Urban Road Network Notes

Urban road design lecture notes
Preface
It is beyond doubt that the streets of our cities and towns, suburbs and villages, should be safe,
attractive and comfortable for all users. As well as cars and other vehicles this encompasses
pedestrians, cyclists, and those using public transport. It also includes people of all ages and
abilities and is equally relevant to residents and visitors.
The desire for safe, attractive and vibrant streets is reflected in a range of existing transport,
planning and environmental policies and objectives. These policies and objectives address how
neighbourhoods, villages and towns are created and protected. They relate not only to road safety
and civil engineering, but also to town planning, urban design, architecture, landscape
architecture and conservation.
In other words, the design of safer, more attractive and vibrant streets will benefit everyone by
generating and sustaining communities and neighbourhoods, with wide ranging economic, social
and environmental consequences.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The desire for safe, attractive and vibrant streets is reflected in a range of existing environmental
policies and objectives. What this means is that the design must be:
a) Influenced by the type of place in which the street is located, and
b) Balance the needs of all users.
Well designed streets can create connected physical, social and transport networks that promote
real alternatives to car journeys, namely walking, cycling or public transport.
In many communities, it is perceived that some or all vehicular traffic is travelling too fast and
should be directed elsewhere. The impacts are seen as a threat to the safety of the community and
a negative element that detracts from the attractiveness of the road or street and the comfort of
those using it. In response, it is sometimes possible to install a traffic calming ramp. Such a
retrofit’ solution may slow traffic, but only very locally. It doesn’t address the broader issue of
what elements of the road design or street network encourage speeding.
In order to address the overall issue, it is necessary to start with the design of the street
environment and street network as a whole. This ‘holistic’, design-led approach has been applied
successfully in the UK, much of Europe and further afield. Although there are some good
individual examples of street design in Uganda, there is a need for agreed national street design
standards specific to ‘urban’ areas.
1.1 Policy Background

National planning and transport strategy seeks to achieve a hierarchy of towns, linked by
efficient transport networks, underpinned by economic activity and investment. It also aims to
minimise overall travel demand, reduce carbon emissions and reliance on fossil fuels. Central to
this is the alignment of spatial planning and transport policy to contain suburban sprawl, linking
employment to transport and encouraging modal shift to more sustainable modes of travel
To support these objectives, street layouts in cities, towns and villages will be interconnected to
encourage walking and cycling and offer easy access to public transport. Compact, denser, more
interconnected layouts, particularly where served by good quality bus or rail services, will help
to consolidate cities, towns and villages making them viable for reliable public transport.
Kyambogo University Page 1

These objectives should be underpinned by Local Area Plans, Strategic Development Zone
Planning Schemes and Land Use and Transportation Strategies. The importance of retrofitting
existing streets and communities is also emphasized.
In ‘Balancing conflicting priorities and making the right choices’, it is recognised that there are
many different objectives, modes and users to be considered in managing the transport network.
The Traffic management guide seeks to promote more sustainable alternatives to the private car
and acknowledge the role of streets in urban areas as living spaces that serve many functions in
addition to traffic movement:
‘It is only in the last few decades that the car has come to dominate every street. Streets are (or
ought to be) living spaces, an integral part of the community and the focus of many activities that
link together people’s lives. The way in which streets are managed and used promotes or
discourages a sense of community and makes them an attractive or unattractive place to live.
This imbalance must be reversed if urban communities are to revive and prosper. Planners and
engineers must take the lead in this process.’
Guidelines for Planning Authorities on Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas

(Cities, Towns & Villages) (2009).
This guidance document was published by the Department of the Environment and is
accompanied by the Urban Design Manual. It focuses on sustainable residential development,
including the promotion of layouts that:
• Prioritise walking, cycling and public transport, and minimise the need to use cars;
• Are easy to access for all users and to find one’s way around;
• Promote the efficient use of land and of energy, and minimise greenhouse gas emissions;
• Provide a mix of land uses to minimize transport demand.
Specifically, in relation to the design of residential streets, the Guidelines reference the UK
Manual for Streets (2007) and detail principles that should influence the layout and design of
streets in residential areas. These principles include:
• Connectivity and permeability;
• Sustainability: Priority should be given to the needs of walking, cycling and public transport,
and the need for car-borne trips should be minimised;
• Safety: Streets, paths and cycle routes should provide for safe access by users of all ages and
degrees of personal mobility;
• Legibility: It should be easy for both residents and visitors to find their way in the area; and
• Sense of Place: Streets should contribute to the creation of attractive and lively mixed-use
places.
There is also a useful series of urban design checklists that include the following in relation to
street design:
• Does the design of residential streets strike the right balance between the different functions of
the street, including a ‘sense of place’?
• Will the development:
- prioritise public transport, cycling and walking, and dissuade the use of cars?
- ensure accessibility for everyone, including people with disabilities?
- include measures to ensure satisfactory standards of personal safety and traffic safety within the
neighbourhood?

• Will the plan ensure a compact and easily walkable form of development that will make
walking and cycling, especially for local trips, more attractive than using the car?
• Has the design sought, where possible, to create child and pedestrian-friendly car-free areas,
especially in higher density schemes, through the careful location of access streets and parking
areas?
CHAPTER 2: RE-EXAMINING THE STREET
The creation of walkable, cycleable and public transport orientated communities require that
designers re-examine the way streets are designed in order to meet the needs of all users.
2.1 The Impact of the Car

The car has a significant impact on how street people interact with them. The relationship
between cars and people can be illustrated via four distinct models.
• The first model is where traffic and people are segregated and the car is dominant.
• The second model is where the car and people are segregated from each other.
• The third model is where traffic and people mix, although on a more equitable basis.
• The fourth model is where the car is excluded altogether.
Conventional design approaches in Europe are largely based on the application of the first and
second models. Pedestrian and vehicular movements are segregated from each other on the basis
that a higher quality of service could be delivered for each mode.
The Buchanan Report was advanced in the UK by the publication of Roads in Urban Areas
(1966). The Document proclaimed that ‘segregation should be the keynote of modern road
design’ and ‘should be applied as far as practical or necessary’. It recommended:
• The segregation of motor vehicles on the basis of purpose, destination or type.
• The segregation of motor vehicles from vulnerable road users (e.g. pedestrians and cyclists).
• The provision of ‘distributor roads’ for ‘the free flow of traffic at reasonable speed’ along
which access and frontage development was fully or partially restricted.
• The creation of ‘neighbourhood cells’ that restrict the movement of through traffic.
• The segregation of moving vehicles from parked vehicles primarily through restrictions on on-
street parking.
2.2 The Pedestrian Perspective

 Connectivity
A core objective of a segregated approach to street design is the creation of a highly functional
traffic network. This approach has left many communities disconnected and has placed
significant limitations on sustainable forms of transportation. The connectivity (and legibility)
problems which arise from dendritic street layouts are illustrated in Figure 1, where walking
distances are increased, route choice is highly limited and users have to navigate a complicated
street network. Research has shown that a lack of connectivity is one of the key factors that
discourage people from walking.
The highly segregated design of distributor roads also presents a major barrier that creates
severance between adjoining communities. This occurs because physical restrictions in access
are enforced by continuous walls and fences put in place to prevent pedestrian access. Where

access is proposed, safety concerns are often raised because of the fast moving/free flowing
nature of these roads, even where there may be major benefits in terms of access to services.
Figure 1.: A typical example of a residential area constructed in accordance with the principles of segregation. Walking and
cycling permeability is restricted to the point that the two neighbouring houses shown back to back are up to 4km walking
distance apart.

 Comfort
Pedestrians are sometimes marginalised along the street edges so that greater space can be
provided within the street reserve to facilitate vehicle movement. This occurs in a number of
ways:
• Narrow footpaths squeeze pedestrians together and do not leave sufficient room for people to
pass.
• Footpaths become cluttered with poles and guardrails that obstruct and constrain pedestrian
movement and create visual clutter.
• Footpaths are lined with blank walls and fences that restrict passive surveillance and make
pedestrians feel isolated and vulnerable.
Figure 2.: Footpath widths are inadequate,

forcing pedestrians on to the carriageway, Figure 3. Guardrails can create a hazard
for cyclists, reduce footpath widths and give
rise to feelings of constraint and restriction to
pedestrians.
Figure 4: Pedestrians have been marginalised along the street edge and have their path obstructed in
order to provide additional width to the vehicular carriageway and space for signage.
These elements can combine to obstruct vulnerable users and at times it is necessary for them
move onto out onto cycle paths/ lanes and/or vehicular carriageways in order to progress along
the street (see Figures 2 and 3). A lack of on-street parking facilities can also contribute to the
obstruction of footpaths and cycle paths/lanes. Where demand for on-street parking exists and is
not catered for, drivers routinely kerb mount and park on footpaths and cycle lanes.

The design of roads often results in an environment that is hostile for pedestrians (especially
after dark). Blank walls and fences restrict surveillance and movement. If pedestrians feel
isolated within a street because of its characteristics, they are unlikely to use it, are unlikely to
avail of the services within it and consequently will become more car dependent. Research has
shown that a lack of activity and surveillance on streets is one of the key factors that discourage
people from walking.
 Safety
Many of the examples that have been highlighted are designed to eliminate risk, promote free
flowing conditions for traffic and make streets safer. By limiting elements such as junctions and
on-street car parking, the number of potential vehicular traffic conflicts/stoppages is reduced.
Clearer sightlines and wide carriageways also allow for greater driver reaction time/error
correction. Whilst this approach is sensible on isolated roads, within urban areas it can be
counterproductive as it may transfer risk to more vulnerable users. Research has found that:
• The speed at which drivers travel is principally influenced by the characteristics of the street
environment;
• If the design of a street creates the perception that it is safe to travel at higher speeds drivers
will do so, even if this conflicts with the posted speed limit.
The Buchanan Report concluded that pedestrians and vehicles were ‘fundamentally
incompatible’ and that segregation would lead to a safer road environment for all users.
However, the envisaged segregation of the motor vehicle and pedestrian is not feasible in an
urban environment. It is inevitable that pedestrians and vehicles will interact in urban
environments. By creating larger, free-flowing roads which prioritise vehicle movement, where
this interaction occurs it is likely to happen at a much higher speed, thus increasing the severity
of an accident (see Figure 5).
Figure 5. Large freer flowing roads and junctions may result in

pedestrians taking greater risks in front of faster moving traffic.
Pedestrians have little tolerance for delay and

studies have found that significant numbers of
pedestrians will not comply with the detour/ delay created by diversions, such as those enforced
by guardrails. Pedestrians tend to follow desire lines (i.e. take the shortest route), even if this
conflicts with the location of formal crossings and pedestrian control measures.
The use of guardrails may be counterproductive as:
• It may increase vehicle speeds and aggressive driver behaviour.
• Create a false sense of safety for both drivers and pedestrians (guardrails will only stop vehicles
travelling at very low speeds).
• Block intervisibility between drivers and children.
• Result in pedestrians/cyclists being trapped on the carriageway or found in locations that are
not anticipated by drivers.
• Reduce the width and capacity of footways and crossings.
• Create a collision hazard for cyclists where built in close proximity to cycle lanes.

 Updesigning
Many of the issues highlighted above have been exacerbated by a process of ‘updesigning’,
where roads are designed to standards in excess of their movement function. This often occurs
due to:
• The inappropriate application of the National Roads Authority Design Manual for Roads and
Bridges (NRA DMRB) on streets and roads in urban areas.
• Catering for the ease of movement of large vehicles, which only occasionally frequent a
road/street.
• Enabling greater capacity and vehicle flow based on excessive demand forecasts and/or the
assumption that private vehicle usage will increase unabated.
The continued assumption of growth in private vehicle usage is not sustainable and is contrary to
the targets contained within Smarter Travel (2009). Updesigning also places a significant
financial burden (both capital and maintenance) on local authorities (see Figure 6).
Figure 6.: Examples of updesigning which provide little cost benefit. From left to right, large splayed junction, complex
junctions, ramps on wide carriageways, noise walls and repetitive signage.
These outcomes represent poor value for money and a simpler, more integrated approach can
achieve advantages in terms of sustainability, placemaking and traffic movement.
2.3 The Way Forward
Government policies require a shift away from conventional design solutions toward those which
prioritise sustainable modes of transport, safeguard vulnerable users and promote a sense of
place. The attraction of this approach is that it creates a new dynamic and a ‘win-win’ scenario
where:
• Street networks are simpler in structure (more legible) with higher levels of connectivity (more
permeable) thus reducing travels distances.
• Higher quality street environments attract pedestrians and cyclists, promoting the use of more
sustainable forms of transport.
• Self-regulating streets manage driver behaviour and calm traffic, promoting safer streets.
• Streets and junctions are more compact, providing better value for money.
The key to best practice street design is to promote the street as a place that appropriately
balances the level of segregation and integration that occur within it.
2.3.1 ‘Place’ as Part of the Design Equation

Designers must broaden the scope of issues that are considered throughout the design process.
Whilst the movement of traffic is still a key issue, there are several others, including the ‘sense
of place’, which are of core significance to the creation of safe and more integrated street
designs. The elements of place can be difficult to define as they often relate to the ‘feel’ of a
particular area. More tangible elements of place can be measured and relate to connectivity, the
quality of the built environment, how buildings and spaces interact with each other and the levels
of pedestrian activity that occur. These tangible or quantifiable elements of a street highlight four
interlinked characteristics that influence the sense of place within a street.
 Connectivity
The creation of vibrant and active places requires pedestrian activity. This in turn requires
walkable street networks that can be easily navigated and are well connected.
 Enclosure
A sense of enclosure spatially defines streets and creates a more intimate and supervised
environment. A sense of enclosure is achieved by orientating buildings toward the street and
placing them along its edge. The use of street trees can also enhance the feeling of enclosure.
 Active Edge
An active frontage enlivens the edge of the street creating a more interesting and engaging
environment. An active frontage is achieved with frequent entrances and openings that ensure the
street is overlooked and generate pedestrian activity as people come and go from buildings.
KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF PLACE BASED STREET DESIGN
CONNECTIVITY ENCLOSURE
ACTIVE EDGE PEDESTRIAN

FACILITIES/ACTIVITY
Figure 7: The key characteristics of the street that influence its sense of place. A safe, attractive and comfortable pedestrian
environment requires all of these elements.

2.3.2 User Priorities

To encourage more sustainable travel patterns and safer streets, designers must place pedestrians
at the top of the user hierarchy .Walking is the most sustainable form of transport. Furthermore,
all journeys begin and end on foot. By prioritizing design for pedestrians first, the number of
short journeys taken by car can be reduced and public transport made more accessible. The need
for more walkable communities is also an issue of social equity as it is the poorest and most
vulnerable in society, including children, the elderly and the disabled for whom car travel is less
of an option. Research from the UK has shown that it is these groups who are disproportionately
affected by the threat of accident, community severance and the loss of social cohesion.
Designing for cyclists must also be given a high priority. Trips by bicycle have the potential to
replace motor vehicles as an alternative means of transport for short to medium range trips (and
in some cases longer range trips). Cycling also promotes a healthy lifestyle.
The movement of buses should be prioritised over other motorised vehicles. Placing private
motor vehicles at the bottom of the user hierarchy should not be interpreted as an anti-car stance.
People will always be attracted to cars where they are a convenient and flexible option and for
many users it is currently their only viable option for medium to longer distance journeys. The
key issue is one of balance, and the needs of the car should no longer take priority over the needs
of other users or the value of place.
CONSIDER FIRST CONSIDER LAST
1. PEDESTRIANS 2. CYCLISTS 3. PUBLIC TRANSPORT 4. PRIVATE

VEHICLES
Figure 8. User hierarchy that promotes and prioritises sustainable forms of transportation
2.3.3 A Balanced Approach (Key Design Principles)

To guide a more place-based/integrated approach to road and street design, designers must have
regard to the four core principles presented below:
Design Principle 1:
To support the creation of integrated street networks which promote higher levels of
permeability and legibility for all users, and in particular more sustainable forms of transport.
Design Principle 2:
The promotion of multi-functional, placebased streets that balance the needs of all users within a
self-regulating environment.
Design Principle 3:
The quality of the street is measured by the quality of the pedestrian environment.
Design Principle 4:
Greater communication and co-operation between design professionals through the promotion of
a plan-led, multidisciplinary approach to design.

