ARTISTS
ArterialStreetsTowardsSustainability
www.tft.lth.se/artists
Guidanceforplannersanddecisionmakers
whenreconstructingarterialstreets.
ARTISTS Project: Arterial Streets Towards Sustainability
ARTERIAL STREETS FOR PEOPLE
Status: Public
Edited by:
Åse Svensson, Lund University
Chapter Contributors:
Chapters 1, 2, 4, 5.3, 5.4, Appendices A, B: Stephen Marshall and Peter Jones (University of
Westminster)
Chapter 3, 5.1, Appendices C1-3: Åse Svensson and Christer Hyden (Lund University)
Chapter 5.2: Magda Draskoczy (Endresz KfT)
Chapter 5.5: Panos Papaioannou (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki)
Chapter 6: Stephen Marshall (University of Westminster) and Åse Svensson (Lund University)
Appendix C4: Panos Papaioannou (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki)
Appendix C5: Jytte Thomsen (INTRA S.L.)
Appendices C6, D: Natalya Boujenko (Transport for London)
Other Contributors are partners in the ARTISTS consortium
Co-ordinator: Lund University, Department of Technology and Society, Sweden
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Department of Civil Engineering, Greece
Atkins, Assistant Coordinator, Transport planning, Denmark
City of Copenhagen, Department of Roads and Parks, Denmark
City of Freiburg, Department of Transportation Planning, Germany
City of Malmoe, Department of Public Works, Sweden
Danish Transport Research Institute, Denmark
Endresz, Hungary
Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto, Civil Engineering Department, Portugal
Free University of Brussels, Centre for Economic and Social Studies on the Environment, Belgium
INTRA, Traffic Engineering, Spain
Kaiserslautern University of Technologie, Institute for Mobilty & Transport, Germany
Municipality of Girona, Spain
Municipality of Kalamaria, Technical Department, Greece
Transport for London, Street Management, UK
University of Westminster, Transport Studies Group, UK
ARTISTS project
Contract no. EVK4-CT-2001-00059
Project Duration: 1 December 2001 to 30 November 2004
European Commission Fifth Framework Programme
Key Action: City of Tomorrow and Cultural Heritage
1
ARTERIAL STREETS FOR PEOPLE
CONTENTS
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
2. Principles
3. Stakeholder Participation
4. Classification of Street Function
5. Project Processes
6. The Way Forward
Appendices
A. A Procedure for Street Classification
B. Design Tools
C. Streets Case Studies
D. Example Project Evaluation Tool
E. List of ARTISTS project Deliverables
2
3
4
9
18
26
34
58
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Conventional guidance on the design and management of urban roads and streets has
tended to focus on either arterial roads or local access streets. There is currently a lack
of a clear, consistent approach to the design of arterial streets, which combine both
significant through traffic and urban place functions. This report aims to address this
gap, by setting out an approach to the design and management of arterial streets - from
a people-oriented perspective. This means that:
• As users of the street, people – rather than vehicles - are taken as the starting
point for the analysis and redesign of street-space; and
• As local stakeholders, people are taken into account and included in the design
and management process.
In addressing people’s use of streets for a diversity of urban functions – and not just
motor traffic movement - the aim is to achieve streets that offer a more positive
contribution to sustainability, in all its economic, social and environmental dimensions.
This report encourages new ways of thinking about how arterial streets are
conceptualised, designed and managed, as part of the overall street system. This
requires a rethinking of how the various functions of the arterial street are reconciled and
provided for; and involves addressing the processes by which street-space is allocated,
the ways in which design options are generated, and how options are selected for
implementation.
A series of ways of addressing the ‘arterial streets for people’ theme are
recommended, including:
• Recognising that arterial streets satisfy the needs of both ‘through users’ and
‘locale users’;
• Developing a functional classification of street sections based on two
independent dimensions: ‘link status’ and ‘place status’;
• Incorporating public participation at each stage of the redesign process,
including contributions to functional classification, visioning, generating
designs, and option selection; and
• Suggesting a process for problem identification, objective setting, option
generation and assessment.
The guidance in this report is based on experience and research from the European
Commission project ARTISTS (Arterial Streets Towards Sustainability). This project
has drawn on a series of street case studies in seven European countries, as well as
learning from research and practice elsewhere.
The report is aimed primarily at city authorities and other policy makers, practitioners
and consultants with responsibility for the design and management of streets. It gives
general guidance on concepts and techniques, which may be adapted to fit the
relevant national or city context.
3
1. INTRODUCTION
This introduction sets out the context for this report, its purpose and an outline of
its content.
Arterial Streets
Throughout history, towns and cities have been
organised to a significant extent around their streets:
and none more so than arterial streets. Traditional
arterial streets are often historic radial routes that
existed before they were part of any urban area, but
gradually became a focus for activity and urban
development. They assumed a variety of urban
functions in addition to their original role for movement.
An arterial street is, therefore, much more than simply a
road in an urban area. An arterial street is also an urban
place with a definite identity and character; a physical
environment or behaviour setting; a social space.
Arterial streets may perform a variety of civic,
ceremonial, political, cultural and social roles, as well as
commercial and economic roles, in addition to their
movement roles.
Arterial streets have traditionally
formed the focus for a variety of
urban roles
The challenge of arterial streets
Accommodating many different kinds of street activity
within the constrained form of the arterial street can be
a challenge. This became a particularly acute problem
in the latter part of the 20th century, when high
volumes of motor traffic became increasingly
incompatible with other street roles. Heavy flows of
fast-moving motor vehicles create noise, pollution and
the risk of accidents, and make it difficult to cross the
street. The mix of street uses was regarded as
inefficient and dysfunctional. As a result, the arterial
street came to be seen as one of the main problems of
the traditional city.
With the emergence of the new disciplines of traffic
engineering and planning in the twentieth century came
a series of conventions that separated the roles of
movement from the other urban activities. Although
these promoted principles of amenity and safety for all
road users, in practice they often tended to take traffic
flow as the starting point, with other road users and
urban uses accommodated around this. But, in the
course of time, these traffic-oriented ‘solutions’ have
come to present problems of their own.
4
Arterial streets often have
problems reconciling through
traffic flow with other urban
activities
Problems with conventional approaches to
arterial street design
Conventional principles of design and management of
streets have tended to separate the through traffic
function of streets from the other urban street
functions.
While it is relatively straightforward to design either a
main road catering primarily for traffic movement or a
street for urban activities, it is not so easy to combine
the main road function and urban functions in the
design of a single arterial street.
In practice arterial streets have often been recognised
principally for their arterial role, geared towards
expediting traffic flow. The result has been that arterial
streets have often been re-engineered as urban roads
– that is, according to the engineering standards
optimised for accommodating vehicular movement, as
with modern inter-urban roads. This may satisfy
requirements for traffic capacity, efficiency and safety
for motor vehicle users, but often at the cost of
displacing or even endangering pedestrians, cyclists
and other urban activities, with the streets themselves
losing many of their traditional urban functions and
qualities.
An urban arterial street reengineered to modern
highway standards.
A local street
Although today there is a greater aspiration in principle
to accommodate street uses other than traffic
movement, today’s practice is still typically
underpinned and constrained by the conventional
approaches oriented to roads and motorised traffic.
For a start, conventional classification systems often
have no place for the traditional arterial street. They
typically tend to have an underlying assumption that
there must be an inverse relationship between ‘mobility
function’ and ‘access function’. They tend to only
recognise and offer guidance on the design of arterial
roads or local access streets, but ignore the possibility
of arterial streets which combine mobility and access
functions to a significant extent.
Despite the lack of official recognition, of course,
arterial streets continue to exist, and people continue
to use and value them in their various roles. To
properly support these uses, arterial streets require a
different form of guidance for their design and
management. This report addresses this need.
The traditional multifunctional arterial street:
should it be re-engineered as
a road or redesigned as a
street?
More detailed discussion on
the problems of existing
classifications and guidance
is presented in ARTISTS
Deliverables D1 and D1.1.
5
Today’s agenda
With today’s growing emphasis on urban sustainability,
it is recognised that there is a need to shift the balance
towards ‘more sustainable’ modes of transport,
improving the local environmental amenity of streets,
and supporting social and economic activity along the
streets.
This amounts to a ‘streets for people’ approach, which
puts people first, as the starting point for considering
the design of streets - whether these people may or
may not be using vehicles.
Traffic must still be accommodated in arterial streets,
as traffic contributes to the functioning - and ultimately
the economic and social sustainability - of the city. But
it is considered no longer either desirable or
acceptable that streets be considered first and
foremost as roads, as conduits of traffic around which
other activities must be fitted (if compatible), or
removed (if incompatible).
The general task of this report is to suggest, explore
and encourage a system of street design and
management that is more people-oriented, to
contribute towards more amenable, sustainable and
people-friendly arterial streets.
Accordingly, this report must specifically recognise the
arterial street as a definite entity that combines and
fulfils both ‘arterial’ and ‘street’ functions.
It aims to do so through a people-friendly,
sustainability-oriented approach. Rather than starting
with the assumption of expediting the movement of
motor traffic, this aims to more explicitly encourage the
‘more sustainable’ modes of travel, such as walking,
cycling and public transport, and accommodating the
non movement functions of streets.
In the process of rethinking the way we design and
manage streets, this report also aims:
• to develop a more inclusive approach – by involving
the public and other stakeholders;
• to take the opportunity to be creative – by
generating more design alternatives to meet
different problems;
• to arrive at solutions that are tailored to each unique
area of street space, ‘locale’, rather than
constraining solutions a uniform standardised
template.
6
‘Streets are for people’
This Report
This report presents an integrated, people-oriented
approach to the design and management of arterial
streets.
It is aimed primarily at city authorities and other policy
makers,
practitioners
and
consultants
with
responsibility for the design and management of
streets. It gives general guidance on concepts and
techniques, at a certain level of generality, which
would need to be translated into practice appropriate
to the national or city context.
This report suggests principles and demonstrates
processes that may be used to conceptualise and
classify arterial streets, set objectives for street
management, generate design options, involve the
public in participatory design processes, and select
the best options for onward design.
Implementing some of the principles could imply that
national or city authorities would need to substantially
change their current approach to street design and
management; others may already conform with many
of the principles set out here. The report has been
devised to present an integrated suite of principles
and techniques, though these could be individually
selected for adoption in different circumstances.
Scope
Arterial streets are here taken to mean major streets
that are multi-functional – combining a strategic
network role with space for other activities, such as
crossing movements, shopping, socialising, and other
urban activities.
Arterial streets
This report considers the physical design of street
space and carriageway layout, regulation in terms of
allowance for different kinds of vehicle movements
and parking and loading, and wider street
management issues including objective setting,
classification
of
streets
and
performance
assessment. The process of
design and
management is devised to be compatible with a
comprehensive programme of public participation.
This approach has been devised to fit a sustainability
oriented policy context. In this report, this
sustainability aspect is expressed through a peopleoriented approach in which social, economic and
environmental considerations ultimately serve to
promote people’s quality of life.
Design and management
towards sustainability.
7
The basis of this report
This report draws from the experience of the ARTISTS
project (Arterial Streets Towards Sustainability), as well
as from research and practice from within and outside
Europe. It includes examples of best practice from a
range of streets around Europe, that help to illustrate
the ways in which arterial streets may be improved in
practice.
The ARTISTS project itself has included a wide range
of research investigations, analyses, development of
techniques and applications in the participating cities.
This report includes a selection of the most significant
findings of the ARTISTS project that fit together to form
an integrated approach.
Overview
Following this introduction, Chapter 2 outlines the main
principles which underpin the approach, and Chapter 3
sets out in more detail how public participation may be
used to influence the design and management of
arterial streets. Chapter 4 then sets out a framework for
the functional classification of streets that serves to
guide the prioritisation of different roles of each
individual street. Chapter 5 explains the project stages
involved in the redesign process. Chapter 6 suggests
ways forward after the ARTISTS project e.g. the need
for demonstrating and making the new approaches
operational.
At the end of the report are Appendices with more
detailed suggestions for application of the approach,
and examples from reconstructions of arterial streets in
practice. A list of ARTISTS Deliverable reports and
further reading are also included.
8
The ARTISTS project is part of
the Land Use and Transport
Research cluster of the
European Commission’s Fifth
Framework key action on the
“City of Tomorrow”.
The streets principally featuring
this Guide are from:
Copenhagen, Denmark
Freiburg, Germany
Girona, Spain
London, UK
Malmö, Sweden
Porto, Portugal
Thessaloniki, Greece
A series of Deliverable Reports
and other documents are
available for downloading from
the ARTISTS website:
http://www.tft.lth.se/artists.
2. PRINCIPLES
This chapter sets out a series of principles which form a ‘people-oriented’ approach that can
guide the design of arterial streets. These cover street functions and street-space trade-offs that
serve a variety of different needs.
Street-space
A substantial proportion of urban land is taken
over by public space – not only in the historic
forms of streets and squares, but in the more
modern transport routes and spaces formed by
railways, dedicated highways and intersections,
car parks, and so on. Despite so much space set
aside for public use, the quality and quantity of
public space often leaves something to be desired.
There is often a feeling that, despite all the space,
there is not enough ‘place’.
All this space –
but not much sense of place.
Urban land is a limited commodity, and there are
often several uses or activities competing for the
available urban street-space. These uses include
demand for movement of traffic and pedestrians
– both along and across the street – and demand
for other on-street activities such as trading,
sitting, talking, playing, and so on. These
movements and other activities may to some
extent be in conflict.
These kinds of activity all need street space to
accommodate them; and where activities
coincide in space they may need to be controlled
so that different movements or activities use the
same space but at different times.
It is the task of street design and management to
mediate between competing activities and afford
them an appropriate share of space and time.
Given the limited amount of street space
available, how do we allocate space and time for
different uses and users?
Well used and well loved places need
not take up much space.
In this context, street space may be
interpreted as a specific area of urban
land taking the form of a street and
designated for public use.
In this chapter a series of issues which bear on
the allocation of street-space is discussed. This
discussion
starts
by
first
considering
sustainability, then focusing on a people-centred
approach, and finally, the need to consider the
different users and functions of a street.
9
Sustainability
Sustainability is one of the underlying drivers for
change in the approach to street design set out in
this report. However, the concept of sustainability
has a diversity of interpretations and applications;
and care has to be taken when applying the
concept to arterial streets.
Because streets form part of a complementary
system, it is not possible to reliably assess an
individual street in terms of sustainability without
considering its role in the whole system. In other
words, it is not possible to absolutely rank one street
higher than another in terms of overall sustainability,
since each street plays a different role.
For example, a bypass and a pedestrianised old
town street form part of a complementary system;
the bypass may be necessary for overall economic
sustainability, just as the old town street supports
local social and economic activity. One cannot
simply convert all streets to ‘pedestrian streets’ or
‘local streets’ and expect to have a functioning city.
The ‘most sustainable’ solution is not simply to
grass over all the streets in the city!
It’s not possible for all streets to
look like this.
Some kinds of streets or roads
for accommodating traffic are
also necessary…
That said, for a given system, it should be possible
to design and manage individual streets so that they
contribute to different aspects of sustainability, in
order to realise greater sustainability overall. This
may be done by encouraging the appropriate mix
and levels of social and economic activity for an For more discussion on
sustainability concepts see
area, while minimising environmental damage.
In this report, the treatment of sustainability
focuses
on
tangible
and
immediate
considerations appropriate for addressing the
design of urban streets. These include:
• accessibility for a range of users;
• the street as a destination for social and
economic activity, and as a conduit
providing accessibility elsewhere;
• promotion of ‘greener’ modes - bearing in
mind not only immediate emissions but
also
longer
term
environmental
consequences;
• minimisation of the environmental impacts
(including accident risk and loss of
amenity) due to motor traffic.
