Improving Street Design Through 'Link and Place'
1 like1,733 views
The document discusses street design improvements through the 'link and place' framework, emphasizing the dual roles of streets as movement conduits and destinations. It outlines principles for urban street types, suggesting a common classification to enhance functionality in Greater London while considering local needs. The approach encourages public engagement in street design, utilizing workshops to foster community involvement and better align street functions with user requirements.
![The ‘trade-off’ triangleLinkspace
capacity
Total street w
idth
EN
VELO
PE
O
F
O
PTIO
N
S
Place space
capacity
A
B
Linkspace
capacity
Total street w
idth
EN
VELO
PE
O
F
O
PTIO
N
S
Place space
capacity
A
B
Total street w
idth
EN
VELO
PE
O
F
O
PTIO
N
S
Place space
capacity
A
B
Total street w
idth
=
15m
Place space
capacity
Linkspace
capacity
[5m,10m]
Total = 15m
Link = 10m
Link = 5m
Place = 5m Place = 10m
[10m,5m]
Total = 15m
Total street w
idth
=
15m
Place space
capacity
Linkspace
capacity
[5m,10m]
Total = 15m
Link = 10m
Link = 5m
Place = 5m Place = 10m
[10m,5m]
Total = 15m
In simple terms…](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/improvingstreetdesignthroughlinkandplace-151021101942-lva1-app6891/85/Improving-Street-Design-Through-Link-and-Place-24-320.jpg)
Improving Street Design Through 'Link and Place'
- 1. Improving Street Design Through ‘Link and Place’ Peter Jones Centre for Transport Studies, UCL, London West Midlands Urban Design Forum, 2nd October 2015
- 2. LINK street as a movement conduit PLACE street as a destination in its own right PRINCIPLES: Dual functions of streets
- 3. LINK street as a movement conduit PLACE street as a destination in its own right Design objective: save time Design objective: spend time PRINCIPLES: Dual functions of streets
- 4. LINK street as a movement conduit PLACE street as a destination in its own right Design objective: save time Design objective: spend time PRINCIPLES: Dual functions of streets
- 5. Through movement: • Private cars, vans, goods vehicles • Public transport • Cycles • Pedestrians Use of a street as a ‘Link’ People movement
- 6. • People standing, sitting, sightseeing, shopping, trading • Public performances, parades, demonstrations, etc. Certain vehicle-related activities: • Parking (including cycle parking) • Loading / servicing Use of a street as a ‘Place’
- 7. Place status Linkstatus High Low HighLow Each cell represents a particular type of street with a specific combination of a Link and Place status level
- 8. Neighbourhood Local District City National Local Neighbourhood District City National I-E II-E III-E V-A IV-E V-B V-C V-D V-E Place status levels Linkstatuslevels I-A II-A I-B I-C II-B I-D II-C II-D IV-A III-B III-C III-D IV-B IV-C IV-D III-A
- 9. Street types in a ‘5 x 5’ Matrix
- 10. Application to Greater London by TfL
- 11. Roads Task Force (RTF) - Key messages London’s roads need to be looked at as a whole, in a consistent manner, not just in terms of moving traffic around London Their functions have changed over time, and this needs to be looked at afresh In particular, we should think of our road/street network ‘two dimensionally’: Place: Street activities Supporting adjoining frontages Movement: General road traffic - cars, vans, etc. Sustainable travel modes – buses, walking, cycling
- 12. Street Types: the intended outcome A common set of nine ‘street family types’, but with flexibility for boroughs to use a finer level of classification, to meet local needs Within this general classification, there will be variation within a street type in terms of: Modal priorities Land use dominance This will ultimately provide a functional understanding of the role of different streets in London, and the kinds of interventions required to improve the role they play for Boroughs & Greater London
- 13. Street Type Functions matrix
- 14. Street Types: process and outputs (7/x)Outputs: a set of jointly owned planning tools Workshops create a map which can be used locally or combined for a pan-London perspective For use by Borough officers, TfL planners, consultants, and designers
- 15. ‘Function’ vs. ‘Form’ vs. ‘Performance’ Movement and Place describe the functions that each street is intended to perform The form of the street describes its current layout, management and appearance The performance of the street describes how well it is achieving its various functions, given its current form SO, ‘improvement’ will mainly involve changing form to better meet functional requirements and so improve performance, rather than changing the street functions – i.e. uplifting quality rather than switching street types
- 17. 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
- 18. Neighbourhood Local District City National Local Neighbourhood District City National I-E II-E III-E V-A IV-E V-B V-C V-D V-E Place status levels Linkstatuslevels I-A II-A I-B I-C II-B I-D II-C II-D IV-A III-B III-C III-D IV-B IV-C IV-D III-A Potential ‘20mph Zone’ cells 20 MPH ZONES
- 19. Basic Criteria • Each street activity requires a certain amount of SPACE and TIME • Some activities may also require – or benefit from – ‘street design elements’: – Reserved space/time on the street (e.g. bus lane) – Street furniture (e.g. seating) • Potential range of provision, from Minimum to Desirable • ‘Link’ and ‘Place’ can assist in decisions about how to allocate ‘discretionary’ space/capacity