CHAPTER 3: STREET NETWORKS

Street Networks should be designed to maximize connectivity between destinations to promote
higher levels of permeability and legibility for all users, in particular more sustainable forms
of transport. This will allow people to move from place to place in a direct manner with greater
route choice.
3.1 Integrated Street Networks
Sustainable neighbourhoods are areas where an efficient use of land, high quality urban design
and effective integration in the provision of physical and social infrastructure such as public
transport, schools, amenities and other facilities combine to create places people want to live in.
Additional features of sustainable neighbourhoods include:
• Compact and energy efficient development;
• Prioritising sustainable modes of transport;
• Provision of a good range of amenities and services within easy and safe walking distance of
homes.
3.2 Movement and Place
3.2.1 Movement Function
The movement function of a street is generally described using a classification system, such as a
street hierarchy. This guide refers to street hierarchy as follows (see Figures 9-11):
• Arterial Streets
• Link Streets
• Local Streets
Designers must consider the Function of a street/street network. In general, as the movement
function increases, the street designers:
• Should optimise the movement of public transport.
• Should cater for greater numbers of pedestrians and cyclists.
• May need to cater for higher volumes of traffic.
This approach should have regard to settlement size. For example an Arterial Street through a
city may have to cater for much larger volumes of traffic than that in a village.
•Arterial Streets.
These are the major routes via which major centres/ nodes are connected. They may also include
orbital or cross metropolitan routes within cites and larger towns.
Figure 9. Arterial
Streets
 Link
streets.
These provide the
links to Arterial
streets, or between
Centres,
Neighbourhoods,
and/or Suburbs.

Figure 10. Link Streets

 Local streets.
These are the streets that provide access within communities and to Arterial and Link streets.
Figure 11. Local Streets
3.2.2 Place Context

One of the criticisms of the classification led approach is that the same sets of standards are
applied along the entire route, regardless of Context. Urban roads and streets can traverse many
areas with very different characteristics, such as industrial areas, residential areas, mixed use
neighbourhoods and city, town and village centres. This clearly requires different design
solutions within each of these different contexts.
The Ugandan urban landscape contains an array of places that have their own unique set of
characteristics. Where there are collective similarities between the characteristics of place they
can be defined as a particular Context. For the purposes of these notes, Context is classified as:
• Centre;
• Neighbourhood;
• Suburb; and
• Business Park/Industrial Estate;
In general, place status will be elevated where densities and land use intensity is greater,
resulting in higher activity levels (in particular pedestrian activity).

Designers must consider the Context of a street/street network. In general, as the place value of a
street increases:
• Greater levels of connectivity will be required as accessibility demands will be higher.
• Higher quality design solutions should be implemented that highlight and promote the
importance of place.
• Higher levels of pedestrian movement should be catered for and promoted to support vibrant
and sustainable places.
• Higher levels of integration between users will be required to calm traffic and increase ease of
movement for more vulnerable users.
CONTEXT AND THE PLACE VALUE OF STREETS

HIGHER LOWER
1. CENTRES 2. NEIGHBOURHOODS 3. SUBURBS 4. Business park/

. industrial estates
Figure 12.
1. CENTRES
Centres include areas that are the focus of economic and cultural activity. Many cities, towns and
villages are defined by the image of streets within their Centres. Place status is at its highest.
Larger City and Town centres may occupy a number of blocks whilst smaller village centres may
only occupy a single street. Pedestrian activity is high as this is where most people are travelling
to and once there, will most likely travel on foot. Pedestrian activity is highest in Centre streets
that contain a concentration of retail and commercial frontages that directly open onto the street.
2. NEIGHBOURHOODS
Neighbourhoods include new and existing areas which are intensively developed with medium to
higher density housing and/or contain a broad mix of uses. These areas generally include older
areas that represent the first stages of urban expansions and more recently developed compact
communities located towards the peripheries of cities and towns. Pedestrian activity ranges from
higher to more moderate levels. The highest levels of pedestrian activity occur along major
streets which connect destinations, where public transport services run. Such streets may also
contain dispersed retail and commercial frontages.
3. SUBURBS
Suburbs predominantly consist of existing lower density housing developed over expansive
areas. The place status of streets is harder to define within Suburbs. Many of these areas are
attractive living places (residential) which are highly valued by residents for their green qualities
and sense of tranquility. However, many areas are criticized for their ‘placelessness’, due to a
lack of connectivity and a high frequency of streets and ‘distributor roads’ that are devoid of
development. Many of these characteristics contribute to lower levels of pedestrian activity.
4. BUSINESS PARKS/ INDUSTRIAL ESTATES

Business Parks/Industrial Estates are areas that are primarily focused on (and often purpose built
for) providing areas of commercial and industrial activity outside of Centres. Streets within these
areas generally have a low place status as buildings have little street presence and they are
largely devoid of pedestrian activity. Many of these areas are in a state of transition toward more
intensive commercial and residential uses replacing older industrial ones. As this transition
occurs, the status of these places will rise. Place status in existing campus style Business Parks
also tends to be higher and pedestrians can be highly active in these areas during business hours.
3.3 Permeability and Legibility

3.3.1 Street Layouts
The movement towards more integrated and sustainable forms of development will result in a
shift away from dendritic street layouts to highly connected networks which maximize
permeability, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists. When designing new street networks
designers should implement solutions that support the development of sustainable communities.
In general, such networks should:
• be based on layouts where all streets lead to other streets, limiting the use of passages that
provide no through access.
• maximise the number of walkable/ cycleable routes between destinations.
Maximising the connections within a site will allow the street network to also evolve over time
to meet local accessibility needs. This will limit the use of passages that do not allow through
accessibility for all users. Figure 13 illustrates three network typologies that can be adapted to
the needs of place.
a) ORTHOGONAL LAYOUT b) CURVILINEAR LAYOUT c) ORGANIC LAYOUT

Figure 13. Illustrates three network typologies that can be adapted to the needs of place.
o Street networks that are orthogonal in nature are the most effective in terms of
permeability (and legibility).
o Street networks that are curvilinear may also be highly effective. These types of grids are
often found within Suburbs. More recently designers have successfully used similar
geometric patterns in higher density developments to draw people toward spaces,
highlighting Focal Points and creating attractive curvilinear streetscapes.
o Street networks that are organic have usually developed over time in a haphazard
manner, but can be highly connected. As noted in the Urban Design Manual (2009) the
more organic layout of some small villages can be very different from orthogonal grids,

but perform a similar function. Organic layouts introduce place benefits by introducing
variety and intrigue.
The creation of a permeable network is a multi-layered process. The process should begin with a
site analysis that identifies any constraints to the development of a particular network (such as
environmentally sensitive areas, topography, existing structure etc).
The process then should move into a design phase. This should outline:
• Points of access.
• The major destinations (such as Centres and nodes).
• The main strategic connections between destinations.
Illustrations of the creation of a structured and permeable grid network as a multilayered

process.
1. CONNECTION OPPORTUNITIES
The site analysis should identify the connection opportunities (1) within a site including the
major destinations (such as Centres and nodes) within it and access from the surrounding area.
Figure 14
2. MAIN STRATEGIC LINKS

The connection options form the basis for the main Strategic links (2) into and through the site.
These routes will form the principle corridors for the movement of pedestrians, cyclists, public
transport and vehicles within and through the site. They should be as direct and as continuous as
is possible within the constraints of any site.
Figure 15

3. ACCESS AND CIRCULATION

Further links and connections will be needed to allow for permeability within a network. The
creation of routes for (3) access and circulation ensure all parts of the site are accessible from a
number of different directions.
Figure 16
4. DETAILED DESIGN
As the process moves into (4) detailed design, designers will need to address further structural
issues, including block layouts, mobility levels for different users and the street hierarchy.
Figure 17
3.3.2 Block Sizes

Designers must also have regard to size of blocks within a street network and how they impact
on permeability. Smaller, more compact blocks should be focused around Centres to optimise
connectivity. Larger block sizes may occur away from Centres, through less intensively
developed areas. With regard to block dimensions:
• A block dimension of 60-80m is optimal for pedestrian movement and will sustain a variety of
building types. This range of dimensions should be considered for use within intensively
developed areas, such as Centres, to maximise accessibility.

• Larger blocks within Centres and Business Parks/Industrial Estates may be required to cater
for larger commercial or civic developments. In such cases mid-block pedestrian links should be
provided.
• A block dimension of up to 100m will enable a reasonable level of permeability for pedestrians
and may also be used in Neighbourhoods and Suburbs.
3.3.3 Retrofitting
Smarter Travel (2009) recognises that sustainable travel can be supported through retrofitting
and requires that local authorities prepare plans to retrofit areas in order to create more
sustainable neighbourhoods. The retrospective application of a permeable network to increase
connectivity levels within more segregated street patterns can be problematic. The dendritic
nature of some of these street patterns often means that connection opportunities are very
limited. Well placed links can lead to substantial benefits for the local community in terms of
reducing walking distances to essential services. Research has found that increased local
movement is also beneficial to security as it can increase levels of passive surveillance.
Before After
Figure 18. Illustrates two recently constructed pedestrian and cyclist connections made in
Dublin. Both examples significantly reduced walking times to public transport (top) and local
shops (bottom).These links formalized routes that were used by locals which previously involved
walking across unlit fields, muddy patches and/or climbing over/through fences.
There are also a number of processes and design principles that may also assist in gaining greater
community support:
• Focus on the provision of pedestrian/cyclist only links.

• Rather than seeking to retrofit a fully permeable network (i.e. maximizing all connections),
focus on key desire lines where the maximum gain can be achieved through the minimum
amount of intervention.
• Ensure any plan clearly highlights reductions in journey times, walking distances etc.
• Identify potential reductions in private vehicle use or increases in cycling and walking.
• Ensure links are short, overlooked, have clear sight lines and are well lit to mitigate anti-social
behaviour. Longer links should be limited to those which go through areas of open space.
• Implement a package of landscape improvements that will directly add to the attractiveness of
an area.
• Implement parking management plans (such as pay and display/controlled parking permits) to
mitigate any possible influx of vehicles seeking to ‘park and ride’ on neighbouring streets.
• Where possible, focus on formalising routes which are currently used by more able pedestrians
but due to barriers are not suitable for use by the mobility Impaired and disabled.
3.3.4 Wayfinding
Wayfinding, or legibility, relates to how people can find their way around an area. For
pedestrians and cyclists this is of particular importance as they are more likely to move through
an area if the route is clear. There are many tools that designers can use to provide a series of
design cues by which people can orientate themselves. For example, changes in building height
and form, materials and finishes and landscape features. From a broader perspective designers
should ensure that journeys through the network are relatively straightforward. In general:
• The more the orthogonal street layout the more legible it will be (as well as being the most
connected).
• The network should be structured to draw people towards Focal Points such as Landmarks,
Gateways and other civic buildings and spaces.
Figures19 .illustrate how legibility can be achieved with street networks by drawing people
toward key destinations or Focal Points.
To Increase effectiveness the streets around Focal Points require a more individualized design
response that highlights their high place value. These are further discussed below in relation to
their implications for street design.

a) Landmarks and civic buildings and spaces

Landmarks are features that stand out from their surrounds and are valued by the broader
community for their aesthetic and/or historic qualities. Examples include a tall or historic
building, archaeological site or landscape feature.
Civic buildings and spaces generally include local facilities such as areas of open space and
buildings of civic importance.
Areas of open space include parks, squares or plazas. Buildings of civic importance include a
wide range of places such as schools, churches, hospitals and other institutions.
Designers should highlight these Focal Points by:
• Ensuring that pedestrian facilities are adequate to cater for large number of visitors.
• Traffic is calmed using surface treatments and other elements that further highlight the
importance of the place.
Figure 20: Illustration of surface treatments which enhance the sense of place by expanding the
square into the adjacent streets and are an effective way of improving pedestrian mobility and
calming traffic.
b) Gateways
Gateways are used to demarcate a point of arrival from one place to another. They are important
placemaking tools as they form the ‘first impression’ of a place. Gateways are also an important
traffic-calming tool as they can be used to inform drivers of a change in driving conditions
ahead. Common forms of gateways in Uganda occur at the entrances to residential estates,
schools, industries and on some National roads at approaches to towns. Among the prominent
examples are the; split long drum at the Kabaka-anjagala street (Royal mile) at Mengo, Kampala;
the long horn cow statue in Mbarara e.t.c
c) Transition Zones
A Transition Zone refers to an area that may be needed for slowing vehicles when entering an
urban area from a faster moving road, such as from a rural road into a city, town or village or
from a motorway into an integrated street network. Designers should emphasise Transitions
Zones by:
• Introducing measures that provide enclosure, such as large trees.
• Applying transitional geometric measures, such as the narrowing of carriageways.
• Applying changes to carriageway surfacing materials.

The length of a Transition Zone will largely be influenced by the required reduction in speed.
Designers should also take into account how visible/prominent any subsequent Gateway is.
If a Gateway is highly visible from a distance, a Transition Zone may not be necessary as drivers
will instinctively be inclined to slow.
Figure 21. Image from Traffic in Villages (2011) showing a various number of gateway
treatments designed to enhance the character of the town and calm traffic.
3.4 Management
3.4.1 Vehicle Permeability
Integrated networks do not require the same degree of restrictions to be placed on the movement
of vehicles as is applied to more conventional/segregated networks. A network of integrated/self-
regulating streets provides the framework for higher levels of accessibility for slow modes
(including motor vehicles at slow speed) and strategic continuity for cross-network modes at
more moderate speeds (such as public transport) as;
• The slower nature of Local streets (i.e. 10-30 km/h) will result in them being less attractive to
through traffic. Although trips through Local streets may be more direct (and therefore legible),
the traffic-calmed nature of these streets may not necessarily result in significant advantages in
overall journey times.
• Through traffic will be attracted to Arterial/ Link streets where trips are more direct and are
designed to cater for more moderate speeds (i.e. up to 50km/h).
• Public transport along Arterial/Link streets can be prioritised by measures such as Quality Bus
Corridors and Bus Lanes.