This is operationalised through a people-centred
approach.
10
ARTISTS project Deliverables D1
and D1.2.
Source: Devon County Council (1991) Traffic Calming Guidelines
A people-centred approach
Streets are, in an essential sense, for people. That
is, they are not ultimately for serving vehicles,
making architectural statements, or creating
environmental habitats, per se. Street provision may
do all these things, but this is always in the interests
of satisfying the needs of people, whether through
mobility, liveability or any other means.
Conventionally, arterial streets have often been
assumed to perform a role that is closely associated
with serving traffic movement. However, in recent
years, there has been more emphasis on the idea of
‘streets for people’, which recognises that a wider
range of street activities should be considered as
being part of the role or function of a street.
11
To make the idea of ‘streets for people’ operational,
there is need for a better way of accommodating
and trading-off between different people wishing to
use a street – including people in vehicles as well as
pedestrians.
A first and most basic step is to start counting all
people using the street as ‘equal’. Therefore,
instead of using the vehicle or vehicle flow as the
basic unit of street use, it should be the individual
person that should be the most basic unit, whether
that person is in a vehicle or not.
People’s use of streets equates with
social and economic benefits
This approach gives the pedestrian equal weight
with the cyclist and the car driver or bus passenger.
It also gives higher occupancy vehicles a ‘weighting’
proportional to the number of people carried. This
logic is compatible with existing approaches that
favour public transport modes over private vehicles
such as cars because they carry more people.
In this way, a people-oriented approach can help
operationalise a sustainability oriented approach in
which higher occupancy vehicles such as buses,
and lower impact vehicles such as bicycles, are
seen to perform better with respect to sustainability
than low occupancy motor vehicles such as cars.
The benefit of vehicle use is in
people getting places. But the
vehicles themselves are sources of
environmental disbenefits.
But, even given that some uses may be more
‘sustainable’ or ‘people-oriented’ than others, there
is still a need to decide how these different uses such as different modes of movement, or different
land uses - may be allocated appropriate shares of
street-space (spatially and temporally).
To do this, we need to look at the fundamental
nature of the conflict between street uses.
12
For a particular street, the more
people that use the street and the
fewer the vehicles needed to move
them, generally speaking, the greater
the benefit relative to the disbenefit.
The street section as area
Streets are often conventionally regarded onedimensionally as links in the road network. While
this conception is a useful simplification for the
purposes of understanding the movement of traffic
in a network, travelling between different origins and
destinations, it omits some significant aspects of the
street as a place or area. Not least, at the scale of
an individual street section, it omits the fact that a
street area itself becomes a ‘land use’, and ‘origin’
or ‘destination’ in its own right, and that movement
may be across and around the street section as well
as along it. The conventional representation of the
street section as link has tended to reinforce the
linear, through movement function of a street, either
ignoring or subordinating the others, as ‘collateral’
uses of the street.
By conceptualising the street as a two-dimensional
area, we can better appreciate the scope and
potential for street-space to accommodate uses and
users other than through movement, and we may be
better able to focus on the trade-off before us, of
allocating specific square metres of public space to
different activities.
Uses’ and users’ demand for space
For any particular area of street-space, there will be
competing uses, including different kinds of modes
of movement, both along and across the street, and
different kinds of ‘static’ activity and ‘land use’. While
all these are to some extent competing with each
other,
some
are
more
compatible
and
complementary than others. To understand the
difference between these, we can make a primary
division between ‘through users’ and ‘locale users’.
The street section as
a link in the network
A street-space as an area
All users
Through
users
Locale
users
Through users
A ‘through user’ is someone wishing simply to pass
though the street section as quickly and safely as
possible. Their essential need is for the street-space
to form a continuous path or linear link, connecting
from one end of the street section to the other.
Through users may be further subdivided by mode
of movement, such as pedestrians, cyclists, car
users, bus passengers, goods vehicle users, and so
on. While there is some competition for use of the
available street width, such as between general
purpose lanes, bus lanes, cycle lanes and footways,
the modes themselves are effectively ‘parallel
alternatives’, in that one typically chooses one mode
or the other, to serve the same end.
Different modes are used towards
the same purpose of getting from
somewhere to somewhere else
13
Therefore, the trade-off between rights of way used
for different kinds of vehicle users and pedestrians
moving along the street is a relatively self-contained
transport problem of assessing the different flows
and capacities, the proportions of people desiring
(or able) to use the different modes for different
purposes, and their different consequences for
sustainability.
Locale user
A ‘locale user’ is someone wishing to make use of
the attributes of the particular street area (locale) as
a place – whether in terms of a market place, a play
area, a place of ‘promenade’ or social interaction.
A key difference between the needs of these users
is that the ‘through user’ – although using the same
‘area’ or ‘place’ – is simply using the street section
as a means to get from somewhere to somewhere
else, as it were, via nowhere in particular. If there
were an alternative route (such as a parallel
adjacent, underground or elevated section) this
could serve the same purpose equally well, if not
better, than the particular street section that they are
actually using.
In contrast, the ‘locale user’ is making use of this
particular space, and the term ‘locale’ is intended to
convey this sense of immediacy. ‘Locale use’
implies that the use of a particular space itself fulfils
part of an activity or journey purpose – as an origin
or destination use – whether the trip to access the
location is itself ‘local’ or ‘long distance’.
Locale uses of the street area will include a variety
of ‘land uses’, such as market stalls, as well as
flower-beds, seating areas, and other space simply
used for occupation by people – or vehicles
(parking). Unlike different modes of movement,
these ‘locale uses’ tend to be quite diverse and not
interchangeable, for the user’s point of view, in the
sense that one may expect to do any or all of them,
without one substituting for the other.
A ‘locale user’ of street-space 2
(SS2) needs to use that particular
area to fulfil their activity purpose. In
contrast, the through user just needs
to get from A to B.
A street-space area accommodates
different locale or land uses (c, d, e)
That said, from the supply point of view, the local
authority may have to prioritise or substitute one use
for another, where there is insufficient space to
provide for all.
A locale user may access a series of
alternative land uses. Each could be
an intermediate or final ‘destination’
that is related to the journey/activity
purpose.
14
The street-space trade-off
All users
In the allocation of street-space to different users,
we can consider the primary division between
‘through users’ and ‘locale users’. Through users
may be further subdivided into different modes of
movement. Locale users may be further subdivided
into users of different land uses, or users engaged
in different activities.
The allocation of space for through movement,
between modes, is principally determined within the
transport / traffic planning sphere. The allocation of
space between other urban activities may be
typically
determined
within
the
urban
planning/design sphere.
Through
users
Modes
Locale
users
Land uses,
access modes
But what is needed is a mechanism for determining
an appropriate allocation of space between through
use and locale use. In conventional practice this is
usually done by prioritising one over the other, such
as by means of functional classification, where an
arterial road will be primarily for ‘movement’
(through use) and a local street will be primarily for
‘access’ (locale use).
While this may create a ‘balance’ overall between
these two functions across the road network as a
whole, it does not provide a means of balance for an
individual arterial street that needs to accommodate
both significant through use and locale use. This is
because arterial streets have tended to be
recognised as being primarily for movement, and
hence priority has been set clearly in favour of
through movement. In other words, at the scale of
an individual section of arterial street, there has not
been a balance between through movement and the
other functions.
While ‘balancing functions’ is an abstract
consideration, the movement and activities may be
disaggregated into individual people and vehicles
which have to be accommodated in space and time,
just as any other urban activity has to be. The
practical effect of this is that when it comes down to
individual people trying to use the street-space, not
all users are being treated equally. In effect, the
person wishing to use the arterial street section for
through movement is accorded greater ‘weight’ or
priority than the person wishing to occupy that
street-space for other activities (including crossing
the street). This is effectively because the ‘through
user’ is recognised as part of a strategic system of
movement, and the through movement must
necessarily link up linearly from section to section.
Close up, the conflict between
abstract ‘strategic traffic flow’ and
‘local urban activity’ is manifested as
a conflict between individual people
and vehicles.
15
A whole street is made up of a succession of sections. The demand for through
movement, common to and continuous through all of the sections, sometimes tends to
assume a significance greater than that of any other demand within an individual section.
Street functions
It is the functional designation of a street that effectively
sets the balance between the use of street-space for
through users (who could use other links to get from A to
B) and for locale users (who are seeking to make use of
that particular section of street).
Although this report is intending to better address arterial
streets that are, by their nature, multifunctional, we should
not forget that some degree of functional specialisation
can be beneficial, and may be encouraged. This is like a
functional ‘division of labour’, that can boost the efficiency
of the overall system, to the benefit of the whole.
Identification of the functions of
a street can help prioritise the
design and regulation of the
street space.
For example, if all public space were treated in the same
way, then all streets and spaces would be trying to act as
traffic conduits, as trading places, as play areas, as
meeting places, and so on. These would not necessarily
be successful in performing all those roles. But street
management can intervene and take, say, two streets,
and make one more efficient as a traffic conduit, and the
other more amenable as a local environmental space.
This can benefit the system overall – although it has
consequences for the individual localities.
What we have to avoid is regarding street function only or
primarily in terms of traffic or through movement function.
We need a way of recognising and reconciling the
necessary ‘arterial’ functions with the other ‘street’
functions of the arterial street.
We need to define street function in a way that can guide Proposal for defining functional
roles in Chapter 4.
the trade-off of street-space (spatially and temporally) so
that it serves both the needs of the immediate locales and
the street system as a whole. This should be able to show
how priority to through users versus locale users may
vary from street type to street type. For some arterial
streets, one may outweigh the other, but for others there
will be effectively equal priority, that will need to be
reconciled in the design of the street.
16
A process framework
This report sets out a framework in which the
processes of street redesign – including setting
objectives, identifying problems, generating options
and selecting a preferred option – are influenced both
by the functional classification of the street and the
process of stakeholder participation.
The next two chapters address these latter influences
– stakeholder participation (Chapter 3) and
classification (Chapter 4) – before detailing the core
processes they influence (Chapter 5).
Street
redesign
process
(Chapter 5)
Street classification
(Chapter 4)
Stakeholder participation
(Chapter 3)
d tif i
d
bl
Select street section(s)
for reconstruction
Design and implement
Evaluate
17
3. STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION
This chapter describes the participation of stakeholders in the decision - and
design process.
Introduction
An obvious precondition for a people-oriented
decision- and design process is to include people
both as users of the street and as stakeholders
participating in the redesign process.
Stakeholder participation in the planning and
decision-making process can be seen as one of
the basic parts of democratic constitutions. The
participation of stakeholders in the redesign
process of arterial streets is in this respect
particularly appropriate as streets are part of the
public space. It is also very appropriate as arterial
streets combine a high degree of strategic network
role with a high degree of local urban activities and
are looked upon as multi-use urban spaces rather
than single-use spaces.
Local users are usually more aware of problems
and needs connected to local functions of the
arterial street. Wide user participation in every
phase of the design process can therefore ensure
that the full range of problems and objectives is
considered
and
innovative
solutions
are
generated. It provides users’ prioritisation of
function for that street-space, ‘locale’, and a better
public support for the generated solutions. By
making a proper selection of stakeholders to the
participation events and by involving professional
judgement it is possible to balance these
immediate demands on street-space role with the
urban system function as a whole.
18
Stakeholders are “anyone” that is
affected by, or can influence any
decision or action
What is stakeholder participation in the
redesign process
Participation can be defined as the involvement of
stakeholders in the decision making and design
process with the purpose of influencing.
Stakeholders are “anyone” (person, group or
institution) that is affected by, or can influence any
decision or action. Key purposes of participation
are to improve the quality and efficiency of
planning.
At stakeholder participation citizens’ ideas,
conceptions, local knowledge, etc. are utilized at
the same time as their own knowledge and
understanding is raised. Participants gain a better
knowledge and understanding of interests of other
groups, of transport problems, of technical and
regularity constraints and the complexity of
planning
measures
and
the
need
for
compromises. Through a greater openness and
transparency of the process conflicting ideas are
more likely to get thoroughly debated at an early
stage in the process i.e. potential objections are
minimised. This will ensure a more joint ownership
of final solutions proposed which also creates
good
conditions
for
a
more
efficient
implementation process.
Initially it may seem as very costly and time
consuming to engage stakeholders in the decision
and design process but in the long run it will prove
to be the other way around. Reviews of existing
decision making and design processes show that
the most successful reconstructions of arterial
streets are projects with early stakeholder
involvement and several alternative design options
as an output. It is, however, of utterly importance
to ensure credibility of the output.
For further information on decisionmaking and design processes in
connection to ARTISTS case studies
see deliverables D2.2 and D2.
Participation methods
Typically a participation process is built up of different participation methods (tools)
adapted for the objectives of participation, the stakeholders and the stage of the
involvement. Participation can contribute to determining objectives, assessing
problems, identifying solutions, appraising alternatives, choosing a strategy and
implementing strategies. It is, however, important to remember that no method can be
used everywhere; Traditions, culture and the legal and the institutional structures have
to be considered as well as the scale, the time horizon, stakes and subcultures. The
legal status of participation depends on the country and the type of the project.
19
Stakeholder participation can take place at different levels and in different forms:
1. Information (decide and announce) - a one-way process to keep interested
people informed about plans.
2. Consultation (advice seeking) - where the views of stakeholders are sought and
the results are input to the strategy formulation.
3. Active participation (agreement seeking) - where the stakeholders work with
decision-makers and professionals in formulating the strategies.
More detailed information can be found in reports from EC projects PLUME, PROSPECTS,
GUIDEMAPS and TRANSPLUS.
The most frequent use of stakeholder
participation in the ordinary redesign project
is
often
restricted
to
a
one-way
communication i.e. providing information.
This report, based on the ARTISTS
approach, points at the advantages to
involve stakeholders for consultation and
active participation. This means that the
discussions here go beyond unilateral
information provision, but still retain final
control and responsibility for final decisionmaking in the hands of the city authority.
Consulting and deciding together at a
design workshop.
Possible stakeholder groups
User groups and other stakeholder groups within
• Citizens and NGOs: local residents, pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users,
car drivers, visitors of different kind, groups of disabled people, environmental
NGOs, motorist associations, public transport user groups, cyclists associations,
pedestrian associations, house owners’ association, local community-based
organisations, local specific interest groups
• Market: local van/truck drivers (goods delivery), local public transport drivers, local
taxi drivers, local shop owners/street traders (employers and employees), local
business employers and employees, transport operators and providers, business
associations, local chambers of commerce
• Authorities: local transport authority, other local transport bodies, regional
government, Ministry of Transport, EU, politicians, professional staff (planners,
designers, transport consultants), the police, local road safety council, school
boards
20
Participation should aim at identifying and
involving all stakeholders. Groups that
often are more difficult but just as important
to reach, like; ethnic minority groups,
women, low income groups, older, younger
and disabled people may need special
treatment to get involved. The recruitment
may have to be more targeted and the
participation methods may have to be
adapted towards more informal techniques,
small meetings, etc.
The number of stakeholder groups are many. In practice it is of course an impossibility
to include all groups in every redesign project. A stakeholder analysis is necessary for
selecting relevant groups. It is then advantageous to adapt methods and tools to
improve the prospect of these groups actually getting engaged.
Methods of stakeholder participation in ARTISTS
ARTISTS involved stakeholders to identify problems and needs, to formulate objectives
(as part of project brief), to generate alternative design options and to choose option
(as part of appraise options). The structure and process of this participation is defined
below.
