Link and Place: A Guide to

Street Planning and Design

Prof. Peter JonesCentre for Transport Studies, UCL, London

Engineers Australia, 6th October 2009

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 – which has been neglected:– “Sharing the Main Street” (NSW, RTA)– “Transitioning urban arterial roads to activity

corridors” (Curtis & Tiwari, Perth)– “Manual for Streets” (DfT, UK)

• Recognises current problems

• Advocates greater emphasis on Place

• Concentrates on residential streets

•‘Manual for Streets’,•Department for Transport, 2007[and others]

Introduction

‘Link & Place: A Guide to Street Planning and Design’,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

LINKstreet as a movement conduit

PLACEstreet as a destination in its own right

PRINCIPLES: Dual functions of streets

LINKstreet as a movement conduit

PLACEstreet as a destination in its own right

Design objective: save time

Design objective: spend time

PRINCIPLES: Dual functions of streets

LINKstreet as a movement conduit

PLACEstreet as a destination in its own right

Design objective: save time

Design objective: spend time

PRINCIPLES: Dual functions of streets

LINK and PLACE activities

LINK:Through movement by:• Private cars, vans,

goods vehicles• Public transport• Cycles• Pedestrians

PLACE:• People standing,

sitting, sightseeing, shopping, trading

• Public performances, parades, demonstrations, etc.

• Parking (including cycle parking)

• Loading / servicing

• Places of national, city, local significance, etc.

• Based on catchment area, cultural significance, etc.

• These form a spatial scatter – not contiguous

PLACE Levels

A

B

C

• 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, …

LINK Levels

I

II

III

The Link/Place MatrixPlace status

Link

sta

tus

High Low

Hig

hLo

w

Each cell represents a particular type of street with a specific combination of a Link and Place status level

Street types in a ‘5 x 5’ Matrix

Link & Place applied to street network

• Link levels based on existing road classification, but with modifications:– To reflect change in de facto function– To allow for priority for public transport or

cyclists• Place levels based on:

– Catchment areas of premises alongside– Cultural importance of adjoining buildings– Cultural importance of the street space itself

Link & Place applied to street network

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– Performance standards– Design requirements – Speed limits for a given Link status may vary

by Place status and land use type

…Leads to different design solutions

• Two urban streets

• Same width• Different Link/Place status

• Different designs

I-E

II-E

III-E

V-A

IV-E

V-B V-C V-D V-E

I-A

II-A

I-B I-C

II-B

I-D

II-C II-D

IV-A

III-C III-D

IV-B IV-C IV-D

III-A III-B

I-E

II-E

III-E

V-A

IV-E

V-B V-C V-D V-E

I-A

II-A

I-B I-C

II-B

I-D

II-C

IV-A

III-B III-C III-D

IV-B IV-C IV-D

III-A

II-D

Using Link & Place in Design• Identify relevant street user groups and

their desired activities• Determine infrastructure requirements –

‘street design elements’• Decide on level of provision:

– Minimum– 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)

Allocating ‘Discretionary’ Space

Pmin Pmin

Lmin

Pdes Pdes

Ldes

Place

Link

Lmin

Ldes

PdesPmin

Envelope

of options

Available space between desirable and minimum levels

Pmin Pmin

Lmin

Pdes Pdes

Ldes

Place

Link

Lmin

Ldes

PdesPmin

Envelope

of options

Available space between desirable and minimum levels

Link

sta

tus

Place status

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

Different balance along a route

• Central carriageway portion to be converted to a dedicated tramway

• Cycle lanes added

• Segregated tram, cycle and traffic provision

Design section 1

Different balance along a route

• 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)

Design section 2

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

Lower Link status to achieve Place

National

Gallery

Trafalgar

Square

North Terrace

Place

Link

VI-A

III-E

I-A I-B

IV-A

III-C

I-F

II-F

III-F

IV-F

V-F

VI-B VI-C VI-D VI-E VI-F

I-E

II-E

V-A

IV-E

V-B V-C V-D V-E

II-A

I-C

II-B

I-D

II-C II-D

III-B III-D

IV-B IV-C IV-D

III-A

Streets around Trafalgar Square Before reconstruction –After construction –

North Terrace After construction –

Flow Reductions: Approaches to Trafalgar Square

8005501400

450450

1150

750750

1350

500400800

550500750

7501050850

800

400

467 Existing

PM Flows

World Square

AM Target Flows

World Square

PM Target Flows

1150

1350

1250

850

9001350

467 Existing

AM Flows

8005501400

450450

1150

750750

1350

500400800

550500750

7501050850

800

400

467 Existing

PM Flows

World Square

AM Target Flows

World Square

PM Target Flows

1150

1350

1250

850

9001350

467 Existing

AM Flows

Stakeholder Engagement: Background

• Traditionally, traffic engineers develop street scheme solution(s) and then ‘consult’ residents and local businesses, by asking for ‘objections’