There are a number of advantages to more permeable networks in regard to the management of
traffic and vehicle speeds such as:
• Drivers are more likely to maintain lower speeds over shorter distances than over longer ones.
As drivers are able to access individual properties more directly from Access/Link streets (where
speeds are more moderate) they are more likely to comply with lower speed limits on Local
streets (see Figure 3.21).
• Permeable layouts provide more frequent junctions which have a traffic-calming effect as
drivers slow and show greater levels of caution.
• Increasing access to neighbourhood cells can result in the more equitable distribution of traffic
and the impacts of congestion as it is no longer concentrated on a few select junctions or local
access streets.
• The value of place can also be improved as slower moving traffic has less impact on the
surrounding environment.
• Frequent entrances to a neighbourhood cell can reduce the size of individual junctions and
streets. This will reduce the potential for severance between communities and increase
pedestrian/ cyclist mobility as streets/junctions are more compact and easier to navigate.
Designers may be concerned that more permeable street layouts will result in a higher rate of
collisions. However, research has shown that there is no significant difference in the collision
risk attributable to more permeable street layouts in urban areas and that more frequent and less
busy junctions need not lead to higher numbers of accidents.
One-way streets have also been widely implemented, retrospectively, in order to filter vehicle
permeability and relieve traffic congestion. The use of one-way systems for traffic management
should also be approached with caution by designers as they:
• Promote faster speeds as drivers are likely to drive faster when no risk is perceived from
oncoming traffic.
• Will result in longer vehicular journeys, including those for cyclists and public transport.
• Can be confusing for users when they deflect people away from destinations.
• Require additional signage.
3.4.2 Traffic Congestion

A primary function of all transport policies has been to reduce the waste of resources caused by
congestion. National and regional transport policies and plans have recognised that it is not
feasible or sustainable to accommodate continued demand for car use. In contrast, sustainable
modes (walking, cycling and public transport) can cater for very high volumes of movement in a
far more efficient manner (see Figure 22).
SPACE REQUIRED TO TRANSPORT 60 PEOPLE WITHIN A STREET
CAR BUS Bicycle

Figure 22. Illustration of amount of space required to carry the same amount of people via
different modes of transport.
Policies and plans, therefore, promote sustainable modes of travel and acknowledge that, in the
absence of demand management, a certain level of car congestion is inevitable. One of the
outcomes of a more connected, traffic-calmed network will be reduced car dependency and
increased use of more sustainable modes of transport. This is the most balanced way of
addressing traffic congestion. Higher levels of connectivity for all users will also enable greater
vehicular permeability, albeit at slower speeds. The benefits of this approach include:
• Slower vehicle speeds are often perceived to be a cause of congestion but can lead to increased
traffic capacity.
• More frequent minor junctions with fewer vehicle movements’ calm traffic and are easier for
pedestrians and cyclists to navigate.
Within urban networks, delay and congestion overwhelmingly occur at junctions. Segregated
networks channel traffic towards fewer junctions and this can locally concentrate the negative
impacts of traffic, resulting in large junctions where bottlenecks occur. The design of junctions
has traditionally prioritised the minimisation of vehicular queuing and delay. As a result
pedestrians can face significant delays. This is also evident in the various computer programs
used to analyse junction design, which have the calculation and minimisation of vehicular
queuing and delay as their primary outputs. Designers will often seek to provide junctions that
operate below 90% capacity as measured by the ratio of flow to capacity (RFC).
3.4.3 Bus Services

Street networks underpin the efficiency and sustainability of public-transport and, consequently,
the ability to facilitate higher development densities along public transport corridors in
accordance with the objectives of Smarter Travel (2009). This includes an objective that all
houses within urban areas are located within 800m of a bus route/ stop. Permeable networks
which maximise connectivity will assist in achieving this objective. Smarter Travel (2009) also
requires the implementation of bus priority measures, such as Quality Bus Corridors and Bus
Lanes. These ensure that buses can move through congested networks with minimal delays.
Designers must have regard to the location of bus services as a strategic network issue. In
general:
• Bus services should primarily be directed along Arterial and Link streets as these will be the
most direct routes with between destinations with the greatest number of connections.
• On lower frequency routes, or in less congested networks, bus lanes that allow buses to move
towards the front of queuing traffic at junctions may suffice.
This approach may also be preferred on existing streets where the street reserve is constrained.
• The provision of public transport services on Local streets should be limited. The constrained
nature of these streets will limit the delivery of efficient services.
Conversely, designing Local streets to cater for buses would require wider streets, which will
serve to increase vehicle speeds, undermining their place function.
Designers should consult with bus operators regarding the need for dedicated lanes.
Under-used or unnecessary lanes can serve only to increase the width of carriageways
(encouraging greater vehicle speeds) and consume space that could otherwise be dedicated to

placemaking/traffic-calming measures such as planted verges, wider footpaths, cycle tracks or

lanes and on-street parking.
• QBCs or Green Routes should be provided on streets which cater for higher frequency services
over longer distances (see Figure 23).
Figure 23: QBCs and Bus lanes should be

considered on all Strategic Routes where the high frequency services occur or where their future
need has been established.
3.4.4 Relief Roads

The focus of urban street design is the creation of place-based/sustainable street networks, which
balance pedestrian and vehicle movement. However, it is recognised that there are some roads
which are required to cater for the efficient movement of larger volumes of motorised traffic at
faster speeds over longer distances. These are generally referred as Inner Relief Roads and
Urban Relief roads.
Inner Relief Roads are generally used to divert traffic within an urban area, away from a Centre
or Node. The design of these routes needs careful consideration. Chapter 2 highlights the issues
associated with the provision of higher speed/highly segregated routes though cities, towns and
villages. Authorities in many urban areas have attempted to overcome issues of severance by
vertically separating these routes into a series of tunnels, cuttings or elevated carriageways. Such
solutions, however, tend to be reserved for major national projects and can have significant
negative impacts on place .
D Dublin Port Tunnel

Durblin tunnel, Ireland Barcelona, Spain London, UK
Figure 24: Examples of major urban roads that move large volumes of traffic via vertical
segregation. These require significant investment in infrastructure. As illustrated in the middle
and last examples they can have negative impacts in terms of place and/or connectivity

It is more likely that Inner Relief Roads through urban areas will need to occur at moderate
speeds (50 km/h). The route should be integrated within the urban fabric so that a sense of place
is maintained and to prevent severance between adjoining areas. There are many examples of
streets that carry significant volumes of through traffic at moderate speeds and retain high place
value/levels of connectivity (see Figure 25).
Figure25: Dorset Street, Dublin, an example of

a street that carries large volumes of traffic and where recent improvements have ensured it
maintains an important place function.
Successful solutions tend to be designed as boulevards with well planted medians and verges that
provide a buffer between the heavily-trafficked carriageway and the surrounding pedestrian
environment. Boulevards may also be designed as a ‘multiway’ boulevard with a central
carriageway for through traffic and access carriageways at the side.
Urban Relief Roads are generally routed around urban areas and are commonly referred to as By-
Passes or Outer Ring Roads. Designers may use these routes to direct longer distance traffic, and
in particular Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs), away from cities, towns and villages provided they
are clearly separated from the urban fabric (see Figure 26).
Figure 26. Outer Relief Roads can be used to direct long

distance traffic away from cities, towns and villages
Urban development should not extend to the edge of these routes without full integration into the
surrounding street network.
This is a strategic issue that should be resolved via a County Development Plan/Local Area

Plan) and may also require close consultation with the UNRA, where the road is part of the
national road network. In the case of a motorway or national grade separated dual carriageway
the future integration of the road would not be an option.
3.4.5 Noise and Air Pollution

The primary source of widespread environmental noise in many cities is road traffic. Traffic is
also the main source of air pollutants in cities, towns and villages. Whilst air pollutants generally
have declined in recent years, those pollutants associated with traffic have not, principally
because of an increase in traffic volumes and congestion. Busy or congested roads can create
pollution ‘hot-spots’ and can have a significant negative impact on adjacent street activities.
Pollution can also seriously affect the attractiveness of walking and cycling along affected
routes.
The main factors which determine the level of road noise and air pollution are traffic volume,
speed, levels of congestion and the proportion of HGVs. Many of these issues may be
substantially addressed by directing large volumes of traffic (and in particular HGVs) away from
cities, towns and villages via Urban Relief Routes (see Section 3.4.4 Relief Roads) and by
reducing speed. The creation of a permeable street network which promotes walking, cycling and
public transport will also lead to reductions in vehicular traffic and less concentration of traffic
and consequently of noise and air pollution.
It is inevitable that some heavily-trafficked routes (such as Arterial streets) will pass through
urban areas. Whilst traffic volume and noise have a significant impact on the value of place,
there are many examples of streets that carry significant volumes of through traffic at moderate
speeds which retain a high place value. Whilst some mitigation measures can be provided
through construction materials used on carriageway surfaces and within adjoining buildings,
most integrated or place-based solutions should involve;( see figure 27)
• Apply boulevard typologies with well planted medians and verges that reduce pollution and
provide a buffer between the heavily-trafficked carriageway and the surrounding pedestrian
environment.
• Consider the use of multiple carriageways that separate through traffic from access traffic
and parking.
Access carriageway Through Carriageway Access carriageway
Parking/ verge Median Median Median Parking/ verge
Figure 27: Examples of Urban Boulevard street typologies which mitigate the impacts of noise
through place based design solutions.

At a broader level, land uses should be distributed in a manner that takes into account sensitivity
to traffic noise:
• Commercial or retail uses should be used to shield more sensitive receptors (i.e. residential
uses). Such an approach complements the principle of integrated street design as it focuses
commercial/ retail uses on Arterial and Link streets where public transport services are likely to
be located.
• Where residential uses are provided on the upper floors of buildings, aspects of the upper floors
may be orientated so that they are perpendicular (i.e. at right angles) to the roadway. This will
ensure a degree of overlooking, whilst deflecting the impacts of pollution.
CHAPTER 4.0 STREET DESIGN
4.1 Movement, Place and Speed

4.1.1 A Balanced Approach to Speed
Balancing the priorities Context and Function creates a shifting dynamic in street design. The
UK Manual for Streets (2007) illustrates this relationship as a simple graph depicting some well
known scenarios (see Figure 28). Key to the successful implementation of responsive design
solutions is the issue of speed, particularly so with regard to pedestrian and cyclist safety,
comfort and convenience (see Figure 29). Expectations of appropriate speed will vary greatly
from person to person and there is little relevant research on this subject. Intuitively one would
expect motorists’ tolerance of low-speed journeys to increase in intensively developed areas (i.e.
from the Centres, to Neighbourhoods to Suburbs) and according to journey type (i.e. from Local
to Link and to Arterial Streets.
Figure 28 Figure 29
Figure 28; Illustration from the Manual for Streets (2010) depicting the relationship between place and movement in regard to
some well know scenarios.
Figure 29: Illustration from the Road Safety Authority showing the impact of vehicle speeds on pedestrian fatalities. This is of
primary consideration when considering appropriate speeds and levels of pedestrian activity.
Designer must balance speed management, the values of place and reasonable expectations of
appropriate speed according to Context and Function. In this regard:

• Within cities, towns and villages in Uganda, a default speed limit of 50km/h is applied.
• Speed limits in excess of 50km/h should not be applied on streets where pedestrians are active
due to their impact on place and pedestrian safety.
• Lower speed limits of 30km/h are a requirement of Smarter Travel (2009) within the central
urban areas, where appropriate.
• Where pedestrians and cyclists are present in larger numbers, such as in Centres, lower speed
limits should be applied (30-40km/h).
• Where vehicle movement priorities are low, such as on Local streets, lower speed limits should
be applied (30km/h).
• Local Authorities may introduce advisory speed limits of 10-20km/where it is proposed that
vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists share the main carriageway.
Design speed is the maximum speed at which it is envisaged/intended that the majority of
vehicles will travel under normal conditions. In this regard:
• In most cases the posted or intended speed limit should be aligned with the design speed.
• In some circumstances, such as where advisory speeds limits are posted, the design speed may
be lower than the legal speed limit.
• The design speed of a road or street must not be ‘updesigned’ so that it is higher than the posted
speed limit.
F ARTERIAL 30-40 40-50 40-50 KM/H 50-60 KM/H 60-80

U KM/H KM/H KM/H
N LINK 30 KM/H 30-50 30-50 KM/H 50-60 KM/H 60-80
C KM/H KM/H
T LOCAL 10-30 10-30 10-30 KM/H 30-50 KM/H 60 KM/H
I KM/H KM/H
O CENTRE N’HOOD SUBURBAN BUSINESS/ RURAL
N INDUSTRIAL FRINGE
CONTEXT
Table 1: Design speed selection matrix indicating the links between place, movement and speed that need to be taken into
account in order to achieve effective and balanced design solutions.
Table 1. Illustrates the broader application of design speeds according to Context and Function.
Designers should refer to this table when setting speed limits and designing urban streets and
urban roads to align speed limits and design speeds.
4.1.2 Self-Regulating Streets

An appropriate design response can successfully balance the functional needs of different users,
enhance the sense of place and manage speed in a manner that does not rely on extensive
regulatory controls and physically intrusive measures for enforcement.
In short, place can be used to manage movement. Such environments are referred to as being
self-regulating. Within this self-regulating street environment the design response is closely
aligned with the design speed.
In retrofit scenarios, designers must carefully consider the characteristics of the existing street
environment prior to implementing self-regulating measures as:
• The measures contained within this method of design should not be implemented in isolation as
they may not fully address issues related to inappropriate driver behaviour on existing streets.

• Designers should carry out a detailed analysis to establish the levels of intervention and design
measures required in any given scenario. (See figure 30)
BEFORE AFTER
BEFORE AFTER
Figure 30; Examples from Youghal, Co. Cork (up) and Dorset Street, Dublin City (down) of retrofitted design responses that are
appropriate according to Context and Function. The narrow, enclosed and lightly trafficked nature of the street within Youghal is
highly suited to a shared carriageway. The heavily trafficked nature of Dorset Street makes it highly suited to a Boulevard type
configuration.
4.2 Streetscape
4.2.1 Building Height and Street Width
Sense of enclosure is generally measured as a ratio where the height of a building (measured
from front building line to front building line) is measured against the width of a street.
Consideration needs to be given as to how consistently this ratio applies along the length of the
street through the creation of a street wall. The street wall refers to how continuous the sense of
enclosure is along the street. Enclosing streets with buildings helps to define them as urban
places, creates a greater sense of intimacy and promotes them as pedestrian friendly spaces that
are overlooked. This sense of intimacy has been found to have a traffic-calming effect as drivers
become more aware of their surroundings.
Designers should seek to promote/maintain a sense of enclosure on all streets within cities, towns
and villages. In this regard.
• A strong sense of enclosure should be promoted in large Centres. The most effective way of
achieving this is with a building height to street width ratio greater than 1:2 and street wall that is
predominantly solid (allowing for intermittent gaps only).
• A good sense of enclosure can also be achieved with a building height to street width ratio of
1:3 and a street wall that is 75% solid, provided a continuous line of street trees are planted along
the street. This approach may be more desirable in smaller Centres or Neighbourhoods where
maintaining a more human scale is desirable.

1
Ratio of 1:1 - Very strong sense of enclosure (street trees optional)
2
Ratio of 1:2 - Strong sense of enclosure (supplementary street trees desirable)
Figure 31
3
Ratio of 1:3 - Moderate sense of enclosure (supplementary street trees required)
The measures illustrated in Figure 31, should not be strictly viewed as quantifiable. For example
a moderate building height to street width ratio, in addition to a moderate continuity of street
wall, does not equate to a strong sense of enclosure.
Rather they should be viewed as complementary, i.e. a strong sense of enclosure is created where
both elements are strong.
The relationship between building height and street width is also key to creating a strong urban
structure, by increasing building heights in proportion to street widths. This will also promote
greater levels of sustainability and legibility by placing more intensive development along
wider/busier streets, such as Arterial and Links streets, to support public transport routes and
highlight their importance as connecting routes, respectively (see Figure 32).
Figure 32
Figure 32: Plan illustrating how taller buildings (purple) are placed along busier routes (and around major spaces) to enclose
streets and reinforce the structure of the area.

