijk E (2001). Designing a safe residential environment for children. Proceedings of the Conference on Traffic Safety on Three Continents. Moscow, Russia, 19-21 September 2001

42 rnative hierarchy of y excessive signage, utility installations, dering design, is very important. t highway/engineering approach to road hierarchies is vandalism. Parking needs to be provided in a manner which allows for Permeability is not only about access, but also visual Tackling fear of crime is multi-faceted and dependent on design principles and effective management policing can help to reduce fear of crime. natural surveillance and reduces the likelihood of theft or Recommendations are made regarding fitting in with the local Context, when consi considering the movement through and within a site. Creating an identity for a street is also important, which will involve defining a street character type, selecting appropriate furniture, materials and signage. ! ! ! considerations. surfacing have been laid to ensure that the biggest articulated vehicles in the country can negotiate each bend and junction, while pedestrians, visitors, shoppers and residents make do with what is left. barriers and clutter, while the highway space between buildings Creating defensible spaces and clear visibility are essential character, linking design to the surrounding area, and Streets are dominated b is given primarily to motorised modes of traffic. Vast acres of in Description of sourceof Description Main Road; Avenue or Boulevard; High Street; Street Square; and Mews or Courtyard (p. 75). It sets this in direct contrast to the engineering oriented perspective which sees streets solely in terms of vehicle carrying capacity and ignores the multi-functional role of streets. residential streets, in particular, factors which can create Country of origin streets and spaces. Recommendations / Key conclusions home garages or driveways behind curtailage. This is of not always desirable course not always possible and design terms. The recent preference for courtyard parking needs to be carefully designed maximise natural surveillance. Ideally only one entrance should be allowed.On street parking which is well supervised from neighbouring houses may actually be better than courtyard parking in safety terms in many cases. permeability which improves surveillance and safety. many factors, not all of which can be tackled by the of crime. A safe urban structure is characterised by buildings with limited exposure to the public realm, active frontages looking onto streets, complemented by a regular movement framework. The guide argues that car parking is ideally located in UK building block layout in order to minimise the likelihood The guide stresses the importance of structure and UK streets have to be made accessible all. Progress on the good quality streets design. Surveyor, Safer places: Scottish Executive (2005). This PAN focuses on the design of better quality Scotland, UK ODPM (2004). ODPM Source Urban Design Compendium. 74. Note Advice Residential streets, planning. the planning system and crime prevention. ODPM (2004). Safer places: prevention. the planning system and crime street is it anyway? 20th July 2000, pp. 15-18.discussed. is document People’ for Streets ‘Designing Chorlton, E (2000). Just whose Chorlton (2000) questions street uses and whether all UK and networks. Llewelyn Davies (2000). hierarchy covering the following classifications:Hierarchy of modes. inappropriate. It suggests instead an alte Appendix A: Appendix Literature review Key content Objectives for streets What makes for good streets English Partnerships / Has samples of model streets based on their position in a England, UKLocal distinctiveness. The curren Sustainable communities Security issues.

43 Studies in und that street re-design laying in streets increases chances Planners should target an appropriate level of human Car parking – in-curtailage arrangements are Street lighting – all must comply with BS 5489. preferred. Communal parking should be in small groups, property. resident's the to adjacent or to close led to a 20% increase in play activity (Eubank, 1987). Motor Vehicle, Theft from Vehicle and TWOC) there Comparisons of new build sites revealed that there were 26% fo study German interaction. social for per dwelling in the SBD sample. For vehicle crime (Theft of ! ! ! towards safety were also found to be positive on the SBD housing estates. 11.4% of SBD respondents in a survey stated that they felt 'very unsafe' on the streets surrounding their home, alone, at night, compared to 19% of non-SBD respondents. were 42% fewer offences within the SBD sample. Attitudes fewer crime events per dwelling (using recorded crime figures) States that more time spent p spent time more that States Description of sourceof Description Streets should be part of a clear and legible movement Country of origin Recommendations / Key conclusions housing developers to design out crime, with particular emphasis on domestic burglary, at the planning stage. However, research behind the recommendations is not of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) which aims to encourage Secured By Design (SBD) principles and its effects on actual levels of Crime. An evaluation of SBD housing framework. There should be a clear distinction betweenplanning system alone. However a combination of goodpublic, semi-private and private spaces. This definition need not be achieved by introducing obstacles to visual permeability and hence reducing surveillance passive observation. Reducing fear of crime is a cross-cutting theme throughout the report. Fear can be reduced effectively by adhering to the principles outlined in report. Among the most important which can make people ‘feel’ safer are: having clear and identifiable routes; urban structures which provide for natural surveillance of activity for each location in order to reduce the risk of crime public spaces and ‘defensible’ private spaces; having and create a sense of safety at all times. appropriate public lighting in darker areas at night and in certain locations (e.g. dark, enclosed laneways, under bridges etc.) during the day; CCTV and other management measures in certain extreme cases; and having active spaces. Crime can be deterred by the presence of onlookers. On the other hand too many people present opportunities for certain types of crime such as pick-pocketing. The Secured By Design scheme is run by the Association UK clear, and certain suggestions contradict measures suggested in other key areas (e.g. traffic calming). This briefing note explores the implementation of UK and October 1999. An Secured Source evaluation of secured By Design housing within West adapting the shared streetsinitiatives. design and controls local costs, By Design. Yorkshire . Briefing Note 7/00. took place in the West Yorkshire Area between April scene:street residential the streets, including social benefits, residents satisfaction, ACPO (2004). Home Office (2000). Ben-Joseph E (1995). Changing Ben-Joseph (1995) investigates the elements of sharedUSA (continued). Key content Sustainable communities (Continued) Security issues Mixing uses.

44 Design reviews and better management can result in an improved urban park and green space product. Landscape design should meet the needs of efficient maintenance and cost mind, such as children, BME groups and people with people and groups BME children, as such mind, places. In this light the function of and activity within space green spaces in designing them with a wide range of users disabilities. is important. Japan reported that 90% surveyed said shared streets are for people rather than automobiles, 67% said their children play on the street and it is a safe place to play. 66% felt that shared streets encourages social interaction and conversation between neighbours (Ichikawa, 1984). Communal areas – playing and seating areas should be within view of residential properties. An essential element of providing high quality urban parks and effectiveness without compromising variety. have a crucial role to play in involving the community in providing the vision for and getting involved in their locality and help to instil a sense of local pride. Creating attractive urban parks and green spaces does not happen by chance. The report suggests making use of design housing developers to design out crime, with particular emphasis on domestic burglary, at the planning stage. However, research behind the recommendations is not clear, and certain suggestions contradict measures suggested in other key areas (e.g. traffic calming). spacesgreens and parks urban that suggests report This UK local environment. Variety of function is an important aspect in encouraging the community to make better use of such places and spaces. Positive Green Spaces can improve the image of UK reviews for failing parks and green spaces. It argues strongly against using generic blueprints and instead argues that every space is contextualised. Better management of parks and open spaces is urgently required in order. The report advocates a better focus on parks among local authorities, in partnership with the community in order to establish agreed priorities for maintenance and investment. of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) which aims to encourage focusing activity areas on nodes of along with quiet areas to rest and relax. It also separately emphasises the importance active frontages in terms of generating activity and encouraging passive observation. It suggests that roads should better be understood as streets linking a network of places, rather than as hierarchy roads. The Secured By Design scheme is run by the Association UK creating social spaces is of relevance here and suggests creating social spaces is of relevance Description of sourceof Description developing a thriving public realm. The section on Country of origin Recommendations / Key conclusions Secured Green spaces, Green spaces, Journal of the ACPO (2004). ACPO DTLR (2002). DTLR better places: final report of the better places: final report of the Urban Green Space Taskforce. Urban Green Space Taskforce. DTLR (2002). By Design. Compendium. Source concept to the suburban environment. American Planning Association, Volume 61, Issue: 4. English Partnerships / Llewelyn The Compendium has a section which concentrates onDavies (2000). Urban Design UKst reets in turn as and streets as understood be should Roads (continued). Green spaces. Provision for play, Home Zones. Sustainable communities (Continued) Mixing uses Key content

45 sers the study revealed that mulate the senses and (the majority) of all respondents stated that they would

priority Permeating the site with footpaths and cycle networks. Challenging the domination of car by prioritising other Using buildings to create strong pinch points on streets. ‘Threading’ the spine road through site. Creating continuous frontage to spine road. Designing-in bus priority and including designated routes Developing a strong car parking strategy. Restraining vehicular speed to 20 mph and below. safety and comfort of cyclists pedestrians. The scenario make the urban environment more appealing. more environment urban the make prefer the lower speed limit scenario. However, the scenario the However, scenario. limit speed lower the prefer relatively coexist on streets and roads in towns cities where ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Careful landscaping can be used to sti advocates space sharing for the use of entire street in residential areas. The overall results of results overall The areas. residential 44% individuals prefer scenarios where all kinds of road u stresses the importance that car access does not jeopardise Sweden bends, o Description of sourceof Description environment more stimulating; it suggests that designers should consider the senses in terms of how they design spaces and places. Aside from the visual elements which can aid liveability and tasteful signage where necessary, there is also touch, sound and smell. Country of origin Recommendations / Key conclusions crossroad junctions and pinch points, drivers have to pass side elevations of buildings only a footpath’s development, the site of 950 new homes in Greenhithe,development have been designed to reduce the impact of the car on environment. The design features deployed to achieve this have challenged and stretched the current guidelines and accepted norms. There is a main spine road running through the development, but it ranges from only 5 to 6 m wide at the narrowest point, 1.25 below design guide minimum. The spine road also runs past the front of homes, encouraging safer driving and pedestrianuse of space. The spine road also encompasses 90 transport. of forms width away. It is envisaged that these design features will encourage vehicles to slow and increase pedestrian safety. Pedestrians and cyclists are provided with direct straight line routes across the site, whereas drivers are forced to follow the spine road as it snakes around houses either in sharp or sweeping curves. Parking provision norms have also been challenged, with a maximum of 2 spaces per house, regardless of the number bedrooms, have cars, not pedestrians, where Zones’ ‘Home Creating provided. To encourage the use of public transport, no home is more than 300 m from a bus stop. However, no laybys are provided and there landscaped central road islands adjacent to bus stops, ensuring that other vehicles have to remain behind buses until all passengers have boarded. The purpose of the research was to investigate and analyse different, but complementary, techniques. Four different the balance between benefits to an individual offered by unlimited car access and the related consequences of overall traffic volumes that individuals would choose if Balancing Surveyor, Source Davies (2000). Urban Design English Partnerships / Llewelyn It suggests using a variety of methods to make the urbanCompendium. UK 20th July 2000. south bank of the Thames in Kent. The roads within Stockholm, June 2000. choose a number of different scenarios, presented by urban environment, transport systems organisation and car accessibility and good planning . Proceedings ofConference,Research KFB 3rd Individuals were presented with a questionnaire, asking to connections between these variables was made clear. Svensson T (2000). (continued). Key content Sustainable communities (Continued) Mixing uses Quality places Layout, geometric and Stewart (2000). Reclaiming Stewart (2000) discusses the design of Ingress Park housing UK material choices.streets. the character. Street

46 road users. Of those that thought traffic was dangerous in their that traffic in their area was dangerous to pedestrians and other and pedestrians to dangerous was area their in traffic that (2002) was produced to ensure that estates were no longer no were estates that ensure to produced was (2002) area, half thought that traffic calming would be a solution. When asked to rate the quality of their street in terms how it is laid out or built, 80% of respondents agreed it was pleasant. People were asked which users should have priority in their street or road if it were to be redesigned. Parking for residents (46%), children playing (435) and walking (42%) were the three most popular responses. 67% of respondents agreed that it was important for them that their street should have more ‘soft landscaping’ such as trees and green areas. The majority (71%) thought that it was important for everyone to have a parking space outside their house. People generally thought that it was important for the street to be a good place stop and talk neighbours (81%). Respondents were asked which physical quality they looked for when choosing a place to live. 80% stated feeling safe walking around, 75% thought that a good general environment was important, while 66% looked for a well-maintained street. 80% of respondents thought that it was important for their street to be a high quality environment (e.g. paving, green areas, street art). Dorset County Council’s ‘Highway Guidance for Estate Roads’ The document supports speed restraint that is designed into the development from the beginning and is not bolted on as an afterthought. Speed humps and chicanes are not acceptable, speeds are kept low through the positioning of key buildings and spaces, and reducing the effective length of road sections to 60 m – speeds should therefore remain below 20 mph. Junctions with reduced radii are encouraged, as speed restraining bends (which limit forward visibility) and varying the width of horizontal alignment. On-street parking is allowed. their quality of life was serious. 55% all respondents thought indistinguishable from each other and not related to their locale. One quarter of respondents stated that the impact of traffic on Scotland Description of sourceof Description scenarios of residential areas within an urban setting aredescribed. The characteristics that vary between scenarios are the conditions for cars and parking, which will have consequences for public transport, pedestrians, cyclists and children’s play on the streets. This report focuses on the results of DfT’s ONS omnibusUK survey (undertaken in October 2004) regarding people’s Country of origin this situation has been reached by traffic calming measures. Recommendations / Key conclusions attitudes to streets as part of the built environment, streets. residential on opinion public including streets, in particular, factors which can create good quality streets design. Source streetscape and street uses. DfT (2005). Attitudes to Residential streets, planning. Advice Note 74. Note Advice (continued). Key content Quality places (Continued) Street character Dimensions streets and squares,relationship to building heights Scottish Executive (2005). This PAN focuses on the design of better quality residential and massing.