AIM / OBJECTIVE
• Identify issues and problems
• Suggestions to reconstruction
• Identify solutions & improvements
• Identify visions
• Incorporate visions into new designs
• Generate alternative design options
CONSULTATION EVENT
OUTCOME
Preliminary interviews
• Positive and negative aspects
• Problems ranking
Focus groups
• Discussions
• Visioning
Design workshop
• Base plan of different options
Options drawn up by professionals
• Identify a preferred option
among alternatives
Seminar
• Preferred option
21
The core stakeholder groups in the ARTISTS
participation activities were residents, shop
owners,
cyclists,
pedestrians,
bus/tram
passengers and car/bus/tram/taxi/lorry drivers. In
addition representatives of groups of disabled,
motorist associations, cyclists associations,
transport operators and school boards were
participating at selected events. The participation
went
beyond
information
provision
i.e.
stakeholders were actively taking part in the
redesign process.
In the stages of identifying problems and needs
and formulating a project brief ARTISTS used two
different methods for stakeholder participation to
complement the information provided by street
data collection. They are preliminary interviews
and focus group discussions
Preliminary interviews aim at assessing
widespread public opinion. A survey is distributed
to a group of people via a written questionnaire or
through interviews in person, by phone, or by
electronic media. The limited group of people is
considered representative of a larger group.
Choice of type of contact approach very much
depends on the stakeholder group at target.
In ARTISTS, questionnaires in the form of prestamped postcards (free of return) were sent to
residents and ship-owners. Other users of the
street; cyclists, pedestrians, bus / tram
passengers and car / bus / tram / taxi / lorry
drivers were interviewed in the street. The
preliminary interviews contained a few, open and
overarching questions. At this stage focus should
be to reach all target groups to (to some extent)
make up for less spread in the following stages
where it is much more difficult to engage
stakeholders. If the main target groups are
covered the number of persons interviewed per
group can be restricted to 10-15. This is often
enough to get a rough conception of the situation
at the specific street-space pictured by different
stakeholders’ own opinions. Preliminary interviews
are further discussed in Chapter 5.2 in connection
to identifying problems and needs in the redesign
process.
The workload of handling and analysing open
questions is high. Open questions, do on the other
hand, invite people to freely express themselves
which reduces the risk of disregarding important
aspects The results from preliminary interviews,
22
AIM / OBJECTIVE
• Identify issues and problems
• Suggestions to reconstruction
• Identify solutions & improvements
• Identify visions
• Incorporate visions into new designs
• Generate alternative design options
CONSULTATION EVENT
OUTCOME
Preliminary interviews
• Positive and negative aspects
• Problems ranking
Focus groups
• Discussions
• Visioning
Design workshop
• Base plan of different options
Options drawn up by professionals
• Identify a preferred option
among alternatives
Seminar
• Preferred option
with a good spread of stakeholder groups, provide
valuable information for proper preparation and
accomplishment of the phases following in the
process.
Focus groups is a structured form of gathering
representatives from different stakeholder groups in
smaller groups of 8-12 persons. For most people it
is less uncomfortable to act in such smaller groups.
The aim is to provide the groups with the opportunity
to more in detail discuss a pre selected set of topics.
In ARTISTS the topics derived from the results of
the preliminary interviews. Based on these topics
the focus groups discussed the problems with a
specific arterial street and different user’s needs and
visions for the future.
AIM / OBJECTIVE
• Identify issues and problems
• Suggestions to reconstruction
• Identify solutions & improvements
• Identify visions
• Incorporate visions into new designs
• Generate alternative design options
CONSULTATION EVENT
OUTCOME
Preliminary interviews
• Positive and negative aspects
• Problems ranking
Focus groups
• Discussions
• Visioning
Design workshop
• Base plan of different options
Options drawn up by professionals
• Identify a preferred option
among alternatives
Seminar
• Preferred option
The discussions provided the facilitators with much
more detailed information as compared to the
preliminary interviews; information that is valuable
when formulating the preconditions for the following
stage of generating design options. The participants
in the focus group discussions were primarily people
who in the preliminary interviews declared
themselves positive to participate.
Focus groups have, besides providing input to the
redesign process, the effect of broadening the
understanding of other stakeholders’ situation in the
arterial street. This raised level of awareness
perhaps points towards the advantage of keeping to
the same groups of people all through the
participation process; time would be saved as some
of the introductory formalities could be omitted. A
disadvantage, however, by not renewing the groups
is that views / visions / solutions might become too
narrow and will finally only reflect a kind of common
sense within the group, instead of being
representative for the whole stakeholder group. The
use of focus groups is further explored in Chapter
5.2 when addressing problems and needs and in
Chapter 5.3 when exploring visions to be
incorporated in the project brief.
Focus group activities in Kalamaria,
Greece
AIM / OBJECTIVE
• Identify issues and problems
• Suggestions to reconstruction
• Identify solutions & improvements
• Identify visions
In the generation of street-space design options,
stakeholders participated in the form of workshops.
The aim was to use stakeholders to identify areas
for improvement and to generate ideas that may
have been overlooked.
• Incorporate visions into new designs
• Generate alternative design options
CONSULTATION EVENT
OUTCOME
Preliminary interviews
• Positive and negative aspects
• Problems ranking
Focus groups
• Discussions
• Visioning
Design workshop
• Base plan of different options
Options drawn up by professionals
• Identify a preferred option
among alternatives
Seminar
• Preferred option
23
Stakeholders can, again, add the local touch to
the design. Stakeholders were split into groups of
5-7 persons with mixed interests and gender. The
groups were provided with material to practically
build up own street sections. To get inspiration the
groups were provided with posters of
reconstructed arterial streets and information
sheets on design elements. See Appendix B for
more information about developed design tools.
Before starting the workshop participants were
informed of the frames and preconditions for the
design process i.e. the results from the previous A design workshop in Kalamaria,
Greece
project stage; the project brief. Participants were
also told how their designs were going to be used
by the professionals – how their ideas would be
incorporated into professional designs.
For many participants the struggle for space and
time within the scarce street-space becomes
evident with such exercises. A very valuable
output from the workshop was the recognition of
professional planners’ work. The workshops were,
however, not extensive enough (mostly with
regard to time) to bring forward completely new
and innovative design solutions. Many details in
the street design were on the other hand
interesting enough to provide valuable information
to the professional planner. For more information
about the workshops see Chapter 5.4.
AIM / OBJECTIVE
In the last phase of the redesign process, when
appraising the options, stakeholders were invited
to seminars and / or exhibitions to vote for
preferred solution. The foremost aim of this
exercise was to get a wider acceptance of the
whole process. By making a more widespread
invitation to an event where the alternative design
options are presented and preferred solution voted
for, it is possible to at least give stakeholder
groups that have not been represented earlier a
chance to influence the final design. It might,
furthermore, be a form of participation that better
suits these groups of stakeholders. The
participation form here is partly different to the
previous ones as the objective is to react and not
make own formulation. For more information about
stakeholder participation in the appraisal see
Chapter 5.5.
• Identify issues and problems
• Suggestions to reconstruction
• Identify solutions & improvements
• Identify visions
• Incorporate visions into new designs
• Generate alternative design options
CONSULTATION EVENT
OUTCOME
Preliminary interviews
• Positive and negative aspects
• Problems ranking
Focus groups
• Discussions
• Visioning
Design workshop
• Base plan of different options
Options drawn up by professionals
• Identify a preferred option
among alternatives
Seminar
• Preferred option
An exhibition in Kalamaria, Greece
24
Things to consider when running a stakeholder participation exercise
Principle considerations
• Stakeholder participation takes time and must be allowed to take time if this type of
engagement is to be used at all in the planning process.
• Before starting out it must be carefully considered why, where and when to involve
stakeholders.
• All along it must be remembered that stakeholders - even if they are paid for
participating - are providing us with their time. Participants want to know that the
time they have committed and input they have provided will be used and will make
a difference, and possibly influence the outcome of the project.
• Technical prerequisites and constraints - what is negotiable - must be clear to all
parties involved; to avoid raising false expectations
• Politicians and other decision-makers want to know when in the process they will
have access to the output and the credibility of the output
• See the different phases in the consultation process as one process thus it could be
valuable to have participants who have been involved in all stages in the process
• Despite the involvement of very competent stakeholders, do not forget that the
professional still holds the final responsibility - a final responsibility that never can
be totally handed over to non-professional stakeholders.
Practical considerations
• Participants must be aware of the whole planning and participation process to fully
understand their role in it.
• If possible and without jeopardizing results of previous negotiations, target the
exercises to the interests and composition of your audience
• Ensure widespread representation among relevant stakeholder groups
• Be aware of the possible limited scope for dealing with a single street / section;
make sure that participants are familiar with this street / section
• To avoid sessions from running out of time it is needed to be realistic about what
can be undertaken and how long each activity is likely to take; thus to be very clear
about the objectives and purpose of each exercise
• Have clearly defined roles of project staff in consultation events (e.g. event host,
technical facilitator, demonstrator, information recorded)
25
4. CLASSIFICATION OF STREET FUNCTION
This chapter presents a general framework for the classification of streets,
which may be used to inform the design of street-space. This classification
takes into account the relative significance of any particular street section both
as a link and as a place, relative to the whole street system.
Objective
The objective of this classification is to identify the
appropriate functional role of a particular street
section, in order to be able to decide how best to
trade-off the street-space and time.
Given that each street section will have slightly
different physical form and slightly different
patterns of use, it is necessary to have some
rationale for deciding one way or another which
functional class or category any particular section
of street should be placed in.
Arterial streets typically have
multiple functions
Basis of classification system
The fundamental basis behind the classification
involves the linking of two ideas:
(1) Any street section has a combination of link
status and place status; these are independent
(rather than one being the inverse of the other);
and
While street-space forms a
continuum, functional classification
can help to distinguish discrete
sections and routes.
Link
(2) Link status and place status will depend not
only on the immediate attributes of the street
section (including physical form and use), but
also on their role with respect to the wider street
and urban system considered as a whole.
The next two pages discuss first link status and
place status, after which these are combined to
form a single classification system.
26
Street
Place
Classification based on a
combination of link status and place
status.
Link status
Link status denotes the relative significance of a street
section as a link in the network. It is effectively based
on its scale of significance within the network it
belongs to: for example, local access street, district
distributor, city arterial. In principle this could relate
upwards to a (inter)national scale of significance.
In a people oriented perspective it is important to not
only regard link in terms of motorised traffic but in
terms of cyclists and pedestrians as well i.e. link
function can be fulfilled by different ways of moving
along. It is, however, primarily for car traffic the tradition
of designating road ‘hierarchies’ exists – an approach
to be further explored for other means of transport. The
designation of the status of a particular link will be
determined by its role in the network structure.
A three level ‘hierarchy’ based on
link function. The levels could
represent, for example, city roads
(A), district roads (B) and local
roads (C).
The topological basis for road
Conventional classifications and road hierarchies may classification is discussed by
sometimes be presented as if they related to Morrison (1966) and Marshall
‘movement’ or ‘mobility’, but the actual designation is (2004). See also ARTISTS D1.1.
more commonly based on a version of link status
(sometimes referred to as “network function” or
“strategic function”). Therefore, the link status as
presented here may be a restatement of (some)
conventional practice.
Place status
Place status denotes the relative significance of a
street section as an urban place in the whole urban
area. For example, a street or square may perform a
city-wide role or a more local role. Therefore, the
place status is – like link status – related to
geographical scale with regard to frequency and type
of use, and in principle relates upwards to national or
international scale significance.
There is no direct equivalent to place status in
conventional street classifications or road hierarchies.
However, the designation of status of place is often
carried out by urban planners or geographers when
ranking places in other contexts – for example,
nominating a ‘district centre’. The designation of place
status is no more or less subjective than the
conventional designation of road function.
A three level ‘hierarchy’ based on
place status. The levels could
represent, for example, places of
city scale significance (a), district
centres (b) and local centres or
places of local significance (c).
Whereas the link status of a route will tend to stay
constant over the length of a particular street, place
status will vary along a street, and could be different
in principle for each locale. Indeed, street sections
can be defined by changes in place status along a
given street, as well as by changes in link status.
27
Link
The two-dimensional framework
Each street section is classified according to its link
status and its place status. In accordance with the
way they are defined, these are independent
variables. They can therefore be arranged as a twodimensional classification framework, rather than the
linear ranking typical of conventional practice.
Link status and place status are both ordinal entities
(i.e. they can be classified in order in a ranked scale);
although they may well be informed by contextual
Place
data, including quantitative data, they are in the end
Each street section (locale) is
allocated by designation. This designation is based on classified according to two criteria:
geographical significance in both cases, so both axes
link status and place status.
have the same scale. This puts link status and place
status intrinsically on an equal footing, therefore
allowing a real sense of balance between ‘right of Link
way’ versus ‘right of place’.
National highway
From this kind of plot it is therefore possible to
distinguish different types of street. These types are
defined by their combination of link and place status.
Such a typology includes the general class ‘arterial
street’ and within this a series of sub-classes or
individual types of arterial street.
These types may be represented as ‘cells’ in a
‘periodic table’ of street types. The number of types
recognised (related to the number of levels
recognised) and their labels would be tailored to each
city’s context of application. Here, a generic notation
is used to demonstrate the two-dimensional basis of
the classification. However, in practice, each
institution or language would use its own tailor-made
labels.
City boulevard
District
‘high street’
Local roads / streets
Place
Different types of street can be
recognised according to
their combination of roles as link
and locale (place).
National
Ie
Id
Ic
Ib
Ia
City
IIe
IId
IIc
IIb
IIa
District
IIIe
IIId
IIIc
IIIb
IIIa
Neighbour
hood
IVe
IVd
IVc
IVb
IVa
Local
Ve
Vd
Vc
Vb
Va
Local
Neighbour
hood
District
City
National
ARTISTS street classification table
Arterial roads/ways
Link status
Arterial streets
Non-arterial roads/ways
Non-arterial streets
Place status
ARTISTS Functional Classification
28
The street-space trade-off
The two-dimensional system of classification provides the
framework for deciding which types of design and
regulation will apply to a street section. This will be
affected not only by the present demands placed on that
street section (e.g. for traffic along or pedestrians across
the street), but also by future expected demands and the
relative significance of the street section’s status as a link
and place relative to the rest of the system.
In other words, the street-space trade-off is not a simple
mechanistic decision by which a given traffic flow x
implies a width y or time z. There is, rather, a sense of
feedback between each locale and the whole system,
between supply and demand across the system.
Any street section can be judged as to whether its link
status is relatively more significant than its role as an
urban place. This is used as a guide to influence the
trade-off of street-space within the street section:
• Streets with higher link status relative to place status
may allocate a greater proportion of street space
and/or time to through traffic;
• Streets with higher place status relative to link status
may allocate a greater proportion of street space
and/or time to pedestrians, crossing movements,
other street activities, etc.
Wider running carriageway – suitable where there is a
higher value of link status relative to place status
This classification is therefore
different from one based (only)
on form or use, which would
tend to classify two street
sections with the same form
and use in the same category.
Link
This has the effect that it would be possible – in principle
– to have two street sections with identical vehicle flow
and pedestrian activities, but which nevertheless would
have different functions relative to the whole street
system, and hence be classified differently. Therefore, in
the system presented here, two streets with the same
form and use, but which are classified differently, could
well have different design solutions.
Place
Trade-off of street-space at the
micro level is guided by the role
of the street determined at the
strategic (macro) level
Narrower running carriageway –
suitable where place status is high
relative to link status
29
Relationships with road or street classifications
The classification system outlined here can
accommodate a variety of existing street types –
including those based on form or use – and in principle
can be applied to any street system. There now follow
two examples of mapping existing road or street types
on to the ‘ARTISTS classification table’ based on link
and place status.