4.2.2 Street Trees

Street trees are an integral part of street design as they contribute to the sense of enclosure, act as
a buffer to traffic noise/ pollution and enhance place. A traffic calming effect can also be
achieved, where trees are planted in continuous rows and their canopies overhang, at least in
part, the vehicular carriageway. Street trees can also be used to enhance legibility by highlighting
the importance of connecting routes and distinguishing one area from another through variations
in size and species selection.
The planting of trees should be considered as an integral part of street design. In general, the size
of the species selected should be proportionate to the width of the street reserve. For example
• Larger species, with a canopy spread greater than 6m will be best suited to wider streets, such
as Arterial and Link streets.
• Smaller species with a canopy spread of 2-6m will be best suited to narrower streets such as
Local streets.
Designers may seek to vary this approach in keeping with the characteristics of a place.
For example:
• Sparse planting may be more appropriate in a Centre, enhancing its urban qualities.
• Smaller species may be more appropriate where buildings are located in close proximity to the
street edge carriageway (i.e. to take account of overshadowing, growth restrictions).
• Larger species may be desirable within Suburbs, to enhance the greener character associated
with these places.
To be effective, trees should be planted at intervals of 14-20m. This may be extended
periodically to facilitate the installation of other street facilities, such as lighting. Designers
should also consider the impact of root growth. Tree roots may need to be contained within
individual tree pits, continuous soil planting strips or using other methods to restrict growth
under pavements/toward services.
4.2.3 Active Street Edges

Active street edges provide passive surveillance of the street environment and promote
pedestrian activity. This should be a principle aim of the design team. Increased pedestrian
activity also has a traffic-calming effect as it causes people to drive more cautiously.
Designers should seek to promote active street edges on all streets within cities, towns and
villages. The most effective way to promote pedestrian activity is to place buildings in close
proximity of the street (see Section 4.2.1 Building Height and Street Width) with a high
frequency of entrances and other openings.
In this regard (see Figure 33):
SETBACK TO THE PEDESTRIAN FOOTWAY
0-3m setback strong street presence 4-6m setback more moderate street presence
Figure 33. Measures that indicate active and animated street interfaces.

• To maximise activity in Centres the street edge should be lined with development that
promotes a high level of activity and animation such as retail, commercial or other appropriate
uses. To maximize the effectiveness of these uses, setbacks should be minimised (for example 0-
3m) and a high frequency of entrances provided (for example every 5-10 metres).
• Where larger retail/commercial floor plates are proposed at ground floor level an active street
edge may be achieved by creating multiple entrances and/or wrapping them with smaller
perimeter units that front on to the street .
• Arterial and Link streets through intensively developed Neighbourhoods may also sustain
retail/commercial activity, particularly on corner locations.
• Higher levels of privacy are desirable where residential dwellings interface with streets. This
may be provided via a small setback (for example 1-3 metres) which incorporates planted strip
that defines public and private space (see Figure 34).
Figure 34: Privacy strip to the front of residential development. The strip provides a
buffer and clearly define the private domain from the public.
• Residential development will also promote on-street activity where individual dwellings
(including ground floor apartments) are ‘own door’ accessed (see Figure 35).
Figure 35: A fine grain residential environment where all ground floor dwellings are directly accessible from the street via
‘own door’ entrances. Note, in this instance access to upper floors is provided via internal lobby areas.
• Greater flexibility in regard to setbacks may be needed in existing areas where they are defined
by an existing pattern of building lines
• The inclusion of in-curtilage parking within front gardens (i.e. to the front of the building line)
may result in large building setbacks that substantially reduce the sense of enclosure. In addition

to the above, designers should avoid a scenario where parking dominates the interface between
the building and the footway (see Section 4.4.9 On-Street Parking and Loading).
4.2.4 Signage and Line Marking

The principal source for guidance on signage and line marking is the Department of Transport
Traffic Signs Manual (TSM) (2010), which categorises signage and road marking into four main
categories:
• TSM Chapters 2 and 4: Information Signs that give directions and distances to destinations or
which provide other information that may be relevant to road users;
• TSM Chapter Section 5: Regulatory Signs that give instructions, prohibitions or restrictions
which road users must obey and indicate the existence of a Road Traffic Regulation or
implement such a Regulation, or both.
• TSM Chapter Section 6: Warning Signs are used to alert the driver to a danger or potential
danger on the road ahead.
• TSM Chapter Section 7: Road Markings are defined as markings on the surface of the road for
the control, warning, guidance or information of road users and may either be used on their own
or to supplement associated upright signage.
Regulatory Signs can be further divided into three main groups:

• Mandatory Signs are used to indicate that a road user must take a certain action. For Example
‘Stop’, ‘Yield’ or ‘Keep Left’.
• Restrictive Signs to indicate a limit must not be exceeded. For Example ‘50 km/h Speed Limit’
or ‘Weight Limit 3 tonne’.
• Prohibitory Signs to indicate something which must not be done. For Example ‘No Right Turn’
or ‘No Parking’.
The implementation of a self-regulating street environment means that the reliance on signage or
line marking to direct or instruct people is significantly reduced. As noted in the Manual for
Streets (2007)8, there may also be traffic-calming benefits of a ‘less is more’ approach to
reinforce lower design speeds.
For example, the removal of centre line markings has been found to reduce vehicle speeds and
the number of accidents. With reduced signage drivers must navigate the street environment
with full regard to their own behaviour and the behaviour of others around them. An emphasis on
the values of place also requires the visual impact of signage to be considered in order to reduce
visual clutter.
The TSM warns against over providing signage and line marking. Section 1.1.10 of the TSM
states in relation to signage in general, ‘signs should only be erected where there is a
demonstrable need, because unnecessary, incorrect or inconsistent signs detract from the
effectiveness of those that are required and tends to lead to disrespect for all signs’. There is also
a limit to how many signs/line markings drivers can absorb in a short period.
To define where designers are allowed to employ discretion, Section 1.1.12 of the TSM states
that:
• ‘Shall’ or ‘must’ indicates that a particular requirement is mandatory;
• ‘Should’ indicates a recommendation; and
• ‘May’ indicates a permissible option.

Designers should use this discretion with regard to the self-regulating characteristics of streets
and the impact of signs/line marking on the value of place when applying the TSM. In this
regard:
• Minimal signage is required on Local streets due to their low speed nature and low movement
function. The generally lightly trafficked nature of these streets means that the use of signage can
be minimised, and in some cases eliminated altogether.
• The requirements for signage on Arterial and Link streets will be higher than on Local streets.
The use of signage should be kept to the minimum requirements of the TSM, particularly where
place values are very high, such as in the Centre context.
Designers may have concerns about minimising signage on streets that carry higher volumes of
traffic, but there are many successful examples where the amount of signage provided has been
significantly reduced (see Figures 36).
Figure 36; Walworth Road, Central London, UK, before (left) and after (right). The street carries over 20,000 vehicles per day
and as part of major upgrade signage and line marking were minimised
(image source: Southwark Council).
With regard to signs and line marking more generally (see Figure 37):
BEFORE AFTER
Figure 37: Example of the improvements to a streetscape that can be achieved where signage and line marking are substantially
reduced. Note all changes have been made within the scope of the TSM.
• Signage structures should be rationalised. Individual sign poles may be better utilized and signs
should be clustered together on a single pole.

• Non-regulatory, and in particular Information Signs, signage may be embedded within street
surfaces or incorporated into other items of street furniture.
• Local authorities should undertake periodic decluttering exercises to remove unnecessary
repetitive and redundant signage.
• The size of individual signs should generally be to the minimum specification stated in the
TSM for the particular speed limit.
• The use of Warning signs should be limited as they are generally not required in built-up areas
where potential hazards are clearly legible and vehicles travel at lower to moderate speeds.
Warning signs should be installed only if an engineering assessment indicates a specific need for
improving road safety for users and it is clear that the sign will be effective.
• Designers should minimise the duplication of signage and/or road marking. Where signage and
road markings provide the same function, preference should be given to the provision of road
markings only, unless specifically required by the TSM. In general, road markings are more
legible for drivers and have less of a visual impact on the streetscape.
• The use of signage and/or road marking that duplicate existing regulations should be avoided
and may lead to confusion.
For example the use of double yellow lines around corners to reinforce the standard prohibition
on stopping within 5m of a road junction may lead to misinterpretation that loading is generally
permitted.
Designers should also note that a Regulatory sign may not be required as a ‘regulation’ or a
‘mandatory requirement’. Designers may conclude that a Regulatory sign may not be needed due
to the self-regulating nature of the street and/or in order to reduce the overall amount of signage
used.
4.2.5 Street Furniture

Street furniture serves many purposes that relate to both place and function and includes a
variety of commonly found items within a street such as public art, lighting, bollards, guardrails,
seating and cycle parking.
Whilst items such as public art may be of place value only, many other items, if well designed,
provide a place and function value (see Figure 38).
Figure 38: An example of where well placed street furniture has a functional role that also provides a major contribution to the
streetscape and value of place.

In general, the provision of street furniture must be considered as part of the overall design of
street. In this regard:
• The placement of street furniture should be considered as part of a wider strategy, such as part
of an integrated landscape plan or series of street typologies.
• Street furniture should be placed within a designated zone, such as a verge.
• The items used should be chosen from a limited palette that promotes visual cohesion.
• The number of items used should be balanced with other facilities (including signage and line
marking) to reduce clutter.
• Existing items of historic value which promote local character should be clearly identified.
Guardrails
An integrated approach to street design will substantially reduce the need for obtrusive physical
barriers such as guardrails. For example, the alignment of crossing points with desire lines will
eliminate the need for guardrails to redirect pedestrians. In this regard:
• Guardrails should not be used as a tool for directing and/or shepherding pedestrians.
• Guardrails should only by installed where there is a proven or demonstratable safety benefit,
for example where people may inadvertently step onto the carriageway (e.g. at a school
entrance).
Where the potential need for guardrails is identified (such as via a Road Safety Audit), designers
should review their design as this need may highlight inadequacies in the design (such as the
failure to take proper account of pedestrian desire lines). Designers should also consider the use
of street furniture that may guide pedestrian movement and also contributes to the sense of place
and provide amenities (see Figure 39).
Figure 39: Items such a bicycle racks, seating and/or bollards are less intrusive elements that can be used to guide pedestrians
toward crossing points and reduce illegal kerb mounting.
Authorities should remove unnecessary guardrails on existing streets. The removal of individual
sections of guardrails should be the subject of a rigorous and well documented assessment
process.

Designers may have some concerns in regard to the removal of guardrails on busy streets due to
their perception as effective ‘crash’ barriers. However, guardrails are only effective at stopping
vehicles at very low speeds and therefore may provide a false sense of security resulting in
pedestrians and vehicles both paying less attention.
Lighting
Good quality lighting promotes a safer environment by ensuring inter-visibility between users.
Poorly illuminated carriageways and cycle lanes can also make it difficult for users to identify
potential hazards. The quality of lighting will also have a major impact on perceptions of
security. If lighting levels are not sufficient, a place may not be perceived as safe, particularly for
pedestrians and cyclists. This may discourage people from walking and cycling, particularly in
the evening hours and undermine the viability of public transport.
The standards used for lighting within Uganda are generally taken from British Standard Code
of Practice for the Design of Road Lighting (BS 5489). Whilst these documents should be
referred to in regard to technical details, there are broader design considerations in regard to type
of lighting used and the position and design of lighting columns.
Lighting should be designed to ensure that both the vehicular carriageway and pedestrian/cycle
path are sufficiently illuminated. On roads and streets within urban areas white light sources
should be used, such as metal halide, white SON, Cosmopolis and LEDs. Where orange (SOX)
or softer honey (SON) coloured lights are currently used, they should be replaced with white
light as part of any upgrade (see Figure 40).
POOR (Orange SOX) BETTER (White SON) BEST (Metal Halide)

Figure 40: Examples of differing types of lighting and their effectiveness in terms of safety and placemaking.
With regard to the height of lighting columns:

• Heights should be sensitive to the scale of the adjacent built environment.
• In city, town and village streets, a lantern mounting height in excess of 8 metres is unlikely to
be required.
• On Local streets, and in areas of heritage significance, mounting heights should be no greater
than 6 metres.
• Where higher numbers of pedestrians are active, such as in Centres, consideration should be
given to supplementing the traffic route lighting installation with a lower intensity pedestrian
lighting lanterns mounted at a lower height on the same columns (see Figure 41).

Figure 41: Example of a light installation that is designed with both the pedestrian and
the vehicle in mind and also incorporates signals for a pedestrian crossing (image source: Camden Streetscape Manual).
Lighting installations should be generally located within a verge and/or within build-outs that
separate bays of on-street parking. Where no verge is available, lighting should be located at the
back of footways, to minimise any disruption to pedestrian movement provided:
• They are positioned, where possible to coincide with property party lines to avoid obstructing
entrances or windows.
• They are not located in close proximity to properties where they may compromise security.
On narrow streets or streets with narrow footways, consideration should be given to using wall-
mounted lanterns.
Lanterns should be selected and positioned so as to avoid creating obtrusive light spill on
windows, particularly in the case of upstairs residential properties. Internal or external baffle
plates can be fitted to lanterns to minimise nuisance light spill. Lights should also be positioned
away from trees, which in time may grow to envelop the lanterns or cast shadows which will
render the lighting less effective.
To reduce street clutter designers should consider combining lighting with other installations
Signage and Line Marking and as per (Figure 41). Traffic signal heads, small signs, bus stop
signs etc. can be mounted on lighting columns with a degree of co-operation and co-ordination
between the relevant authorities and service providers. CCTV columns, which need to be more
rigid than lighting columns, can also accommodate lighting and other functions.
Ancillary lighting equipment, such as electrical supply pillars, should also be located with a view
to minimising their impact on the streetscape, while not creating an obstruction or hazard to
pedestrians. Metering cabinets in particular, which may be up to 1.5 metres high, should be
located against walls, as unobtrusively as possible, while bearing in mind that they must be
accessible for maintenance and meter reading.
4.2.6 Materials and Finishes

The use of materials and finishes is one of the most defining elements of a street, particularly
where it is used to define the levels of segregation and integration within a street. The material
palette can define space, calm traffic and improve legibility, reducing the need for barriers,
signage and line marking in favour of texture and colour. Materials can be used to enhance the
value of place and produce more attractive and cost-effective streets.
When choosing surface materials, designers should:
• Use robust surfaces (such as natural stone, concrete block paving or imprinted asphalt)
extensively throughout Centres and around Focal Points to highlight the importance of place,
calm traffic and alert drivers of higher levels of pedestrian activity (see Figure 42).
Figure 42: O’Connell Street, Dublin. The high place status, intensity of activity and low design speed (30
Km/h) is highlighted by high quality and robust materials, such as granite paving.
• Use robust surfaces and/or changes in colour around Gateways and Transitional Zones to alert
drivers of changing driving conditions.
• Choose items from a limited palette to promote visual cohesion.
• Apply a hierarchical approach to the application of materials. Altering the palette according to
the street hierarchy and/or importance of place will assist in Wayfinding.
• Use of contrasting materials and textures to inform pedestrians of changes to the function of
space (i.e. to demarcate verges, footway, strips, cycle paths and driveways) and in particular to
guide the visually impaired.
The layout and colour of tactile paving used to assist the visually impaired in navigating the
pedestrian environment should ensure that a consistent logic is applied. This includes the
cumulative impact of tactiles with other material choices. For example, the use of strong red or
yellow tactile paving may not be appropriate to avoid visual clutter associated with too many
surface types or colours
Designers may have concerns in regard to the initial costs associated with using higher
specification materials and their ongoing maintenance. The use of higher quality materials has
wide economic benefits. For example, in relation to shopping streets, research in the UK has
shown that streets finished with better quality materials result in better market prices, better rents
and better retail sales. Capital costs should also be measured against savings that result from a
reduction in the need for barriers, signage, line marking and longer term costs related to
durability and maintenance.
4.2.7 Planting

Planting is generally located in areas such as medians, verges, build-outs and privacy strips.
Landscaping is traditionally used to add value to places though visual enhancement. There are
many approaches that can be taken with regard to planting, for example:
• Within Centres a greater emphasis may be placed on using ‘harder’ landscape elements that
define them as urban, allow greater freedom of movement and are able to withstand higher level
of pedestrian traffic (see Figure 43)
Figure 43 Figure 44
Figure 43: Example of an area with higher activity, the use of planted materials will be more
sparsely and selectively applied in favour of more robust and durable materials.
Figure 44: Example of a residential character, a rich palette of planted materials will enhance
green qualities.
• In Neighbourhoods and Suburbs a greater emphasis may be placed on the use of planted
materials to promote ‘softer’ landscape elements and a greener ‘living’ character (see Figure 44).
Other key considerations include the ongoing maintenance and size of street trees/planting at
maturity. Quality and maintenance should be viewed in a similar regard to the application of
materials and finishes (as per Figure 43) with a hierarchical approach that promotes the use of
higher quality planting within Centres and along streets which are the most active, such as
Arterial and Link Streets, and around Focal Points.
Designers should also consider the size of trees, shrubs and other landscape elements at full
maturity. In general designers should avoid planting that will grow to obstruct movement and
surveillance. There are exceptions to this, for example overgrown medians can help reinforce
narrower carriageways and tall shrubs may deflect sightlines reducing forward visibility.
4.2.8 Historic Contexts

