mfs2 and shared space - derby conference, 3.3.11

8/7/2019 MfS2 and Shared Space - Derby Conference, 3.3.11

1/49

sustainable transport solutionsPhil Jones Associates

Manual for Streets 2

and Shared Space

Derby

3 March 2011

Phil Jones, PJA


2/49


Manual for Streets 2 - Why?

MfS only applicable to residential streets (?)

Concerns over reduced SSDs on busier routes

Fear of litigation

Comfort of familiar standards

Lack of confidence applying MfS beyond residential areas


3/49


This new document does not supersede MfS1; rather it explains

how the principles of MfS1 can be applied more widely. It drawson a number of sources including:

The Department for Transports Mixed Priority Route research study1;

Interim findings from the ongoing Department for Transport researchinto Shared Space;

Case Studies, including detailed research by CABE;

and

Further research into the relationship between junction visibility andcollisions.


4/49


MfS1 MfS2


5/49


What is DMRB for?

Use of the Manual for Trunk Roads

1.4 The documents in the manual have been preparedspecifically forTrunk Road Works throughout the UK.

Use of the Manual by Other Highway Authorities

1.5 The manual sets a standard of good practice that has beendeveloped principally for Trunk Roads. It may also beapplicable in part to other roads with similar characteristics.

Where it is used for local road schemes, it is for the localhighway authority to decide on the extent to which thedocuments in the manual are appropriate in any particularsituation

Introduction to the DMRB, GD01/08 (our emphasis)


6/49


DMRB


7/49


MfS (1 and 2) Key Principles

Hierarchy consider pedestrians first

Strike a balance traffic is not always paramount Respect pedestrian and cycle desire lines

Permeable and connected networks are preferred

Collaborative approaches work best

Innovation is encouraged

All are consistent with a more shared approach

to street design...


8/49


Contexts


9/49



10/49

What are streets for?

Movement

Pedestrians

Cyclists

Buses

Cars/HGVs

Deliveries

Parking

Place Shopping Playing Socialising Eating/drinking Sitting

Events


11/49


12/49


Movement

Pedestrians

Cyclists

Buses

Cars/HGVs

Deliveries

Parking

Place Shopping Playing Socialising Eating/drinking Sitting Events


13/49


Movement

Pedestrians

Cyclists

Buses

Cars/HGVs

Deliveries

Parking

Place Shopping Playing Socialising Eating/drinking Sitting Events


14/49


Context: Town and City Centres

Street Type: Multifunctional Streets and Spaces


15/49


Context: Town and City Centres

Street Type: Multifunctional Streets and Spaces


16/49


Context: Urban and Suburban Areas

Street Type: Arterial Routes and High Streets


17/49


18/49



Street Type: Relief Roads and Ring Roads


19/49



Street Type: Relief Roads and Ring Roads


20/49


Context: Shared Space


21/49


Context: Shared Space


22/49


Shared Space Movement and Place

Principal aim is to enhance place functions.

But also maintains appropriate levels of movement

public transport, car-borne passing trade, cyclists,

delivery vehicles etc.

Avoids night-time dead zone problems of manypedestrianised streets

Improves personal security


23/49


Shared Space - Objectives

An approach to highway design, and introduced for variousobjectives, including to:

Improve the built environment

Give people freedom of movement rather than

instruction and control

Improve the ambience of places

Enhance social contact

Enhance economic viability

Improve safety


24/49


Shared Space - Characteristics

Minimal use of traffic management features - traffic

signs, road markings etc.

Motorists encouraged to recognise the space as

different

React by driving more slowly, responding to other users

behaviour (including other motorists)


25/49


Shared Space - Integration

Reducing the definition between pedestrian and vehicleareas indicates the street is to be shared equally

A level surface can be used to do this

Pedestrians encouraged to cross wherever they wish to.

Comfort Space may be needed to

enable pedestrians to choose not

to mix.

Removing kerb lines in historic areas

and strong tonal contrastmay be inappropriate


26/49


Shared Space Key Issues

Need clear objectives for the design

Multidisciplinary team, close engagement with

all interested parties, including vulnerable user

groups

Vehicle speeds under 20mph

Gateway/transition spaces can help to achieve

low speeds and changed driver behaviour

Control of parking, drainage need to be

considered

Contrasting tones can help partially-sighted

pedestrians to orient themselves.


27/49

delivering solutionsPhil Jones Associates sustainable transport solutions

When does a spaceWhen does a space

become shared?become shared?


28/49


Detailed Design Guidance in MfS2

Pedestrian Needs and Footways

Cycle Facilities

Bus Facilities

Carriageways

Junction, Crossings and Accesses

Visibility

On-Street Parking and Servicing

Street Furniture and Trees

Traffic Signs and Markings


29/49


Crossings

Informal, Zebra, Signalised - all have

advantages and disadvantages

Informal - minimal clutter, can

encourage courtesy behaviour, little

delay to traffic, but no absolute

priority to pedestrians. Zebra delays can be minimal unless

pedestrian flows high, can be close to

junctions, more clutter.

Signalised additional delay, more

clutter, preferred by vulnerable

pedestrians.


30/49



31/49



32/49



33/49



34/49



35/49



36/49


37/49


Kerb Heights

Typically 125mm but...

Lower kerb heights are easier for the

mobility-impaired to cross and reduce

vehicle dominance.

Higher kerbs appropriate at bus stops.


38/49


Street Furniture

Some street furniture is useful and

important...much is not

Start with nothing introduce only elements

that are necessary

Clutter removal can be done as part of

ongoing maintenance

Combine elements together where possible

Street furniture should be arranged to keep

pedestrian routes clear


39/49


Guardrail

Significant disbenefits - highly

intrusive, disadvantages pedestrians,unsightly, can increase traffic speeds

and create risks for cyclists.

May be necessary in some locations

but need better balanced use

Many guardrail removal schemes have

worked well in road safety terms, with

careful assessment

Look for alternative solutions before

installing new guardrail


40/49


Excessive numbers of bollards can increase vehicle speed


41/49


42/49


Omitting centre line markings tends to reduce speed


43/49



44/49


45/49


Junction priority can be removed - Bath


46/49


St B id St t Cit f L d


47/49


St Bride Street, City of London


48/49


Reflections

MfS1 launch

...hard hats on!

MfS2 launch

...broad acceptance

Concerns remain over junction visibility but MfS is

about so much more than this.

Liability is also a concern but is diminishing

Benefits of better streets are increasingly recognised


49/49


Whats next?

Increasing collaboration between DfT and Institutions

LTN on Shared Space

TAL on Quality Audits through CIHT

IHE/CIHT Guidance on residential parking

CIHT Rolling revision ofTransport in the Urban

Environmentor...

Manual for Streets 3!

[email protected]

Twitter.com/Phil_PJA

0121 222 5422

3

mfs2 and shared space - derby conference, 3.3.11

Documents