An interpretation of the UK road hierarchy
Primary
distributors
District distributor
Ie
Id
Ic
Ib
Ia
IIe
IId
IIc
IIb
IIa
This hierarchy is from the UK
guidance manual Transport
in the Urban Environment
(IHT, 1997)
IIIe IIId IIIc IIIb IIIa
Local distributors
IVe IVd IVc IVb IVa
Ve
Vd
Access roads
Vc
Vb
Va
Pedestrian
In this interpretation, the distributor roads are assumed
to have little or no ‘place status’, while streets and
squares of any urban significance are assumed to have
low link function.
Examples of street types empirically derived from ARTISTS project
For a set of 48 streets consisting of 126 street sections
data was collected on street-space descriptors and
performance indicators. The data was analysed with
cluster analyses where five recognisable categories of For details of identification of
arterial streets were identified which potentially could be street type by cluster
analysis, see ARTISTS
mapped to the classification table as follows:
Deliverable D2.1.
Type D
Type E
Type A
Ie
Id
Ic
Ib
Ia
IIe
IId
IIc
IIb
IIa
IIIe IIId IIIc IIIb IIIa
Type B
IVe IVd IVc IVb IVa
Ve
30
Vd
Vc
Vb
Va
Type C
Type A – Low intensity street
Example: Rua do Campo Allegre, Porto
Functional class:
IIId - district link, neighbourhood place.
Type B – Narrow inactive old street
Example: Rua do Monte dos Burgos, Porto
Functional class:
IIIc - district link, district place.
Type C – Shopping street
Example: Carrer Arago, Barcelona
Functional class:
IIa – city link, national place
Type D – Metropolitan arterial
Example: Marylebone Road, London
Functional class:
Ib – national link, city place
Type E – Suburban residential arterial
Example: Nobelvägen, Malmö
Functional class:
IId – city link, neighbourhood place
31
The foregoing demonstrations show that the classification
system presented here is capable of accommodating both
conventional ‘theoretical’ types, and actual streets
identified from empirical observation – street types like
the ‘metropolis arterial’ and arterial ‘shopping street’ – that
do not actually fit into conventional classifications.
Professional and public roles in classification
Link status
Classification has traditionally been carried out by roads
authorities. In the system set out here, it is expected that
the designation of link status would ultimately remain the
responsibility of the roads authority.
However, the
process of judging link status should also ideally involve
others with a stake in the role of the streets. That is, the
exercise of selecting which links should form routes of
different levels of strategic significance can be informed
and influenced by other professionals such as planners,
and by the public.
The designation of link status could take inventories of
existing road, public transport, bicycle and pedestrian
transport networks as a starting point, or a participative
exercise could start with a ‘blank’ (unclassified) plan of
the city and work through the procedure suggested in
Appendix A. Such an exercise could help to take on board
not only the opinions of local people about the arterial
streets in their own local area, but about arterial streets
across the whole city. This could help to balance the
interests of stakeholders representing local street users,
and citizens who need to use other people’s ‘local’ streets
for through movement.
Place status
The judgement of the place status of a locale is most
likely to be appropriately carried out by the city planning
authority, which normally is charged with making
decisions of urban status and land use. This judgement
may be also informed by other professionals such as the
roads authority, and the public.
In this case, as part of the overall public participation
process, members of the public may be consulted on
what they consider to be the most significant places in
their local area, their district and their city. By involving
people from different areas across a whole city, it is
possible to build up a picture of those places, that are
significant only to people within a given area, and those
places that are considered significant to all citizens. The
results from this exercise can inform the professional
planners’ assignation of place status.
32
A street seen by one
person as a ‘local place’
will be seen by another
person as a potential
‘through route’.
Link between strategic function and design
The strategic function set in terms of link status and
place status can be used to guide the design of street
The process of design is
sections.
described in Chapter 5.
Design of a street section involves manipulating the
form and regulation of the street to accommodate uses.
ARTISTS
Strategic / Functional
Street Classification
Link status
Place status
FORM and REGULATION
USE
Use, form and regulation
refer to
the individual street section
33
5. PROJECT PROCESSES
This chapter describes the stages in the redesign process, the relationship
between these stages and stakeholder participation and classification. It also
outlines the parts where ARTISTS makes a contribution.
5.1 Overview
The redesign process goes though the stages of: selection of site for reconstruction,
identification of problems and needs, formulation of a project brief, generation of
alternative design options, appraisal, design, implementation and evaluation. The
tasks at each stage are solved by surveys, studies at site and stakeholder
participation. Out of a complete decision- and design process (see figure below),
ARTISTS contributes with knowledge to the parts enclosed by the marked box. For
each of these project stages, tools for stakeholder participation have been
developed, tried and evaluated by participants and facilitators at six arterial streets in
European cities. More detailed information about the relation between these project
stages and stakeholder participation and street classification can be found under
each project stage headlined 5.2-5.5.
Select street section(s)
for reconstruction
ARTISTS
Formulate a project brief
Generate alternative
design options
Stakeholder participation
Street classification
Identify problems and
needs
Appraise options
ARTISTS
Design and implement
Evaluate
34
Stakeholder participation
Street classification
Generate alternative
design options
Formulate a project brief
Generate alternative
design options
Stakeholder participation
Identify problems and
needs
Appraise options
Identify problems and
needs
Formulate a project brief
Generate alternative
design options
Stakeholder participation
Generate alternative design options
The design exercise is a tool to declare the
management of the arterial street in terms of
allocating use of street space and time; thus
making a trade off between different user groups.
The trade off is influenced by the designation of
link and place function, the visions and aspirations
for the street (objectives), taking into account the
available street space, existing constraints, and
existing users and interests. (This stage is
thoroughly described with practical details in
chapter 5.4. Developed design tools to facilitate for
stakeholders to participate are further described in
Appendix B)
Formulate a project brief
Appraise options
Street classification
Formulate a project brief
The formulation of a project brief sets out the
frames, preconditions and objectives for the
design exercise. The objectives for redesigning
depend on the present and expected functions of
the street and interest groups’ views. The
prioritisation of function can be an important tool
for decision-makers to declare intentions and aims
of the city authorities, such as; is the link status to
be down graded generally; where is place status to
be superior to link status and vice versa, etc. This
should of course be balanced with users’ visions
and preferences regarding function. (To be further
explored in chapter 5.3.)
Identify problems and
needs
Street classification
Problems and needs
After the selection of site for reconstruction the first
activity is to identify the present status of the street
based on objective descriptors of the street,
various stakeholders’ subjective perceptions of the
very same street and different aspects on
sustainability. The significance of the problems
and needs in the street depends to a great extent
on the accordance between actual and intended
use / function of the street. (To be further explored
in chapter 5.2.)
Appraise options
35
Formulate a project brief
Generate alternative
design options
Appraise options
36
Stakeholder participation
Identify problems and
needs
Street classification
Appraise option
When appraising the different design options to
select the one for further development and
implementation any possible conflicts that may
occur as a result of the design must be
considered. If the appraisal shows that the street
design doesn’t meet the objectives the design and
regulation have to be adjusted to meet the function
or the function has to be redefined. (To be further
explored in chapter 5.5.)
5.2 Identifying problems and needs
Street classification
Stakeholder participation
The first stage of a reconstruction process is to
Identify problems and
needs
select site(s) for reconstruction. The reason for
selection is often due to a gradually increased
understanding of the site not functioning as
Formulate a project brief
intended due to the current use being different
compared to the use the street once was designed
Generate alternative
for. Another reason could be that the values of
design options
what is acceptable performance have changed.
The phase of identifying problems and needs is
the second phase of the reconstruction process.
Appraise options
This phase takes its starting point in the detected
problems mentioned above, then collects and
analyses objective and subjective data and analyses the situation with regard to
sustain-ability. It then hands over these results for the setting of objectives in the next
stage.
DATA COLLECTION
To get a thorough basis for describing and analysing the problems and needs at the
site, information has to be gathered. This information should consist of both objective
data obtained through traditional data collection and subjective data obtained through
surveys with users of the street.
Objective data to describe the street
Built Form
ARTISTS: assignment link and place
Street classification.
Buildings
Space between
buildings
Regulation / Management
Function of
buildings
Allocation of space
and time for different
forms of activities
Use
Ground floor use
Use of the space
between buildings
Consequences – are there any
problems?
Yes / No
Built form provides the physical
foundation on which classification and
regulation/management operates; it
also provides an ultimate physical
constraint on the type and intensity of
activities which may take place.
Management/regulation applies to the
function of buildings, infrastructure and
public space. It effectively adds an extra
layer of intervention, that comes between
form and use.
The use indicate how people use
streets by using the physical buildings
and spaces, moderated by any
regulations.
The ultimate consequences due to built
form, regulation/management and how
the street is used; are there any
problems or not. Here consequences in
terms of e.g. too high speeds, accidents
or emissions are measured and fed
back into the system in order to assess
whether a change is warranted or not.
Type of objective data, their internal links and relations to street classification
37
Street classification has an important role here
as it strongly relates to various descriptors of the
street. Classification can be seen as the regulator
in the system. By going back and redo the
classification i.e. based on today’s needs and
interests and by taking the whole city system into
consideration, we would probably get different
input for the regulation and management of the
street (the design of the street), the use of the
street would be different and the consequences
would change accordingly; hopefully towards less
problems.
Let’s just for a moment take one step further back
and consider the relevance of street classification
for the whole redesign process. Instead of
classifying each section in the urban street system
ad hoc, i.e. as they become subject of
reconstruction,
it
would
of
course
be
advantageous to have a more overarching
approach. This means that street classification
could be a part of the city planning policy.
This implies that the actual first step would be to
map the whole transport infrastructure i.e. the
infrastructure for car traffic, public transport,
pedestrians, bicycles and freight. For each
network the significance of its specific links and
the significance of its specific places would be
determined. Thus, each section of the street would
get a link status and place status that is based on
specific local aspects while considering the
significance of the wider city system. If such
inventory for the whole city is done, then a lot of
work can be saved when other sites are up for
reconstruction and consistency in judgement over
time and place is to some extent secured.
link status
place status
Designate link and place status for
the whole city network
According to figure on the previous page, the
objective data collected to describe the street, can
be categorised into:
Example of built form descriptors:
The built form gives the user of the street an
apprehension of the street scape, the framing of the
space.
These
descriptors
influence
the
performance / sustainability of the street indirectly.
The number of doorways and percentage of active
frontages can, for instance, indicate to what extent
the surrounding buildings contribute to the activity
in the street.
height of surrounding buildings,
space between buildings, number of
doorways, percentage of active
frontages, width of the street,
greenery.
Example of management/regulation
descriptors: one- or two-way traffic,
type of control at intersections, speed
The management / regulation descriptors present limit, number of lanes and width of
the current management, allocation of street space lanes allocated to each mode.
and the main functions of the buildings.
38
The use descriptors present the actual use (type
and frequency) of the street. When the focus is to
design the arterial street for people it is important to
collect data that describe the flow of people and not
by habit only collect flow of vehicles. The collected
data should describe movement along and
movement across the street as well as other
activities that are not transport related like windowshopping, resting, etc.
Example of use descriptors: flows of
people and vehicles, speeds, type of
activities in the street and ground
floor use in the buildings.
The consequences indicators describe how well
the street performs and indicate also whether
problems can be anticipated or not. This
information is then fed back into the system to e.g.
propose changes in the classification of link and
Example of consequences
place function to better harmonise with actual use descriptors: accidents, speeds,
to improve performance. (More on this later when emission.
sustainability is discussed)
Subjective data – Stakeholder participation
When objective facts about the street is collected
and analysed, the process starts to get to know
how the users of the street perceive the situation as
described objectively. The aim of stakeholder
participation in the problem and need definition
phase is to understand the situation from the users’
perspective. Stakeholders concentrate during this
process not only on problems, i.e. what they dislike
about the street, but also on the positive aspects,
i.e. what they like about it.
The process of participation in this phase in the
ARTISTS demonstration cases contained two
steps:
1. preliminary interviews to collect information
from a large group of users
2. focus groups in which a smaller number of
stakeholders could brainstorm and express
their concerns about the street
39
Preliminary interviews aim to get a rough picture
of the situation at the street or street section
reflected by different stakeholder groups. Here
more emphasis should be put on getting a good
representation of different stakeholder groups
rather than to get a high number of interviewees
per stakeholder group. Results from preliminary
interviews in ARTISTS conclude that it is probably
enough to interview about 10 people from each
stakeholder group to plan and prepare the focus
groups properly. These preliminary interviews may
very well be short, it is often enough with a few but
overarching questions.
The following table presents the results of the
preliminary interviews carried out in London, UK,
among residents, local businesses and users of the
specific street. It illustrates that both problems and
advantages of the place are partly common for the
three groups, partly specific according to the way
they use the street.
Residents
Common
problems
Specific
problems
Positive
aspects
To be
improved
Businesses
volume of traffic, traffic noise, air pollution
unattractiveness
lack of parking
unattractiveness of
of the street
provisions
the street
frequency and reliability of buses
local shops
local shops
more space for
buses,
pedestrian
facilities,
more parking
space
more space for cars
and lorries,
parking and loading
facilities
In a focus group discussion representatives of
different stakeholder groups are gathered into
smaller groups of 6-8 persons. The purpose is to
more in detail discuss certain pre-selected topics, in
our cases derived from the preliminary interviews.
Here the aim of the focus group was to:
• identify additional issues as compared to the
preliminary interviews,
• gain deeper understanding of ‘problems’ and
‘positive aspects’ in the case study street
40
Users of the street
ease of getting on
and off buses
wider footpaths,
crossing facilities,
more space for
buses
Participants of focus groups in ARTISTS were
pleased to face representatives from different user
groups, it was challenging for them to be
confronted with different views. They also
expressed that their own apprehension of the
street was broadened and that it was fruitful to
both discuss positive and negative aspects.
Detailed information about running a
focus group can be found in
"ARTISTS Participation Forum Guide,
WP3 - Focus group 1 and focus
group 2”)
The following table presents the summary results
of focus groups held in London, UK, (in the same
area as the preliminary interviews presented
above).
Good aspects of Multicultural and shopping mix; great for public transport and
the place
linkages; cultural diversity, shops, food, people; leisure facility
Bad aspects of Air pollution – stationary traffic; unsafe – no surveillance; narrow
the place
pedestrian pavements; fear of accidents
Priorities
High volume and speed of traffic; traffic noise; community
severance caused by the road; narrow pedestrian pavement;
traffic reduction; pedestrian vehicle conflicts; cleanliness/
maintenance; personal security; rubbish/ litter; shops/servicesarea improvements; more parking.
Focus groups held in different European cities in
the frame of ARTISTS confirmed the varied nature
of “problematic streets”. The problematic arterial
street is one that fails to meet the needs of the
users of either or both the local and the broader
city system. The needs and failures to meet these
have to be defined locally. The problematic/nonproblematic street is not a black and white issue.
The number of people whose needs are not being
met, the number and types of needs that are
failing to be met, and the degree of that failure are
the decisive factors. The two functions of the street
i.e. ‘moving’ (link) and ‘residing’ (place) were
reflected in the comments of the participants.
Generally their emphasis was on place function
and on the negative effects vehicle movement has
on this. This however is not surprising in the light
of the types of participants; they were mostly
residents with a few business owners.