• Local people have very little input into the design process, so that:– Their concerns and ideas are not incorporated– They have little understanding of the limitations faced

by traffic engineers when designing streets– 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

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 (‘block’s and ‘bytes’):– Tool 1: Physical blocks representing space

use– Tool 2: Computer program – bytes -

(LineMap) to record, edit and analyse data

Tool 1 - Blocks

• Use scale blocks to represent different space uses, in conjunction with detailed maps of the high street:– Users are made aware of many of the

component options (’street design elements’) for allocating street space

– They then generate their own options, by combining blocks in different ways and at different locations

– Maps to scale allow users to work within the constraints that the engineers face, without having to have detailed knowledge.

Blocks – Colour and Size

• Use of colour to denote different types of space usage.

• Some of these based on current street colour categories, e.g. blue denotes disabled parking (blue badge)

• Size is based on size of space actually needed to fit facility in

Feature ColourVehicle Lane GreyBus Lane RedCycle Lane GreenGeneral Parking YellowDisabled Parking BlueLoading BrownBus Stop OrangeTraffic Island CyanSignal Crossing/Zebra Approach

Magenta

Box contents

60mm

Example of loading bay block

1:250

Bloxwich High Street

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

• Original proposals developed by consultants and put out to public consultation in 2003 - with strong opposition from local traders and residents – 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 ‘formal’ public consultation

Local Council Interests

Public Engagement Process

• Workshop 1– Describes the background to and reasons for

the exercise– Allows groups of stakeholders to use the

Blocks to propose their own solutions.• Workshop 2

– Stakeholders are shown their own plans in GIS, along with the planners solution, in LineMap.

– The aspects of each plan can be discussed on screen, and combined into a new plan.

Design Considerations

national highwaycity

boulevard

district high street

local streets

Place status

Link

sta

tus LINK Function:

38

4

1213

Minimum spaces

Crossings

Bus Stops

Disabled Bays

Loading Bays

Parking Bays

38

4

1213

Minimum spaces

Crossings

Bus Stops

Disabled Bays

Loading Bays

Parking Bays

PLACE: Function:

Workshop 1: Local Stakeholders

Feedback and sharing ideas

Workshop One - Reactions

• Participants were enthusiastic about the task

• They were divided into two design groups• This method of design was liked by

previously ‘council sceptical’ people.– They felt it was “their schemes” 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 – blocks had built in basic constraints

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

Scheme comparison

• A consensus was reached• Participants were very satisfied with the

process• One combined scheme was agreed to be

put out to public consultation:– with some minor changes to its design– With some sub-options (e.g. 20 mph zone?)

Workshop Two - Reactions

Display Bus on Bloxwich High Street

The display includes the full plan, information about the area, and a description of the design process

• 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 – 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 – removes normal confrontational approach – and is now using method in other contentious areas

Conclusions

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 – not uniform solutions along a corridor

Role of Different Professionals

Traffic engineers

.

Urbandesigners

Link Place

PlanningD

esign

Transport planners

Urbanplanners

A shift in Design Philosophy

‘Rooms & Corridors’(Buchanan, 1963)

A Shift in Design Philosophy

‘Rooms & Corridors’(Buchanan, 1963)

Open-plan Office

(Link & Place)

Methodological Imbalances

LINK:• Full design standards

• Quantitative PIs

• Modelling flows, etc

• Evaluation of user benefits:– VoT savings– NOT value of bus lane!

PLACE:• Partial design standards

• Qualitative PIs

• Modelling - ?????

• Evaluation of features; no direct measures of user benefit:– VoT SPENT– Quality of experience

Thank you

Peter.jones@ucl.ac.uk