- 20. Example: Place users Place Street User Group Street Activities Infrastructure Requirements Car users Motorcyclists Cyclists Parking vehicle Parking space Adequate lighting Van/truck user Loading/unloading Loading provision Adequate lighting Bus operators Loading/unloading passengers Protected kerbside stopping Easy access for mobility restricted passengers Adequate lighting Bus passengers Waiting for bus Shelter and seating Lighting and security Service information Pedestrian (strollers’) Window shopping Queuing for services Chatting to friends Waiting for friends Resting Comfort break Adequate lighting Space to carry out the activities Weather protection Seating Public toilets
- 21. ‘Desirable’ and ‘Minimum’ provision CYCLE LANE Minimum Recom’nd Maximum Mandatory, with flow 1.2m 1.5m 2.0m Advisory, with flow 0.8m 1.2m 1.5m Mandatory contra-flow 1.5m 2.0m 2.5m
- 22. ‘Footprints’ of some street furniture Size of Furniture (width x length) Total Footprint Cycle stand 0.10m x 0.60 m 0.60m x 1.30m Bench 0.48m x 1.06m 1.18m x 1.18m Rubbish bin 0.50m x 0.50m 1.20m x 1.50m Bus stop area 1.30m x 3.25m 2.40m x 3.90m Source: Rachel Palfreeman, MSc Dissertation, 2008
- 23. Link Place Carriageway Running lanes for through traffic Pedestrian crossings Parking and loading bays Footway Pedestrian/cycle movement zones Traffic direction/ information and regulatory signs Street furniture and social space Mapping activities onto spaces
- 24. The ‘trade-off’ triangleLinkspace capacity Total street w idth EN VELO PE O F O PTIO N S Place space capacity A B Linkspace capacity Total street w idth EN VELO PE O F O PTIO N S Place space capacity A B Total street w idth EN VELO PE O F O PTIO N S Place space capacity A B Total street w idth = 15m Place space capacity Linkspace capacity [5m,10m] Total = 15m Link = 10m Link = 5m Place = 5m Place = 10m [10m,5m] Total = 15m Total street w idth = 15m Place space capacity Linkspace capacity [5m,10m] Total = 15m Link = 10m Link = 5m Place = 5m Place = 10m [10m,5m] Total = 15m In simple terms…
- 25. Potential design situations Pdes PdesLdes Pmin PminLmin Pmin Pmin Lmin Pdes Pdes Ldes Lmin Pmin Pmin Place Link Ldes Pdes Envelope of options Place Link Lmin Pmin Envelope of options Place Link Lmin Ldes PdesPmin Envelope of options Place Link Lmin Pmin Envelope of options No possible options to meet all minimum needs Available space between desirable and minimum levelsAvailable space just meets minimum needs Available space exceeds aggregated desirable needs Pdes PdesLdes Pmin PminLmin Pmin Pmin Lmin Pdes Pdes Ldes Lmin Pmin Pmin Place Link Ldes Pdes Envelope of options Place Link Lmin Pmin Envelope of options Place Link Lmin Ldes PdesPmin Envelope of options Place Link Lmin Pmin Envelope of options No possible options to meet all minimum needs Available space between desirable and minimum levelsAvailable space just meets minimum needs Available space exceeds aggregated desirable needs
- 26. Allocating ‘discretionary’ space Pmin Pmin Lmin Pdes Pdes Ldes Lmin Pmin Pmin Place Place Link Lmin Ldes PdesPmin Envelope of options Place Link Lmin Pmin Envelope of options No possible options to meet all minimum needs Available space between desirable and minimum levelsspace needs Pmin Pmin Lmin Pdes Pdes Ldes Lmin Pmin Pmin Place Place Link Lmin Ldes PdesPmin Envelope of options Place Link Lmin Pmin Envelope of options No possible options to meet all minimum needs Available space between desirable and minimum levelsspace needs Position of the street segment in the Link/Place matrix determines relative space to allocate to Link and Place requirements Linkstatus Place status
- 27. Case study: Context-sensitive design Freiburg, Germany • 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
- 28. Applying the principles – section 1 • Central carriageway portion to be converted to a dedicated tramway • Cycle lanes added • Segregated tram, cycle and traffic provision
- 29. • 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) Applying the principles – section 2
- 30. 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
- 31. Engaging the Public in Street Design
- 32. • Link and Place provides a good, intuitive framework for involving local groups in street design – particularly where have different views • Has been trialled using a combination of physical (‘blocks’) and electronic (‘bytes’) techniques • Minimum requirements defined; scale blocks make design constraints clear • Example: Bloxwich High Street, Walsall Role in engagement
- 33. 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, along with the planners solution, in LineMap. – The aspects of each plan can be discussed on screen, and combined into a new plan.
- 34. Design considerations national highwaycity boulevard district high street local streets Place status Linkstatus LINK Function: 3 8 4 12 13 Minimum spaces Crossings Bus Stops Disabled Bays Loading Bays Parking Bays 3 8 4 12 13 Minimum spaces Crossings Bus Stops Disabled Bays Loading Bays Parking Bays PLACE: Function:
- 35. Street design elements 1:250 • 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 Colour Vehicle Lane Grey Bus Lane Red Cycle Lane Green General Parking Yellow Disabled Parking Blue Loading Brown Bus Stop Orange Traffic Island Cyan Signal Crossing/ Zebra Approach Magenta
- 36. 60mm Example of loading bay block 1:250
- 39. Inputs to Workshop Two Both maps were displayed on the walls outside Maps were also placed on tables so participants could get a more detailed look
- 40. Converting blocks to road markings
- 41. The display includes the full plan, information about red routes and a description of the planning process.
- 42. A role for different professionals Traffic engineers . Urban designers Link Place PlanningDesign Transport planners Urban planners