Apidays New York 2024 - APIs in 2030: The Risk of Technological Sleepwalk by ...
Â
Link And Place A Guide To Street Planning And Design By Prof Peter Jones
1. Link and Place:
A Guide to
Street Planning and Design
Prof. Peter Jones
Centre for Transport Studies, UCL, London
Engineers Australia, 6th October 2009
2. Introduction
⢠For decades, the primary concern on urban
streets has been to design for traffic
movement, often resulting in poor street
environments for pedestrians
⢠Growing recognition that streets contribute
in many ways to economic, environmental
and social life â which has been neglected:
â âSharing the Main Streetâ (NSW, RTA)
â âTransitioning urban arterial roads to activity
corridorsâ (Curtis & Tiwari, Perth)
â âManual for Streetsâ (DfT, UK)
3. â˘âManual for Streetsâ,
â˘Department for Transport, 2007
[and others]
⢠Recognises current problems
⢠Advocates greater emphasis
on Place
⢠Concentrates on residential
streets
4. Introduction
âLink & Place: A Guide to
Street Planning and Designâ,
Peter Jones, Natalya Boujenko
and Stephen Marshall, 2007
⢠Advocates an approach based on
streets as movement conduits
(Links) and destinations in their
own right (Places)
⢠Can be applied to any street within
a city or a town
5. PRINCIPLES: Dual functions of streets
LINK PLACE
street as a street as a
movement conduit destination in its
own right
6. PRINCIPLES: Dual functions of streets
LINK PLACE
street as a street as a
movement conduit destination in its
own right
Design objective: Design objective:
save time spend time
7. PRINCIPLES: Dual functions of streets
LINK PLACE
street as a street as a
movement conduit destination in its
own right
Design objective: Design objective:
save time spend time
8. LINK and PLACE activities
LINK: PLACE:
Through movement by: ⢠People standing,
⢠Private cars, vans, sitting, sightseeing,
goods vehicles shopping, trading
⢠Public transport ⢠Public performances,
parades,
⢠Cycles demonstrations, etc.
⢠Pedestrians ⢠Parking (including
cycle parking)
⢠Loading / servicing
9. PLACE Levels
A
B
C
⢠Places of national, city, local significance, etc.
⢠Based on catchment area, cultural significance, etc.
⢠These form a spatial scatter â not contiguous
10. LINK Levels
I
II
III
⢠Spectrum of types, from strategic to local routes
⢠Strategic routes all connect up to form a single
contiguous network
⢠May have several transport networks: trucks, PT, âŚ
11. The Link/Place Matrix
Place status
High Low
High
Link status
Low
Each cell represents a
particular type of street with
a specific combination of a
Link and Place status level
13. Link & Place applied to street network
⢠Link levels based on existing road
classification, but with modifications:
â To reflect change in de facto function
â To allow for priority for public transport or
cyclists
⢠Place levels based on:
â Catchment areas of premises alongside
â Cultural importance of adjoining buildings
â Cultural importance of the street space itself
15. Uses of the Matrix
⢠Identifies set of street types (cells) with
unique balance of Link/Place functions
⢠Further sub-division based on main land
use and mode priorities
⢠A street may change its cell by time of
day, day of week or time of year
⢠Design standards differ by cell
â Performance standards
â Design requirements
â Speed limits for a given Link status may vary
by Place status and land use type
16. âŚLeads to different design solutions
I-A I-B I-C I-D I-E I-A I-B I-C I-D I-E
II-A II-B II-C II-D II-E ⢠Two urban streets II-A II-B II-C II-D II-E
⢠Same width
III-A III-B III-C III-D III-E III-A III-B III-C III-D III-E
⢠Different Link/Place status
IV-A IV-B IV-C IV-D IV-E ⢠Different designs IV-A IV-B IV-C IV-D IV-E
V-A V-B V-C V-D V-E V-A V-B V-C V-D V-E
17. Using Link & Place in Design
⢠Identify relevant street user groups and
their desired activities
⢠Determine infrastructure requirements â
âstreet design elementsâ
⢠Decide on level of provision:
â Minimum
â Desirable
⢠Use Link and Place status to determine
balance of space/capacity allocation
⢠Where no acceptable design solution:
downgrade Link or Place status (e.g.