47 s the space between buildings in relation to to prevalence of sloppily drawn lines and need the need for signs. methods to ease orientation. logic with clear messages for drivers, cyclists & pedestrians. minimised. where they cannot be hidden should treated as a for of public art and highlighted tailored to the specific context. elements for each space – again context driven. Insensitively placed additions are a problem in many street. Specific ratios should be taken as a guide only and The key issue i In relation to signage, the Compendium suggests that signage for pedestrians and cyclists is as important that for motorists. They suggest four considerations: 1 Consistent and co-ordinated design. 2 Making the structure of place legible so as to minimise 3 Concentrating pedestrian signage at key nodal points. 4 Implicit routing defined by the paving type and other careful consideration. The design compendium argues that this is not often achieved well with too many organisations putting in too many different elements to the public realm in an uncoordinated manner. This can lead to excessive clutter which can have negative effects on non-car users. They cite the example of sheep-pen style traffic crossings which provide free flow for traffic, while impeding pedestrian movement. They make four specific recommendations in relation to street clutter: 1 Remove superfluous and obsolete elements – establish visual 2 Design space so functions are clear and need for signs is 3 Hide it or flaunt – some elements are necessary evils 4 Producing a comprehensive and coordinated strategy of streetscape needs to be considered as part of a total whole. Brief reference Public Realm contains many different elements which need of anti-social behaviour such as vandalism. Each element the streetscapes and needed to be tackled on a coordinated basis. The placing of street furniture, especially by utility companies, consider roads/streets more sensitively. should be carefully considered so as to minimise the likelihood adapted to the level of activity and context. the scale of buildings and activities taking place in UK Safer Places is intended as a general guide to the broad UK planning principles outlined in PPS1. The guide is not and why. good design leading to safe, sustainable and attractive environments that meet the full set of planning requirements. The guide concentrates on how the planning system can deliver sustainable environments. It covers a wide range of interrelated topics which provide practitioners with a reference guide of what works well only about designing out crime, but also about promoting urban design best practice in the UK and Internationally. provided by Poundbury. building height (residential areas only). There is also a discussion about ‘setbacks’ again in relation to the model Description of sourceof Description Country of origin Recommendations / Key conclusions Davies (2000). Urban Design Compendium. ODPM (2004). Safer places: the planning system and crime English Partnerships / Llewelyn prevention. Compendium. Davies (2000). Urban Design By Design: better places to live. Source markings. Minimising clutter / signage / English Partnerships / Llewelyn The Urban Design Compendium offers an overview of UK relationship to building heights and massing (continued). Key content Quality places (Continued) Dimensions streets and squares,(2001).CABE and DTLR Brief reference to four possible ratios of street width UK

48 ed on control h to 26.9 mph a Signing/Clutter – it argues that minimising 35.2 to 32.6, -2.6 mph. However, greater reductions, -2.8 mph to 2,122 on weekdays and 1,577 to 1,453 at the weekends the at 1,453 to 1,577 and weekdays on 2,122 to both the before and after attitudinal surveys, with over 75% of 75% over with surveys, attitudinal after and before the both (Control road volumes increased). Support remained strong in Mean speeds in Kent reduced from 29.2 mp 29.2 from reduced Kent in speeds Mean Those traffic calming measures that are NOT recommended impeding movement on foot and rather reinforce vehicular movement. The guide also offers an example of Canning Street in Liverpool where selective street closure a historical layout has been used to achieve a better balance between vehicles and other users. This is a useful method as the barriers to vehicle movement are not actually ‘dead-ends’ as they remain permeable to cyclists and pedestrians - potentially emergency service vehicles and disabled drivers depending on the treatment used. The authors investigate the effects of traffic signs and road markings on safety. The following measures have been identified to improve the contribution of traffic signs and road safety: Make a distinction between important and less traffic signs; Improving the design of these signs to make them more noticeable, recognisable and understandable (for example, introducing new signs to indicate what type of road a user is on); Placing speed limit signs everywhere at the entrance to a (section of) carriageway or to an area, and repeating them where necessary; Reinforcing the message on signs of other, more natural indicators; Replacing some of the road makings whose message is intended to be read at different times of the day or night. are forced closer to vehicles); STOP signs (increase delay cyclists); and rumble strips (causing discomfort to cyclists, possibly steering difficulty/loss of control). reduction of -2.3 mph. Speeds at the 85th percentile reduced from environment. Guard Railing in particular though sometimes billed as pedestrian improvements can actually speed up include meandering roadways (cause erratic movements by respondents in favour of the schemes. the of favour in respondents pedestrian barriers can help to create a more walking friendly motorists and increased distances for cyclists); chicanes (cyclists roads, showing negligible changes in speed . Traffic flows were (mean speed) and -3.2 (85th percentile) were record See comments under reduced slightly when compared to the control roads, from 2,137 Netherlands effects of traffic signs and road measures on cyclists, including discomfort, feelings of safety and inconvenience. and why. Description of sourceof Description Country of origin Recommendations / Key conclusions It covers a wide range of interrelated topics which provide practitioners with a reference guide of what works well main access route; no street lighting; national speed limit. include false cattle grids (5 rumble strips) and colouring urban design best practice in the UK and Internationally. cycle routes. Traffic calming on busier stretches of road of the centre section road, leaving edges road August 2000 and May 2001. The network was designed to link towns, villages, public rights of way and the existing The Quiet Lane network was implemented between This study focuses on a pilot undertaken roads in Kent. SWOV, . ITE Annual Meeting Traffic calming dos and don’ts to encourage DeRobertis M and Wachtel AWachtel and M DeRobertis (1996). This paper examines the effects of various traffic calming USA Source bicycling en verkeersveiligheid. Leidschendam. Compendium. Compendium. HA Wheeler V, J Kennedy Kent quiet lanes scheme. Quiet lanes are rural roads that mostly satisfy the following UK and Inwood C M (2004b).TRL Report TRL603. criteria: narrow single-track road; very low flow; not a Davies (2000). Urban Design Wokingham: TRL. Key content Quality places (Continued) Dimensions streets and squares,andC P Noordzij the into Investigation relationship to building heightsand massing (continued).(1996).P M Hagenzieker safety. on markings Verkeersborden, bebakening Movement Street networks and types. English Partnerships / Llewelyn The Urban Design Compendium offers an overview of UK

49 0.1 for ercentile 30.2 mph to s traditional towns uded: wider residential streets experienced reduced from 36.8 to 36, -0.8 mph. However, greater reductions, present, it reduces speeds); traffic volumes and vehicle headway speeds in Norfolk the November reduced from 30.5 mph to Key conclusions incl Recommendations are made for local authorities on the 30.2 mph a reduction of -0.3 mph. Speeds at the 85th percentile reduced from 36.4 to 36.2, -0.2 mph. However, greater reductions, -0.8 mph (mean speed) and -1.5 (85th percentile) were recorded on control roads, showing negligible changes in speed. Traffic flows were reduced slightly when compared to the control roads, from 1,943 to 1,879 on weekdays and 1,245 1,091 at the weekends (Control road volumes increased by 10.1% in both cases). Support remained strong the before and after attitudinal surveys, with over 75% of respondents in favour of the schemes. adopting a more cautious and slower approach. Active traffic control elements such as chicanes, ramps etc are only necessary if the design has failed and corrective measures are required. Better design reduces the need for corrective measures. which obstruct drivers’ forward vision can result in drivers in result can vision forward drivers’ obstruct which are required to dramatically reduce speeds. spaces can have on driver's behaviour. It argues that buildings point to the impact that overall arrangement of buildings and 30.1 mph a reduction of -0.1 mph. Speeds at the 85th p -1.1 (85th percentile), were recorded on control roads (+ implementation and monitoring of quiet lanes. the mean speed), showing negligible changes in speed. Mean on-street parking density significantly affects speeds (where it is affect speeds; and significant reductions in effective street width The guide suggests that lessons from countles higher speeds for both the average and 85th percentile speeds; on roads in UK Mean speeds in Norfolk the July reduced from et al. , 2004 a and b) on the Description of sourceof Description widened and Quiet Lanes signs were erected. Extensive monitoring was undertaken, including before traffic and speed surveys and before after attitudinal video surveys. Country of origin Recommendations / Key conclusions implementation and monitoring of Quiet Lanes in Kent and Norfolk. attitudinal and video surveys. video and attitudinal is investigated within this paper. Speed data was collected principles outlined in the Urban Task Force Report and and geometric aspects, are explored. Where narrow widths are present, only one vehicle can pass along a straight Parking density was also surveyed. the selected streets had similar characteristics to allow comparison. outlined in PPG3. It focuses on urban design principles as they relate to the residential environment, building on Urban White Paper. from almost 50 streets in the San Francisco Bay area where kerb widths varied from 25 ft (7.62 m) to 50ft (15.24 m). intended to aid practitioners in the delivery of changes before traffic and speed surveys after 2000. Extensive monitoring was undertaken, including . March 2000, with small modifications until November Traffic researchthe summarises Leaflet Advisory Traffic This UK Daisa J M and Peers B (1997). Road narrowing as a means of calming or slowing traffic USA Source Kennedy J V, Wheeler A H,A Wheeler V, J Kennedy This study focuses on a pilot undertaken and Inwood C M (2004a). Norfolk. The Quiet Lane network was implemented in Advisory Leaflet 3/04, UK.(Kennedy TRL by undertaken DfT (2004). Quiet lanes. Norfolk quiet lanes Scheme TRL Report TRL603. Wokingham: TRL. Narrow residential streets: do of shared streets. DTLR and CABE (2001). ‘Better places to live’ is a companion guide PPG3 and UK Polus A and Craus J (1996).Planning and geometric aspects The concept of shared streets, in particular the planning they really slow down speeds? By Design: Better places to live. Key content Movement (Continued) typesand networks Street (continued). unchanged (narrowing effect). Footways have been Street dimensions.

50 e reduced to vehicles to pass s will often result in a an 100 vehicles per hour shared streets include: transitions has been reduced from 56 kerb side spaces to just 26 11.5, 9.4 and 12.6 mph, with 85th percentile speeds of 14.2, 13.9 the area, 85th percentile speeds increased slightly to 21.3 mph. house. On three of the streets, the mean speed was speed mean the streets, the of three On house. echelon spaces; residents in the after survey regarded parking as and 16.1 mph. The speed on the distributor road just outside of over a length of less than 10 m have been recommended. This is on two-way streets with flows of less th either side of the travel lane to provide further comfort when two – greater widths need to be provided in order for measures reduced traffic flows by 19 to 34%. on untreated streets, traffic reduced by 17%. 39% of respondents thought that Parking whereas 53% thought they were about the same. 72% it was very safe or quite for adults walking cycling in the Home Zone. Of the 28% who thought it was not very safe or at all safe, reasons given included too many parked cars (19%), vehicles travelling too fast (20%) and lack of pavement width (16%). There was 5 years of ‘before’ accident data and 23 months ‘after’ accident data. Although the sample was very small, data showed that the number of accidents per year reduced from 1.0 before to 0.5 accidents per year after. an ‘unresolved’ issue. Over half of the respondents thought that accommodate visitors/guests (insufficient parking is found to be significant in failed designs). On the roads without any measures, speeds remained similar in both the before and after (18 mph 23 mph). Streets with each other. the home zone had increased parking problems outside their outside problems parking increased had zone home the opposing vehicles meet; sufficient parking should be provided to clear width of only 3 m in places, and lateral shifts up to 4 To achieve the tightest vehicle path for car drivers were more considerate to children playing in the street, vehicles can Israel Recommendations regarding streets, and renewing and upgrading street lighting. To assess the effectiveness of schemes, TRL carried out before and after monitoring, including interview surveys with adults and children, collection of traffic flow, speed and accident data video recording. wall mounted pots outside the houses, planting trees in Zone implementation. However, there are certain concerns regarding some design aspects of Home Zones, such a s catering for less able-bodied members of the community. Single surface areas have benefited those with mobility problems, but this design can disadvantage the partially sighted, where no guidance is given. Therefore, boundary features have had to be incorporated into the design provide some guidance for those with sight problems. A number of Home Zone measures were applied in UK introducing particular features such as small gardens and Northmoor, a residential area 3 miles south-east of introducing ‘green streets’ between the parallel streets, Manchester City Centre. These measures included discussed by Barrel and Whitehouse (2004). The main along this section. this along outcome of the schemes seems to be the development of significant in determining the radius of the path of vehicles Description of sourceof Description section of road, whereas at diagonal sections, pass each other in opposite directions. the angle of diagonal section, relative to a straight line, and its width are Country of origin textured surface; a safety zone of 0.90 m to 1.50 is desirabl between streets should be made clear through an elevated or Recommendations / Key conclusions alternate sides of the road, slowing vehicles using chicanes, the active involvement of residents in all levels of the continued social opportunities created as a result of Home replacing parallel parking with echelon on Pilot home (2005). et al. pp. 257-265 Tilly zone schemes: evaluation of TRL Report TRL625. Report TRL Wokingham: TRL. Northmoor, Manchester. Home Zones – an evolving Barrel and Whitehouse (2004). The impacts of the DfT’s pilot Home Zone schemes are UK approach to community streets. Proceedings of the Institution of stronger and more Civil integrated Engineers, local 157, communities through Source (continued). Key content Movement (Continued) Street dimensions

51 es that on the arms ; an enlarged e mean speed survey types, it was 16.8 mph). The speed humps north of Square reduced the could be made to increase safety for cyclists at roundabouts. A which reduced by 2.5 mph to 13.9 mph. (85 percentile – mean speed slightly by 1.7 mph to 12.2 (85 percentile – ‘unresolved’ issue. Over half of the respondents thought that Due to the low number of cyclists in both in cyclists of number low the to Due percentile speeds reduced by 4 mph to 22 and 28 respectively. Flows on Sycamore Terrace increased by 15%, whereas those on The Square reduced by 50% – mainly due to it becoming one-way after installation. 19% of respondents thought that drivers were more considerate to children playing in the street, whereas 61% thought they were about same. 55% thought it was very safe or quite for adults walking cycling in the Home Zone. Little change to the overall number of parking spaces occurred. lines. reasons given included too many parked cars (17%), vehicles travelling too fast (8%), problems at the school entrance 96%) and lack of pavements (6%). Only one slight injury accident occurred in the before period of 7 years giving an accident rate in opposite directions north of The Square – this type accident should no longer occur due to the new one-way system). The after period, of just 9 months shows that there have been no accidents in the Home Zone. central island; the introduction of toucan crossings number of positive measures were identified that appear to have 14.8 mph). Just outside of the Home Zone, mean and 85th of roundabouts; and the addition cycle strips at give-way reduction in the number of entry and exit lanes difficult to come any firm conclusions regarding chang Home Zone had increased parking problems. On Sycamore an effect on safety of cyclists at geometry approaches; a of 0.14 accidents per year (a car and a motorcyclists travelling However, residents in the after survey regarded parking as an Terrace, speed humps had as small effect on th UK Of the 28% who thought it was not very safe or at all safe,

Description of sourceof Description A number of Home Zone measures were applied in Magor UK village, 5 miles east of Newport. These measures included and children, collection of traffic flow, speed and accident recording. video and data Country of origin Recommendations / Key conclusions effectiveness of the schemes, TRL carried out before and after monitoring, including interview surveys with adults Gateway treatments, flat top humps, extensive planting , roundabouts appear to be easier for cyclists to negotiate, for cyclists to roundabouts appear to be easier and it is suggested that they are therefore safer. The study used a series of ‘before’ and ‘after’ video interview surveys, a study of roundabout flows using ARCADY, and an analysis of accident statistics at the roundabouts before and after installation. flows. Because of the design, ‘continental’ style effects on the safety of cyclists. This style roundabout is have fewer entry and exit lanes on each arm, their carriageways than typical Britishroundabouts and typically

as they are not designed with the aim of maximising vehicle TRL Report bollards and ‘Stonemaster Flags’, 20 mph zone outside the (2005). Pilot (2005). Pilot et al. et al. Cyclists at . TRL Report TRL584. typically used on roads where there are lower traffic flows, Source Layfield home zone schemes: evaluation of Magor Village, Monmouthshire. TRL633. Wokingham: TRL. boundary of the zone, narrowing road. To assess Wokingham: TRL. sites abouts: report on four trial ‘continental’ style round- home zone schemes: evaluation of Magor Village, Monmouthshire. TRL Report TRL633. Wokingham: TRL. Lawton B J, Webb P J,P Webb J, B Lawton This study focuses on the use of ‘continental’ style UK Layfield GD Davies and T G Wall (2003). roundabouts, which feature narrower circulating (continued). Key content Movement (Continued) Street dimensions Junctions.