Additional design considerations must be taken into account in areas of historic significance that
are highly sensitive to interventions. Historic features help reinforce an areas character/place
value and may also play a role in managing speeds (see Figure 45). The most appropriate course
of action should be to minimise any level of intervention to existing historical features.
Elements of street furniture associated with the historic use of the street should be identified and
protected, where appropriate (see Figure 46). Significant historic features may also include the

street surface itself (as per Figure 4.30) and any features set into it such as coalhole covers,
weighbridges, pavement lights, cellar doors etc.
Figure 45 Figure 46
Figure 45: The stone sett paved carriageways of Temple Bar, Dublin, are of historical significance, enhance the areas value as a
cultural corner and calm traffic by creating a sense of shared space.
Figure 46: An example of a historic water fountain in Newcastle, Co. Dublin. Such features are integral of local identity and
should be retained.
An ‘assessment of significance’ should be prepared when dealing with interventions within
historic core areas. This is seen as addressing/acknowledging essential elements of the historic
urban environment which may have architectural, historical and technical significance. For
example when dealing with an established street layout and associated materials a distinction is
drawn between three levels of significance:
1. Undisturbed areas of existing historic streets, which have the highest value and bear witness to
the skill of historic craftsman;
2. Areas where streets have been altered or reconfigured using the original design/ material;
3. Reinstated street areas re-using salvaged material from other places.
The mechanism for the protection of historic areas is based on statutory protection. If an area lies
within an Architectural Conservation Area (ACA) or forms part of the setting of a protected
structure (or a number of protected structures), development policies will be set out in the
relevant County/City Development Plan, as well as active planning control.
4.3 Pedestrian and Cyclist Environment

4.3.1 Footways, Verges and Strips
A strong sense of enclosure and active street edges contribute to a pedestrians/cyclists sense of
security and comfort by creating streets that are overlooked, animated and sheltered from
inclement weather conditions. Studies have found that providing wider and better quality
walking facilities can lead to an increase in walking. Well designed footpaths are free of
obstacles and wide enough to allow pedestrians to pass each other in comfort. For this purpose
the footpath is divided into three areas (see Figure 47):

strip footway verge
Figure 47: Illustration of the area generally thought of as the footpath. This area should be viewed and designed as three areas
of activity.
• Footway: this is the main area along which people walk.

• Verges: These provide a buffer between pedestrians and the vehicle carriageway and provide
space for street furniture and street trees as well as overflow space for pedestrian movement (see
Figure 48).
Figure 48: Example where the verge acts a designated space for
street furniture, lighting facilities and planting of trees, keeping the footway clear of obstacles.
• Strips: These spaces, provided directly to the front of a building, may be occupied by activities
generally associated with retail/commercial uses such as stalls or outdoor seating.
Footways
Minimum footway widths are based on the space needed for two wheelchairs to pass each other
(1.8m). In densely populated areas and along busier streets, additional width must be provided to
allow people to pass each other in larger groups. In this regard:
• The width of footways should increase from Suburbs (lower activity), to Neighbourhood
(moderate activity) and to Centres (higher activity) and as development densities increase.

• The width of footways should increase according to function from Local (lower activity), Link
(moderate activity), to Arterial streets (moderate to higher activity) as connectivity levels
increase.
• The footway should be maintained at a consistent width between junctions and should not be
narrowed to accommodate turning vehicles.
Figure 49. Illustrates the space needed for pedestrians to comfortably pass each other with
reference to the anticipated levels of activity within a street. These standards should be used to
formulate the minimum footway widths.
a) 1.8m b) 2.5m
c) 3.0m d) 4.0m
Figure 49: Diagram showing the amount of space needed for pedestrians to pass each other with
regard to pedestrian activity levels.
a) Minimum space for two people to pass comfortably. Areas of low pedestrian activity.
b) Desirable space for two people to pass comfortably. Areas of low to moderate pedestrian
activity.
c) Minimum space for small groups to pass comfortably. Areas of moderate to high
pedestrian activity.
d) Minimum space for larger groups to pass comfortably. Areas of high pedestrian activity.
Verges
The need and size of the verge will largely be dependent on the function of the street and the
presence of on-street parking. In general:

• On Arterial and Link streets with no on-street parking a verge of 1.5-2m should be provided as
a buffer and to facilitate the planting of large street trees and items of street furniture.
• There is no minimum requirement for verges on Local Streets, but designers may need to
provide space to prevent any encroachment of street furniture into the footway.
• Where on-street parking is provided, a verge (and change in kerb line) may be needed on
approaches to junctions to enforce the visibility splays. In such cases the width of the verge will
generally correspond to the width of car parking spaces.
• A verge should be provided where cycle tracks are located adjacent to parking spaces.
• A verge (minimum of 0.3m) should be provided in areas of perpendicular parking where
vehicles may overhang the footway (see Figure 50)
Figure 50: An example where a narrow verge is

provided to ensure that vehicle overhangs do not intrude on the footway.
Strips
Strips may be provided as a designated zone that further animates the street and, in the case of a
residential property, provide a buffer between the footway and the private residence. With regard
to areas of commercial activity:
• Where outdoor seating is provided the minimum width of a strip should be 1.2m.
• Outdoor seating may also be provided within a verge area, where the footway runs between the
shop front and seating area.
• There is no recommended maximum size of a strip, but the design team should consider the
impact of larger setbacks on the sense of enclosure of the street if a large area is proposed.
• A designated strip may also be considered within Centres on shopping streets to provide
additional space for window shopping.
4.3.2 Pedestrian Crossings

Crossings are one of the most important aspects of street design as it is at this location that most
interactions between pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles occur. Well designed and
frequently provided crossings are critical to the balancing of movement priorities. The design of
crossings, and the frequency at which they are provided, will have a significant impact on
pedestrian/ cyclist mobility and comfort and the flow of vehicular traffic.

Crossing Selection
Crossings are referred to as controlled, such as zebra or signalised crossings or uncontrolled.
Uncontrolled crossings include less formal types such as courtesy crossings and/or those
identified by a drop kerb. At junction locations the type of crossing used will generally be
determined in conjunction with the form of junction control that is used to manage traffic. More
generally, designers should be guided by pedestrian demands, safety and vehicle flows. In this
regard:
• In general, signalised crossings should be provided on busy Arterial and Link streets and/or
where cyclists are likely to cross.
• Zebra crossings provide greater pedestrian priority and may be used on Arterial and Link streets
within lower speed environments, such as Centres (see Figure 51).
Figure 51: Example of a Zebra crossing within the town centre.

Zebra crossings promote greater levels of pedestrian priority as drivers must give way to pedestrians once they have commenced
the crossing.
• Zebra crossings are also highly effective where both levels of pedestrian and vehicular activity
are more moderate and may also be used more generally, such as on Link streets in Suburban
areas.
• Courtesy crossings, which are generally defined by a change in material and/or vertical
deflection allow pedestrians to informally assert a degree of priority over drivers and are
particularly effective at promoting pedestrian priority. They may be used in lower speed
environments (and will also assist in making such environments self regulating, see Figure 52)
Figure 52: Example of an informal ‘courtesy’ crossing in Westport, Co.

Mayo. Drivers stop and wait for pedestrians to cross as a courtesy.

• Local streets, due to their lightly-trafficked/ low-speed nature, generally do not require the
provision of controlled crossings. The provision of drop kerbs will generally suffice. However
zebra crossings or courtesy crossing should be considered where pedestrian demands are higher
such as around Focal Points.
Crossing Design and Waiting Times
Smarter Travel (2009) requires that pedestrian movement at signalised crossings be given
priority by timing traffic signals to favour pedestrians instead of vehicles by reducing pedestrian
waiting times and crossing distances at junctions. To achieve this objective, designers should:
• Optimise pedestrian movement, with pedestrian cycle times of no more than 90 seconds at
traffic signals.
• Allow pedestrians to cross the street in a single, direct movement (see Figure 53).
Figure 53; Example of a wide streets with a crossing that allows pedestrians to cross in a direct manner
and in a single movement. The median acts as a refuge island for those users who cannot cross the street in
a reasonable time.
Staggered/staged crossings should not be used where pedestrians are active, such as in Centres,
Neighbourhoods and Suburbs.
Crossing Locations
The location and frequency of crossings should align with key desire lines and be provided at
regular intervals. Within larger areas this may need to be addressed via a spatial analysis and
supporting. Methods that rely on absolute figures, such as the system of warrants, should not be
used. More generally, designers should:
• Provide pedestrian crossing facilities at junctions and on each arm of the junction.
• Minimise corner radii so that crossing points are located closer to corners on pedestrian desire
lines.
• Provide regular mid block crossings in areas of higher pedestrian activity, such as Centres,
where the distance between junctions is greater than 120m.
• Locate mid-block crossings at strategic locations where pedestrians are likely to cross, such as
adjacent to bus stops and Focal Points, or to coincide with traffic-calming measures on longer
straights.
When determining the width of crossings designers should refer to Section 7.16 of the Traffic
Signs Manual (2010) which contains maximum and minimum design specifications for
pedestrian crossings. In this regard (see Figure 54):

min 4m
2-3m
Figure 54: Standard crossing widths to be used in most circumstances across the main carriageway of Access or Link streets and
across side junctions with Local streets.
• Within Centres and on Arterial streets, all crossings should generally be a minimum of 4m
wide.
• The minimum width of all other pedestrian crossings should be 2m.
• The minimum width for Toucan crossings should be 4m.
• In determining the optimal width of a pedestrian crossing, designers may refer to Figure 49 to
ensure that pedestrians are able to pass each other in comfort.
• On crossings where very high numbers of pedestrians and/or cyclists cross, a width in excess of
those above may be required, to a maximum of 10m.
4.3.3 Corner Radii

Reducing corner radii will significantly improve pedestrian and cyclist safety at junctions by
lowering the speed at which vehicles can turn corners and by increasing inter-visibility between
users. Reduced corner radii also assist in the creation of more compact junctions that also align
crossing points with desire lines and reduce crossing distances.
Corner radius is often determined by swept path analysis. Whilst swept path analysis should be
taken into account, designers need to be cautious as the analysis may over estimate the amount of
space needed and/ or the speed at which the corner is taken.
Furthermore, such analysis also tends to cater for the large vehicles which may only account for
relatively few movements.
Designers must balance the size of corner radii with user needs, pedestrian safety and the
promotion of lower operating speeds. In this regard designers must consider the frequency with
which larger vehicles are to be facilitated as ;
• In general, on junctions between Arterial and/or Link streets a maximum corner radius of 6m
should be applied. 6m will generally allow larger vehicles, such as buses and rigid body trucks,
to turn corners without crossing the centre line of the intersecting road.
• Where turning movements occur from an Arterial or Link Street into a Local street corner
radius may be reduced to 4.5m.
• Where design speeds are low and movements by larger vehicles are infrequent, such as on
Local streets, a maximum corner radius of 1-3m should be applied.
• In circumstances where there are regular turning movements by articulated vehicles, the corner
radii may be increased to 9m (i.e. such as in Industrial Estates).

Designers may have concerns regarding larger vehicles crossing the centre line of the
intersecting street or road. Such manoeuvres are acceptable when turning into/or between Local
or lightly trafficked Link streets as keeping vehicle speeds low is of higher priority. Where
designers find it difficult to apply the radii referred to above, or to further reduce corner radii
where pedestrian activity is high (such as within centres) designers may also:
• Increase the carriageway width at junctions to provide additional manoeuvrability without
signaling to drivers that the corner can be taken at greater speeds. (see Figure 55):
Figure 55: Illustration of how tighter corner radii can be applied to a

junction, with additional manoeuvrability for larger vehicles provided by widening the street entrance.
• Apply setback vehicular stop lines at signalised junctions to allow turning vehicles to cross the
centre line of the intersecting street without conflicting with oncoming movements.
• Keeping corners clear of obstacles (or removing obstacles such as guardrails) to allow
emergency vehicle overrun.
4.3.4 Pedestrianised and Shared Surfaces

Pedestrianised and shared surfaces are an effective way of promoting place and providing
pedestrians and cyclists with a more enjoyable experience, particularly in areas of historic
significance. These streets operate as linear ‘squares’ or corridors of public open space.
Pedestrianised streets fully segregate pedestrians and cyclists from motor vehicular movement
(although emergency access is possible and limited access may also be provided for service
vehicles). They are generally only appropriate in areas where higher levels of activity can be
sustained throughout the day and into the evening period, as the removal of vehicular traffic will
reduce surveillance levels. They are best suited to the Centres around areas of retail, commercial
and cultural activity (see Figure 56).
Shared surface streets and junctions are integrated spaces where pedestrians, cyclists and
vehicles share the main carriageway. This may include streets where the entire street reserve is
shared or where designated sections may provide for pedestrians and/or cyclists use only with a
shared surface carriageway along part of the street (see Figure 57). Shared surface streets may
also periodically transfer from pedestrian only spaces to shared spaces at different times of the
day.

Figure 56 Figure 57
Figure 56: Street in Waterford City Centre which changes from a Pedestrianised space to a shared surface area at different times
of the day.
Figure 57: Exhibition Road, London, an example where distinct zones that delineate pedestrian only space from shared space
have been created (image source architects).
Shared surface streets and junctions are particularly effective at calming traffic. Research has
found that shared carriageways perform well in terms of safety and there is also evidence to
suggest that well designed schemes in appropriate settings can bring benefits in terms of visual
amenity, economic performance and perceptions of personal safety.
Shared surface streets and junctions are highly desirable where:
• Movement priorities are low and there is a high place value in promoting more livable streets
(i.e. homezones), such as on Local streets within Neighbourhood and Suburbs.
• Pedestrian activities are high and vehicle movements are only required for lowerlevel access or
circulatory purposes. This includes streets within Centres where a shared surface may be
referable over full pedestrianisation to ensure sufficient activity occurs during the daytime and
the evening period.
Shared surface streets can be very intimidating for impaired users. Visually-impaired users in
particular usually rely on kerb lines to navigate streets. To assist navigation and movement
through shared spaces, designers should apply design measures such as:
• Sections of tactile paving that direct movement along the street or across spaces (see Figure
58).
• The creation of distinct zones that delineate pedestrian only space from shared space.
• Flush kerbs, drainage lines and/or sections of tactile paving to assist guide dogs and indicate
movement from a pedestrian only space to a shared carriageway.
• Verges that act as refuge zones allowing pedestrians to step on and off the carriageway to let
cars pass (see Figure 59).