Car drivers belong to a powerful group when it
comes to lobbying in connection to reconstructions
but is also a group that rarely gets involved in
public participation activities. Car drivers driving
along the case study streets were invited to the
ARTISTS focus groups but very few showed up.
41
SUSTAINABILITY of the street performance
When objective and subjective data are collected
we know much more about the situation in the
street and can link this to the three aspects on
sustainability namely; social, economic and
environmental qualities. In connection to the two
classification dimensions (se table next page) we
can talk about:
Sustainability of the link function; meaning
efficient, safe and environmentally friendly modes
of travel.
Sustainability of the place function; meaning
that people can use the street for activities other
than traffic, and the street provides a secure and
healthy environment for those activities.
If for instance stakeholders express that the street
performs less satisfactory from a social point of
view then it might be worthwhile studying the
variety of activities and the number of people
involved in these different activities. If
improvement will be based on this aspect then this
is also the indicator to follow up after the redesign.
Link function
Safety of vehicle
occupants
Safety of
pedestrians
Vehicle speed
Movement
efficiency along
the link
Delay along the
link
Air quality inside
vehicles
42
Social sustainability
Indicator
Place function
Indicator
car accidents
Personal security
crimes on the place
pedestrian accidents
Activities in the street
variety of activities
85% speed level
Presence of people
number of people
involved in activities
other than walking
along
Economic sustainability
the ratio of the flow of Viability of the place
people to AADT
delay of vehicles and Delay across the link
pedestrians along the
link
Environmental sustainability
Air quality on the
concentration of
sidewalk
relevant pollutants
Noise level
Greenery
rents and sales
delay of vehicles and
pedestrians across the
link
concentration of
relevant pollutants
dB(A)
indication of how
much greenery there
is
Performance assessment is not simply an indication
of different aspects of sustainability, but an
assessment of sustainability relative to target
function, as defined through classification. This
means that different streets with the same
performance indicators could be interpreted as
having different levels of performance, if those
streets have different target functions. Assessment
can therefore be used to help judge if a particular
street section has the right balance in
accommodating the different activities relative to its
strategic importance as a link and as a place in a
wider system
Output
Based on street descriptors and output from
stakeholder participation, the “identifying problems
and needs” phase hands over an analysis of the
prevalent situation in the street with regard to
sustainability, to the setting of objectives in the next
stage.
43
5.3 Formulating a project brief
Objectives
Objectives of the study are set by drawing on the
identification of problems, the views of
stakeholder groups, any relevant policy
documents and statements, and from the
judgements of professionals involved in the study.
Local policy documents might contain goals for
the city regarding link and place requirements for
a certain street or section of the street; significant
foreseen changes may change the function of
either the link or place function. For example, a
large derelict building may be due to be
converted into a national museum, or there may
be a proposal to introduce a street running tram
along the route. In addition to formal policy
statements, city officials and the many
professionals with an interest in the street may
have requirements or ideas that they would like to
be addressed in the course of the design study.-
44
Formulate a project brief
Generate alternative
design options
Appraise options
Stakeholder participation
Frames
This stage includes professional input on
geographical coverage (the street section(s) to be
redesigned and area of possible impact), specific
requirements or constraints on the design
solutions, the timing of the exercise, details of the
allocated budget, etc. The information to
stakeholders about restrictions must be balanced
regarding content. Too strict restrictions will of
course take the sting out of the stakeholder
discussions. It will on the other hand substantially
damage the confidence between the city and the
stakeholders if facts like these are not presented
at all.
Identify problems and
needs
Street classification
The project brief sets out the frames,
preconditions and objectives for the design
exercise. Here the aim is to define desired
functions and priorities of the street. It draws on
the findings from the problem identification stage,
stakeholder participation and professional input.
Various stakeholder groups, with an interest in the
street section(s), also provide important input to
the formulation of study objectives. Focus groups
might be used to explore stakeholders’ aspirations
and visions and to identify stakeholders’
preferences regarding future development of the
local area and future street functions. These
exercises either produce visions and aspirations
as they are expressed by the different
stakeholders groups or there is an attempt to have
stakeholder groups agree upon common visions
and aspirations. The latter can initiate fruitful
discussions on priorities and how to make tradeoffs between different user groups. Some findings
from such exercises that were carried out in the
ARTISTS project are summarised below.
Chapter 3 suggests ways in which
focus groups or visioning exercises
can be used
EXAMPLE vision and aspiration
Copenhagen, Denmark
• Major landmark (e.g. arch spanning the street) at the entry to the street section
• An avenue with many trees, plants and bushes
• Remove through traffic (e.g. put it underground), more space for street activities
• Tram line running in a central median
Girona, Spain
• Wider footways and more space for pedestrians; more/better crossing facilities
• A greener environment: more trees, flowers, etc.
• More housing and shops along the street
• Better public transport: higher frequency buses, or street trams
• Reduce traffic volumes and impact: build an underpass, or make the street one-way
London, UK
• The need for two-way working, including bus travel in both directions
• Better aesthetics and improved pedestrian facilities
• Make the area safer through better lighting;
• Reduce speed by enforcement and reallocation of space from car to pedestrians
Another part of setting objectives deals with
making the objectives operational i.e. to choose
indicators that are relevant, possible to measure
and assess after the reconstruction. If improved
safety is the objective then we need to identify
indicators for safety; all accidents, injury
accidents, serious conflicts, vehicle speeds, etc.
The proposed indicators on social, economic and
environmental sustainability in the previous
section, 5.2, might be of help here.
45
5.4 Generating alternative design options
The ordinary procedure through the design
process differs from city to city and from country
to county. The general process is, however,
roughly the following. The first step often involves
assigning staff at the local authority (often the
personnel responsible for traffic planning issues)
the task to formulate a number (6-8) of rough
sketches. These sketches then get more and
more refined and are reduced in numbers as
experts from different disciplines discuss and
assess the alternatives. Parts of the appraisal
considering fulfilling preconditions are cleared off
already in these rounds. When there are 1-3
alternative solutions left these are usually
designed in more detail.
Stakeholder involvement:
When stakeholders get involved in the design
process it is very important that they get
acquainted with the preconditions and the design
tools properly. Stakeholders must also be told how
their inputs are to be used in the process.
46
Formulate a project brief
Generate alternative
design options
Stakeholder participation
Design process
Based on existing uses and interests, perceived
and detected problems, visions and aspirations,
classification of link and place status, available
street space and other constraints the design
exercise declares the management, allocation of
time and space to users while considering
sustainability. The stage of appraising the design
options then follows (section 5.5), where one of
the options will be selected for further
development and implementation.
Identify problems and
needs
Street classification
Compared to the other stages in the redesign
process presented in this report, this stage on how
to generate alternative options is presented and
exemplified in more detail. The reasons are that
this stage constitutes a major part of the
stakeholder activities in ARTISTS and provides a
challenging new addition to the ordinary design
process.
Appraise options
See chapter 5.5 for appraisal
Additional information about the use
of developed design tools is found in
Appendix B.
Possible procedure of involving stakeholders in
the design process
The design process presented here has been
developed for use in design workshops, where a
group of 4-7 participants (residents, shop keepers,
NGO’s, politicians, etc.) forms a design team together
with a facilitator and a technical professional. (One
workshop may comprise several design teams.)
The role of the facilitator is to explain the purpose of
the workshop, introduce the design tools, explain the
design exercises leading to alternative design options
and assist discussion.
The role of the technical professional is to guide
participants in preparing alternative design options,
answer technical questions, draw design ideas onto
base plans and take photos of design options.
A process for carrying out a design workshop as part of Possible ways of dividing
this process is now suggested.
participants into different groups:
1. Divide participants into groups (facilitator role). Give
consideration to the composition of each group.
The facilitator may want to:
• Ensure a broad range of interests in each group; or
• Group people with similar interests, so the
composition of each group differs.
Dividing participants into smaller groups for the design
exercise, with a facilitator for each group, can provide a
less confrontational forum for people to express their
views. The facilitator can ensure that everyone has their
say.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Age
Gender
User group (residents, shopowners, car drivers,
teachers and students etc)
Level of previous
participation (eg attendance
at previous workshop)
Familiarity with a particular
street section
None (People allocate
themselves to groups.)
2. Provide an overview of the street. The technical
professional should provide an overview of the
section of the street to familiarise participants
The design process should have a clear objective in
terms of what it is that is to be designed. Participants
should be clear as to whether the whole street is to be
designed or just a section of it. The scope of the design
exercise would take into account the homogeneity of the
street, its functional integrity (a section that is relatively
clear and coherent in its functions), and any issue that
have arisen with the public regarding problems or
visions.
47
3. Set constraints for the design (technical professional
Examples
role).
There is a need to be clear at the outset about the
constraints or prerequisites – for example, if there is a
minimum traffic flow or minimum number of traffic lanes
to be accommodated, or a financial budget constraint.
The degree of constraint could be looser or tighter. One
possibility is to start by having the professional
designers generate some possible options which are
presented to participants for scrutiny. Another is to have
almost no constraints, and allow participants to come up
with whatever they want. The first possibility may be felt
to be too constraining; on the other hand, the second
might give rise to designs that are not feasible or need to
be ‘changed out of recognition’ (and therefore no longer
felt to be ‘owned’ by the participants) before they could
be considered for implementation.
of
minimum
requirements or constraints that
might be specified
• Building line (mandatory)
• Minimum number of running
traffic lanes to be provided
(one or two way)
• Minimum provision of a
pavement (sidewalk)
• The existence of bus routes
along the street
• The need to maintain
existing land uses
4. Provide participants with design objectives (facilitator
role).
The scope for the stakeholders is simplified if they’re
asked to focus on solutions regarding e.g.
• meeting specific visions or goals
• resolving particular problems or challenges
• different stakeholder interests in the street, for
example, pedestrians or shopkeepers.
• a specific section or part of street.
Participants should be reminded to consider the results
from any previous focus groups (e.g. covering vision,
objectives). Participants are encouraged to work
together to find solutions, within the constraints
identified, using a variety of design and materials. The
technical professional will encourage participants to
think about these different design elements and how
they may be used towards generating design options for
the street.
Use of the following possible design tools is presented in
Appendix B:
• Poster
• Street Elements Information Pack
• Transparent Overlays
48
Detailed guidance
on the
practical and operational aspects
of setting up and running a
design workshop is given in
ARTISTS Internal Guidance Note
“Participation
Forum
Guide,
WP3”.
Fitting functional role and street-space design
Chapter 4 outlined a framework for the functional
classification of arterial streets (with a more detailed
procedure for classification provided in Appendix A).
Functional classification and street-space design are
linked in an iterative process, in which the existing form
and use of all street sections influences the functional
classification of the street system as a whole; and this
classification is then used to guide prioritisation of streetspace allocation in the design of individual street sections.
USE
Use of street section
as LINK:
Through movement
(speed, volume, etc.)
Use of street section
as PLACE:
Pedestrian activity
Trading, playing etc.
Parking / loading
Compatibility of uses
(e.g. fast movement and stationary activity,
motor traffic and environmental capacity, etc. )
Link
status
Place
status
FORM and Regulation
LINK
- Space (capacity)
for through
movement
(by mode)
PLACE
- Pedestrian space
- Space for stalls, seating,
trees, etc.
- Space for parking/loading
- Space/time for crossing
Compatibility of physical fit
(availability of sufficient street-space)
The design challenge. Design involves matching form and regulation to support use, bearing in mind the intended
functional role of the street. Note that although both components of the functional classification, link status and
place status are independent of each other.
49
Note that we distinguish here between two separate
compatibility issues that need to be resolved in the act of
design:
(i) “physical fit” – or the ability to accommodate space for
different uses within finite street-space; and
(ii) “compatible use” – the suitability for different uses to
be located next to or mixed with each other.
These are independent, since, for example:
• a wide road could accommodate all uses for which
there is demand, yet some of those uses may be
incompatible (e.g., fast heavy traffic next to pavement
café);
• a mix of uses (e.g. pedestrians and market stalls)
could be compatible, but simply might not physically
fit, for example, on a particular narrow street or lane.
In effect, conflicts are resolved by deciding that
(i) one use is given sole rights to the space, instead of
another, where the two uses are completely incompatible,
or accommodation of both uses is physically not feasible;
(ii) one use is given greater priority than another, with
more space (or time) allocated to it;
(iii) both uses are accommodated, in a compromise, in
which provision for neither is optimised.
In each case demand for both uses may have to be
suppressed, or partially accommodated elsewhere – or in
the case of (i) above, one use is wholly accommodated
elsewhere.
The decision in each case is guided by the functional
classification, which accounts for the role of that street
section relative to all others. The design trade-off is
therefore not just the immediate trade-off of area within
the street section itself, but implies trade-offs of streetspace and uses (capacity and demand) across the whole
street system.
50
Problem:
In any particular circumstance, then, a compatibility
conflict may be resolved internally, by the physical design
of the street section – for example, to separate uses that
otherwise would be incompatible if mixed or adjacent.
If this is not possible, the intended role of the street
section could be adjusted, by
(i) limiting the accommodation of through movement,
which could imply a diversion of the high status route
to other streets, accompanied by a downgrading of
the link status of the street section in question; or
(ii) limiting the accommodation of the non-through uses of
the streetspace, which could imply a diversion of
activities of high place status and a downgrading of
the place status of the street section in question.
A particular street section has
difficulty accommodating uses
associated with both high link
status and high place status.
Possible solutions:
(
This demonstrates the potential for feedback between
street management, performance assessment and
functional classification (recognition of role).
The adjustment would take account of not only the
relative significance, but any absolute limits. For example:
• a town square might have a place value immovable
and inextricable with that particular street space,
whereas the arterial route could be rerouted;
• a settlement with only one through route might have
certain street sections (e.g. a bridge or bridge
approach) that would absolutely have to be
designated with strategic link status, whereas
functions associated with urban place status could be
accommodated off-line.
The final overarching decision when elaborating with
designation of link and place will be to balance local
aspects with city context aspects while considering
sustainability.
i) Route of high link status
diverted or downgraded
(ii) Activity of high place status
moved off-line or downgraded
In addition to these adjustments
in the two dimensions of the
streetspace, other possibilities
in principle are adjustments in
the third dimension (overbridge
or underpass) or the fourth
dimension (separation of
movement / activities in time).
51
Example application
Trafalgar Square, London
Trafalgar Square, one of London’s key civic spaces, suffered from
being surrounded by a traffic gyratory. The city authorities decided
to close off the Square’s north side to traffic (then forming part of
the A4 between Bristol and London), to enlarge the pedestrian
area, connecting the square with the nearby National Gallery.
The redesign decision effectively involved first weighing up the
relative significance of the A4 as a strategic route and Trafalgar
Square as an urban place. The ultimate choice is not a trade-off
between the A4 and Trafalgar Square as such, but the degree to
which that particular space (i.e. the North Terrace) necessarily
forms part of the A4 or part of Trafalgar Square.
North Terrace of Trafalgar
Trafalgar
Square
Bristol
A4
City of
London
Possible alternative
routeings of A4
Square,
before
(above) and
after (below)
In terms of the classification framework, the North Terrace had
effectively been performing as a type [Ia] street, but with
pedestrianisation its status became the equivalent of type [Va].
Further information on the
case of Trafalgar Square is
provided in Appendix C.
52
5.5 Appraising options
Appraisal and factors of reference
When estimating the likely effects of a future
reconstruction the factors of reference have to
be decided. These differ from project to project
but are based on objectives and operationalised
sustainability indicators and other non-project
specific factors. The latter predefined criteria,
like influence on different user groups, parking
and loading possibilities, maintenance, etc., are
based on city or country directives and are
always to be included in the appraisal. Overall
cost-benefit analysis and SWOT (Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats)
analyses can be carried out. As stated above,
the appraisal must be conducted on wellfounded basis. With a large number of
indicators more information is provided but it
also implies that the assessment becomes
much more complicated. This must be
balanced.