Trafalgar Square)
18. Allocating âDiscretionaryâ Space
Pdes Pdes Place status
Pmin Pmin
Link status
Lmin
Ldes
Link E Available space
of nve between
op lo
tio pe desirable and
ns
minimum levels
Ldes
Lmin
Pmin Pdes Place
19. Case study: Freiburg
⢠Population = 210,000
⢠Disruption from trams from
congestion
⢠Poor accessibility at tram stops
⢠Poor pedestrian environment
⢠High traffic volumes
⢠High traffic speed
Two design sections:
⢠Same Link status
⢠Place status higher in the
second design section
20. Different balance along a route
Design section 1
⢠Central carriageway portion to be converted to a dedicated tramway
⢠Cycle lanes added
⢠Segregated tram, cycle and traffic provision
21. Different balance along a route
Design section 2
⢠Higher Place status, district shopping centre
⢠The design offers greater street provision to pedestrians, cyclists and street
scene improvements
⢠Tram not specially segregated, but shares the carriageway with general traffic
(separation in time through traffic signals only)
22. Different balance along a route
Link status is the same
Place status is higher on design section 2
Relative Link status to Place status is lower on design section 2
23. Lower Link status to achieve Place
Streets around Place
Trafalgar Square
nal
Link
Natio ry Before I-A I-B I-C I-D I-E I-F
Galle
reconstruction â
II-A II-B II-C II-D II-E II-F
rrace After construction â
rt h Te
No
III-A III-B III-C III-D III-E III-F
gar
Trafal e
r
Squa IV-A IV-B IV-C IV-D IV-E IV-F
North Terrace
V-A V-B V-C V-D V-E V-F
After construction â
VI-A VI-B VI-C VI-D VI-E VI-F
26. Stakeholder Engagement: Background
⢠Traditionally, traffic engineers develop street
scheme solution(s) and then âconsultâ residents
and local businesses, by asking for âobjectionsâ
⢠Local people have very little input into the design
process, so that:
â Their concerns and ideas are not incorporated
â They have little understanding of the limitations faced
by traffic engineers when designing streets
â They have little ownership of the final scheme
⢠This can lead to public apathy, or major high
profile disputes in areas with many competing
street uses
27. Aims of the Study
⢠To develop tools that enable local people
to contribute meaningfully to the street
space design process, through an
understanding of options and constraints
⢠Two tools developed (âblockâs and âbytesâ):
â Tool 1: Physical blocks representing space
use
â Tool 2: Computer program â bytes -
(LineMap) to record, edit and analyse data
28. Tool 1 - Blocks
⢠Use scale blocks to represent different
space uses, in conjunction with detailed
maps of the high street:
â Users are made aware of many of the
component options (âstreet design elementsâ)
for allocating street space
â They then generate their own options, by
combining blocks in different ways and at
different locations
â Maps to scale allow users to work within the
constraints that the engineers face, without
having to have detailed knowledge.
29. Blocks â Colour and Size
⢠Use of colour to
Feature Colour
denote different types
Vehicle Lane Grey
of space usage.