52 ompendium suggests that s that developments can be laid out in such a buildings and spaces – physical traffic-calming measures should be secondary, but considered as integral part of the design process and not as an afterthought. speed areas can alert motorists to the need reduce speed. movement. The layout and design of buildings the spaces between them have the potential in themselves to reduce speed of traffic. Where additional remedial measures are deemed necessary, they should ideally be integrated into the initial design of the public realm. Where this is not possible, new additions should be ‘designed in’ rather than merely conforming to engineering standards. on traffic speeds. suggestions: manner as to encourage low(er) traffic speeds. They make four make They speeds. traffic low(er) encourage to as manner 2 Traffic speeds can be managed by the arrangement of reductions in available carriageway width appear to make very little difference to speeds. Drastic ones, like those produced by lines of parked cars, had only a limited effect. Nobel (1987) cites that on straight roads more than 200 m long, mean speeds will be close to 50 km/h (31 mph); below 200 m, mean speeds willbe progressively lower, reducing to about 30 km/h (19 mph) at 60 m. Bennett (1983) stated that it would be possible to achieve low speeds on streets of traditional cross- section and visibility standards, using short lengths of streets 3 Changes in materials or ‘gateways’ at the entrance to low 4 Smaller corner radii will encourage more careful vehicle 1effect their to regard with designed be should Developments A UK research report by Nobel (1984) found that minor By Design suggest As above. as length. intended to aid practitioners in the delivery of changes Road width – as a measure to reduce speeds. Street section UK outlined in PPG3. It focuses on urban design principles outlined in PPG3. It focuses on they relate to the residential environment, building on principles outlined in the Urban Task Force Report and Urban White Paper. Description of sourceof Description design and layout of junctions. While junctions will alwaysbe place specific, it suggests that junctions kept as tight as possible. Some tight corners have a traffic calming effect. It suggests that junctions should be weighted in favour of pedestrians in the majority of cases. Shared spaces (cars, cycles, pedestrians on the same route) are also advocated. treated as spaces in their own right and/or a point of Country of originentry, which can improve legibility by helping to identify places and to better define routes. effect. calming traffic major a have corners tight Poundbury which encourage drivers to take corners more Recommendations / Key conclusions carefully. . ARRB, neighbourhoods Special Report No. 53. for moderate speeds in new By Design: better places to live. Brindle R E (1996). Designing Source Davies (2000). Urban Design English Partnerships / Llewelyn Applies worked example of the tracking principle to Compendium. UK (2000).CABE and DETR By Design: Urban design in the planning system: towards better practice. Some brief references to junctions, which it argues can be Under the argument keep it tight c UK (2001).CABE and DTLR Gives example of tight junctions and pinch points in UK As above. By Design: better places to live. (continued). Key content Movement (Continued) Junctions Achieving appropriate speeds. DTLR and CABE (2001). ‘Better place to live’ is a companion guide PPG3 and UK

53 being peeds (questionnaire parked on both sides of the road. These results suggest that revealed that it is a combination of different features which have buildings located close to the road (29 mph). The case studies At the small scale, encourage innovative total design to produce perceived risk of collision with pedestrians is one the most powerful influences on people's average speeds. The next lowest traffic and road to more relate speeds response average conditions; the road surface is cobbled (26 mph), traffic heavy (27 mph), several street intersections (28 mph) and high Scenarios which produce the lowest s frequent 90 degree bends – although such configurations would be far from conventional Avoid long and wide sight lines, whilst being careful that stopping sight distances are being observed. The design speed for vertical sight distance should not be less than that horizontal sight distance, and should be greater if sight distance is at a minimum. Use occasional interruptions to the parking lanes (such as planting areas) to constrain the ‘optical width’ of street, careful to protect sight stopping distances speeds well below those in conventional estates. Total design of the street, combining considerations of length, visibility, texture and materials, cross-section, edge treatments, activity, roadside development and planting is required to make sure that all the variables work in concert to produce a safe, low-speed environment. highlighted as being important: helping drivers adjust their perceptions and their speed to the environment which they are entering using a range of different physical and perceptual factors. Transition can include: sequential changes in landscape and townscape; changes in physical conditions of the road itself; activity and features within the road environment associated 'ownership' of the street environment; and changes in driver perceptions of risk and uncertainty. One the most important variables that needs to be taken into consideration is ‘risk homeostasis’ – the way in which drivers adjust their behaviour to maintain a consistent level of risk. As drivers feel safer, they begin to take more risks whereas conversely, if road conditions make them feel unsafe, drivers are likely to adjust their behaviour to take fewer risks. responses) were revealed to be pedestrians crossing (20 mph), children present (23 mph), lorries unloading (24 mph) and cars the most influential effect on driver behaviour. Transition was UK Description of sourceof Description Country of origin Recommendations / Key conclusions is based on a combination of real-life examples and behavioural or psychometric testing. Local authorities in Scotland were contacted which resulted in the identification of ten locations where traffic appeared to be ‘naturally calmed’. Physical surveys were undertaken of each the roads, including traffic surveys (composition), speeds were these locations, the of five In after). and (before environment factors which may have an effect on driver complemented with more detailed data collection, including questionnaire surveys of drivers and pedestrians. behaviour, focusing on ‘natural traffic calming’. The study . ARRB Special Source Brindle R E (1996). Designing for moderate speeds in new neighbourhoods Report No. 53. Scottish Executive (1999). This report for the Scottish Executive explores road Scotland, UK Natural traffic calming: guidance and research report. Key content Movement (Continued) Achieving appropriate speeds (continued).

54 traffic . significant changes there were significant (V85) of about 30 kph. The effect is much less for refuges and generally fell by 5 to 30%, which was particularly prevalent in traffic nuisance generally declined (problems exist regarding the although streets, 15kph the in found were changes in the 30 kph streets; a change accidents of 24% (77 road, (partial) barricades, elongated humps and entrance humps with cycle lanes. Traffic volume: traffic intensity Key results were as follows: speed; humps, narrowing of the which resulted in a considerable ‘loss of time’ for through Resident’s opinions: interviews were conducted with a random sample of the population showed that there was a high level acceptance of the 30 kph regulation. Residents generally prefer the new situation over old one, feel safer as speed and intensity of the traffic is lower. A marked change in actual use of the area was not reported, even though present conditions would favour such a change. (9 mph) and 223 km Accidents per km of road: 10 15 kph streets adjoining the 30 kph streets, accidents reduced 18% (150 fewer accidents) and casualties reduced 21% (106 casualties). Accidents per road km: There was a significant change in the number of casualties per road user km 72%, with confidence limits ranging from 4 to 29% due the change in street status. There was also a change the number of seriously injured of 78% (Confidence 26-93%). Motor vehicle speeds: Speed reducing measures were implemented with a distance of a max 100 m. The greatest change in speed was achieved through the use of humps (up to -13 kph). of 30 kph (18.5 mph) streets were used. No areas where measures affecting circulation were introduced fewer accidents in 3 year) Reductions in casualties in the same constructions almost always achieved a 85th percentile value comparability of before and after periods interpretations). street type were 45% (88 fewer casualties in 3 years). the Netherlands Denmark speed reducing accident studies. accident types of study; traffic studies (mode split, traffic volume, speed, placement on the road, conflicts and behaviour at intersections); opinion research projects (resident’s views); Description of sourceof Description and child pedestrian casualties in Britain the use of20 mph zones to reduce injuries and inequalities. A surveywas undertaken of traffic-calmed 20 mph zones in Englandand Wales. Of the 171 county unitary district councils,119 questionnaire responses were received. 80% had implemented at least one traffic-calmed 20 mph zone, total of 684 zones, and there were a further 441 zones planned. Hull was found to have extensive 20 mph zone coverage, about 100 zones covering 25% of its road length. It was Country of originestimated that Hull’s programme of 20 mph zones since 1994 has already saved about 200 serious injuries and 1,000 minor injuries. become the norm in residential and built up areas that 20 mph speed limit combined with traffic calming should priority should be given to traffic calmed 20 mph zones in This study looks at the reason 30 kph (18.5 mph) zones were Recommendations / Key conclusions deprived areas with high casualty rates. within the Netherlands. The evaluation of zones used three and an accident study (before after – the zone, suggestive measures (road narrowing); persuasive measures; introduced, and the effects that these zones have in 15 areas surrounding arterial roads and control areas). Four types of engineering measure were evaluated: informative measures; and obstructive measures. injury and damage only; and casualty – personal injury , only). Before and after periods were 3 years each in the (2002). The study examined the relationship between deprivation UK The main recommendation from the report is that a maximum et al. Safety effects of 30 mph Source Vis A A, Dijkstra and Slop M (1992). zones in the Netherlands. KL Thomsen and U Engel (1992). Safety effects of speed measures, using studies based on accidents and vehicle The authors evaluate the safety effects of reducing measures in Danishresidential areas. Accident Analysis and Prevention speeds (accidents – all police reported accidents; personal 24 (1) pp. 17-28. (continued). Key content Movement (Continued) Achieving appropriate speeds Grayling

55 ween by the f the village. row the road e perceived thrat emained 5.5 m e same or reduced in some (at the 85th percentile) varied ds fell by 8 mph and 4 at the north result in the reduction of speeds as driver is calming is recommended; using trees, hedges, directly in front of the driver’s path travel will inhibit immediately adjacent to the vehicle path, whereas negative overall conclusions included that the speed at midpoints bet they hold to the driver. Positive intimidation is achieved through achieved is intimidation Positive driver. the to hold they and give a gentle chicane effect (although road r Inbound mean spee 37-38 mph. This was despite under use of parking pays south gateway respectively, to 37 mph at both (47 85th slightly increased in other locations. intimidation can locations. However, traffic volumes remained th remained volumes traffic However, locations. Intimidation has an impact on drivers through th percentile speeds). In the village, two-way traffic speeds fell by The percentage reduction in speed in reduction percentage The directional legibility as the route ahead has to be subject of deliberate, selective thought process. intimidation is achieved through the repercussions of falling into 7-8 mph to 31 and 85th percentile speeds fell by 8-10 mph to this has been implemented, including Suffolk, where hedges have been created to give the perception of a narrowed carriageway without physical alterations. Bends, narrow roads and rough surfaces are also variances of rural traffic calming. Wiltshire County Council have taken an innovative approach to reducing speeds through removing white centre lane lines from roads that are lit and subject to a 30 mph speed limit. 12 sites were assessed when resurfacing works undertaken in the last three years. In the village of Seend, council have noticed a reduction of 5% in speed. the long term removal white centre lines on effectiveness is still to be seen. average daily traffic flows ranged from -200.5% to 30%. The also were volumes traffic that and humps, the repercussions of collision with built or natural form Natural traffic the void immediately adjacent to vehicle path. positive intended to limit the forward visibility and break up the required to recognise and navigate a forward route. Build forms wide). Planting on the build-outs and parked vehicles were the humps and overall speed reduction was affected from -6.9% to 36.7%, where was the percentage reduction in walls and buildings to slow speeds. Examples are given of where Build-outs were used to define parking bays nar sightlines. Gateways were introduced at each end o placed safer environments. Although the positioning of key testing was also undertaken using the ‘t’ test. buildings or structures is important in forming ‘place’, there are also other considerations, such as from a traffic movement point of view. Hardy explores the concept that concept the explores Hardy view. of point movement the placement of structures can be used as a positive influence to reduce vehicle speeds by virtue of their bulk measures, which can have a number of negative effects. and/or form. on a former trunk road. The scheme area is the main road at rural road safety and traffic calming. outside the built up area and was extended for about 1 km. 85th percentile speeds were in excess of the limit. The new measures such as speed humps reduce the operating speeds and volumes of traffic in residential areas. The study through the village which carried approximately 2,000 vehicles a day. The speed limit was 40 mph within and just Description of sourceof Description Country of origin Recommendations / Key conclusions , creating traffic calming effects, and therefore, potentially Faber Psychological . ITE Annual focuses on four residential locations in Manatee County Hardy S (2004). Pushing(2004). S Hardy Hardy investigates the use of physical surroundings in UK Transportation Engineers. and after installation of the speed humps. Significance the boundaries. Surveyor 1st July 2004. Washington DC: Institute of speeds. Speed and traffic volume data was collected before TRL641. Wokingham: TRL. Wokingham: TRL641. where various psychological measures were implemented Elliott M (2005). traffic calming. TRL Report A case study example of the village Lattern, Wiltshire, Kennedy J V, Gorell R,Gorell V, J Kennedy This paper examines the use of psychological means UK Crinson L, Wheeler A andA Wheeler L, Crinson traffic calming as an alternative to physical vertical Meeting Compendium, where speed humps have been implemented to reduce traffic Mini guide to rural road safety and traffic calming. Evaluation of neighborhood Maunsell. (1998).Assar Al and Aburahmah This study investigates whether the installation of physical USA traffic calming techniques in residential areas Source (continued). Key content Movement (Continued) Achieving appropriate speeds Countryside Agency (2005). This guidance prepared for the Countryside Agency looks UK

56 ease through fic calming should be defined as trees). smaller speed reductions than those from physical measures and their effect may lessen over time. However, they be Psychological measures to date have generally produced more acceptable to drivers. In general, more complex environments tend to be associated with slower driving speeds, the likely mechanisms being increases in cognitive load and perceived risk. Roadside activity e.g. on-street parking or the presence of pedestrians tends to reduce speed. Bus or cycle lanes are more likely to reduce speeds when they are in use. Combinations of features tend to be more effective than individual measures. Horizontal and vertical alignment. Activity e.g. presence of pedestrians, parked cars. Objects in the road corridor e.g. street furniture, landscape. Colour and material of surfacing. Historic character. Context e.g. roadside type. Scale e.g. road width and complexity. Proportion (height of enclosing features such as buildings or The research suggested that traf that suggested research The a process of helping drivers adjust to the environment. It was concluded that drivers are influenced by a large number of number large a by influenced are drivers that concluded ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! The study revealed that negotiating narrowings constituted to a ! ! ! users. cycle to stress of source different cues. The design elements identified were: number of the effect of a as case studies. Psychometric Description of sourceof Description theories to provide an insight into how specific road design speeds. driving reduce might measures Country of origin Recommendations / Key conclusions road design interventions on respondents' ratings of speed and 30 mph signs (new limit); build outs with planting tonarrow the road and create parking bays on alternate sidesof the carriageway; removal centre white line; andlowering of lighting columns to a height more appropriate for a minor road. straddling the empty parking bay) and the forward visibility not being reduced as much as intended (particularly due to immature build-outs). on planting using sketches. This report considers the effects of road narrowings on UK narrowings, and virtual reality simulations of encounters between drivers and cyclists, measuring the reactions of drivers to be measured under a range of circumstances. behind natural traffic calming. Ten small or medium towns on through routes in Scotland that appeared to be naturally considered the design elements that can be used in work, designed to highlight the relative importance of different features or situations, was undertaken. effect of road appearance on perceived safe travel speed drivers was interviewed to assess by highway authorities to assist cyclists in negotiating road user groups, video surveys of sites with features installed . cyclists the study consisted of consultation with cyclist The effect (2004). et al. Source design measures to reduce Kennedy J V (2003). Road drivers’ speed via ‘psychological’ processes: a literature review. TRL Report TRL564. Wokingham: TRL. Scottish Executive (1999). The study attempted to identify the underlying principles Scotland, UK Gibbard of road narrowings on cyclists TRL Report TRL621. Elliott M A, McColl V A and This literature review considers the relevant psychological UK Wokingham: TRL. Natural traffic calming: Scottish Executive Developmentselected were traffic-calmed guidance and research report. on perceived safe travel speed: Final report . PA3827/20.Wokingham: TRL. influencing driver speed. A representative survey of 350 Chinn L and Elliott M (2002). The research by TRL for the Highways Agency on UK Department The effect of road appearance Key content Movement (Continued) Achieving appropriate speeds scheme consisted of stone gateways with village nameplatewith other each pass to vehicles (allowing (continued).