Figure 58 Figure 59
Figure 58: Examples from Cork city of the use of tactile paving that assist the visually impaired by guiding movement across a
shared space.
Figure 59: Examples where a verge is provided as refuge that pedestrians can hop on and hop off as cars slowly pass.
4.3.5 Cycle Facilities

The National Cycle Manual (2011) (NCM) promotes cycling as a sustainable form of transport
and seek to rebalance design priorities to promote a safer and more comfortable environment for
cyclists. To achieve these goals, the NCM recognises the importance of slowing vehicular traffic
within cities, towns and villages, and advocates many of the measures contained within this
Manual, such as narrower vehicular carriageways and tighter corner radii.
Figure 60, from the NCM, provides an overview of the integration and segregation of cycle
traffic within the carriageway based on vehicle speeds and traffic volumes. For example:
• On lightly-trafficked/low-speed streets, designers are generally directed to create Shared Streets
where cyclists and motor vehicles share the carriageway
• On busier/moderate speed streets, designers are generally directed to apply separate cycle
lanes/cycle tracks.
Designers must also have regard to the measures when applying the NCM. For example:
• To minimise the width of vehicular carriageways from kerb to kerb, preference should be given
to the implementation of Raised Cycle Lanes or Raised Cycle Tracks over those design solutions
where cyclists and vehicles are at grade.
• Cycle facilities on most streets within Centres, Neighbourhoods and Suburbs will need to be
integrated with on-street parking.
• To reduce clutter, the use of hatching, bollards and signage associated with cycle facilities
should be minimised within areas with a higher place value such as Centres, Neighbourhoods
and Suburbs.
A similar logic may be applied in respect of the requirements for signage and line marking
within the NCM as with the application of the Traffic Signs Manual (2010) Marking.

Figure 60: Extract from the National Cycle Manual (2011) which illustrates the appropriate use of integrated
or segregated cycle facilities according to the volume and speed of traffic.
Figure 61: Extract from the National Cycle Manual illustrating how to re-establish from an Off Road Cycle Track to Cycle Lane
on approach to a junction. This design can be adapted to cater for onstreet parking by placing spaces within the green area or
verge between the vehicular carriageway and Cycle Track.

4.4 Carriageway Conditions

4.4.1 Carriageway Widths
Research from the UK has found that narrow carriageways are one of the most effective design
measures that calm traffic. The width of the vehicular carriageway is measured from kerb to kerb
or from the outside line of a Cycle Lane or from the edges of parking spaces (where the latter
facilities are provided).
Designers should minimise the width of the carriageway by incorporating only as many lanes as
needed to cater for projected vehicle flows and by reducing the size of individual lanes to meet
predominant user needs (see Figure 62). In this regard:
FIGURE 62: CARRIAGEWAY WIDTHS (note: Illustrations do not include cycle facilities)
a) b)
3m 6.5m 6.5m 3m 3.25m3.25m 3.25m 3.25m
c) d)
3.25m 6-6.5m 3.25m 6-6.5m
e) f) g)
7m 5-5.5m 4.8m

a) Carriageway widths for heavily-trafficked Arterial and Link streets in boulevard

configuration. Main carriageway suitable for moderate design speeds. Includes access
lanes with a lower design speed.
b) Standard lanes widths for multi lane carriageway for Arterial and Link streets in
boulevard configuration, including bus lanes.
c) Standard lane/carriageway widths for multi lane Arterial and Link streets, including bus
lanes. Range for low to moderate design speeds.
d) Standard carriageway widths for Arterial and Link streets. Range for low to moderate
design speeds.
e) Carriageway width for Arterial and Link streets frequently used by larger vehicles.
f) Standard carriageway width for Local streets
g) Carriageway width for Local streets with a shared surface carriageway.
• The standard lane width on Arterial and Link Streets should be 3.25m.
• Lane widths may be increased to 3.5m on Arterial and Link streets where frequent access for
larger vehicles is required, there is no median and the total carriageway width does not exceed
7m.
• Lane widths may be reduced to 3m on those Arterial and Link streets where lower design
speeds are being applied, such as in Centres and where access for larger vehicles is only
occasionally required.
• The standard carriageway width on Local streets should be between 5-5.5m (i.e. with lane
widths of 2.5-2.75m).
• Where additional space on Local streets is needed to accommodate additional manoeuvrability
for vehicles entering/ leaving perpendicular parking spaces, this should be provided within the
parking bay and not on the vehicle carriageway.
• The total carriageway width on Local streets where a shared surface is provided should not
exceed 4.8m.
On heavily-trafficked Arterial and Link streets with multiple lanes in urban areas designers
should consider the street as Boulevard with a median that is no less than 2m wide to provide
areas of pedestrian refuge and allow for the planting of large trees.
When carrying out upgrades, or traffic-calming works on existing streets, the first priority of
authorities should be to narrow existing carriageways where they exceed those standards listed
above. This will not only calm traffic, but will free up additional space within the street reserve
to widen footpaths, insert cycle lane/tracks, provide bus lanes, street trees and on-street parking
(all of which will further contribute to traffic calming).
4.4.2 Carriageway Surfaces

The material, texture and colour of the carriageway are important tools for informing drivers of
driving conditions. Research has found that the use of robust surface materials (such as block
paving) can reduce vehicle speeds by 4-7 km/h alone. The use of paving, imprinted or looser
materials is one of the clearest ways of reinforcing a low-speed environment and of signalling to
all users that the main carriageway is to be shared .The use of such surfaces also adds value to
place, particularly in historic settings. With regard of surface types:
• The use of standard materials, such as macadam/asphalt should generally be confined to streets
with moderate design speeds (i.e. 40-50km/h).

• Where lower design speeds (i.e. 30km/h or less) are desirable changes in the colour and/or
texture of the carriageway should be used, either periodically (30km/h) or for the full length of
the street (below 30km/h).
The use of robust finishes may also be used, on all streets, for the full carriageway where large
numbers of pedestrians congregate. Such treatments should be considered in Centres (i.e. along
shopping streets), in all urban areas around Focal Points and adjacent to schools, squares, parks
and other areas where vulnerable pedestrians are present (see Figure 63).
Figure 63: Example where the carriageway has been paved

adjacent to a square in a village centre to add value to place and calm traffic in an area of higher pedestrian activity.
Designers should also consider the use of at-grade material changes (up to 25mm in height) such
as at crossings, particularly on streets with more moderate speeds and where the aim is not to
require large reductions in speed but to alert drivers of a change in driving conditions ahead. (see
Figure 64).
Figure 64: Examples from Tallght, Co. Dublin of a robust surface

material (including a slight vertical deflection) designed to add value to place and increase pedestrian safety by alerting/slowing
vehicles on approach to the crossing.
4.4.3 Junction Design

Junction design is largely determined by volumes of traffic. As noted in Section 3.4.2 Traffic
Congestion, the design of junctions has traditionally prioritised motor vehicle movement.
Designers must take a more balanced approach to junction design in order to meet the objectives
of Smarter Travel (2009). In general designers should:
• Provide crossings on all arms of a junction.
• Reduce kerb radii, thereby reducing crossing distances for pedestrians and slowing turning
vehicles (see Section 4.3.3 Corner Radii).

• Omit left turn slips, which generally provide little extra effective vehicular capacity but are
highly disruptive for pedestrians and cyclists. Where demand warrants, they may be replaced
with left tuning lanes with tighter corner radii (see Figure 65).
Figure 65: Left turning slips (left) generally offer little benefit in terms of junction capacity and increase the number of crossings
pedestrians must navigate. They also allow vehicles to take corners at higher speeds, exposing pedestrians and cyclists to greater
danger. Where a large number of turning movements occur, left turning lanes (right) with tighter corner radii should be used.
• Omit staggered crossings in favour of direct/single phase crossings.

• Omit deceleration lanes. These are not required in low to moderate speed zones (i.e. up to
60km/h).
• Include pedestrian, cyclist and bus passenger delays in the optimisation of traffic signal phasing
and timings. This will almost certainly lead to a reduction in cycle times.
• Minimise waiting with pedestrian cycle times of no more than 90 seconds at signalised
junctions.
Designers should also have regard to Context and Function when selecting junction types.
Junction design will also need to be considered in conjunction with crossing types and ratio of
flow to capacities.
Traffic Signals
These can provide a wide range of capacities depending on the widths of the approaches, the
presence of bus lanes on approach, cycle times and turning traffic flows. Traffic signal junctions
can include pedestrian phases and advanced stoplines for cyclists, thus making them safer.
Traffic Signals should generally be used at all junctions between Arterial and Link streets. Where
pedestrian activity is particularly high (such as within a Centre or around a Focal Point),
designers may apply all-round pedestrian phase crossings with diagonal crossings.
Roundabouts
These have a wide range of capacities depending on the size and geometry of the roundabout, its
approaches, and turning traffic flows, but are generally lower than signalised junctions. Large
roundabouts are generally not appropriate in urban areas. They require a greater land take and are
difficult for pedestrians and cyclists to navigate, particularly where controlled crossings/cycle
facilities are not provided, and as such, vehicles have continuous right of way.
The use of large roundabouts (i.e. those with radii greater than 7.5m) should be restricted to areas
with lower levels of pedestrian activity. Where large roundabouts currently exist, road authorities
are encouraged, as part of any major upgrade works, to replace them with signalised junctions or
retrofit them so that are more compact and/or pedestrian and cycle friendly, as is appropriate.

The use of more compact roundabouts (i.e. those with a radii of 7.5m or less) may address many
of the issues highlighted above and may also be useful as a traffic-calming measure. These may
be considered where vehicle flows are not sufficient to warrant full signalisation, such as on
Links, and pedestrian activity is more moderate, such as in Suburbs and Neighbourhoods,
provided they are appropriately fitted with the appropriate pedestrian crossings.
Designers may also consider the use of shared space/informal roundabouts within low speed
environments, such as Centres. These junctions incorporate the design characteristics of a shared
space junction (i.e. no kerbs, paved surfaces etc) with circular features placed at the centre and
edges. Examples of roundabout type features (sometimes referred to as ‘roundels’) have been
successfully implemented in the UK on heavily trafficked junctions with the effect of enhancing
place, calming traffic and increasing cyclist/pedestrian mobility (see Figure 66).
Figure 66: Examples from Ashford, UK (top) and Poynton, UK (bottom). The placement of a circular features with the shared
space/ traffic calmed environment creates an informal roundabout with fewer restrictions pedestrian/ cyclist movement when
compared to more conventional types (image sources: Hamilton- Baillie Associates and Ashford Borough Council).
4.4.4 Forward Visibility

Forward Visibility, also referred to as Forward Sight Distance (FSD), is the distance along the
street ahead which a driver of a vehicle can see. The results of research carried out by Transport
Research Laboratory UK (TRL) for the UK Manual for Streets (2007) found that reducing
forward visibility is one of the most effective measures used to increase driver caution and to
reduce speeds. The minimum level of forward visibility required along a street for a driver to
stop safely, should an object enter its path, is based on the Stopping Sight Distances (SSD). The
SSD has 3 constituent parts:
• Perception Distance: The distance travelled before the driver perceives a hazard.
• Reaction Distance: The distance travelled following the perception of a hazard until the driver
applies the brakes.
• Braking Distance: The distance travelled until the vehicle decelerates to a halt.
The perception and reaction distances are generally taken as a single parameter based on a
combined perception and reaction time.
The formula for the calculation of SSD is:
SSD = vt + v2/2d

Where:
v = vehicle speed (m/s)
t = driver perception-reaction time (s)
d = deceleration rate (m/s2)
SSDs have generally been applied according to those contained within the NRA DMRB TD 9
which were derived from the UK DMRB Manual of the same name using a perception reaction
time of 2 seconds, and a deceleration rate of 2.45 m/s2. TRL found these SSD values to be overly
conservative as they underestimated driver reaction times, deceleration rates and did not take into
account actual road design details.
Based on this research, a driver perception reaction time of 1.5 seconds, and a deceleration rate
of 4.41 m/s2, should be applied with design speeds of 60 km/h and below. For larger vehicles
such as HGVs and buses, a deceleration rate of 3.68 m/s2 should be applied.
A revised set of reduced SSDs, based on the parameters included in the UK Manual for Streets
(2007), are presented in the table 1 below.
SSD STANDARDS
Design Speed SSD Standard Design Speed SSD Standard

(km/h) (metres) (km/h) (metres)
10 7 10 8
20 14 20 15
30 23 30 24
40 33 40 36
50 45 50 49
60 59 60 65
Forward Visibility Forward Visibility on Bus Routes
Table 1: Reduced SSD standards for application within cities towns and villages. Reduced forward visibility increases driver
caution and reduces vehicle speeds.
The reduced SSDs should be applied according to the design speed of a street at junctions and
along the alignment of a street.
4.4.5 Visibility Splays

Visibility splays are included at junctions to provide sight lines along the intersected street to
ensure that drivers have sufficient reaction time should a vehicle enter their path. Visibility
splays are applied to priority junctions where drivers must use their own judgement as to when it
is safe to enter the junction. Junction visibility splays are composed of two elements;
The X distance and the Y distance.
• The X distance is the distance along the minor arm from which visibility is measured. It is
normally measured from the continuation of the line of the nearside edge of the major arm,
including all hard strips or shoulders.
• The Y distance is the distance a driver exiting from the minor road can see to the left and right
along the major arm. It is normally measured from the nearside kerb or edge of roadway where
no kerb is provided.

The procedure for checking visibility splays at junctions is illustrated in Figure 67. An additional
check is made by drawing an additional sight line tangential to the kerb, or edge of roadway, to
ensure that an approaching vehicle is visible over the entire Y distance.
Figure 67: Forward visibility splays refer to an X and Y value. The X value allows drivers to observe traffic on the intersected
arm. The Y value allows the driver of a vehicle to stop safely should an object enter its path, and is based on the SSD value.
Longer X distances allow drivers more time to observe traffic on the intersected arm and to
identify gaps more readily, possibly before the vehicle comes to a stop, thus allowing increased
vehicle speeds through junctions. Furthermore, a longer X distance may encourage more than
one vehicle on the minor arm to accept the same gap even where it is not ideal that they do so.
Neither circumstance is desirable in urban areas. The attention of a driver should not solely be
focused on approaching vehicles and the acceptance of gaps. The pedestrian/ vulnerable road
users should be higher in the movement hierarchy.
For this reason, priority junctions in urban areas should be designed as Stop junctions, and a
maximum X distance of 2.4 metres should be used. In difficult circumstances this may be
reduced to 2.0 metres where vehicle speeds are slow and flows on the minor arm are low.
However, the use of a 2.0 metre X distance may result in some vehicles slightly protruding
beyond the major carriageway edge, and may result in drivers tending to nose out cautiously into
traffic. Care should be taken to ensure that cyclists and drivers can observe this overhang from a
reasonable distance and manoeuvre to avoid it without undue difficulty.
The Y distance along the visibility splay should correspond to the SSD for the design speed of
the major arm, taken from Table 1 while also making adjustments for those streets which are
frequented by larger vehicles. For example, within Industrial Estates and/or on Arterial and
Link streets with higher frequency bus routes.
In general, junction visibility splays should be kept clear of obstructions, however, objects that
would not be large enough to wholly obscure a vehicle, pedestrian or cyclist may be acceptable
providing their impact on the overall visibility envelope is not significant.
Slim objects such as signs, public lighting columns and street trees may be provided, but
designers should be aware of their cumulative impact.
• Street furniture, such as seats and bicycle stands may also be acceptable, subject to being
sufficiently spaced.
• Splays should generally be kept free of on-street parking, but flexibility can be shown on lower
speed streets with regard to minor encroachments.
• Pedestrian guardrails can cause severe obstruction of visibility envelopes, and the use of
guardrails should be avoided.
Designers should also check the visibility envelop in the vertical plane on approach to junctions
Designers may have concerns about reducing visibility splays at junctions that carry higher
volumes of traffic at more moderate speeds.
This issue was addressed further in respect of research carried for the UK Manual for Streets 2
(2010).This included ‘busy radial roads’, many of which included bus routes within a variety of
20, 30 and 40 mph environments. The research concluded that there is no evidence that reduced
SSDs are directly associated with increased collision risk, as shown on a variety of street types at
a variety of speeds.
The Manual for Streets 2 (2010) also refers to research where it was found that higher cycle
collision rates occurred at T-Junctions with greater visibility. The research concluded that this
was because drivers were less cautious where greater visibility was provided.
4.4.6 Alignment and Curvature