Sustainability indicators
ARTISTS related indicators for link and place
function are found in the detailed and
operationalised list to the right.
The values of the indicators will depend on the
function of the street i.e. designation of link and
place function. For example, the average
waiting time for a pedestrian to cross an arterial
street (designed a certain link function) will be
Formulate a project brief
Generate alternative
design options
Stakeholder participation
Identify problems and
needs
Street classification
When appraising, the different design options’
pros and cons are compared to each other and
compared to the predefined objectives,
indicators and other factors of importance. The
objective for the appraisal exercise is to on wellfounded basis select one, the most appropriate,
of the options for further development and
implementation. Thus, the output of this
process is the choice of one option and a
justification for this choice. However, if the
appraisal shows that not any of the street
designs meet the targets set for performance,
the design and regulation have to be adjusted
to meet the function or the function has to be
refined.
Appraise options
Sustainability indicators
Place function
Indicator
Social sustainability
Personal
Crimes per 1000 inhabitants
security
per year (medium - long term)
Activities on
Mix / intensity of activities
the street
(on a scale 0 to 10)
(medium term)
Presence of
Daily number of visiting people
people
or ratio of visitors to
inhabitants per day
Economic sustainability
2
Viability of the
Rent per m per year
place
(medium - long term)
Delay across
Average waiting time
the link
per pedestrian to cross the
street during peak period
Environmental sustainability
Air quality
Pollutant emissions per peak
period or per day (short term)
Noise level
Leq
2
Greenery
m of greenery per 1 acre
Link function
Indicator
Social sustainability
Car accidents per year per
Safety of
km (short term)
vehicle
occupants
Safety of
Pedestrian accidents per year
pedestrians
per km (short term)
Vehicle speed
85% speed level (short term)
Economic sustainability
Ratio of flow of people to
Movement
AADT
efficiency long
the link
Delay along
Average delay of vehicles and
the link
pedestrians in peak period
(short term)
Environmental sustainability
Air quality
Pollutant emissions per peak
period or per day (short term)
The reference within the parenthesis is
referred to the time dimension of the effect,
which is generally divided in short, medium
and long term period
53
comparably shorter at sections with a higher
place function than at sections with lower place
function. Similarly, will the accident rate depend
on traffic volume and number of persons active in
the street. In theory it would be possible to use a
benchmarking procedure to compare arterial
streets within the same function i.e. for streets or
sections of streets with the same combination of
link and place function in the classification table.
In this project this has not been possible to
accomplish as it would require much larger
studies. A step forward in this direction would be
if targets for sustainability indicators per street
type could be set on professional judgement and
apprehensions of the public.
PIAP - Project Identification, Appraisal and Prioritisation – an example of a project
evaluation tool from London using a set of general non-project specific factors.
In the reconstruction process of streets in London, Transport for London will be
proposing the following factors to be included in the appraisal; road safety, buses,
general traffic, parking/loading, access, pedestrians, cyclists, maintenance,
environment, short/long term. The influence on each factor is then estimated by
professionals and if possible by forecasting models in the range from poor to
outstanding performance. For further information see Appendix D.
Irrespective of the choice of indicators and factors
to be included in the appraisal a crucial question
is; How to balance the relative importance of
these factors? For example will an option that
reduces speed and increases vehicle delays at
pedestrian crossings result in higher vehicle
emissions as compared to another option that
maintains movement efficiency for vehicles. On
the other hand will the former option result in less
accidents and personal injuries; thus comparably
better safety indicator values. These trade-offs
will be project specific and will in the end be a
balance between priorities set in the project brief,
apprehensions expressed by stakeholders while
considering the wider city context.
Stakeholders
In ARTISTS we recommend that professional
judgement of preferred option is complemented
with stakeholders’ views. This participation can be
organised through seminars and / or exhibitions
where the alternative design options are
presented. This is a way to further involve the
various stakeholder groups in the redesign
process, to secure wider acceptance for the
preferred option and even to improve the selected
54
option. It can also be an opportunity to rank
alternative options with regard to specific
qualitative indicators. Stakeholder participation
provides an added value to the final synthesis of
pros and cons of the different design options; a
synthesis on which the professionals make the
final decision on selection of option.
EXAMPLE: - appraisal process at
Adrianoupoleos Street, Kalamaria, Greece
Adrianoupoleos Street, the ARTISTS case study
street in Kalamaria, is one of the main arterials of
the Greater Thessaloniki Area. It is a one way
street with 4 lanes for general traffic. It carries very
high traffic volumes, with a high percentage of
both through and heavy traffic. The one-way
operation was implemented in the late 70s, to
increase movement efficient for motorised traffic
i.e. to strengthen the link function of the street.
The main land use along the street is residential
with commercial businesses in the ground floor.
This type of function of the buildings together with
the frequent bus service in the street and
presence of schools, generate high pedestrian
volumes along and across the street.
The stakeholder participation process, as part of
the ARTISTS project, included preliminary
interviews, focus group meetings, a design
workshop and an exhibition. The identification of
problems and needs pointed at high vehicle
speeds, high accident rates, high noise levels,
illegal kerbside parking, as well as the segregation
of urban spaces. The objective of the redesign
was to enhance the place function of the street
while maintaining most of the strategic link
functions. In operational terms this meant a
reduction of speed levels, improvement of
pedestrians’ level of service, protection of
sensitive land uses and overall increase of road
safety.
Example of appraisal process in
connection to the redesign of the
Adrianoupoleos Street in Kalamaria,
Greece.
Kalamaria and Case Study Area
At the design workshop stakeholders produced
two different design options for a 600m long
section of the street. The design options were
further elaborated on by experts and presented in
an exhibition where participants voted for the
preferred option. There was not a definite winning
option as both design options got almost the same
number of votes.
55
The first design option reduces the number of
traffic lanes from four to three, exploits the
released space for on-street parking, proposes the
free public area to be used as off-street parking
space and introduces measures for traffic calming
and noise reduction in the school area.
First Design Option for Adrianoupoleos Street
The second design option maintains the four
traffic lanes, one of which is exclusively used by
buses, motorcycles and bicycles. It also includes
the provision of on-street parking space (both for
private cars as well as for loading and unloading),
of greenery and street furniture (lighting, rest
facilities etc). The free public space is used as a
green space.
Second Design Option for Adrianoupoleos Street
In terms of the classification framework Adrianoupoleos
street is currently performing as a IIc street (link status =
city, place status = district). Both options suggest a future
equivalent to a IId steet (link status remains city, place is
upgraded to neighbourhood).
Both options were
assessed with regard to their social, economic and
environmental sustainability using the list of indicators
suggested above. For some indicators the values of the
existing and redesign options are obtained through
simulation models. The other values are based on
judgement and comparative analysis.
The table on the next page presents the existing and
expected indicators’ values of the redesign options for the
different sustainability dimensions, both for link and place
functions. The table shows that the two design options
are very similar i.e. the indicator values do not differ
significantly. In this case it would have been preferable
with more and more different alternative design options.
Besides the indicator values, additional appraisal criteria
could be the number of people affected, type of
56
stakeholder groups affected in each option, long-term
effects as well as stakeholders’ preferences. The final
synthesis will include a judgement of the relative
importance of each sustainability objective or criterion.
When the appraisal result is on the table the responsible
authority, in this case the Municipality of Kalamaria, will
select the preferred option.
EXAMPLE: Adrianoupoleos street – values of sustainability indicators in the present
situation, design option no 1 and design option no 2.
LOCALES
SUSTAINABILITY
Social
Economic
Link Function
Place Function
Safety of vehicle occupants
(Car accidents per year per km)
DO 0
DO 1
DO 2
1.5
1.0
1.0
Safety of Pedestrians
(Pedestrians accidents per year per km)
DO 0
DO 1
DO 2
0.5
0.3
0.4
Vehicle Speed
(85% speed level)
DO 0
DO 1
DO 2
85
50
60
Movement efficiency along the link
(the ratio of the flow of people to AADT)
DO 0
DO 1
DO 2
1,49
2,05
1,89
Delay along the link
(Average delay of
vehicles in the peak period )
Personal Security
(Crimes per 1000 inhabitants per year)
DO 0
DO 1
DO 2
NA
Improved
Improved
Activities on the street
(mix / intensity of activities)
DO 0
DO 1
DO 2
6
7
6.5
Presence of people
(daily number of visiting people)
DO 0
DO 1
DO 2
1500
1600
1650
Viability of the place
2
(Rent per m per year)
DO 0
DO 1
DO 2
53
55
58
Delay across the link
(average waiting time
per pedestrian to cross the street during
peak period)
DO 0
DO 1
DO 2
75 sec
50 sec
60 sec
Air quality
(Pollutant emissions per peak period or per
day)
DO 2
DO 1
DO 0
DO 0
0
DO 1
3,2
DO 2
0,8
CO 1004 g/hr
NOx 194 g/hr
VOC 232 g/hr
Environmental
Air quality
(Pollutant emissions per peak period or per
day)
DO 0
DO 2
DO 1
CO 1004 g/hr
NOx 194 g/hr
VOC 232 g/hr
CO 1432 g/hr
NOx 276 g/hr
VOC 330 g/hr
CO 1339 g/hr
NOx 258 g/hr
VOC 309 g/hr
CO 1432 g/hr
NOx 276 g/hr
VOC 330 g/hr
CO 1339 g/hr
NOx 258 g/hr
VOC 309 g/hr
Noise Level (Leq)
DO 0
73 dB
DO 1
65 dB
DO 2
67 dB
DO 0
NA
Greenery
DO 1
Improved
DO 2
Improved
DO 0: Existing Situation
DO 1: Design Option 1
DO 2: Design Option 2
57
6. WAY FORWARD
This chapter discusses threads and approaches that are opened up but not
completed within the ARTISTS project; approaches that are promising and
interesting enough to be continued in future planning and research work.
The ARTISTS project and the ARTISTS results are part of
a wider movement in Europe; a movement towards more
sustainable cities. This is for instance expressed by EU’s
5th framework programme ”Cities of Tomorrow and
Cultural Heritage” where the PLUME project has the
overarching task to summarize achievements and identify
remaining gaps. Here it is recognised that the most
imperative challenge on the work towards more
sustainable cities lies in adopting a new way of thinking
i.e. some old-fashioned traditions / truths on how to deal
with transport and land use planning must be challenged.
It is, however, not enough to raise the questions and
pinpoint previous weaknesses; new frameworks/principles
must be introduced, validated and get widespread
recognition throughout Europe. National and local
planning authorities must also get support when
incorporating the new premises in their daily transport and
land use planning.
With ARTISTS some fundamental challenges are
expressed; principles and frameworks on how to move
forward are presented. These now have to be
demonstrated in real life and tested empirically.
This report advocates a "people-oriented approach". This
implies that we should take people into account, not (only)
vehicles, and actually count all people. To operationalise
this, it implies that it is recommended, for example, that
road authorities always actively attempt to monitor street
flows by counting the people inside the vehicles, not just
the vehicles, as well as counting pedestrians and cyclists
as full worthy users of the street. A future task would also
be to explore new indicators for people movement and
intensity and other types of activities (not transport
related).
58
This report draws attention to the scarcity of urban streetspace, and the need to share it "spatially and temporally".
A future task for authorities could be to explore the
possibility of explicitly "calculating" the share of space and
time given to different users, though a combination of
area, signal time, time for parking and servicing, and
bearing in mind time taken for different modes at different
speeds, etc.
A new "functional street classification" system is
suggested in this report. To operationalise this, the
functional classification approach implies that authorities
should, at least, (re)consider how their street classification
is currently done, and how closely it might be related to
link status, and consider if they can introduce the new
place dimension. The overall classification process and
the introduction of place status involves stakeholders’
views and the engagement of the urban planning
department in the discussion.
With a street classification system including all streets in
the city, it will be possible to in a city perspective decide
how much motorised traffic the city can bear and which
parts of the city that are best suited to take this traffic.
With a holistic perspective it will also be possible to better
handle the migration of traffic when streets are
redesigned. The migration will be planned rather than an
uncontrollable side-effect.
Indicators for sustainability must be elaborated further on.
Most sustainability indicators are still on link status. Local
application will produce valuable contributions on place
status indicators.
Design- and decision makers now have to use
stakeholder participation themselves in order to get own
experience and to be able to propose the use henceforth.
The aim must be to have the method incorporated in
national guidelines.
The most natural way forward from this generic, EUbased research is to continue the work on national and
city level; to have the principles and frameworks applied
on national and city level and to produce locally adapted
guidelines. When the empirical work starts it would be
preferable to have a network on EU-level that holds the
reins; collects and spreads new knowledge and
experience. The present ARTISTS web-site is an
excellent tool for such purposes.
59
APPENDIX A
A PROCEDURE FOR STREET CLASSIFICATION
This Appendix presents a process for classifying streets based on the
classification system set out in Chapter 4.
Introduction
The approach to classification in this Guide is based
on the recognition of the link status and place status
of each street section in the street system. This
Appendix sets out a process for allocating link status
and place status to the streets in a street system,
where status in both cases is based on a scale of
geographical
significance.
The
recommended
approach is outlined in the flowchart below, and
described in detail in the rest of this Appendix.
Adoption of new classification system
Establish institutional / professional responsibility for classification
Existing streets /
routes / links
Existing
classification(s)
Designate
link status
Identify discrete
links and places
hence street sections
Establish levels of
link and place status,
hence street types
Inputs
from public
Consideration of
detailed design /
compatibility
Final classification of
all street sections
Detailed design of street
section according to role
Designate
place status
Reconsider
designations
Identification of discrete street sections
A necessary prerequisite to street classification is the
identification of all public streets or areas of streetspace that are under the control of the public
authority.
The next step is then to identify the street sections
that are to be the ‘objects’ of classification.
An area of street-space
to be classified
Links
In a conventional network classification, street
sections are naturally identifiable with links in the
network, where a link corresponds to a section of road
between two junctions. Such links may be further subdivided according to other significant changes along
the length of route. For example, a change of link
designation may occur:
• where a road changes from being a single
carriageway to a dual carriageway
• where a link crosses an administrative boundary
• where there is a change in regulation, for example
where a section of on-street parking changes to a
section with no on-street parking.
Link 3
Link 1
Link 2
Links joining together
at junctions
The identification of what is or is not a discrete link,
and where it starts and ends, reflects judgments about
kinds of street character which may themselves be
used in the classification.
Places
The identification of places has some equivalence
with certain kinds of urban planning or urban design
assessments of urban space, but has not typically
been carried out on a systematic basis as part of an
integrated street classification system. (The
suggestions here are generated from research
explorations as part of the ARTISTS project.)
Discrete places may be identified according to
changes in, for example:
• the form of buildings or spatial character of the
street-space;
• land use;
• pedestrian intensity or activity
Therefore, from an assessment of all areas of public
street space, it should be possible to identify discrete
sections of street – including urban squares and other
types of public street space – where each one is
distinct from the next in terms of some kind of place
character.
Indicators found to distinguish
different sections of street:
- ‘road’ versus ‘street’ character
- buildings fronting or set back
- presence of shops
- presence of greenery
- pedestrian intensity
(ARTISTS Deliverable D1)
Place A
Place B
Place C
Places typically correspond
with areas of homogeneous
spatial character
Street sections
Street sections are finally identified by combining the
interpretation of links and the interpretation of places.