57 ead and, ; create r each street humps. ailing outside schools excessive signage); evolving a unique personality fo to guide learning disabled children a crossing, or prevent considered in the planning of street network – size crossings, dropped kerbs and raised crossings. times would increase significantly. increase would times The experiment consisted of a fire tender and driver travelling driver and tender fire a of consisted experiment The unless large numbers of traffic calming measures are However, the time delay per measure was relatively small use of tactile paving to indicate crossing points, adopting corridors (use of walls and entry/gateways, furniture and art); design after use. The needs of refuse, fire and other service vehicles should be dialogue with local agencies. standards for footways which incorporate 'unobstructed widths', are on same side as pedestrians. Visually impaired – widespr through a residential circuit featuring various traffic calming 6 design principles are discussed; creating rooms rather than barriers on footways, ramps and steps, street furniture, works, colour contrast, surfaces (including tactile paving), road clues, PUFFIN crossings are beneficial as green/red man signs running into traffic. Physically disabled – following of IHT (less standardisation of design across a number streets Learning Difficulties - Provision of guard-r vehicles to be accommodated should established through Provides specific guidance (including measurements) for guidance. Hearing Impairment – pelican crossing with visual footways (widths), gradients, fences and guardrails, seating, measures. The speed reduction caused by the cushions was encountered, it is unlikely that emergency fire tender response reducing traffic oriented devices (visual clues rather than ever-changing streetscapes; build ambiguity and legibility; significantly smaller than that caused by the flat top flat the by caused that than smaller significantly Germany Scotland of traffic calming measures; 75 mm-high flat top road humps, 80 mm-high round-top road 1.7 m wide Description of sourceof Description This researched identified studies from different countries over the last 25 years where initial speed levels and This study investigated the emission impacts of nine types Country of origin UK Recommendations / Key conclusions improving access for disabled people, many of the designs will meet the needs of other people, including those travelling with small children or are carrying luggage/heavy shopping, and those with temporary mobility problems. implementing physical measures. It is suggested that residential streets, in particular, factors which can create pedestrian to access on guidance practice best is which and transport infrastructure. Although primarily aimed at on the road safety of children and adults with disabilities. accident risk, and remedial measures, including engineering group. each for identified were measures, The DfT (2002) have published ‘Inclusive Mobility’, UK as a means of calming traffic without the need for drivers begin to expect the unexpected, therefore drive safety. increase and slower The review looked at a variety of groups, including those with learning difficulties, ADHD, Autism, physically study, the access of emergency vehicles and possible delays Engwicht investigates the use of intrigue and uncertainty UK roundabout and 1.9 m wide speed cushion. As part of the were investigated as a result of traffic calming installation. good quality streets design. sensory impaired. The impact on mobility and safety, 100 mm-high raised junctions, chicane, build out, mini- speed cushions, combined pinch point and cushion, disabled, hearing impairment, visually impaired and multi- The impacts Inclusive mobility: (2001). 2nd International effects on speeds were measured of various urban speed- et al. of traffic calming measures on vehicle exhaust emissions. Source TRL482. Report TRL Wokingham: TRL. Impacts of urban speed-reducing measures. Symposium on HighwayGeometric Design, Mainz, Germany June 14-17, 2000, pp. 93-109. reducing measures. Boulter infrastructure. Williams K, Savill T andT Savill K, Williams This study provided a review of the information available UK Wheeler A (2002). Review of taming tools, version 2.1. Scottish Executive (2005).Residential streets, planning. 74. Note Advice This PAN focuses on the design of better quality a guide to best practice on access to pedestrian and transport TRL Report TRL559. Wokingham: TRL. Creative CommunitiesInternational. through increased street activity and use by residents, the road safety of disabled uncertainty: towards new traffic- children and adults. Engwicht D (2003). Intrigue and Key content Movement (Continued) Achieving appropriate speeds(continued). Kallberg V and Ranta S (2000). Emergency access. DDA/Disabled requirements.(2002). Oxley

58 pavement or the services underneath. short loop roads which function as residential only roads, DOT states that It [pavement parking] can create hazards for appearing to make overtaking hazardous. Vehicles parked on the footway were seen to force pedestrians walk in the road, and parking on shared surfaces made access inconvenient for pedestrians using these surfaces and appeared to create hazards. coloured pave (such as in home zones) should be avoided it can be difficult to see where the carriageway starts or create an illusion of obstacles in path (Duncan Jones, 2001), and street corners with kerb flush the carriageway on radius can be hazardous, people may find it difficult to line themselves up with the opposite carriageway. It is recommended that for the benefit of those with learning difficulties, or those who suffer from ADHD, guard railing should be positioned outside schools to guide learning disabled children to a crossing, or prevent running into traffic. suggesting that traffic flow, rather than parking, is a major contributor to accidents. Cul-de-sacs serving up 80 dwellings were included in the surveys and there no statistically significant increase in the accident rate per dwellings associated with the size of cul-de-sacs at least up to that size. Ensure non-access vehicular traffic is excluded or discouraged from entering the site; ensure that shortest pedestrian routes to local amenities are along footways or separated footpaths; use the lowest categories of roads wherever possible for access to dwellings by roads carrying the least traffic; and ensure that road layout encourages low driving speeds: e.g. by restricting the lengths of straight roads and using tighter radii on bends. visually impaired, disabled and elderly people or those with drivers in some places to see beyond the parked cars, thereby prams or pushchairs. It may also cause damage to the kerb, Observations showed that on-street parking made it difficult for It was found that very few accidents occur in cul-de-sacs and has identified a number of safety related UK et al., Lower Earley and Woodley, Reading. parking provision is limited. is provision parking A study involving 1,526 dwellings served by 47 roads in UK Noble Description of sourceof Description Country of originPPG3 states that parking can be used as a mechanism to Recommendations / Key conclusions slow traffic, with the intension of increasing safety. UK provision. The consequences should be considered when objectives to be pursued when designing layout as a whole. This traffic advisory leaflet looks at the consequences of UK /93. pavement parking where there is a lack of formal Parking: Roads and Housing Delivering Pavement parking. (1987). et al. demand and provision of private Noble and Jenks (1996). sector housing developments. Oxford Brooks University Noble Source privateparkingin sector housing schemes: studies of accident planning policy for housing: PPG3 implementation study. records, innovative layouts and parking provision. Research Foundation. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 04 Leaflet Advisory Traffic ODPM (2003c). Key content Movement (Continued) DDA/Disabled requirements. (continued). Parking PPG3. Layouts/designs on/off-streetparking. (1993). DOT

59 nd diesel at the flat-topped d function and can impact from petrol only increased x from diesel increased by around 30%. x emissions for the three vehicle types increased between 20 2 Planting should be integrated into street designs where possible. Recommended sightlines for vehicles should be maintained around planted areas unless visibility is being deliberately kept short in order to limit traffic speeds. humps would produce higher noise and vibration levels than increase the emissions of some pollutants from passenger cars. Materials can help to define space an Mean emissions of CO per vehicle-km was increased by 34%, by increased was vehicle-km per CO of emissions Mean other designs. Even on roads where few heavy vehicles pass cars respectively. Emissions of NO of Emissions respectively. cars slightly whereas NO Avoid long rows of parked cars; create communal parking areas calming measures to counteract the speeding that may result from good visibility. On-street parking is recommended to help reduce speeding road, or end-on angled parking should be encouraged, using trees, plants or other street furniture to discourage indiscriminate parking. Where off-street parking is provided, care must be taken to ensure natural surveillance. and 26%, emissions of particulate matter from diesel increased by 30%. Although traffic calming generally increases emissions, it is unlikely to result in poor local air quality. on how drivers respond. CO ! ! The results clearly indicated that traffic calming measures The overall results of the study indicated th 59% and 39% for petrol non-catalyst, catalyst a through, benefits will be gained for local residents, as even infrequent high noise levels can cause annoyance. Netherlands Scotland Description of sourceof Description to achieve a Westdijk makes recommendations as to how safe street environment. One such approach is to create a Country of origin away from homes; areas of child play (play area) must have an Recommendations / Key conclusions residential streets, in particular, factors which can createof traffic calming measures; 75 mm-high flat top road traffic. Rather than rigidly defined parking bays, provision This study investigated the emission impacts of nine types UK humps, 80 mm-high round-top road 1.7 m wide roundabout and 1.9 m wide speed cushion. well as the type, load and speed of vehicle crossing profile, TRL investigated three types of humps and effects. their alongside traffic-humps depends on the profile shape as surface areas. Provides a review of current research and knowledge ontree roots and their interaction with the built environment. UK for example to indicate pedestrian routes and shared 100 mm-high raised junctions, chicane, build out, mini- speed cushions, combined pinch point and speed cushion, Traffic The impacts Designing a Tree roots in the Urban Design Proceedings of the transparent lay out. uninterrupted line of sight 30 to 40 m either side; use traffic et al. (2001) Source for children. Conference on Traffic Safety Wokingham: TRL. Three Continents. Scottish Executive (2005).Residential streets, planning. Advice Note 74. This PAN focuses on the design of better quality good quality streets design.of traffic calming measures on TRL Report TRL482. should be more informal, through either subtle widening of the vehicle exhaust emissions. Harris G J, Stait R E, Abbott P As the maximum noise and ground-borne vibration UK and Watts G R (1999). calming: vehicle generated noise and ground-borne vibration alongside sinusoidal, round-top Compendium. DCLG (2006). built environment. and flat-top road humps TRL Report TRL416. Wokingham: TRL. English Partnerships / LlewelynDavies (2000). Brief reference to different materials which can be used, UK (continued). safe residential environment Key content parking Parking (Continued) Layouts/designs on/off-street(2001). Westdijk Environment Air Quality/Noise. Boulter Materials and planting

60 Appendix B: Case study sites

B.1 Research site characteristics

Rural / Housing Land Network Characteristic Town Ward Region urban period use Density type

New build Ipswich Rapier St. South East Suburban Post 90s Residential High Atypical grid Portishead Port Marine South West Suburban Post 90s Residential Mid Organic

DB32 Compliant Leicester Syston East Midlands Urban 1980> Residential Mid Cul-de-sac with spine Reading Lower Earley South East Urban 1980> Residential Mid Cul-de-sac with spine

61 B.1.1 New Town, Reading

! Site approximately 1.5 km from Reading Town Centre. Bus route on nearby London Road. ! Site area: 12.6 ha. ! Approximately 623 housing dwellings. ! Housing density: approximately 49 dwellings per hectare (dph) ! Predominantly residential. One school nearby. ! Residential mix: mostly terraces. Some conversions into flats. ! Housing tenure: None assigned, although prices in this area are probably lower than the average amount in Reading. ! 20 mph speed limit throughout area introduced in mid nineties as a road safety scheme. ! Parking: oversubscribed. Most of the houses in New Town were built for the workers of the old Huntley and Palmer Biscuit factory on King’s Road to live in and work. They were never intended to accommodate on street parking, especially not on both sides of the road as occurs. ! Local planning authority and highway authority: Reading Borough Council.

New Town - Reading = ATC Location = Manual Speed = Junctions Measured Reading Locations

= ATC I.D. = Links Measured

41.0m

TCB

1 3 5

1 1 1

145 101 LIV ERP

41.9m OOL 97 R

OAD 5

BM 42.38m 8

144 41.1m 73

42.2m 6

8 1 2 6 5 2 1

T 7 R 59 4 PO U

3 C

132

9 12 4 9

RIVERS DALE 9

3 BM 42.44m 1 41 0

1 31 29a

29 42.5m

5 0 E Su l 0 b S CHOLMELEY R 1 ta 1

3 AD 8 89 RO 3 R ATE OAD HW ES

1 2 7 6 7 92

65 0 14 7

1 5

6 8

2 51

6 2 5

42.7m 39 6 AD RO

Y 7

R 4 NT VE CO 8 27 2 M

42 A 10 93 N C H

15 4 E S

3 0 TE

79 R

5 R 4

ON ROAD O 1 NORT A

6 8 6 READING 65 6 8

78 The 1946 New Towns Act was

7 2

1 3 5 7 0

2 3 9 NEW TOWN 3 implemented to rapidly replace

31 2 9

READING EAST BORO CONST PAR K WARD 2 4

0 77 17 housing stock lost during the war.

5 8 5

AD 2

ON RO 8 3

3 NORT 6

2 16 Reading’s New Town is a good 5

49 70 4

MANCHESTER R 42.3m 60

37 example of the principles used, with

9 1

C H 48 5

O 0 8 L M 25 AD E 1 L RO 4 E EY

Y FIL OAD R 3 its grid layout and long rows of

O 8

13 1 D 1

2 6

63 terraced houses. The picture from

1 3 4 2

49 9

2 the site survey shows permit

6 0 7 y 3

Surger

3 2

7 0

1 5 0 parking on both sides of the road,

MANCHESTER

3 8 D 22 3 A 1 RO TCBs CK STO greatly altering link widths that could D

RA R

2 6 OAD

42.5m

1 4

14 be predicted from the adjacent CAD

341 2 337 image. The narrowing that can be

325 1 6 2 43.3m

313 seen in the foreground is the only K WARD K

2 301 PAR one on the site, and little is known 289 about when and why it was

277 43.4m introduced here in particular.

62 B.1.2 Lavenham, Suffolk

! 30 mph speed limit in place. ! Organic network type. ! Local planning authority: Suffolk County Council.