Changes in the alignment of roads and streets are generally referred to in the horizontal and
vertical sense. When these changes occur, the FSD, is reduced and, as noted above, this is one of
the most effective measures used to increase driver caution and calm traffic.
Horizontal Alignment
The horizontal alignment of a street consists of straight sections and curves. Whilst changes to
the horizontal alignment calms traffic, this needs to be balanced with safety concerns. To prevent
abrupt changes in direction minimum FSD required along a street should correspond to the
minimum SSD appropriate to the design speed. FSD is checked at horizontal curves by
measuring between points on the curve along the centreline of the inner lane (see Figure 68).
Envelope of
visibilty
Stopping sight distance
Figure 68.
Frequent changes to the horizontal alignment should also be balanced with permeability and
legibility. Overuse of changes in the direction of streets may disorientate pedestrians and
increase walking distances between destinations. In this regard:

• Designers should avoid major changes in the alignment of Arterial and Link streets as these
routes will generally need to be directional in order to efficiently link destinations.
• Major changes in horizontal alignment of Arterial and Link streets should be restricted to where
required in response to the topography or constraints of a site.
• There is greater scope to use changes in horizontal alignment on Local streets to promote lower
speeds and a more intimate sense of place.
• Designers should not rely on curvature alone to reduce vehicle speeds. Changes in horizontal
alignment should be combined with contextual measures that reduce forward visibility, such as
building lines and on-street parking.
Horizontal Curvature
At a horizontal curve, the centrifugal force a vehicle travelling around that curve is generally
counteracted by a combination of 2 factors:
1. friction between the tyres and the road surface, and
2. Superelevation of the carriageway, where the carriageway is constructed such that the
outside carriageway edge is higher than the inside carriageway edge.
Traditionally, the design approach has been to combine these factors to ensure that a vehicle can
travel around a bend without reducing speed or without causing significant discomfort to the
occupants of the vehicle. Where a horizontal alignment along a street requires changes in
direction, the curves between straight sections should have radii in accordance with Table 2.
Crossfall
Designers should also consider superelevation where one side of the road is designed to be
higher than the other in order to resist the centrifugal effect of turning a corner. As the aim of
superelevation is to assist drivers to maintain higher speeds around curves, its use is
inappropriate where the design is intended to achieve a moderate or low speed environment. As
also noted in the Manual for Streets 2 (2010), superelevation is also difficult to implement in
urban areas with frequent junctions and points of access. However a crossfall of 2.5% is
generally provided on carriageways to assist in drainage, which would tend to result in adverse
camber at horizontal curves.
Consequently, in order to assist in achieving lower vehicle speeds through a more restrictive
horizontal alignment, there is a need to provide sharper horizontal curves that do not have the
benefit of high levels of superelevation to counteract the centrifugal force. Designers should refer
to Table 4.3 for minimum radius with adverse camber of 2.5%.
Where the introduction of radii less than those for minimum radius with adverse camber of 2.5%
is unavoidable, a reasonable level of superelevation may be introduced to eliminate adverse
camber and introduce a favourable crossfall. Minimum curve radii for a superelevation rate of
2.5% are also presented in Table 2, and may be used in such circumstances.
HORIZONTAL CURVATURE
Design Speed (km/h) 10 20 30 40 50 60

Minimum Radius with - 11 26 56 104 178

adverse camber of
2.5%
Minimum Radius with - - - 46 82 186
superelevation of 2.5
%
VERTICAL CURVATURE
Design Speed (km/h) 10 20 30 40 50 60
Crest Curve K Value N/A N/A N/A 2.6 4.7 8.2
Sag Curve K Value N/A N/A 2.3 4.1 6.4 9.2
Table 2: Carriageway geometry parameters for horizontal and vertical curvature.
Vertical Curvature
Where changes in gradient are required along an alignment, vertical curves are introduced, such
that the appropriate SSDs are achieved, and an adequate level of driver comfort is provided.
Ordinarily in urban areas where it can be expected that vehicle speeds will reduce in response to
changes in alignment, it will be sufficient to design vertical curves such that the minimum SSD
is provided.
Vertical curves can take the form of Crest or Sag curves, the length of a vertical curve, L, is the
critical design parameter, and is determined by multiplying the K Values set out in Table 2 by
the algebraic change of gradient expressed as a percentage, that is:
L = Ka
Where:
K = The constant of curvature
a = The algebraic change in gradient.
Vertical Crest Curve Design

At crest curves visibility can be obstructed by the road surface itself. Crest curve, accordingly,
should be designed such that the curvature is sufficient to maintain an adequate FSD and SSD for
a driver. In urban areas, where vehicle speeds are low and gradients are generally modest, the
design of vertical crest curves can be simplified as follows:
• For very low design speeds (i.e. less than 40 km/h), and where the algebraic difference in
gradient between straight sections is less than 12%, it will generally not be necessary to
specifically design a vertical crest curve; however the carriageway should be shaped to avoid an
abrupt change in vertical alignment.
• For design speeds of 40 km/h and above, and again where the algebraic difference in gradient is
modest, up to a maximum of 12 %, it will normally be sufficient to provide a vertical curve with
a length determined using the K-values presented in Table 2.
In exceptional circumstances where the algebraic difference in gradient exceeds these limits, it
will be necessary for the designer to determine a crest curve length suitable for the circumstances
from first principles.
When designing vertical sag curves, there are three potential design parameters that need to be
considered:
• Driver Comfort.
• Clearance from Structures.
• Night-time Conditions.

In urban areas, the obstruction of visibility due to structures (overbridges, gantries etc.) is likely
to be an uncommon occurrence, and night time visibility only becomes an issue on unlit roads.
Therefore the sag curve K values presented in Table 2 are based on the driver comfort parameter,
and have been derived using a comfort criterion of 0.3m/s2 maximum vertical acceleration.
Maximum and Minimum Gradients

In urban areas, it is likely that the comfort of vulnerable road users will be the determining factor
for desirable maximum longitudinal gradients on streets. Part M of the building regulations
advises that access routes with a gradient of 1:20 or less are preferred. Therefore a maximum
gradient of 5% is desirable on streets where pedestrians are active.
In hilly terrain, steeper gradients may be required but regard must be had to the maximum
gradient that most wheelchair users can negotiate of 8.3%, although this should be limited to
shorter distances. A designer may need to consider mitigation measures, such as intermediate
landings, to ensure that pedestrian routes are accessible. This also needs to be considered at the
network level and as a response to place making.
The inclusion of streets that exceed these gradients may not be significant within a network
where there are alternative routes that can be taken between destinations and where steeper
gradients may in fact have placemaking benefits.
A minimum longitudinal gradient of 0.5% is desirable to maintain effective drainage on streets.

Care needs to be taken at vertical curves, and in particular at sag curves, to ensure that there is
provision at level points of curves to allow surface water to run off the carriageway.
4.4.7 Horizontal and Vertical Deflections

Horizontal or vertical deflections are changes that occur within the alignment of the carriageway
to slow vehicles by requiring drivers to slow and navigate obstacles.
Deflections include chicanes (horizontal) or ramps (vertical). The use of such physically
intrusive measures is not necessary within a self-regulating street environment. Less aggressive
features, such as junction offsets (see Figure 69), raised tables and changes to kerb lines, can be
used strategically as supplementary measures which calm traffic and assist pedestrian movement
by allowing them to cross at grade.
Raised tables, or platforms, may be placed strategically throughout a network to promote lower
design speeds, slow turning vehicles at junctions and enable pedestrians to cross the street at
grade. Key locations where these should be considered include:
• On longer straights where there is more than 70m between junctions.
• At equal priority junctions.
• At entrance treatments where Local streets meet Arterial and Link streets (see Figure 70).
• Outside Focal Points and areas of civic importance (such as schools).
• At pedestrian crossings.
• To reinforce a change between design speeds (such as at entrance treatments).
As raised tables are primarily designed to reinforce lower speed environments, their use should
generally be limited to Local streets and/or the Centres. The use of raised tables more broadly
across Arterial and Link streets (excluding those within Centres) should be limited to sections

where speeds are to be lowered for a particular purpose (i.e. adjacent to Focal Points and/or key
pedestrian crossings).
Figure 69 figure 70
Figure 69. Illustration of how off-setting junctions can create a change in alignment (without reducing permeability or legibility)
and reduce forward visibility.
Figure 70: Example where the carriageway has been raised and paved to slow turning vehicles and enhance the pedestrian
crossing.
The principal aim of the designer should be to slow vehicles without causing undue discomfort.
In this regard:
• An entry slope of 1:20 will allow most vehicles to cross at moderate speeds
• An entry slope of 1:15 is more appropriate for lower speeds.
• The minimum length of level section of the table should be 2m (to allow pedestrians to cross).
• The height of a raised table should generally correspond with that of the adjoining kerb. Where
buses operate the maximum height should be 75mm to reduce passenger discomfort.
Figure 71: An example of how the path and speed of a vehicle is altered within a low speed environment through the use of
vertical and horizontal deflections (and material changes).
Horizontal deflections are particularly effective when considered at the network level and used in
combination with restrictions in forward visibility. When deployed throughout a network on

Local streets they can also be used to discourage through traffic. Deflections can be created by
varying the kerb line/street alignment causing the carriageway to broaden and narrow and/or
creating a series of directional adjustments. Car parking may also be used to similar effect.
Other methods that may be considered at the network level include off-setting junctions to create
a 3 Way Off Set.
Singular treatments include pinch-points that narrow the width of the carriageway over a short
section of the street. These can be used in combination with raised tables at key locations on
Local streets and/or within the Centres (see Figure 71). To be visually effective a pinch point
should seek to reduce the width of the carriageway by a minimum of 0.5m for a minimum length
of 6m.
4.4.8 Kerbs
Kerbs traditionally provided a street drainage function but have more recently come to define the
pedestrian domain from the vehicular carriageway. In so doing kerbs are key to establishing the
level of segregation or integration which is to occur within a street. Lower kerbs or lack thereof,
can therefore create a greater sense of shared space and can be used to calm traffic. Lower kerb
heights are also easier for pedestrians to negotiate, particularly for the mobility impaired.
With regard to the height of kerbs:
• The standard height for kerbs is 125mm and this provides a clear definition of a segregated
street environment. These should be used on all streets where design speeds and pedestrian
activity are more moderate, such as on Arterial and Link streets.
• Lower kerbs of 50-75mm or less are more appropriate in areas of higher pedestrian activity and
where lower design speeds are applied, such as on all streets within Centres, around Focal Points
and on Local streets .
• Where a shared surface is proposed a kerb should not be used. Designers may consider
embedding a kerb line or drainage channel (see Figure 72) into the carriageway to indicate an
area of pedestrian refuge. This is particularly important for visually-impaired users who feel less
comfortable on shared surfaces and also require a kerb line for navigation.
Figure 72: Example of a drainage channel on

Exhibition Road, London. The kerb line indicates an area of pedestrian refuge and is used to guide the visually impaired.
Changes to kerb lines can also be used to slow drivers at critical points by changing the
alignment of the carriageway to create pinchpoints, build-outs and horizontal deflections.
Build-outs should be used on approaches to junctions and pedestrian crossings in order to tighten
corner radii, reinforce visibility splays and reduce crossing distances.

4.4.9 On-Street Parking and Loading

One of the principal objectives of Urban street design is to promote the use of more sustainable
forms of transport. Whilst a place-based approach to street design will reduce car dependency, as
noted in the Urban Design Manual, people may wish to own and park a car, even if it is not used
on a regular basis.
On-street parking and loading refers to spaces that are directly adjacent to and accessible from
the main vehicular carriageway. On-street parking, when well designed can:
• Calm traffic by increasing driver caution, visually narrow the carriageway and reduce forward
visibility.
• Add to the vitality of communities by supporting retail/commercial activities that front on to
streets through the generation of pedestrian activity as people come and go from their vehicles.
• Contribute to pedestrian/cyclist comfort by providing a buffer between the vehicular
carriageway and foot/cycle path.
• Reduce the need or temptation for drivers to kerb mount and block foot/cycle paths.
• Provide good levels of passive security as spaces are overlooked by buildings.
The quantity of on-street parking that is needed in a given area depends on a number of factors,
but is most closely related to proximity to Centres, the availability of public transport and the
density, type and intensity of land use. Notwithstanding these factors, on-street parking has a
finite capacity, depending on the per unit parking requirements. For example in residential areas:
• On-street parking alone can generally cater for densities up to 35-40 dwellings per ha (net).
• Once densities reach 40-50 dwellings per ha (net) the street will become saturated with parking
and reduced parking rates (a max of 1.5 per dwelling) and/or supplementary off-street parking
will be required.
• For densities over 50 dwelling per hectare, large areas of off-street parking, such as basements,
will generally be required.
Getting the balance right presents a challenge to designers. If parking is over provided it will
conflict with sustainability objectives and can be visually dominant. Conversely, if parking does
not cater for user needs or is under provided it may encourage poor parking practices (including
illegal ones) such as kerb mounting, parking on footpaths and within areas of open space.
Whilst off-street parking may form part of a design response, the first priority of a designer
should be to locate parking on-street as follows:
• On Arterial and Link streets on-street parking spaces should be provided in a series of bays that
are parallel to the vehicular carriageway.
• Perpendicular or angled spaces may be provided in lower speed environments such as Local
streets. They may be applied more generally in Centres to cater for increased demands around
shopping areas.
• On-street parking on public streets should not be allocated to individual dwellings. This allows
for a more efficient turnover of spaces and, as such, fewer spaces are needed overall.
• Loading facilities should preferably, be provided off street. However, this is not always
possible or desirable within older centres and/or where it would lead to an excessive number of
access points to driveways.
There are a number of measures that should be used by designers to ensure that parking and
loading areas are well designed (see Figures 73):
1-2m

2m
4.8-5m
5.5m
2.4m
2m
1-2m
Figure 73: Extract from the Newcastle LAP (South Dublin County Council) illustrating the layout of a Local Street with a
uniform mix of parallel and perpendicular parking.
• To reduce the visual impact of parking the number of parking spaces per bay should generally
be limited to three parallel spaces (including loading areas) and six perpendicular spaces.
• Perpendicular parking should generally be restricted to one side of the street to encourage a
greater sense of enclosure and ensure that parking does not dominate the streetscape.
• To reinforce narrower carriageways (particularly when spaces are empty) each parking/loading
bay should be finished so that it is clearly distinguishable from the main carriageway.
• Kerb build-outs, or similar treatment, should be provided to separate each bank of
parking/loading. These will enable space for the planting of street trees and other street facilities
(such as lighting or bikeracks).
• Kerb build-outs should also be provided on the approach to junctions to facilitate visibility
splays, reduce corner radii and ensure a clear line of sight between vehicles and pedestrian
crossings.
• Where on-street parking is provided adjacent to cycle paths/lanes a verge should be provided to
allow additional space for opening doors.
Parking may be added to existing streets where the carriageway is excessively wide as a means
of narrowing it. However, as noted in Section 4.4.1 Carriageway Widths, the first priority of
designers should be to improve facilities for pedestrian and cyclists, prior to the addition of on-
street parking.
A range of less formal or alternative parking arrangements may be used where design speeds are
lower, particularly on Local streets and within Centres. A diverse range of parking types may be
provided to create more intimate spaces, reduce the amount of line marking/constructed elements
and/or reinforce the low speed environment. Such measures may include the following:
• Horizontal deflections may be produced by switching the location of parking bays from one
side of the street to the other, or from the side of the street to the centre.
• Parking bays may be less formally defined for example; the presence of the street tree
embedded into the carriageway will also indicate where to park (see Figure 74).