Bus Lane Red
⢠Some of these based Cycle Lane Green
on current street General Parking Yellow
colour categories, e.g. Disabled Parking Blue
blue denotes disabled Loading Brown
parking (blue badge) Bus Stop Orange
⢠Size is based on size Traffic Island Cyan
of space actually Signal Crossing/ Magenta
Zebra Approach
needed to fit facility in
33. Existing conditions
Bloxwich High Street:
⢠89 shops, 5 pubs, 2 large supermarkets, 1 school,
2 churches and a prosperous market
⢠20,000 vehicles, 2-way in 12 hours
⢠20 bus routes pass through area
⢠Pressures on parking/loading
⢠Concentration of accidents along the High Street
34. Local Council Interests
⢠Original proposals developed by consultants
and put out to public consultation in 2003 - with
strong opposition from local traders and
residents â and was withdrawn
⢠Council decided to try again, using a more
participatory approach, involving local
businesses, residents and politicians
⢠Resulted in a two-stage workshop-based
exercise, followed by âformalâ public consultation
35. Public Engagement Process
⢠Workshop 1
â Describes the background to and reasons for
the exercise
â Allows groups of stakeholders to use the
Blocks to propose their own solutions.
⢠Workshop 2
â Stakeholders are shown their own plans in
GIS, along with the planners solution, in
LineMap.
â The aspects of each plan can be discussed
on screen, and combined into a new plan.
36. Design Considerations
Place status
LINK Function:
Link status
national
city highway
boulevard
district
high street
local
streets
PLACE: Minimum
Function: spaces
Parking Bays 13
Loading Bays 12
Disabled Bays 4
Bus Stops 8
Crossings 3
39. Workshop One - Reactions
⢠Participants were enthusiastic about the
task
⢠They were divided into two design groups
⢠This method of design was liked by
previously âcouncil scepticalâ people.
â They felt it was âtheir schemesâ and felt that
the council may pay more attention to them
than they had to their concerns in the past.
⢠Council found that both schemes were
broadly feasible â blocks had built in basic
constraints
40. Workshop Two
⢠Previous participants were invited back
and other participants also attended
⢠The two schemes designed at the first
workshop were presented in road marking
form and block form on maps plotted using
LineMap and on screen
⢠Participants worked together, and agreed
on a combination of both schemes to be
put to public consultation, based on on-
screen editing of the GIS format
42. Workshop Two - Reactions
⢠A consensus was reached
⢠Participants were very satisfied with the
process
⢠One combined scheme was agreed to be
put out to public consultation:
â with some minor changes to its design
â With some sub-options (e.g. 20 mph zone?)
43. Display Bus on Bloxwich High Street
The display includes the full plan, information about the
area, and a description of the design process
44. Conclusions
⢠This time high level of public/business support at the
formal consultation stage, and very little opposition
⢠Using scale blocks and maps makes the design process
as simple as possible to understand, and highlights
opportunities and constraints
⢠LineMap provides a bridge between outline design and
professional drawings â suitable for use in larger public
meetings for scheme editing
⢠Process enables councils to regain confidence of local
people and plan with a wider understanding of the needs
of an area.
⢠Allows members of the public to participate in street
design and encourages innovative solutions
⢠Council very pleased with outcome â removes normal
confrontational approach â and is now using method in
other contentious areas
45. Conclusions
⢠Link & Place provides a new way of
addressing problems on urban streets
⢠It is intuitive and understood and
supported by stakeholders
⢠Gives due weight to both movement and
non-movement functions of streets
⢠Encourages strategic view and
comprehensive performance assessment
⢠Results in site-sensitive designs â not
uniform solutions along a corridor
46. Role of Different Professionals
Link Place
Planning Transport Urban
planners planners
Traffic Urban
Design
engineers designers
.
47. A shift in Design Philosophy
âRooms & Corridorsâ
(Buchanan, 1963)
48. A Shift in Design Philosophy
âRooms & Corridorsâ
(Buchanan, 1963)
Open-plan Office
(Link & Place)
49. Methodological Imbalances
LINK: PLACE:
⢠Full design standards ⢠Partial design standards
⢠Quantitative PIs ⢠Qualitative PIs
⢠Modelling flows, etc ⢠Modelling - ?????
⢠Evaluation of user ⢠Evaluation of features;
benefits: no direct measures of
â VoT savings user benefit:
â NOT value of bus lane! â VoT SPENT
â Quality of experience