Lavenham - Suffolk = ATC Location

PRE STON ROAD = Manual Speed 20

Rushbrooke

House 16

1 1 Normans

Lavers Reading Locations

5 = Junctions Measured 4

Preston WEA VERS End

3 12 2

1 1

GP 1 s

Mortlock = ATC I.D. = Links Measured

6 5

) m 3 u (

h t a P

Brookside

Little

Foxes

Brooke

1 El House 2 Su 57.6m b St f a 3 5

54 26 1 to 4 Old 55 5 6 Turners

E 1 S

1 S O P L R 2 C d IN

3 G

5 6 LANE urn Bonnieb 5 6a SPRING 61

47 Southview

b 9

1 3 1 5 45

a 56 3 e 5

5 35 7 52

5 37 Lingmell 4 2

5 15 8

1 5

D 23

EAC 60a ON'S CLO SE 49

T 2 EE 8

LB TR

S 2 1 G RIN SP

O 5 1 1 W

E 1 8 R

ILD R G O a Y A 8 NIT D 4 69.0m TRI Byes

Barn

60e

1 6

48 1 4

Woolstaplers FB

Bungalow

0 1

45 16

2 T 7 E

E 9 25 R T

H 2 4 9 G I

H 12

1 3

4 1

6 1 23 7 2 1 1 2 El

40 Sub 21 7

7 Barnsdale

1 6 Sta 2 Granary

32 Cottages River 14

8 10 T 3 Cottage 13 EE

S 37 4 CE TI EN PR

m 11

4 T 34 9 2 . R 7

6 3 O 8

M C Car Park B

3 17 3

5 6

31 7 4 P 0

8 0 PU

PC 2

1 9 Tudor

5 Cottage

4 3 4b 4 3 4a

8 1 16

4 4 5 8 1 7 1

6 3 5

2 1 4

PH 6 TCB Well House 1 14 10 ET

PO 4 5 2 1 STRE 2 to 9 ON

12 LT 13 Great House 15 BO 28

2 8

4 Market Bakers 69.0m T h Cross e

Mill C O 8 h ld a e p s e ou I 8 t H c pe

9 r Little Hall 6 P

2 7 86

8 1 Market Maelands

2 189 Place

5 6 2

5 3 1 LAVENHAM

38 39 38 7

8 Liby

3 9 Chapel

1 LA 4 1

2 20 19 36 20 19

14a

ET BM 67.59m

K 1 MAR a Market

13 3 House Guildhall

1 Lavenham

1 4 4 2 - The Stables 5 6 4 County yloft

The Ha Primary 6

9 3 3 0 School

LADY STREET

9 5

65.7m 1 PH BAR S 12 H 6 N STR ILL

IN 19 G

EET 9

7 4 1 4

5 Lavenham is situated in rural Suffolk and dates back to 5

8 2

1 S o

T 9 L 5 R 9 O E W E

T E Shilling Grange R

3-4 the medieval period. The street layout is organic and Shilling Grange Cottage

Constable Shilling D

6 Court

2 Orchard

6 1 to 8 to 1

1 0 e

0 g highly varied. The picture shows a junction with

7 Mayes Farm

tta

1 d

C o

9 a

w t t

an e Sw e

o h

1 m

C l

o 19d

h T Ford Hotel T

3 2 FB relatively low visibility on approach, caused by building 61.90m 3 BM 67.0m BM

GP 10

49.24m

4 7 1 70 PW 5

5 a 1

9 ) 1 (um

7 Drovers Path

2 59.0m

2 1 9 Hope 9 Cottage ct 2 rospe 10 House P frontages being characteristically close to the 1 ings Sunny Side 3 1 alt BM he M

T 1 1 8 1

2-1 B 1071 4 1

Wr T 5 55.02m 49.7m View

66 55 22 2 .6m

6 Daisy Chain

4 carriageway. Parking also restricts the road to single

6 0 6 Cottage WAT 23 ER 24 2 5 26

ST 30 The Common

58 REET Rye 56 3 Cottage 34 7

39 40

5 LB 9

4 52.5m file in this instance, but on other sections narrow

50.2m 47

4 5 4 4 42

Gasholder 0 4 B

T E streets are signed as one-way.

I GH

63 B.1.3 Jericho, Oxford

! Site located outside Oxford’s old city walls in a historic area, north of the city. ! Site area: 7.5 ha. ! Approximately 693 dwellings. ! Housing development began in the nineteenth century. ! Residential mix: mostly two-up two-down terraced housing, some semi-detached and flats. ! Housing tenure: 25% of people live in owner-occupied property, 57% rent from private landlords and 18% rent from social landlords, mostly the council. ! 30 mph speed limit on site. ! Grid network type with mostly on-street parking. ! Local planning authority: Oxford City Council. ! Local highways authority: Oxfordshire County Council.

Jericho - Oxford

1 01 = ATC Location = Manual Speed 1 0 62.83m 5

7 71

1 0 6 = Junctions Measured Reading Locations

62.1m

T 61.2m C

7 St Pau 6

1 l's House 4 1 1 1 2

6 1

0 112 1 = ATC I.D. = Links Measured

lace 7 y P W A L

hirle T

S 1 O 1 El N

8 S T Sub Sta R E E T

JUXON STREET 12

ntre 9

ealth Ce

59.2m 6

9 5

61.2m 1 1 8

W a rd 3 B 7 d

y 12 Cinema 2 1a

The Radcliffe Infirmary

1 3 ) E H BM 59.16m S (P

O L 5 ho C c S 8 ri

E 6 Je L 7 B he A T

N ern

5 E 9 v

V Ta 5

1 8

19 2

C R 3 T A E N E H R A T M S T M E A R H

R N se

2 A A 4 C R

3E C 15 6 3 o t 1

Grantham Hou

6 1 PH JUXON STREET

6 3

c 4

0 6 1 T

ALLU E E

4 E 2 R

AC T

M STREE 1 b S

6 O

1 LD PL H

9 IC

3 R MFIE 7 JE

T BLO 39

4 16a LA 1

S 3 TR 2 E E

T 3 8

15 3 6 a 6 6

T UN 31

MO 14 33 JERICHO T EE

S 3 6 5

66 5 1 OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY

ET 3

E 4

R 1 T 7

T S N 5

M 1

2 9 6 1

8 PH 6

L 1

9 S A TCB

T M 8

R PH

E 4 2 E 2 T

57.8m JERICHO 1 2

PH 8 18

JERICHO AND OSNEY WA30aRD P 17 o

t E

AC 8 L 5

P 0 3 T E E TR 27 S

N 9 0 U 2 2

MO 9

1 LB 2 ET 7 TRE O

2 26 H 1 28 IC M S R HA 28 E

N J

CRA 2 23 9

25 80 15

3 0 83 51 84 22

24 77

JERICHO 82

48 76 7 35

2 1

3 2 7 4 44 M 34 A H

N 5

7 2 A 1 R C H

STREET A

4 R 0 T S T R

P E 1 o E m st T

.6 30 s

43 27 C A N A

L S TR 26 6

E 70

9 1

T E E TR S R 3 TO 5 IC o 2 V

9 t

PH 1 1 1

3 5

67 34

24a 15 PH 5 6

1 36 6

4 3 6 7 24a 25

2 tist

6 3 p 8 a l B pe ha C CARDIGAN STREET 28 2

11 2

4 2 1

2 5 3

2 a 2

2 ALBERT STR a 96 4 3

a EET

7 1 T

E 4

4 R a T S SCHOOL COURT N

3 57.5m 4 D

3 4 N b 36 E 1 R 5 LA C 1

4 E

5 R

0 Jericho, just outside the centre of Oxford, is a Victorian

G 1 4

6 37

7 9

Hall

10 34a development with a grid layout typical of the era and location.

C A

N A 2 85 L 4

m S 5 9 T

7.7 R 5 EET 6 M

B PH 3 1

4 The rows of terraced houses, narrow streets (with permit 2

47 8 9 0

57.6m

5 0 3

8 parking bays) and frontages in close proximity to the

4 2

45 to ST BARN 47 carriageway create many junctions like the one shown in the

4 ABA 1

S STREET

6 8 48 picture. Visibility is poor on approach due to buildings, but

10 6 52 when on the junction it is usually a parked vehicle that

6 6 0 restricts visibility down the straight roads.

64 B.1.4 Bloxham Village, Oxfordshire

! Local planning authority: Oxfordshire County Council. ! 30 mph speed limit.

Bloxham Village - Oxfordshire

= ATC Location = Manual Speed = Junctions Measured Reading Locations

= ATC I.D. = Links Measured 8

BRICKLE LANE

E 1 N BA A R L LE R Y E C T L A OS W E

HIGH STREET BARLEY C

1 ROFT 13

14 West

View 14 15 8 4 2 Tal l Trees El Sub Sta

Rose EBANK Little Bloxham is a low density rural Bennetts T

Bank ROS HE 6 R ID G OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY CHERWELLEW DISTRICT AY community, and the street Eton

Cottage Bennetts 3

2 Lightbread Waters network represents the low flow Eton 1

A 361 Rose Court E HILL STON House Cott 111.4m9 levels one would expect. There Ellen Hind The 3 Shippon Memorial Hall El Sub are numerous single-track- links, HUM Bloxham Humber The Sta House BER S Coach A 361 House

EBANK ay as shown above, with low TREET SOUTH EAST EER Horelia Barnstone ROS Fawn House

idgecroft 7 R Ridgew visibility levels. It could be Manor Conacre Hornton House Farmhouse reasonably assumed that cars HOGG EN 545 3 CH Colgrae 4 APE D 111.3m6 L STR EET Kirinyaga pass by mounting the low-level-

The 1

CLOSE kerbs onto the pavement.

4 STEEPLE

65 B.1.5 Chichester, West Sussex

! Site located approximately 500 metres south west from Chichester town centre and approximately 1 km from the rail / bus stations located to the west of the site. ! Site area: 4.4 ha. ! Approximately 278 dwellings. ! Site is residential and affords a mix of detached and terrace houses, ranging in age and condition. ! Housing tenure: not known. ! 30 mph speed limit. ! Some houses benefit from on-site parking whilst many rely on parking within the highway. Dwellings that benefit from onsite parking provision do not normally exceed two spaces. ! Local planning authority: Chichester District Council. ! Highways authority: West Sussex County Council.

Chichester - West Sussex

= ATC Location = Manual Speed = Junctions Measured Reading Locations

= ATC I.D. = Links Measured

13.1m

2 1 ST 12.5m

I RLING R

rke 4 1 O t O

l H

d o AD 2 M u 25 6 ar se k NUE e E t 1

AV H T ouse E K R 0 A 2 M C AL Oakshade ED ONI AD A 1 RO The Chichester site dates

12.7m

N R IAN 4 N 2

OA 1 DO 9

2 D E

L 3

7 A 0 C 4

5 30 L a AB Tempe U

N 1

4 4 U Forum House a 7 8 M G 2 12.5m back to medieval times, R 12.8m OVE LB CL .91m L BM 12 3Y 1 Y N

DE D 1 A

CHICHESTER SOUTH ED CHICHESTER SOUTH WARD V WEST SUSSH EX COUNTY

S 2 E U

N 2 R 3

A 3 AD

U 4 S L 4

E T and the organic layout of

3 9 4

Forum House 3 the residential area has WHYKE CHICHESTER SOUTH WARD 4 CHICHESTER CO CONST produced a mix of junction

2 12.6m E 7

L L E A BU 4 types. The picture shows ENUE R ALE AV N LY D ESD

U C 9

M 1 6 GR

7 UE O AVEN V 1 E 1 3

1 to 11 3

6 1 a narrow side street with

Elgin 8 Court

sts Po low visibility on approach

5 3

8 32 to the stop line, but other 30 12.7m 23 16 junctions have relatively 7 12.1m

T ROAD 41

LYNDHURS

STIRLIN

4 8 5

0 high visibility levels. This 7

3 5 5 1 BM 55 15 G ROAD

6 1 0

16 m 3

BARFORD 6 24 1 AD 7 RO trend of inconsistency is 20

OAD ouse 19 t H

R ndhurs

FORD 8 Ly BAR 4 JUXON CLOSE 2

1 also apparent on links.

8 2 22

1 9 Some are clear views

Scyros K CLOSE 4 ETTRIC while others bend 6 D A O R 25 relatively sharply, as can

30 RIC 11 T T E be seen on the site map. STIRLING ROAD 7

7 1 5 4

3 2

4 4 2

3 6

ETTRICK ROAD

66 B.1.6 Belgravia, London

! 30 mph speed limit. ! Local planning authority: Westminster City Council.

Belgravia - London 2 3

m 9 7 0 .8 1 11 7

3 6 B 7

o 0 10 1

E liv 8 3 m ia 0 b n 1 a s sy

7.8m 6 06 1 T CB

= ATC Location Belgian Embassy 7

2 6 103 s n e rd a G = Junctions Measured re a LB u Sq LB n to Ea

8.0m 9

102 1 1

= ATC I.D. 2 m 2 .1 8

B 4 6.9m 5

11 1 6 0 0 1

8 U

P N P E 1

R I

1 B

7.9m 2 0 E L G R A V E T 1

S 3

4 T 1 R

1 E

1 T 8 = Links Measured R

21 GE 8 9

2 D 1

E ECC 8 1

D 1 7.5m L 1

GR R L

EST 22 A 7

1 A O W 1 N

= Manual Speed A

I I

31 A V

W 1 A 7 RE A A

5 R 95 U GR 1

1 E Q L

S D E S 1 A

AR T W 1 U

E O 1 Q N ME S

B S S 2 N Q

2 2 O ON U T Reading Locations T A R A R D E E

E E N

ECCLEST T

109

A 5

B E LGR

TON

A 3 A GE 4 1 V t E E o P 4 L D

A I 7.1m

C 1

E 0

7 R

B S e h

t n T f ia 1 o r 9 a sy g s n lic a u b 2 b H u 3

GH 5 m p e I E R 's le N p m 9 o 5 7 0

1 K e 3 1 .8

P 1 7 16 M 7

3 6 1 B 7

o 0

1 l 1 03 E iv 8 4 m ia 0 6 2 b n 1 5b a 3 It s E a s mb lia y n 7.8m a

ss y 6 7 106 E 3 T C LB B UAR Belgian Embassy Q LB S N

O 7 T 3 EA 4

8 s

n 8

4 3 d 6 6 0 r 3 1 a 4 G ns re a 7 3 de u r a q S G n re to a a u E LB q LB n S to a E

5 4 4

5 4 2

19 1

2 a

6.9m

C E 1 R 4 LA A P 0 U N 10 Q

O S

T 5 N A 6 O E T A

E 32

5 1

98 5

7 4

5 1

1 E 8 C CL H E T S R T O O N N S EW M RE ON 5 A T 9 U

EA Q

6 8 S N T u RE f fie E ld T C l N u O 23 b T A

2 3

3 9

8 9 4 6 8 m 5 .7 7 M E B R A U Q S N O T A

E 2 0 4

9 6

8 71 2 6.9m

LY A LL S s T n R e E rd E a T 2 G re a u Sq

n 4 to

9 4 Ea E

8 R 4 A U 6 Q 9 8 S 7 N O T A

6 15 8

0 33

7.4m 4

8 7

8 3

4 4 9 6

4 H 3 T 8 CRITY OF WESTMINSTER LB CITIES OF LONDON AND WESTMINSTER BORO CONST

N 4 5 6

3 EWS 36 LB M N The Irish LB

PH O T 4

EA 7 2 Club 6 82 9

The Irish LB

1 8

9 6 Club 8

1 2 6.9m 8 0 8

1 9 LY

L 3 9

1 STR

4 WEST CENTRAL GL ASLY CONST LONDON EER

EET

9 m

0 4 0 0 8 . 5 7 M B

7 8

5 TH 4

OR to

N 4 S 3 W 5 5 ME ON T Tennis A

99 Court 5 E 3 A TO 1 N 0 10 8 7 PLA 7

4 7.3m AR 7 U s ld SQ e N i O F T ive The grid layout of Belgravia gives EA F e

1 4

0 8

1 E R 73 UA Q

3 N

0 rise to high visibility levels at the O 1 T

2 7

E R A majority of junctions, as can be U 11 Q S N O T

A E 5 6.9m 1 seen in the image of junction 4. s n e rd a

e 5

r 3

a t

u o

q 5 S 6 n to a

E 7 6 There were also clear views down

EAT

O t o

N 6 SQ 0 U AR

E the lengths of all measured links

6 6 2 (link 1 = 122m, link 2 = 89m, link 3

12LB 3

67 B.1.7 Charlton Down, West Dorset

! Charlton Down is mostly housing development on the site of a former mental hospital 5 km north of Dorchester, Dorset. A self-contained rural (village) development. ! When complete, the overall scheme will have 546 units, with a mix of apartments, terraced and detached units on a site area of 48ha. ! The case study phase has a density of 30 dph net. ! Initial development phase: 1998 – 2005. ! Developer: Bellway. ! DB32 was not used specifically and the designers felt that they had pushed the boundaries in terms of street specifications. ! Curvilinear layout of streets including cul-de-sac. ! Maximum vehicle speeds: 20 mph. ! Local Planning authority: West Dorset District Council. ! Highways authority: Dorset County Council.