Figure 74. Example where a variety of in-curtilage and on-street

parking is provided. On-street parking is provided semi informally (indicated by the planting of trees).
• On-street and in-curtilage spaces may be integrated to reduce the overall amount of parking that
is on-street and create a ‘mews’ like environment.
• Placing parking within the central area of a street to provide a greater level of surveillance.
• Loading areas may be provided at grade with footpath areas (i.e. within a verge), so that when
not in use they revert back to pedestrian use(see Figure 75).
.
Figure 75. Example from Walworth Road, London, UK, where a loading bay, provided within a verge, can revert to pedestrian
space when not used.
In areas of high demand, parking may be provided within the central areas of street as well as the
edge of the carriageway to create an on-street parking courtyard. Such spaces should be limited
in size, well planted and landscaped to ensure that the courtyard is not overly dominated by
parked vehicles.
With regard to the design of individual parking/loading spaces:
• The standard width of a space should be 2.4m.
• The standard length of a space should be 6m (parallel spaces).
• The standard depth of a perpendicular space should be 4.8m (not including a minimum 0.3m
overhang.
• The depth of angular parking should be 4.2m for 60o angle parking and 3.6m for 45o angle
parking.

• The dimensions of a loading bay should be 2.8 x 6m to cater for large vans. Facilities for larger
vehicles, such as trucks, should be located off-street.
There are additional design considerations associated with perpendicular or angled spaces to
ensure that they do not result in excessively wide vehicular carriageways.
Perpendicular spaces generally require a minimum carriageway width of 6m, which is generally
too wide for Local streets. Where additional space is needed, manoeuvrability should be
provided within the parking bay itself and kerb build-outs should extend forward of each bank of
parking to narrow the carriageway. Alternatively, additional manoeuvrability can be provided by
designing wider spaces. For example, if the width of parking spaces is 2.6m, the carriageway
may be reduced to 5m
CHAPTER 5: IMPLEMENTATION
The interlinked nature of street design requires designers to take a strategic plan-led approach
that embraces a range of skills and perspectives from design professionals and the broader
community.
The implementation of integrated design solutions to urban road and street design requires a
strategic approach where design professionals, elected members and the broader community
work collaboratively. Such integrated solutions should be supported by :
• A plan-led approach to design for development of all sizes, and inclusive of those undertaken
by the public or private sectors.
• Greater collaboration from a variety of design professions and more in-depth consultation
with/between road authorities and the broader community.
5.2 A Plan-Led Approach

5.2.1 Policy and Plans
Spatial plans are a key element in the implementation of more integrated street design. They
should include information on how the principles, approaches and standards within this Manual
can be applied to promote sustainable cities, towns and villages.
The hierarchy of spatial plans is as follows;
1. Development Plans
2. Local Area Plans
3. Masterplans*
4. Movement Frameworks*
5. Public Realm Strategies*
(* denotes non-statutory plans)
1. County Development Plans
The promotion of sustainable settlement and transportation strategies in urban and rural areas as
part of development plan shall be informed by the principles in the design manuals.
2. Local Area Plans
Local Area Plans (LAP) shall be underpinned by an assessment of transportation and mobility in
the relevant area. With regard to street design these may take the form of cross sections and
typologies and/or may include detailed illustrations relating to a particular place (see Figure 76)

Figure 76: Extracts from the Kilfi nane LAP (2012) illustrating a number of streetscape improvements that better define the
street as a place.
3. Masterplans
Masterplans, like LAPs, are used to provide a more detailed framework for areas where
significant change or development is anticipated. Masterplans may also act as a companion guide
or subset of an LAP. Such Masterplans are often referred to as an Urban Design Frameworks.
Masterplans may contain a greater level of detail than LAPs and may also include more
comprehensive guidance on the design of individual streets. For example, whilst street typologies
may be provided in an LAP document, they are a significant component of a Masterplan.
4. Movement Frameworks
Movement Frameworks are a form of Masterplan that are primarily concerned with issues
relating to the mobility and management of users within a street/road network. A Movement
Framework may focus on the broader structural/strategic aspects of movement as well as more
detailed considerations. A comprehensive Movement Framework may also include a traffic
management strategy that models the movement of traffic within a network.
Although a Movement Framework is primarily focused on the functionality of a street/road
network, such plans should also take into account the interrelationship between movement and
place.
5. Public Realm Strategies
Public Realm Strategies may address broader strategic issues similar to an LAP or Masterplan,
but they are more closely associated with detailed design outcomes. In some cases Public Realm
Strategies may include detailed material palettes and construction specifications. Examples of
public realm strategies have been prepared by various local authorities.

To ensure that street layout plans communicate a complete picture of the design, it is
recommended that the following information be presented, as appropriate (see Figure 77):
• The width of streets, footways, verges, medians and privacy strips.
• The location, type and configuration of crossings and junctions.
• Corner radii (including swept paths).
• On-street parking.
• Horizontal and vertical alignment data.
• Horizontal and vertical deflections.
• Forward visibility splays.
• Kerb lines (including heights).
• Surface Materials and Planting.
• Street furniture and facilities.
• Signage and Line Marking.
• Lighting.
FIGURE 77: EXAMPLES OF DETAILED DRAWINGS
Street Design Layout Plan illustrating street types and fundamental elements of the street geometry.
Drawing by WSP based on design by Henry J Lyons Architects.

Landscape Plan illustrating surface materials and planting materials. Drawing by Gross Max landscape
architects based on design by Henry J Lyons Architects.
5.3 Multidisciplinary Design Processes.

5.3.1 Design Team
The design team should include a broad range of professionals with varying levels of technical
expertise in streets/road design (see Figure 78). The final make-up of a design team will depend
on the resources available and the scale of the project. Design input should ideally be sought
from a range of skill sets to ensure that a holistic design approach is implemented. As the scope
of projects broaden, or in response to particular issues, design input may also be needed from
more specialised skill sets. For example, if designing within a historic context, input should be
sought from a conservation expert.
The first stages of a process should be to undertake an analysis and establish the objectives for
the project so that the design team has a clear understating of the task ahead.
Collecting information for a site analysis will generally consist of two parts:
• A desktop study where all relevant plans, policies and previously collected information about a
project is collated and reviewed.
• An on-site study where observations are made and data is collected.
Key information for the process includes:
• Plans and policies (relevant national, regional and local plans).
• Spatial characteristics (such as land uses, destinations, densities, activity generators).
• Movement patterns (such as user mobility, key desire lines, obstructions, public transport).
• Built form (enclosure, interface, street geometry).
• Traffic Survey (such as traffic counts, car parking).
• Topography and landscape (such as slopes, planting and ecology).
• Heritage and conservation (where appropriate).

Figure 78: Extract from Local Transport Note 1/08 showing how a
range of technical skills contribute to the design process.
5.4 Auditing
5.4.1 Road Safety Audits
The primary purpose of a RSA is to identify potential hazards and how they could affect road
users using the following criteria:
• Does the design layout create confusion or ambiguity for road users that could lead to potential
road traffic accidents?
• Is there too much, or too little information for road users?
• Is there too little, or too much visibility, or an obstruction to road users’ view?
• Does the layout create hazards or obstacles to road users that could contribute to an increased
risk of injuries?
If the answer is ‘yes’ to any of these questions, then it is deemed that the safety of the scheme
could be compromised and remedial measures may be required to remove a potential or actual
deficiency.
5.4.2 Quality Audits

A Quality Audit should be undertaken to demonstrate that appropriate consideration has been
given to all of the relevant aspects of the design. The UK Department for Transport notes the key
benefits of a Quality Audit as:
• A transparent process that demonstrates that the needs of all user groups and the design
objectives.
• Enables the projects objectives to be delivered by putting in place a check procedure.
• Contributes to cost efficiency in design and implementation.
• Encourages engagement with stakeholders.
Quality Audits generally consist of a number of individual and overlapping audits that may
include:
• an audit of visual quality;
• A review of how the street is/may be used by the community;
• A road safety audit, including a risk assessment;

• An access audit;
• A walking audit;
• A cycle audit;
• A non-motorised user audit;
• A community street audit (in existing streets); and
• a place check audit.
The extent to which these processes are undertaken will vary according to the scale and scope of
any given project. The intention of a Quality Audit is not to ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ a design. Rather it is
intended as an assessment tool that highlights the strengths and weaknesses of a design and a
documented process of how decisions were made.
APPENDICES
Active Streets
Streets where building edges/frontages are orientated toward, and are directly accessible from,
the street by foot to promote pedestrian activity.
Animation
The creation of an interface with the street via a range of architectural treatments that promote
the physical and visual accessibility to interior activities, such as openings and shop fronts.
Boulevard
A street type that generally consist of well planted medians and/or verges that provide a buffer
between a heavily trafficked carriageway and the surrounding environment.
Carriageway
The section of a street or road that is primarily used by motor vehicles (but may also be used by
pedestrians and cyclists).
Connectivity
How easily and directly users are able to move through street networks (see also Permeability
and Legibility)
Corner Radii
The measure of how broad or tight corners are at a junction, measured from the outside of a kerb
or the outside line of a cycle lane (where present).
Cul-de-sac
A street or road which terminates without connecting to another street (see also Vehicular Cul-
de-sac)
Cycle Friendly
A street environment designed to allow cyclists to move about in safety and comfort.
Design Speed
The maximum speed at which it is envisaged/ intended that the majority of vehicles will travel
under normal conditions.
Desire Lines
Normally the shortest route from one place to another, but can be the most convenient, easy to
use or comfortable route.
Enclosure (Sense of)

A condition created by providing a continuous line of buildings and/or street trees that has the
effect of calming and creating a greater perception of safety, especially for pedestrians.
Footpaths
The area within a street reserve that is generally reserved for pedestrian use.
Footway
The main section of the footpath along which people walk.
Homezone
A type of Shared Surface Street in a residential area which may also include items of street
furniture that would normally be used within areas of open spaces.
Horizontal Alignment
Horizontal alignment refers to the directional transition of a road or street in the horizontal plane.
In essence a horizontal alignment consists of straight sections joined by curves.
Horizontal Deflections
Changes that occur within the horizontal alignment of the carriageway, such as pinch points,
which slow vehicles and require drivers to change direction.
Human Scale
A person’s perception of the size, scale, height, bulk and/or massing of buildings and other
features of the built environment.
Integration (Integrated Streets)
Streets where real and perceived barriers to movement within and between modes of transport
are removed to promote improved interaction between users in a safe and traffic calmed
environment.
An integrated approach to street design also includes a more holistic view of the street and a
more collaborative approach its design where factors such as the type of place and needs of all
users are taken into account.
Integrated Street Networks
Highly connected street networks that support the integration of land use and transportation.
Legibility
The ease in which user can navigate a street or street network using series of environmental cues
such as buildings, landscape treatments, materials and finishes.
Mixed Use
A development, street or broader area that contains a range of different land uses.
Modal Shift
A change in the method of transportation used by people.
Multidisciplinary Approach
A collaborative approach to design where the skills of a number of design professional are
utilised to produce a design.
Naked Street(s)
A street or street network in which there is little or no regulatory signage and line marking.
Nodes
Major places of convergence and interchange between different forms of transportation.
Passive Surveillance
Overlooking of streets and spaces from adjoining buildings.
Pedestrian Friendly

A street environment designed to make pedestrians feel safe and secure and allow them to move
about with relative ease.
Place (Sense of)
The character or characteristics of an area in relation to how it is perceived by a user.
Pedestrianised Streets
Streets that are designated for pedestrian use only, although emergency access and limited access
for service vehicles is provided.
Permeability
The degree to which an area has a variety of pleasant, convenient and safe routes through it.
Self-Regulating Street
A street where the environmental conditions and/or series of design measures are used to
influence drivers behavior, minimizing the use of physically intrusive measures or large amounts
of regulatory signage and line marking.
Segregated Street Networks
Street networks where the movement of different modes of transport are restricted to a particular
route based on purpose, destination and/or type.
Segregation (Segregated Streets)
Streets within which interactions between modes of transport are discouraged or prevented
through the use of a series of barriers and other design measures.
Severance
Where the provision of road infrastructure (e.g. a distributor style road) bisects an area, making
people movement within the area more difficult.
Shared Surface Streets
A street where pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles share the main carriageway and where
pedestrians have priority of movement over other uses.
Speed (Very Low, Low, Moderate and High)
Described within the context of cities, towns and villages as very low(<30km/h), low (30km/h),
moderate (40-60km/h) and high (>60km/h).
Stopping Sight Distance
The distance ahead a driver needs to see in order to stop safely should an obstruction enter their
path.
Street Furniture
Items placed within the street with the purpose of directing movement and/or enhancing its place
value including public art, lighting, bollards, guardrails, seating and cycle parking.
Sustainable Modes of Transportation
Transportation which has a lower impact on the environment including walking, cycling and
public transport.
Sustainability
Meeting today’s needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
needs.
Sustainable Urban Drainage
A drainage system which seeks to emulate or restoring a more natural hydrological regime so
that the impact of urbanization on downstream flooding and water quality is minimised.
Updesign(ing)

The application of standards intended for higher order roads/streets that detract from the sense of
place and inappropriately increase design speeds.
Vertical Alignment
Vertical alignment refers to the changing elevation of a road or street along it’s longitudinal
profile. A vertical alignment consists of a series of straight-line gradients that are connected by
curves.
Vertical Deflections
Changes in level on a carriageway, such as raised tables, designed to slow vehicles.
Visibility Splays
Visibility splays are provided at junctions to provide sight lines towards and down intersecting
streets to ensure that drivers have sufficient reaction time to stop should a vehicle enter their
path.
Vulnerable Users
Road users who are most at risk – pedestrians and cyclists, specifically children, the elderly and
people with mobility impairments.

Urban Road Network Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Urban Road Network Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Urban Road Network Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Urban road design lecture notes

1.1 Policy Background

Kyambogo University Page 1

Guidelines for Planning Authorities on Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas

Kyambogo University Page 2

CHAPTER 2: RE-EXAMINING THE STREET

2.1 The Impact of the Car

2.2 The Pedestrian Perspective

Kyambogo University Page 3

Kyambogo University Page 4

Figure 2.: Footpath widths are inadequate,

Kyambogo University Page 5

Figure 5. Large freer flowing roads and junctions may result in

Pedestrians have little tolerance for delay and

Kyambogo University Page 6

2.3 The Way Forward

2.3.1 ‘Place’ as Part of the Design Equation

Kyambogo University Page 7

KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF PLACE BASED STREET DESIGN

ACTIVE EDGE PEDESTRIAN

Kyambogo University Page 8

2.3.2 User Priorities

1. PEDESTRIANS 2. CYCLISTS 3. PUBLIC TRANSPORT 4. PRIVATE

2.3.3 A Balanced Approach (Key Design Principles)

Kyambogo University Page 9

CHAPTER 3: STREET NETWORKS

Kyambogo University Page 10

Figure 10. Link Streets

Figure 11. Local Streets

3.2.2 Place Context

Kyambogo University Page 11

CONTEXT AND THE PLACE VALUE OF STREETS

1. CENTRES 2. NEIGHBOURHOODS 3. SUBURBS 4. Business park/

Kyambogo University Page 12

3.3 Permeability and Legibility

a) ORTHOGONAL LAYOUT b) CURVILINEAR LAYOUT c) ORGANIC LAYOUT

Kyambogo University Page 13

Illustrations of the creation of a structured and permeable grid network as a multilayered

2. MAIN STRATEGIC LINKS

Kyambogo University Page 14

3. ACCESS AND CIRCULATION

3.3.2 Block Sizes

Kyambogo University Page 15

Kyambogo University Page 16

Kyambogo University Page 17

a) Landmarks and civic buildings and spaces

Kyambogo University Page 18

Kyambogo University Page 19

3.4.2 Traffic Congestion

CAR BUS Bicycle

Kyambogo University Page 20

3.4.3 Bus Services

Kyambogo University Page 21

placemaking/traffic-calming measures such as planted verges, wider footpaths, cycle tracks or

Figure 23: QBCs and Bus lanes should be

3.4.4 Relief Roads

D Dublin Port Tunnel

Kyambogo University Page 22

Figure25: Dorset Street, Dublin, an example of