In some cases these might be coincident – for
example, where a row of shops identifying a place
changes to a residential terrace at a junction, also
being the point at which one link changes to the next.
However, it will be common for the two not to
coincide, in which case the street section is taken as
the elementary (smallest) spatial unit. In this way, a
link may straddle two street sections where there is a
transition from one place to another, and a place may
straddle two street sections where there is a transition
from one link to another.
Section 3A
Sec 1B 2B
Section 2C
Three links and three places
form four street sections.
The street sections are now ready to form the ‘objects
of classification’, by their designation according to link
status and place status.
Establishing levels and street types
The approach here is based on the classification of
street sections, where a street section has:
• a link status relating to the street section’s role as
a link in the street network;
• a place status relating to the street section’s role
as an urban place in the overall realm of urban
public space.
The levels of ‘link status’ and ‘place status’ are based
on their geographical scale of significance.
There will be a balance between creating a sufficent
number of levels to usefully distinguish different kinds
of street, while at the same time keeping the number
of levels (and hence the overall number of street
types) manageable. It is suggested that five levels
form a convenient number, for example:
National route
I. National/ regional significance (i.e. above the level
of an individual city/municipality)
II. City significance
III. District significance
IV. Neighbourhood sigificance
V. Local (immediate) significance only
City route
District route
City
The actual labels used will vary from case to case and
country to country.
The combination of five levels of both link and place
status will create an overall ‘periodic table’ of 25 street
types (see Chapter 4).
District
Neighbourhood/
route
Levels in a hierarchy of roads –
and places – can be related to
the geographical scale of areas
associated (Marshall, 2004)
Designating link status
Each city or national authority will already use some
form of road classification, which will often relate more
or less directly to link status as set out here. Any such
existing classification could be used as a basis for
designating link status. That said, this section sets out
explicitly how this classification by link status could be
carried out in the absence of any suitable precedent.
The designation of link status is based on the
geographical scale of significance of the network to
which a street section belongs, and so is strongly
related to the street’s position in the network structure.
The desired network structure is one that possesses a
property of ‘strategic contiguity’ by which routes in the
top level network (observed at any scale) all connect
up. This means that, at the national scale, all national
routes form a single national network; and the set of
all routes from the top down to any given level form a
single contiguous network.
In keeping with this topological structure, the status of
a particular link will be strongly influenced by the
status of adjoining links, and their relation to the
overall pattern of routes of different status. This
means that a particular street section that forms part
of a sequence of links constituting a continuous
strategic route could be considered to have a high link
status even if the particular section was currently of
low standard or had relatively low traffic flow.
Factors influencing
judgement as to the link
status of a street section
Location:
Position in network
Use:
Traffic flow
People flow
Trip length (trip origindestination)
Destination status
Traffic speed
Form:
Street width
Available capacity
Streetscape factors
An analysis of different
classification themes is given in
ARTISTS Deliverable D1.1.
A more detailed exploration of
this kind of network structure is
given in Marshall (2004).
A procedure for constructing a classified network with
the above properties is now set out. (This procedure
may well be the kind of process followed intuitively by
traditional acts of classification, although these are not
normally set out explicitly in this way.)
Recommended procedure
1. Take a plan of the city, ideally one where streets
are not already distinguished by any existing route
classification. At the same time, refer to a regional or
national map, to give the wider network context into
which the city network and classification will fit.
City plan
2. Select a set of ‘strategic corridors’ that connect key
external destinations to each other and the city centre.
This procedure is likely to result in a pattern of both
radial and non-radial routes.
For each corridor, select a set of links that join to form
a discrete strategic route, bearing in mind travel
desire lines and road capacity.
Corridor of
possible routes
Network
context
Selected
route
A balance will need to be struck between having
sufficient routes to form a network and having too
many. There will also be a balance between ‘supply’
and ‘demand’, in that the choice of which links to
include will be affected not only by their topological
utility in connecting strategic origins/destinations, but
in their physical suitability for performing that role.
The resulting networks should give:
• a reasonable connectivity - not too sparse nor too
dense. Too sparse means it is inefficient as a
network or not a network. Too dense means it
has so many links that it ceases to be a strategic
network but tends towards simply being the whole
network, with no distinction between street
sections – which would defeat the purpose of
classification. While some quantitative measures
of connectivity could be proposed here, it is likely
that judgement (of the desirable level of
connectivity) is more likely to be used on an
individual case by case basis.
• a reasonable geographical coverage, so that
most parts of the city are served by some part of
the strategic network.
• roughly match high demand with supply of high
capacity links.
The above procedure gives rise to a single strategic
network, and a scatter of sub-networks, the latter so
far unclassified.
3. Now take the sub-networks lying between the
strategic routes, and for each sub-network repeat the
above procedure, but for successively more local
scales.
Typical overall
strategic structure
Strategic network too sparse.
Although minimising route
length, not so efficient as a
connective network.
Strategic network too dense.
Coverage is so comprehensive
that this is hardly a ‘strategic’
network at all.
The terms ‘strategic’ and ‘local’
are relative to the context, with
strategic relating to the greatest
scale and local relating to the
smallest scale, within any
frame of reference.
Hence, for a sub-network at the district level, we
consider district-level routes that serve to connect the
main centre or centres within the district or along the
edges of the district, or points external to the district.
This procedure can then be repeated two or three
times down to the most local network scale.
District sub-network
The result is an overall network whose routes all
connect up in a particular way, in a structure which
effectively replicates itself at different scales. At any
scale, the link status of a street section is related to
the strategic significance of the network that it belongs
to, e.g. national, city, district, neighbourhood, local.
Neighbourhood
sub-network
Designating place status
Place status should reflect a variety of urban activities Factors influencing
and physical qualities. Some examples are listed on judgement as to the ‘place
status’ of a street section
the right.
While a number of characteristics may be used to
differentiate different kinds of places, the purpose
here is to rank different types of place in connection
with their geographical significance. (This is for the
express purpose of balancing place against link
status, so that the parameters are equivalent –
Chapter 4).
Place status denotes the relative ‘urban place’
significance of a particular locale relative to all other
locales. This means, for example, that in the
commercial context a street with a certain kind of
specialist shops or department stores associated with
high urban status (e.g. only found in larger cities)
would be considered to have a higher ranking as a
shopping street than another street which had only
local shops. The status of the shops here is, of
course, in principle independent of the link function of
the street: one could have ‘city status’ shops on a
street that performed a local arterial role, or local
shops on a primary (city status) arterial.
Location:
Historical identity and sense of
place
Use:
Types of building use / land
use
Types of use of street-space
Intensity of use of place
Form:
Type and character of building
form
Presence of seating, greenery,
etc.
Character of streetscape, street
furniture, etc.
Note: these can help identify
discrete locales in the first
place
In urban planning terms, this ranking is typically done
by relating to the geographical scale of their
catchment areas, though other factors are also
involved. For example, different urban centres may be
distinguished by their degree of specialisation – a city
centre usually has more specialist shops than a
district center; a city government or hospital has more
specialist functions than a local community centre or
health centre. Yet this ‘functional’ specialisation can
nevertheless be expressed in geographical terms,
since it relates to the catchment area of shops, or
coverage of services.
Unlike link status, in which a generic pattern or
structure is definitely proposed as a target one (see
top of previous page), place status will form an ad hoc
pattern. That is, the distribution of place status will not
have any predetermined assumptions about contiguity
of high status places, or adjacency of places of
adjacent status.
A notional distribution of
locales of different place status
.
Recommended procedure
1. Take a city plan and mark up on it the most
significant areas in terms of:
• commercial spaces – streets with frontages for
shops and businesses
• civic spaces – spaces used for formal and informal
gatherings, parades, political assemblies, cultural
events – whether or not associated with building
frontages;
• recreational, sight-seeing and environmental
areas – including for example park, waterfront,
viewpoint, (whether or not these also form civic or
commercial spaces, shopping areas, etc.)
• spaces with other historic, spatial or functional
significance.
Each city will have its own priorities for what
categories to identify – which could be more or fewer
categories than the above list.
2. For each category, assign a status of significance
relating to geographical scale, reflecting a
combination of ‘scarcity value’ and ‘catchment area’.
This should therefore distinguish, for example, the
status of a city square, a district park or a local street
corner where people sit or stand. This status will
normally be assigned by local knowledge and
judgement, though it may be supported by any
relevant data where available.
Possible ‘hierarchies’ of place
status.
Commercial streets/spaces
a. Shops or businesses of
national significance
b. Shops or businesses of citywide significance
c. District level
shops/businesses
d. Local shops / businesses
e. No or negligible commercial
significance
Civic streets/spaces
a. National capital square
b. City square or space
c. District square or space
d. Local square or space
e. No particular civic
significance other than being a
public space in the first place
Recreational streets/spaces
(examples only)
a. National park
b. City park, waterfront, etc.
c. District park
d. Local park, etc.
3. Combine these designations of status to give an
overall designation of place status. This combination
could be done, for example, by taking
• the highest value of place status for any relevant
category;
• taking a median level of status across all relevant
categories; or
• taking an average and rounding up to the next
highest level.
Taking the highest of the values is the simplest, since
it avoids complications arising from how categories
are defined, especially for spaces in which civic,
commercial and recreational uses may be closely
associated.
The result of the above is a patchwork of city spaces
(locales) classified according to their place status.
Place status applied to street
network
Combining link and place status
IVc
Each section of street now has a link status and a
place status. The relative status of each may then be
used as a starting point or guide to detailed design in
the prioritisation of the use of the street-space.
The implication is that a street section with high link
status and low place status can give a higher priority
to the use of street-space for through movement;
conversely, a street section with high place status and
low link status can prioritise the use of street-space
for supporting those activities associated with high
place status. If the link function and place function are
both high, this implies an equitable balance of streetspace. The exact balance will be determined by sitespecific factors such as available width, etc. – and
also the relative demand for space.
A locale serving as a strategic link and as a scenic
viewpoint over a city, for example, may not have an
ongoing high intensity of ‘demand for place’, requiring
an equal share of streetspace, and may be
compatible with the provision of a high proportion of
space for through movement. Conversely, a bus-only
link may have a high link status yet not require a great
deal of space (compared with a high status link in the
all-purpose network), and may therefore be
compatible with a high place status and demand.
Where it is not possible to reconcile high link status
and high place status, there will either need to be a
compromise (i.e. some space given to both but not as
much as desired in either case), or one role will take
precedence over another, requiring a downgrading of
either the link or place status.
This is part of an iterative procedure, where the
inability to come up with a workable detailed design
(ie. where the only feasible designs are incompatible
with the designated function), invites revisiting the use
of that particular street section in that particular role.
In other words, this feeds back to suggesting the need
to consider changing its position in the classification.
IIc
IIb
IIa
Street sections classified
(above) and located in ‘periodic
table’ (below).
Link status
The purpose of classification here, it may be recalled,
is about the strategic assignation of prioritisation, as a
prelude to detailed design, but is not part of detailed
design. It is about what a street(space) is ‘for’ – what
a street is best prioritised for – not an absolute
statement of its design parameters.
Ie
Id
Ic
Ib
Ia
IIe
IId
IIc
IIb
IIa
IIIe IIId IIIc IIIb IIIa
IVe IVd IVc IVb IVa
Ve
Vd
Vc
Vb
Place status
Va
APPENDIX B
DESIGN TOOLS
This Appendix describes the application of three kinds of design tool.
Introduction
This appendix demonstrates three kinds of streetspace design tool that may be used as part of a
stakeholder participation exercise.
Design tools
The use of design tools can help stakeholders think more
imaginatively about how the case study street could be
improved.
In summary:
• Posters are used to display a breadth of options –
including best practice from a range of countries –
to assist generation of ideas for design options;
• The Street Elements Information Pack (SEIP) is
used to explain the possible use of different street
design features;
• Transparent overlays are used to allow
manipulation of design elements in the
reorganisation of street-space on the base plan,
as a simple way of checking for space constraints
and possibilities.
These design tools have been developed for use by
ordinary people, not professional street designers. The
tools, therefore, do not consider details such as the
façades of the buildings, street lighting, type and colour of
surfaces and street furniture, street maintenance and
more advanced traffic control. However, the tools may be
further developed for use by professionals involved in
street design.
The tools are discussed in more detail and illustrated on
the following pages.
Details about the developed
design tools are found in
deliverable D3.2 and its
Appendices.
Posters
A poster montage of possible options can be used to
facilitate the generation of ideas and to stimulate
discussion among the workshop participants. The poster
should show a variety of possibilities, providing examples
of how similar streets have been reconstructed in other
cities and other countries.
Three types of posters should be considered for inclusion
in design workshops:
• Posters of street elements;
• Posters of reconstructed streets, based on previous
work;
• Posters about the design workshop street
summarising the needs for change, including
problems, challenges and visions of this street and
any constraints.
The posters should be put up in the room where the
design workshop will take place prior to participants
arriving. Additionally, some of the posters may be given to
participants in ordinary A4 paper format. The workshop
facilitator should invite participants to look at the posters
prior to beginning the design exercises, and encourage
them to look for ideas for improvements that they may
want to implement in their street.
It is important to show several reconstructed street
posters (preferably three or more) in order to provide
many ideas for improvement, and hence not set the
agenda of the design workshop to focus on a too limited
number of design elements or types of reconstructions.
Posters can be helpful in:
• Demonstrating issues participants might not have
thought of
• Presenting clearly the before and after situations
• Pinpointing particular problems and features
incorporated in the solutions.
Recommendations for good practice:
• Take care not to make the posters too small or
complicated.
• Leave sufficient time to present what is on the
posters
• Make sure the images are clear in format
(sufficient size and resolution) and message
(showing some definite issue or feature)
• Supplement the posters with plans, where
appropriate.
Be clear whether the poster is
meant to be used as a menu of
design features, that would be
capable of being introduced
locally, or if it is just a visual
stimulus to show a breadth of
possibilities beyond what it
present in any one existing
location. (Ideally the measures
shown from other countries
should
be
suitable
for
introduction in the this country.)
In showing before and after
examples, or existing and
proposed
information,
the
images should not introduce
spurious differences between
the alternatives – for example,
try to avoid showing the
‘existing’ on a dull day with few
people
around
but
the
‘proposed’ as a sunny day with
lots of people, etc.
Examples of posters
Example of street elements poster
Examples of posters of the following streets cases are available at the ARTISTS website:
Rua da Restauracao, Porto, Portugal
Amagerbrogade, Copenhagen, Denmark
Carrer Arago, Barcelona, Spain
Frederikssundsvej, Copenhagen, Denmark
Carrer Marina, Barcelona, Spain
Bismarckstrasse, Freiburg, Germany
Hamngatan, Eskilstuna, Sweden
Carl-Kistner-Strasse, Freiburg, Germany
Regementsgatan, Malmö, Sweden
Ikonomidi Street, Kalamaria, Greece
Shoreditch Triangle, London, UK
Egeou Street, Kalamaria, Greece
Rua do Campo Alegre, Porto, Portugal
Street Elements Information Pack (SEIP)
The street elements information pack (SEIP)
contains a series of information sheets about a
number of elements that can be implemented to
improve the use and performance of the street, i.e.
address problems, meet challenges, visions and
goals. The purpose of the SEIP is to provide design
workshop participants with information about street
elements in order to alert them to different possible
design features and help them make a decision
about whether they want to implement a particular
element in the case study street.
The SEIP is categorised into ten types of street
element; in total there are 39 street elements (see
list on page opposite). In most cases, the
information sheet is double-sided:
• The front side provides photos and a general
description of the street element. It is used
mainly to inform participants about some of the
ways in which that street element might be
implemented. Related street elements are also
listed.