Charlton Down - West Dorset

= ATC Location = Manual Speed = Junctions Measured Reading Locations

= ATC I.D. = Links Measured

9 1 14 16 30

Track 22

12 17

18 8

8 3 1

20 2

7 15

1 6

1 4

0 3

6 1

1 E

C 8

YPR

DRIV 2

ESS RO 5

WA R N O

W AD

A 9 1 L 8 K

7 MA

2 5

4 2

0 1 D R VIEW

N 8

HOR PE

NBEAM 11 1 7 R

OAD AS

6 16

W 2 LO 5

IL P 4

W 4 6 6

4e 8

5 1 RD

3 24

2 b 8 1 PE S

A 2

P 5

2 4 1

14 a

ROAD

osts 2 4 P 3 2 3 f 4 2 114.0m

2 A 1 S LANE AD H

ABURNUM 17 6 O R L R O A M L D

4 EL E

5 9 R 7

1 2 7 E 2

6 V

30 E 2 5

RY 8 D 4

R 2 19 E 4 LB S

U N 8 1 D 2

1 M G D A 7 1 4AK RO 7 O 9 10 32

1 2 9 4 3

O 2 5 1 A

2 K 1 26 R O 2 AD 30 1 15 0 1 1 6 4

7 1 7 5 M 29 U L 3

BERR 1 11

2 22 8 D Y G A O

ARD ACACIA R

2 9 H 0 ENS S A DRIVE

4 5 22 7

3 112.2m 3 D A

O 6 3 6 R 2 1 2

5 2 6 1

37 Herrison Cottages

1 1

9 1 1 1

4 2 M 2

9 1 1

E 4 E

CH 1 W 14 L A E Y R 9

V 1 2 D E 7 8 A 2 D O R E IV N

R O

18 S

D 39 6 I 8 E 5 L R

P 5 R

ROAD

A 1 E 1 5 16 M 1 H ST RO DE S t LA r

30 N u C 1 E 1 E 5 o D

1 C

A e 2 11 l R il

R EL 3 v 6

O R 9 re

A 1 G

D VE 34 DE Charlton Down is a recently completed

LANE 4 DES

STRO 2 2

8 1

0 21

6 3 19 development situated in rural west Dorset. Deverel NE

2 S LA

1 ODE 11 House 23 STR 13

8 1

Cherry 11

4 1 The picture shows one of several Tree 2

2 1

1 ENUE House EN AV SHERR

112.2m

4 1

t o 8 7 E

AVENU unconventional junctions on the site. Low

1 R

6 2 SHER D

R 112.8m 2 0 T U N T S E H

C Posts

2 10 12

6 15 flows allow for these informal squares to be

1 0

1 1 t o7

3 Alder 8 created, though there could be confusion if Court

5 2

11 4 15 o5 17 1t vehicles were crossing paths. The bollards

AD O R HAWTHORN 3 Greenwood House beyond the junction are also typical of the BM 109.74m

4 o5 1t

Herrison site. They are used widely to demarcate the Hall The

ouse ects H Archit pavement and road, as an alternative to ouse ood H Redw 1to63 kerbs.

68 B.1.8 Darwin Park, Lichfield

! Suburban area situated less than 2 miles south of Lichfield city centre, near to M6 toll road. ! Site area: approximately 33 ha. ! 1100 housing units when completed, supermarket, retail space. ! Housing density: approximately 33 dph. ! Residential mix: mixed apartments, terraced, semi-detached, detached. ! Housing tenure: 25% affordable housing. ! 20 mph speed limit on site. ! Parking ratio: believed to be approximately 1 or 1.5 per dwelling. ! Greenfield site. ! Development period: 1998 onwards (60% built). Due for completion in 2008/2009. ! Developer: Taylor Woodrow and Bryant Homes. ! Adopted Urban Design considerations. Curvilinear street layout. Some non-DB32 layouts used. ! Local planning authority: Lichfield District Council. ! Local highway authority: Staffordshire County Council.

Lichfield = ATC Location = Manual Speed = Junctions Measured Reading Locations

= ATC I.D. = Links Measured

3 2 Leomansley Court 1 6 W IE V Y LE NS A M O LE

86.0m 5

D OA ALL R LS WA

LEAMONSLEY

Easter Hill Rookery Court

I C

T The Old O R

I Vicarage A

The Vicarage K L 1 A W N O X A S

89.3m

1 1

6 1

7 9 4 7 A

9 9 E N LA

8 The Darwin Park development near 9 1 2 1 4 10

6 0 1 H C UR H

TC 38

S 1 1 0

RI 7

CH 0 3

1 27

146 a

2 Lichfield has some design elements which 9

0 1

33 13

9 make it distinct from any other site included

1 7

1 4 2

14 7

1 8 5 9 in the research. The photograph shows how

92.0m

3 4 2 5

2 1 6 5 5 8 5 16 1 8a

16 9 1 5 1 2 grass has been used in some areas to

24 26 11

170 5 2

9 E 4

l Sub Sta 1 17 9

8 7 7 AD 9 RO

ALL LS 177

3 make up the pedestrian surface. This may 5 2

OW 3

AD 2 E

18 M 1 7 RE 9 O

2 SM

1 ALE 59

8 7

4 9 19 6 E m LOS .77 S C 93 D

CL M 4 MON

B OR

O 1

S 5

9 1 have aesthetic value but the practicalities,

5 57

2 E P S OO CLO LL 3

DE L R F A 1 B I 11 E L

D 2

0 1 R 3

O 2 A 2

D 1 8 especially for a wheelchair user, can be 4 2

3 2

1 5 1 1 1 9 7

2 5

34 challenged.

1 K

2 1 1 0 L A

W 0 T

1 NU

A 2 2 W 7

4 4 7

5 VE 2 N A

TO 9 8

ER 2 3

T 1 7 AT CH

10 2525 3

2 8

5 Another key characteristic of this site is the

1 6

1 11 9

7 1

2 2 1 0 2 Headland 4 relatively low visibility levels on links (as

House

6 2

2 0

4 1 6

3 shown in the picture) and junctions.

4 4 8

3 3

4 3

0 4

69 B.1.9 Former Pirelli Site, Eastleigh

! Location: 0.5 km to the west of Eastleigh town centre, 0.5 km from junction 13 of the M3, south of Leigh road. Proximity to town centre. ! Site area 11.7ha. ! 710 units (when complete). ! Density 60 dph gross. ! Mix of housing types, plus live work units and offices. ! Housing tenure: 17% affordable. ! 30 mph speed limit on site. ! Average residential parking to be no more than 1.5 spaces per unit. 33% of total parking to be shared on-street parking. ! Development period 2002-2006. ! Developers: Barratts and Kingsoak. ! DB32 loosely adhered to, design also influenced by Hampshire’s advice ‘Movement, access, streets and spaces’ adopted in 2001. ! Local planning authority: Eastleigh Borough Council. ! Highways authority: Hampshire County Council.

Former Pirelli Site - Eastleigh

= ATC Location = Manual Speed = Junctions Measured Reading Locations

= ATC I.D. = Links Measured

15.2m

to to 11

to 12

BM 1 5.40m 1 2 3 to 8

34 35 to 40

14.9m

1 to 52 15

TOMMY 15.5m GREEN W

ALK 9

HEINZ B

6 URT CLOSE

ROAD

7 1

O 1

9 0

1 1 1 1

PLU

16 17

1 The

4 1 Good Companions

29 (PH) 53

BE NNY HIL 1 L CLOSE

8 6

2 D

T I

0 S

3 3

GR 1 EAT FAR M ROAD

1 1

ESS

28 to 7 1

7 2 5

6 1

o t

5 1 ST

RANDIN

G STREET 9

4 9 D A

BRIG 2 B

27 U

HT 2 9 N

2 1 3 WIRE 3 1

SOPWIT

9 H ROAD

to 27 to 1

2 8 7 1

8 1

0 2 3

E 2

N T

2 22

3 1

EASTLEIGH WEST ED EASTLEIGH CENTRAL WARD 19 to 1 HAMPSHIRE COUNTY

1 1

T E 3

R 0

0 1 E 3 1 8 M

2 to 1 1

U TR 5

R S

8 D 1 2 E 1 L

C 35

3 7

3 SOUTH EAST EER 4

34 39

4 2 5 Church

BRI

1 2 6 2 GHT to 2 4

WIR 41 to 57 to 41

E 25

T 2

S 8

E 4

L 9

C This site is a brownfield development in

CRE

S CE

NT 3

6 Eastleigh, to the northeast of Southampton. The 1

t o r t

e i

l 3

r 2 a

to 75 to

4 atypical grid layout is characterised in this

7 P 3 IR 1 ELLI WAY

STREET

N 2

1 instance by built-in parking provision in the form RA 3

7 2 1 T 1

o 1 t 9

2 4 4 of roadside bays. As the image shows, these act

t 2

u 4 6 o o

t to drastically alter the visibility on links. A brick 1

1 r

RO a i l M l i

W R

t o

6 E 9 E road surface has been widely used on the site, TR

L 0 69

52 to 68 7 B

C 8 7 with some raised brick junctions. The site

Tel ephone Exchange remains to be finished.

0 7

8 1

STR AN t

DING ST 42 o

REET 40

9 1 34

BL ENHEIM

ROAD

24 1 2 11

70 B.1.10 Newhall, East Harlow

! Large urban extension east of Harlow, Essex. ! Site area is 81ha. ! Population expected to reach 6000 in 2800 dwellings by 2018. ! Density 35 dph gross. ! Mixed land use. Residential mix of detached, terraced, semi-detached and flats plus community buildings, shops, services, pubs. Site includes district centre. ! Housing tenure: 25% lower cost dwellings. ! 30 mph speed limit. ! Parking ratio of 1.7 per dwelling plus 15 visitor spaces for the ‘Abode’ parcel. ! Different parcels within each phase (50-100 units per parcel) built out by different developers. Overall developers: Roger Evans Associates. Proctor Matthews Architects / Copthorn Homes, PCKO / Cala Homes also contributed. ! Development period started 2003. Not yet completed. ! Urban edge car-based Greenfield development. ! Street layout is deformed lattice shape. ! Local planning authority: Harlow District Council. ! Highways authority: Essex County Council.

Newhall - East Harlow

= ATC Location = Manual Speed = Junctions Measured Reading Locations

= ATC I.D. = Links Measured

13 9

5 7

HARROWBAND ROAD

1 1 2

3 WAY HOLLAND

6 EET 4

2 T 2 3

S 1

S N

ALLIS MEW 1 TO T

T 5 t o

1 9

9 4 3 5 35

HASE

Y LANE THE C

t o 13

t o

CANOP 6 2

5 4

3 8

3 6

ASE H 2 C 8 THE

3 1 26 3

1 1 8 4

1 6 REGINALD

MEWS MEWS

REGINALD

2 9

0 T

E 1 18

4 1

T Y

SQ S WA

S 3

N O U 8 E

ARE CR

E R

4 3

G 5 ST

1 EET

5 6 1 El Sub EN 1 1 GRE Sta AS CHOL .NI B ST ASIL M

EWS 6

1 8

1 2 EEN

GR 5 This recently developed site has an

LAS 4 HO ST.NIC

7 4A

Playground B

E organic layout and has adopted

12 S

1 L 1 A 3 1 N S E O

N P E E R E

R numerous modern design elements. The S

G ALBA ROAD Q U 8 S A A RE L

4 C

I 6

T picture gives an example of the shared

1 6 0

MAYPOLE STREET 3

2 ST N

ICHO 1

to LAS 15

GR 3 EEN

1 spaces, planting in the carriageway and

5 7

1 5 2 1

1 1 1

SIMP 8 L 1 IC green public recreational areas. These ITY LANE

0 T 1

E 2 wide junctions require care from drivers,

71 B.1.11 Queen Elizabeth Park, Guildford

! Located 2 miles north of Guildford, 30 miles west of London with close proximity to local bus routes and mainline railway route into London. Easy access to M25 via A3. ! Site area 23 hectares including open space and commercial uses. ! 525 units mix of houses and flats. ! Housing density 23 dph. ! Mix of uses: community centre, crèche, health and fitness centre, supermarket, doctor’s surgery, 25 small business units and 4550 sqm offices. ! Housing tenure: high income (mostly), 35% affordable. ! 30 mph speed limit on site. ! Average parking ratio: 1.5 spaces per dwelling. ! Date of development 2003-2005. ! Developers: Laing and Linden. ! Former barracks site on suburban Brownfield site. ! Relaxation of DB32 highway design standards and innovative measures to control speed. ! Local planning authority: Guildford Borough Council. ! Highways authority: Surrey County Council.

Queen Elizabeth Park - Guildford

= ATC Location = Manual Speed = Junctions Measured Reading Locations

= ATC I.D. = Links Measured

W 26 9

A 1

C 9

L 2 O 2

5 5

1 8 1 0

8 9

N A L

L E A

C I

A O

X O

N K 1 1 46 44

8 1

e c a r r e

T 1 3 y E 8 e 4 l S e 6 t O a L h C

W S 1 E W Queen O 12 L 5 L A H

W HAT ELE Y

Elizabeth Park SURREY COUNTY GUILDF COL RD DISTRICT 2 O

SE 6

1 2

5 7

3 2 36 12

STOUGHTON 3 1 3 GUILDFORD NORTH ED STOUGHTON WARD 18

19 3 8 2 29 13 10

4 1 1 2 FOR ESTER ROAD

M A C D

O HENDERSON AVENUE 1 W

1 A L L SE O R L O A 8 D E C

AK R D - T T 14 E

IV 9

2 7

2 2

E 1

8 CLOS 17

9 DDA 1 E

9 3 U

GO N

E 5 SE AV O CL T KEN DUCHESS OF 6

1 to

2 2 1

o o

2 4 3 3

1 1 RS

3 DE 5

10 3 4

RAIL

TON ROAD

4 5 3 15

OA R 11 7

9 14 8 3 CR

FORESTER C 1 RO FT

CL 3 O

1 S 3 E 1 Guildford’s Queen Elizabeth Park

1 5 Queen Elizabeth Park

1 6

2 has an organic street layout, with an 5

1 1

28 2

0 o

4 6 24 extensive network of footways

1 8

2 74 linking green spaces and T

2 U

27 6 3 31 O C 0 2 T T 2 I H

YR T

T YLE HO

ST recreational areas. The picture

3 o

2 2 68 E 3 S

LO C

E RY S A O M L

C S ON S S E R E NC I D

R 26 N 7 24 shows an example of aesthetic P A

D A O

ON T 2 L 6 ON

4 AI S 32 R R 3 E D N SE A LO

C considerations combining with link 3

E 4 S O L C

N I K 2P O

7 3

5 1 geometry, as the obelisk acts to 1 1 reduce visibility on the link.

0 1 1 5 to 16

Posts 1 D

1 A Vegetation has been maintained so O R

E 4 G N A R

Vaughan Court

1 4

1 as to not reduce visibility further. 0

RA 1

LT t

ON o

6 ROAD

72 B.1.12 Tower Hamlets, London

! Location: Central Stepney, inner East London housing area. The site is north of the river Thames, within close proximity to Canary Wharf and the Tower of London. ! Site area: 6 ha. ! 240 habitable rooms per hectare (up to 74 dph). ! 136 housing units developed (total development 445). ! Residential mix: terraces and flats. ! Housing tenure: almost all Registered Social Landlord (RSL). ! 20 mph speed limit on site. ! On-street parking except some in-curtilage for disabled. ! Development period: 1998-2004. ! Developer: John Laing Partnership. PRP Architects worked with local residents, the housing associations, Laing and the Free Form Arts Trust to develop the master plan. ! Residential development on site of a demolished 60s estate. ! Reproduction of Victorian terraced streets. Design based on DB32 and Section 38. ! Local planning authority and highways authority: London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

Tower Hamlets - London

= ATC Location = Manual Speed = Junctions Measured Reading Locations

= ATC I.D. = Links Measured

5 8.6m

o t 1

16 0 1 4

1 3

EET 7 STR 8 HALLEY ottages Elsa C 0

13 7.9m

28 6

BM 9.12m 1 2

21 o o t 5 5

1 6 7 96 9

6 94 6

1 00 98

4 8

ASTON STREET

6 23

6 6 Posts 9.1m 1 Burroughs C ottages 3

2 20

12 3

76 5 86 4 9

E3 1

A 47

C 7

H 3 A

R 17

s T

S R

15 e 16

17 L E

A E

3 T

ta 4

13 14

15 1

EAST

12 14 1

COLTMAN STREET h

4 F

I EL o

n 3

D 0

Playground 9

2 ST

Greaves Cottages

EET

4 9

6 Limehouse

58 9

Fields Estate 1

52 to 56 to 52

17 t

3 1

9.9m 4

34 9 12

79 29 to 33 81 36

BM 10.56m 62

27 t D o 33 4

1 R

53 A 1 W 5 73 87 2

N 1 E

Channel TCB 55 to 65 107 to E 1 95 to 105 10.1m 67 to 71 R 117 G

89 to 93

House 119 to 123 Y

E Tower Hamlets saw extensive

T S

MAROON STREET

6 1 S

17 3 ' redevelopment during the 1990s, and N

S N

BETHNAL GREEN AND BOW BORO CONST BORO BETHNAL GREEN AND BOW U 6 7 o t

2 7

1 D

1 8

o t

6 9 T

70 t o

60 60 S

4 3 1

o t

4 2

2 1

o t

2 1 1 is characterised by its grid layout with

1 0 0

to 1 1 0

8 9

Ba 7 iley Cottages 2 3 on-street parking provision. The

a 6 U 4 t 8

t 4 2

EN 25

Co 3

n A 2 o 11

Y 6

Ames Cottages

H 1 u TOWER HAMLETS LB T BETHNAL GREEN AND BOW BORO CONST image shows a typically wide

6 R 2

Ca 4

O 11

HEARNSHAW STREET

SW Batten Cottages 18 3

2 AL

7 carriageway to accommodate this

3 2 13 to 39 to 13

1 0 8

LIMEHOUSE

1 Ames 2 9 parking. The major arm at this T

Cottages EN BETHNAL GREEN AND BOW BORO CONST 5 1 1 ESC R Berry Cottag C es W A

41 SH junction is one-way traffic, with the

HEARNSHAWSTREET

1 43 8

6 5

E 6 6

2 central reserve turned into a C

3 A 4

1 R VEN

Y S

H T

T R

R E

O E

on T recreational area.

aust

G 51

1 27 2 6 41 1

9 2

Bradshaw Cottages 10.4m

REPTO7N STREET

4 6

8 1

73 B.1.13 Crown Street, Glasgow

! Location: site within walking distance (20 minutes) of Glasgow city centre on the south bank of the river Clyde. ! Site area: 17.4 ha. ! 832 dwellings. ! Gross density 48 dph. ! Residential development along wider boulevards with retail and mixed use provision laid out along the narrowest street. Residential mix of town houses, flats and duplex apartments (four-storey urban blocks). ! Housing tenure: 659 owner occupied, 173 social rented homes. ! Mainly 30 mph speed limits, with some streets 20 mph. ! Parking ratio is less than 1:1 overall. ! Former site: poor quality 1960s high rise residential tower blocks. ! Development period: 1991-2000. ! Planner / Developer: Piers Gough. ! Strongly linear layout. ! Local planning and highways authority: Glasgow City Council.

The Gorbals - Glasgow

= ATC Location = Manual Speed = Junctions Measured Reading Locations

= ATC I.D. = Links Measured

3 6

4 0 RRA E

N T A NI NI

6 7 1

PO 5

1 6

T 113 R to U 117 O C H 7 C 11 N 9 to 12 LY 3 Y N N 125 E to B 129

1 8 8 31 t o 135

13 7 to 30 143 OLD

0 TH 1 1 E RG 1 LE 47 N R to

4 O 1

1 AD 51

15 5

- 8

0 o

8 4 1

1 1

6 T 7 E 15

RE to

T 3 1 1

o 6 t

S 7

1 1

6 WN 9 O

175 o t

8 1

1 6 4

1 7

E 7 R R O L Supermarket G A R D E D N S 1 1 ROA E 1 D 5 C L 9 A E L FI 1 P 7 E GLASGOW CITY E N 1 I NDI 9 P A 1 S to 70 2 GORBALS 7

Play Area

1 Supermarket 9 Play Area to 2 7

GLASGOW 1

170

8 1 2 9

SCOTLAND EER GLASGOWto 33 PER

3 1

o 0

9 5 D E A R O R R O L 3

G 5

6 24

2 AR t

ELD o

1 4

D 3 9

EFI 2 E

El Sub Sta 7 N

El Sub t S

29 2

ANDI Sta 0

S 1

o t

8 4 2

2 5

3 to

Play Area t 4

o 9

0 3 7

TCB

o 0

1 3

10 T

STR t

N 2

W 4 O

G R

O C 8 4

RBALS 9.1m

0 5

7 C

6 t A

o L

3 P 1

o t

6 2 1 1 E 97 N 2 I 3 P

20 1 to 20

5 4

6 4 1 5 20

11 11 7 t

o 2

5 1

t 1

o o 17

215 CU to MB 219 ER GLASGOW SHETTLE LA ND STR

E 2

2 5

19 19 4 E 1 T 5 2 to 2 22

t 5 4

o o 4

4 6 1 2

ERRACE 2 1 1 6

0 22

17 9

to to

5 4

ISTLE T 16

H 6 0 1

T 3 This site is a redevelopment based around Crown

25 25

o o

STON P CONST t

19 o

to 23

15 3 7 11 3 23 5 29

4 4

8 Street in the Gorbals area of Glasgow. Brick tables are 1 1 A LEX

AND

ER 90

ER 2 3

ND 2 A 5 X 19 ALE T 2 N SCE CRE

3 used extensively at junctions, and parking provision is 7 CRES 9 4 3 3 CENT 9 situated between the carriageways with a one- -way

4 S 9 OU T H S ID E C 7 R 2 E S C E N

T system in operation. This is evident in the picture

0 7

E 1 C A

R 4 R E T above, as is an apparent degradation in the quality of

N E D M A 5 C

1 7

GLASGOW

1 1 1

SO 6-

4 U 18 1 TH SIDE CRE 9

SCEN 16 T 1 road markings on the brick surface. 0

-14 8

1 1

7 - N 5 AB UR 4-8 N

2 3 GA

2 2

3 6 2

28 2

o t

1 2

to 1 t

6 1

5 10.0m

6 9 1 MALTA TERRACE o

19 2 t 1

E 11 11 I

AC S

t L o T

1 O

2 L 7 N E

D P

2 N L 2 A AC

o H t E

1 1 9

21 2

3 4

o t

4 2 23 19 HUTCHESONTOWN WARD 15 11 30 3 7

TERRACE KIDSTON 1

74 B.1.14 Windley Tye, Chelmsford

! Located on town centre fringe to the west of Chelmsford. ! 4.3 ha site. ! 23 housing units (Willow Court development). ! Overall density 25 dph (Willow Court Development). ! Residential mix: 3 and 4 bedroom detached, semi-detached and terraced houses. ! Housing tenure: 0% affordable. ! 30 mph speed limit on site. ! Car parking: generally behind the building line. ! Brownfield site. Former industrial site. ! Development period: 2002-2004 (Willow Court). ! Developer: Bellway Homes (Willow Court). ! Local planning authority: Chelmsford Borough Council. ! Highway Authority: Essex County Council.

Windley Tye - Chelmsford = ATC Location = Manual Speed = Junctions Measured Reading Locations

= ATC I.D. = Links Measured

ESSEX COUNTY 32.6m CHELMSFORD DISTRICT ST ANDREWS ROXWELL ROAD

32.3m

Foremans Upleatham

EASTERN EER BM 32.56m WEST CHELMSFORD C1O CONST

House

4 1

o t

3 1 9 1

2 o o t 1 1

El Sub Sta

1 to 6

2 1

3 9 11

8 1

19 10

22 20 2

4 1 8

7 1 3 1

Windley Tye is a small, low density development

18 with a court-style layout. The rumble strip in the 4 2 2

8 W E 5 INDL4EY TYE C photograph marks the entrance to the newer

3 LA

23 ER 6 3

1 SACKVILLE C L

LOSE A courtyard area of the site and signifies to drivers 31

W 2 Z

2 F

1 1 that care should be taken. Visibilities at junctions in 10

1 this section are relatively low, but the curved link 1 3 actually has good visibility as the central section

consists of low-level grass and flowers.

1 1

3 1

) Path (um

75 B.1.15 Beaulieu Park, Chelmsford

! Part of the Beaulieu Park urban extension on the north east edge of Chelmsford, Essex. Linked to town centre via A130. ! Site area: 3.56 ha. ! 91 dwellings. ! Gross density within the site of 25.6 dwellings per hectare. ! Residential mix: three-bedroom townhouses to six-bedroom detached homes, terraces. ! Housing tenure: development aimed at high-income earners. 20% affordable. ! 20 mph speed limit on site. ! Greenfield site. ! Development period: 2001-2003. ! Developer: George Wimpy with local architect Ken Philpot. ! Non-standard street layout that goes beyond DB32 criteria. The Essex Design Guide had an influence on the design and architecture. DB32 sightline standards were avoided in the shared surface streets. ! Local planning authority: Chelmsford Borough Council. ! Highway authority: Chelmsford Borough Council acting as agents for Essex County Council.

Beaulieu Park - Chelmsford

= ATC Location = Manual Speed = Junctions Measured Reading Locations

= ATC I.D. = Links Measured

Playground

REEN G U O

A 16

1 7 8 7 9

5 12 8

LEA

ULTON

1 0 M

1 1

1 3 1 El Sub

Sta B

1 IL

2 1 LE

R 9 S C HA S E

1 6 1

E 8

C 1 A 14 L P 7 Y

E 2 1 N D I 5 S 13

D 4 12 20

7 5

1 5

0 EAULIEU BOULEVAR 1 B

1 2

5 24 1 0

1 25

7 11 3 5 9 19 ESS 1

5 6 2 5 18

2 WH 9

3 1 5

ART 1 7

3 1 Beaulieu Park is notable for its use of wide

O Ppg Sta

32 8 1 2 3 0

2 51

0 2 3

1 D

9 R

IVE

7 ranging materials within the streetscape. 0

8 8 3

12 24

2 4

3 3 6

1 2 Posts

3 There are some shared surfaces where

5 0

1 4 10 4 25 4

2 FR

C 3 E 5

S 27 29

D 1

8 R 60 A EEN 5

V R 1

G 37

1 L 4

U 4

6 6 vehicle flows are relatively low, mixed with

O 4

6 B 4

5 31 7 U 1

L 1

3 6

3 3

AU 1 9

B o Posts

2 9 5 1

2 traditional asphalt on some access roads.

1 5 4

14 t 8 o 4

6 8 1 The image shows innovative use of a brick 24

2 42

5 8

4 t

4 o 1 75 6 K surface, with a pattern created to denote the BU IN R L NEL R O L N GA O

22 7 H 20 TE 7 2 to

4 5 edge of one carriageway and the stopping

89 to

1 03 point for vehicles on the minor arm. 1

7 01

90 1

6 6

8 6 96 86

84 4 8 7

76 B.1.16 Rapier Street, Ipswich

! Lies between main Wherstead Road (A137) and a route designated for a future strategic link into town centre. Situated on the west side of the docks. ! 35 houses, 139 flats. ! Residential development, consisting of high rise flats and four-storey town houses are arranged around the perimeter of the site. Terraces, detached and semi-detached properties. ! 20 mph speed limit on site. ! Brownfield site. ! Development period: 2003-2004. ! Developer: Bidwells. ! ‘Homezone’ design standards applied. ! Local planning authority: Ipswich Borough Council. ! Highways authority: Suffolk County Council.

Rapier Street Home Zone - Ipswich

= ATC Location = Manual Speed = Junctions Measured Reading Locations

= ATC I.D. = Links Measured

At the time of writing there were no CAD images available of Rapier Street due to it being a recent redevelopment. The adjacent site plans do at least give an impression of the layout. There are shared surfaces throughout, with a children’s play area at the centre of the site. Raised flats straddle the paved surface, with some parking provided underneath. A wide variety of materials were used to create a pedestrian focused streetscape.

77 B.1.17 Port Marine, Portishead

! Located north west of Bristol where the river Avon meets the Severn estuary. ! Site area: 18 ha ! Urban village of 920 dwellings. ! Approximately 45 dph. ! Residential mix of terraces, crescents, individual houses and apartment blocks. Properties range from two-storey mews houses to eight-storey blocks facing the marina. ! Housing tenure: 10% affordable. ! 20 mph speed limit on site. ! Parking ratio: 1 per dwelling. ! Former power station site. ! Development period: 1999-2003. Further development expected to be completed in 2006. ! Developer: Crest Nicholson. ! Local planning authority: North Somerset Council. ! Highways authority: North Somerset Council.

Port Marine - Portishead

= ATC Location = Manual Speed = Junctions Measured Reading Locations

= ATC I.D. = Links Measured

Un d

Dock Masters House

F W F 31.8m F

e s u o

e H n U i n r d ef

Ma D

F F

Bdy ard F W F L OAD L R R C PIE T 33.0m S A E CR 40.4m

F E F A L S L TCL C T I S FF A 6 E

E ACR OD F WO CLLF T E S ESS S 4 A LO E C ER PI E

C A D

E D LO I CK S S CK IDE O L E S R Q C U A A D RE O WO 3 5

45 2 9 ILL

LLY A S 7 Port Marine is a new build with an organic

El Sub Sta 3 layout. The site is notable for its wide open Statues grassed areas for recreation, along with prominent pieces of public art. There is little

El Sub Sta consistency in street design. The picture

1BURLINGTON ROAD

D shows a wide link with a block paved A O R Sta N O T G IN L R U B R E entre Quay surface and bollards to demarcate the W C O ESS L 22

E C A L P S E EV RT S IL U U LE O R O H O C A H carriageway, both of which are used only D E C T LL I A V W SE partially. The narrow courtyard entrance in 8 the distance contrasts with the majority of junctions at the site . Statue

N ROAD 2 URLINGTO 1 LOWER B 10 Burlington Court

d n Po

78 B.1.18 Hulme, Manchester

! Hulme regeneration area south of Manchester city centre – replacement of unsuccessful 1960s comprehensive redevelopment. Site within walking distance (about 20 minutes) of city centre. ! Wider regeneration area is 121 ha. Site area: 6.6 ha. ! Density on average given as 90 dph. High density development. ! Mixed used development site. Resident mix: mainly flats. ! Housing tenure: dwellings are mostly social rented. ! Intended maximum traffic speed of 20 mph. ! Parking ratio 0.8-1.0 per dwelling. ! Replacement of 1960s comprehensive development. Brownfield site. ! Development period: 1992-1997. ! Traditional grid street pattern. ! Highway safety not an overriding objective, though personal safety was an important consideration. ! Local planning authority and Highways authority: Manchester City Council.

Hulme - Manchester

= ATC Location = Manual Speed = Junctions Measured Reading Locations

= ATC I.D. = Links Measured

6 o 9 t

to 2

292 29 3 o 5

23 t

3 3 3 7

Zion 7 0 3

2 Church

3 ROAD 9 ORD ETF

STR Zion Medical Centre

41 t

2 11 TO

300 MLIN

O HULME 12 N

4 Theatre

30 S

3 1 TRE

43 and Offices 23 2 6 E 1

T 8 4 ET TRE

AM S

NH 1

306 DU 2 9

19 1 2 2

0 t to 2 o

0 2 31 1 2 17 1

4 21 4 3

4 5 2 EET 15 STR 13 FT 12 RO

3 ANC

3 1

2 28 0

3 4

9 1 9 2 2

4 2

O 1 25 9 ML 55 IN 1 2 3 0 5 S O

N S 22

10 T R 8 45 E H E A T

3 L

S 1 2

T 3 0 7 O

N 2 1

S T 2

R 4

4 E

9 2 3 4 E EL T

2 LI

3 S

1 1 3 3

6 2 1 R 2

33 EET

1 NT

13 CE 1 31 5 ES LS CR EET OL STR 112 R

0 AR 2 1 W

6 0 1 29 El Sub Sta 12 1

35 5

L 1

S 1 4 C 9 1 R 3 ES 9 1 2

C 12 8

E 2

N 1 T 51 1 0 9 17 2

9 134

16 1 163 9 3 NT 136 CE

1 CRES

8 1 S

ROLL

8 2

6 7

6 S 7 PR

1 150 U

ST Rolls Crescent Primary School

R E 2 3

ET 15 1 3 7 The Hulme area of Manchester has a grid layout

MANCHESTER0 DISTRICT MANCHESTER, CENTRAL BORO CONST HULME WARD

3 6 9

3 HULME 168 2

1 1 162 5 with two main 30mph access roads around the 1

164 ENT

RESC

5 C 3 LS ROL perimeter of the survey site. Within these roads

4 2

27 3 1 there is a 20mph limit and extensive calming at

A V

C N

L H

2 O A

S M

E 3 3

2 junctions (brick tables), as can be seen in the image. The majority of vehicles park on the

79 B.1.19 Syston, Leicester

! Around 7 km from Leicester City centre and 1 km from Syston town centre. Regular bus service runs through estate, linking to Syston, Thurmaston and Leicester. Around 0.5 km – 1 km to railway station on Midland mainline. ! Previous greenfield site. ! Type of development: residential. ! Developer: Jelson Limited. ! Area of site: 24 ha (approximately). ! Number of dwellings: 678. ! Housing density: 28 houses/ha (approximately). ! 30 mph speed limit. ! Local planning authority: Charnwood Borough Council. ! Highways authority: Leicestershire County Council. ! Development period: 1988-mid 1990s. ! Residential mix: detached and semi detached 2, 3 and 4 bed houses. ! Housing tenure: not known for certain, believed to be 100% private. ! Parking ratios: dwellings with 4 or more bedrooms – minimum 3 spaces, dwellings with 3 or less bedrooms – minimum 2 spaces (as per the then current Leicestershire County Council design guide).

Syston - Leicester

= ATC Location = Manual Speed = Junctions Measured Reading Locations

= ATC I.D. = Links Measured

G LEBE W AY

1 2 6 5

4 20 2

12 C URLE W CL

8 1 9

1 1

1 1 K

7 IN

E E F 2 S S IS O O H L E L R C C W E L 5 R

2 U

C 4 5

2 L 2 O 1 E G S E ID R S W RT A A L P L O W D R IV E

37 4 7 2 33 21

4 E S O L

1 C

8 1 L 3 E 2 31 20 R T S E 15 El Sub Sta K IVE DR 4 OW 1 LL 16 24 WA 7 S

1 6

2 2

22 1

4 23 3

0 1 1 1 7 W RE N C LO 6 SE MA LL

2 D 1 D RI

2 Y 4 A 2

32 1 2

2 4 7 2

8 Y

A 1 W

N 1 2 RO

IV 2 R 9

D 2 20 IN T R

A M E 6 7 OS 18 L 18a 2 C IFT W S

MAR 6

TIN D

RIV 2 9 E

13 1

1 74

2 3 E

V I

R 3 5 D

1 62

IELD

D AD

AND S 8 WAN

WAY

L MOOR 6

6 23

1 30

2 12 60

SYSTON WEST WARD O LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY E L

S C 2

H T

CLO

U NE

G 4

Y 2

C LL 6

O 5

15 El Sub Sta H

27 14 12 COVERT CLOSE 2 R Syston is a spine and cul-de-sac residential estate D N OR 52 TH CHARNWOOD CO CONST CK 4 LA B

S E D G E F IE LD D R IV B 21 E L A C

11 K typical of 1980s suburban developments. Junction T

9 O 1 R 2 N D 0 4a R 2 4 I 2a V E

ROAD

8 markings are only used on the entrance/exits of the

D a

AN 4 L 5

OOR

M 7

5 2

1 3 3 1 study area, and other road markings are sparse. The 8 5

12 4 9 3 2 iew

ld V

SEDGEFI Fie

3 3

2 4 ELD DRIVE picture shows a long and sweeping link, along with a

IEW 2 V

4 D

8 PA 3 1 4 7

4 LOSE 1 SPINNEY C characteristically wide junction aperture. There is very

D 34

D 7

L 3 20 7 E

E 9 G 2

D E little on-street parking as the vast majority of houses S

E U N E V A

H T

6 A 5 2 3 E

H have driveways.

7 2

HEA 2

TH 3 AVE

NUE

2 1 1

R 2

E 5

H 1

5 1

9 1

E 8 N 2 A L

E S 1 R 1 O WI

G LL

1 OW 2 W

ALK

4 1

2 1

2 5

80 B.1.20 Lower Earley, Reading

! DB32 compliant. ! 30 mph speed limit. ! Local planning authority: Reading Borough Council.

Lower Earley - Reading

= ATC Location = Manual Speed = Junctions Measured Reading Locations

= ATC I.D. = Links Measured

7 16

7 2 7 6

2 5

6 4 O

H 1 C 0 CLOSE FEN L NEL ENNE C F LOS S E A

3 G

6 E

1 3 6 C

O 2 24

1 S

E 1

1 1

C AS 10 D SI ROA

H 20 ILLS 3 Y WA D A

R 1

ID AR I

V 1 C

1 E Lower Earley, to the south of

E 1 WA 9 8

R 17 D 7 Reading town centre, has a

1 3

19 spine and cul-de-sac layout in

4 AR

Y 2

1 compliance with DB32

5 4

1 RD CLOSE THYME E 2 MAC UE 3 7 EN 1 AV 9 recommendations. There are ARY

SEM

7 12 C 2 L O shared surfaces on some cul- C AR S

E A 6 R W 1 O A

A Y 14 D

6 5 de-sacs, as can be seen in the R O S

E 0 2 1 1 M A

R Y 8 4 A V 8 picture. It can also be noted E N U

E 16

35 AY that driveways have the W

1 ER D N A I COR 5 potential to alter sight lines at

1 3

8 junctions when they are 2 3 4 4 1

5 occupied.

4 5

4 7

Code Highway Fast Reaction Time Reaction Fast 85% Drivers Reaction to “ Clear and obvious stimulus” [Olson 1997] Reaction Time (s) Reaction Time Possible night time reaction times times reaction time night Possible Slower driver reaction time reaction driver Slower Dry surface: Unchanged Wet Surface: add 0.2g to deceleration level): UnchangedAlcohol (Low time 0.2s to reaction add Cannabis:

Light Heavy Average Emergency Emergency Appendix C: Braking distance matrix Appendix

82 Code Highway Highway Fast Reaction Time Fast 85% Drivers Reaction to “ Clear [Olson obvious stimulus” and 1997] Reaction Time (s) Reaction Time Possible night time reaction times Slower driver reaction time Dry surface: Unchanged Wet Surface: add 0.2g to deceleration level): UnchangedAlcohol (Low Cannabis: add 0.2s to reaction time Light Heavy Average Emergency

83 Code Highway Highway Fast Reaction Time Reaction Fast 85% Drivers Reaction to “ Clear and obvious stimulus” [Olson 1997] Possible night time reaction times times reaction time night Possible Reaction Time (s) Reaction Time Slower driver reaction time Dry surface:Dry Unchanged Wet Surface: add 0.2g to deceleration level): UnchangedAlcohol (Low time add 0.2s to reaction Cannabis: Light Heavy Average Emergency Emergency

84 Appendix D: Household survey questionnaire

85 86 87 88 Abstract

The Department for Transport and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister commissioned WSP, TRL, Llewelyn Davies Yeang and Phil Jones Associates to develop the Manual for Streets (MfS), which shall supersede Design Bulletin 32 (DB32) and its companion guide, Places, Streets & Movement in 2007. The manual will deal with underlying values that can be creatively deployed by practitioners to pursue the Government’s ‘placemaking’ agenda of individually distinctive localities while ensuring that streets remain functional and safe. It will be based around key elements of good design in residential streets and other lightly trafficked roads. The development of the MfS has involved some primary research to establish the relationships between different link and junction characteristics and road safety. The research examines the limits of design practice as currently specified in DB32, to consider whether more liberal geometric and visibility values may be incorporated into the manual. A review of literature and the contributions of industry stakeholders have indicated that, in terms of constraints on design, the critical dimensions for highway geometry are link widths, forward visibility, visibility splays and junction spacing. The most significant barrier to the adoption of standards which use reduced values for width and visibility is highway authority concern over road safety. The indicators of safety being considered in this research are recorded casualties and vehicle speeds. In addition, residents’ perceptions of safety, sought through a household survey, have been relevant as a qualitative response to different geometries. The research has been undertaken at twenty sites across England. In the context of residential highway layouts, the research considers: ! Are junction geometries and road widths that do not meet DB32 standards safe in terms of recorded casualties? ! Are more permeable highway layouts such as grids associated with higher levels of casualties than spine and cul- de-sac layouts? ! Does there appear to be a relationship between design/environmental quality and driver behaviour? The Manual for Streets has been prepared against a backdrop of sustainable development guidance and initiatives to ensure that it facilitates the long-term sustainability of streets, and contributes to an enhanced sense of place. This research provides an evidence base for redefining residential street design in the Manual for Streets.

Related publications

TRL641 Psychological traffic calming by J V Kennedy, R Gorell, L Crinson, A Wheeler and M Elliott. 2005 (price £50, code HX) TRL633 Pilot home zone schemes: evaluation of Magor Village, Monmouthshire by R Layfield, D Webster and S Buttress. 2005 (price £10 (special price)) TRL626 Pilot home zone schemes: evaluation of Cavell Way, Sittingbourne by D Webster, A Tilly and S Buttress. 2005 (price £10 (special price)) TRL625 Pilot home zone schemes: evaluation of Northmoor, Manchester by A Tilly, D Webster and S Buttress. 2005 (price £10 (special price)) TRL621 The effect of road narrowings on cyclists by A Gibbard, S Reid, J Mitchell, B Lawton, E Brown and H Harper. 2004 (price £50, code HX) TRL603 Norfolk Quiet Lanes Scheme by J V Kennedy, A H Wheeler and C M Inwood. 2004a (price £40, code EX) TRL602 Kent Quiet Lanes Scheme by J V Kennedy, A H Wheeler and C M Inwood. 2004b (price £40, code EX) TRL584 Cyclists at ‘Continental’ style roundabouts: report on four trial sites by B J Lawton, P J Webb, G T Wall and D G Davies. 2003 (price £50, code HX) TRL564 Road design measures to reduce drivers’ speed via ‘psychological’ processes: a literature review by M A Elliott, V A McColl and J V Kennedy. 2003 (price £35, code E) Prices current at May 2007

For further details of these and all other TRL publications, telephone Publication Sales on 01344 770783, email: [email protected], or visit TRL on the Internet at www.trl.co.uk.

89 90