• The rear side is entitled Planner’s Tool. It
provides more detailed information about design
considerations, indicative costs and its likely
effect on the street’s performance, and also
additional photos, diagrams and illustrations.
These information sheets can be useful in providing:
• A clear and simple presentation of possibilities
• A combination of explanation and information
Recommendations for good practice:
• Allow sufficient time to present – or allow users
to browse – the information sheets and other
descriptive material;
• Consider providing the information in advance of
the workshop;
• However, providing too much, too detailed
information may give the feeling of ‘information
overload’ and make the exercise seem like too
much hard work. Do not provide information
(e.g. technical data) that participants are not
expected to use;
• Limit the elements included in the pack to those
that can feasibly be implemented in that street;
• The simpler and clearer the process of problem
identification and generation of possible
solutions, the easier it is to achieve good
teamwork.
Street elements information pack
1. Pedestrians
Pedestrian footways
Public/open space
Pedestrian underpass
Ramps and stairs
Rest facilities
Pedestrian crossing (zebra)
Signalised pedestrian crossing
Assisting disabled pedestrians
Example of information sheet
Front
2. Cyclists
Cycle lanes
Cycle parking
Cycle facilities at junctions
3. Bus users
Bus lanes
Bus stops
Bus priority at junctions
4. Tram users
Tram stops
Tram tracks
Back
5. Van and truck drivers
Loading/unloading
6. General traffic
On-street parking
Motorcycle parking
Traffic lanes
Median strips
7. Junctions
Roundabout
Raised area
Cross roads
T-junction
Signalised junctions
8. Speed management
Road narrowing
Staggering / chicanes
Entry treatment
Speed hump / cushion
Speed campaigns/ information
Police enforcement / cameras
Carriageway surface
9. Street furniture
Greenery
Street lighting
Street furniture
10. Conflicts and combinations
Combining street elements
Reducing conflicts
Priority to different user groups
The full Street Elements Information Pack (SEIP) is
available from the ARTISTS website.
http://www.tft.lth.se/artists/
This contains an information sheet for each of the 39
elements listed here. The numbering and colour-coding
makes it easy to index the SEIP in a ring binder. The SEIP
is available in Danish, English, German, Greek, Spanish
and Swedish languages.
More design elements could be developed, e.g. turn-lanes
and street corners for junction design, flower baskets and
fountains for pedestrian space design, and typical
transition elements like ghost islands. Another possibility
is to build in more knowledge about the performance of
different kinds of street element.
Transparent overlays
Transparent overlays can be a helpful way of
understanding spatial layout and the challenge of
accommodating different vehicle types and activities
in limited areas of street space. They can help make
the participants aware of the real constraints faced in
design situations – even if this may be a source of
frustration within the creative process!
In particular, the use of scale representations of
vehicles and other street users overlain on scale
plans makes clear the absolute spatial constraints
faced by designers. This draws attention to the
relative ‘cost’ (in terms of using up scarce space) of
different features such as parking bays or bus lanes,
and hence the trade-offs required in prioritising one
kind of street use over another.
Example of use of transparent
overlays (Girona, Spain).
And because the different elements (e.g. bus bays,
cycle lanes, etc.) can be combined in different ways,
the participants readily get a feel for the different
design permutations involved.
Although overlays may be used as part of the creative
process, as another means of stimulating ideas or
permutations, they may also be used to test or ‘check‘
the feasibility of options that may have been already
‘dreamed up’ or ‘sketched out’ by other means.
Twenty transparent overlays are provided in plan and
cross sectional view:
• The plan view overlays enable participants to see
if the potential changes to the street they have
discussed fit within the space available along a
section of the street.
• The cross section view overlays enable
participants to look at critical points along the
street (e.g. at pinch points, bus and tram stops
and parking bays), to look more closely at what
can be accommodated there.
Base plans of 1:200 scale should be provided for
each section of the street that the design workshop
focuses on. If the intention is to allow technicians,
facilitators and participants to draw on the base plan
then several base plans of each section should be
provided per group of participants. The base plan
should include information such as street names,
landmark buildings, popular shops and other
prominent landmarks and places.
Overlays have been found to be
popular and easy to use in general,
though they may be a bit ‘slippery’
or ‘fiddly’ for some users.
Transparent Overlays
1.
Pedestrians
Footway
Non-signalised pedestrian crossing
Signalised pedestrian crossing
2.
Cyclists
Marked one-way cycle lane (on-street)
One-way cycle path (cycle track)
Two-way cycle path
Bicycle parking
3.
Bus users
One-way bus lane
Bus stop with shelter
4.
Tram users
Two-way tram tracks (two tracks)
One-way tram track
Tram stop with shelter
5.
Van and truck drivers
Loading / unloading
6.
General traffic
Two-way traffic lanes (two lanes)
Two-way traffic lanes (three lanes)
Two-way traffic lanes (four lanes)
Parking lane
Motorcycle parking
7.
Junctions
Roundabout
8.
Street furniture
Line of trees / greenery
Note: overlays can be reversed and so may be used
whether vehicles drive on the right or on the left.
Overlays are provided in plan and crosssectional views. The varied shapes of
junctions have meant that standard
overlays are not provided for junctions
(except a roundabout). Instead,
participants and facilitators of design
workshops are encouraged to draw their
junction designs directly on blank overlays
or base plans.
Most of the design elements included in
the street elements information pack
(SEIP) have corresponding transparent
overlays. The full set of overlays is
available from the ARTISTS website.
http://www.tft.lth.se/artists/
Further suggestions for use of overlays
are provided in ARTISTS Deliverable 3.2.
Examples of street designs produced by workshop participants
Street Option designed during the workshop in Malmö, Sweden.
Section of a street option designed during a workshop in London,
UK.
Example of worked-up designs
A503, London
APPENDIX C
STREET CASE STUDIES
The purpose of Appendix C is to show some examples of rebuilt streets in
Europe.
In this appendix we present some examples of reconstructed arterial streets.
They are not ARTISTS reconstructions
but they hold important ARTISTS aspects like; the arterial character remains; the people-orientation i.e. there
is an attempt to recognise different user
groups’ demands and interests in the
arterial street and to make stakeholders
participate in the decision- and design
process.
Country: Sweden
City: Eskilstuna
Example one: Hamngatan
Eskilstuna is a Swedish city with 90.000
inhabitants. Hamngatan is located in the
central parts of the city and is a part of
the inner ring-road going around the
most central parts of the city.
The case street is approximately 1.000
meter long. The river flows along one
side of the street. Along the other side
there is a tree alley at one section of the
street and buildings with an average
height of 14 m at the other section.
There is a lot of space between and in
front of the buildings. The main use in
the buildings is retail and business.
Street: Hamngatan
Problem
Hamngatan formed a barrier between
the city centre and the river. The high
flows of motorized traffic in the central
parts of the city was perceived as a
problem. Hamngatan was too much of
an urban motorway with two traffic
lanes in each direction and the canalization at the Nybron intersection.
Local street
Arterial street
Through traffic
Study area
Kloster cathedral
Decision- and design process
Hamngatan before
Politicians in the technical board discussed the possibility to make Hamngatan narrower and launched the idea of a
competition for the best design of
Hamngatan. The vision “give us back
the river” was introduced. The aim was
to improve access to the river. Improvement of the environment and a
better access to the river would be
reached by decreasing the traffic area.
The project organization consisted of
Olof Skiött former manager of the Road
and Traffic Department at the Municipality of Eskilstuna. There were also
representatives from projecting, traffic,
planning architect, landscape architect,
environmental. Then later on also the
architect and the landscape architect
from the winning design proposal were
part of the project organization.
A competition was launched together
with the Swedish Architects Organization (SAR). Six groups of architects
were invited to take part. SAR and politicians evaluated the design proposals.
The jury made the rejections on basis of
costs, fulfilment of the prerequisited
conditions; access to the park and the
river, improved crossing conditions for
the pedestrians; reduction of vehicle
speed; maintenance of the Eskilstuna
cultural inheritance; etc. The jury was
supported by the knowledge among the
invited experts.
The major signalized intersection before the
reconstruction.
Hamngatan after
The same intersection as a roundabout in the
after situation.
Hamngatan before
Public participation
After the choice of winning proposal the
details of the reconstruction was discussed in the Technical Board (where
amongst others politicians, youth council and pensioner’s council are represented) and with stakeholder groups
with special interests like the council for
disabled and residents. The detailed
plan was launched as according to
prevalent custom i.e. official exhibition
together with the possibility for stakeholders to express own opinions.
Before situation at the stretches
Introduced measures
–
–
–
–
Hamngatan after
Reduced space for motorized traffic
Reallocation of space to pedestrians and cyclists
Introduction of roundabouts
Introduction of a signalised pedestrian crossing
Hamngatan is an arterial street and has
remained so after the reconstruction.
Before the reconstruction the artery
function for motorized vehicles was perceived as very strong. In the after situation this function is still the predominant
function for the street but not as strong.
The major intersection, Nybron, was
rebuilt from a signal to a roundabout
with one entering, two circling and one
exiting lane. A smaller intersection was
rebuilt to a single lane roundabout. The
surroundings around the roundabouts
got the character of a market place.
After situation with reallocation of vehicle
space to pedestrians and cyclists
Hamngatan after
Due to the concern for pedestrians with
defective vision two signalized pedestrian and cycle crossings were installed
on both sides of (though some distance
from) the Nybron roundabout.
On the sections the number of traffic
lanes were reduced from two to one in
each direction. Each lane was however
widened from 3.5 m to 4.5 m. That is,
the space for motorized traffic was reduced from 14 to 9 meters. As part of
the reconstruction the whole street was
moved away from the river.
Before the reconstruction there were no
facilities for cyclists and poor facilities
for pedestrians. The extra space provided by the reconstruction was now
allocated to pedestrians and cyclists
both for transport purposes and strolling. Cycle paths were introduced and
extensive walking areas constructed
with direct access to the river.
The surface along the embankment was
paved with cobble stone thus providing
a 7-13 m wide passage for cyclists and
pedestrians. Several benches were installed.
After situation at the riverside of Hamngatan
Hamngatan after
Effects
–
–
–
–
Improved access to the river
Speeds are reduced
Movement across has been improved
It is still mostly the motorized traffic
that use the street as an artery
Time consumption
Time spent for driving a car along the
whole case increased by 23%. For 70%
of the car drivers, however, it was
quicker to pass through the intersection
after it was converted into a roundabout. Pedestrians’ time consumption
for waiting and passing the street has
on the other hand decreased.
More of the reconstructed riverside
Traffic flow
Traffic flow
The vehicle flow is reduced by 13% at
sections and by 18% at the Nybro intersection. The cycle flow has on the other
hand increased by 21% at the Nybro
intersection.
Fuel consumption and exhaust emissions
Vehicle
AADT
section
Cycle
AADT
intersection
13800
before
Fuel consumption CO2
+16 % +16%
945
before
after
after
Fuel consumption and the emission of
CO2 increased. The emission of HC remained unchanged. Taking the decrease in car traffic flow into consideration the total increase in fuel consumption and emission of CO2 is estimated to
16%.
After/Before
780
12000
Vehicle
AADT
intersection
25 000
20 500
HC
+/- 0
before
Vehicle speed
Vehicle speeds were substantially reduced by the reconstruction. At sections
the average speed decreased from 43
to 32km/h and the 85th percentile
speed decreased from 50 to 39km/h
thus a 22% reduction. At the intersection the corresponding figures are; average speed from 22 to 18km/h and
after
Vehicle speed
Intersection
Section
50
39
30
25
85 perc
speed
before after
before
after
Behaviour
85th percentile speed from 30 to km/h
thus a 17% reduction.
Behaviour
In addition do 97.5% of the car drivers
slow down when they meet a pedestrian
in the after situation. The number of pedestrians walking along the street has
increased many times over. The number of pedestrian across the street has,
however, not changed much. Their
crossing possibilities have however improved considerably.
% of car drivers yielding
to crossing pedestrains
69%
12%
before after
Comment
Prior the reconstruction there was major negative criticism from the public, residents and media regarding project cost and decreased efficiency for car traffic. Interview studies with people at site today give a very positive image of the project. Also most car drivers seem to accept some reduction of their own transport efficiency and comfort when the area has become
so much more safer and attractive.
Example two: Regementsgatan
Country: Sweden
City: Malmö
Malmö is Sweden’s third largest city with
250.000 inhabitants. Regementsgatan is
located in the western parts of Malmö.
The street is one of the major access
roads from the west to the city. The specific part of the street that is subject for
description here is 720m long and contains five intersections. The surroundings
consist of dense block housing on the
south side and separate lamella buildings with gardens on the north side. The
buildings are from the first half of the
20th century. There is a tree line separating the pavement from the driving lane
on the north side of the street.
Problem
The tramline on Regementsgatan was
taken out of traffic in the 70’s. After the
tramline the street became too wide with
high speeds and poor crossing facilities
for pedestrians. The wide street and the
fairly long passages resulted in a feeling
of insecurity for the vulnerable road users, especially for children (many of them
having to cross the street on their way to
school) and elderly people. Many accidents occurred, elderly pedestrians were
highly represented, and residents and
visitors experienced the traffic as very
annoying. During several years, a lot of
people required a safer traffic environment on Regementsgatan.
Decision - and design process
The complaints from the public supported the view of the traffic engineers at
the Department of Public works at the
municipality, that the street should be
rebuilt. The basic information for the engineers was speed measurements and
accident data. The proposal for reconstruction was presented for the politicians in the technical board. The technical board agreed and assigned the department of public works to present different design solutions. The budget for
the project was decided.
Street:
Regementsgatan in Malmö
The main features of the reconstruction
was decided upon early in the project.
These were; narrow the four traffic lanes
to two lanes; maximum vehicle speed of
30km/h at locations with interactions with
vulnerable road users; introduce a cycle
lane/path; no killed or seriously injured
road users. In the reference group there
were representatives from media that
provided the public with sketches of possible solutions in the newspapers. The
politicians were heavily involved during
the whole project. The Technical Board
took the decision to reconstruct in 1999.
There was competitive tendering for the
actual construction. As the costs from the
competitors were very similar the one
with the best environmental solution was
chosen.
Regementsgatan
before
Source: Didriksson 2000.
Regementsgatan
after
The reconstruction was implemented in
two stages starting in September 2000.
Due to delays, the work was interrupted
in November 2000 as it was no longer
realistic to have it all finished in time for
the Christmas shopping. As this was a
major concern from the local shopkeepers all arrangements around the reconstruction (sheds, vehicles, etc) were removed. The reconstruction was reestablished in March 2001 and the street
was completed in May 2001.
Public participation
The project organization consisted of
some 20 persons from the municipality
and one consultant. The organization
consisted of a manager group, and steering group and a reference group. In the
reference group there were representatives from media, residents, youngsters
and shopkeepers in the area and traffic
safety researchers. Parallel to the reconstruction project a specific information
project was organized to provide information regarding the reconstruction to
the public. There were plans for communication, construction meetings, contact
with media, contact with shopkeepers,
etc.
The primary objective for the communication with stakeholders was to provide a
positive approach to the project. The par-
Source: Didriksson 2000.
ticipation of the public entered the process at a rather late stage, 2 months before the start of the reconstruction, and
consisted mostly of distributing written
information about the project to stakeholders. There were also meetings with
selected stakeholders like shop owners
and disabled about 3-4 weeks before the
start of the reconstruction. This communication was very important as the reconstruction meant a periodically total
closure of the street.
Introduced
measures
Before
After
Non-signalised
pedestrian crossings at intersections
1.5 driving lanes in
each direction with
the possibility to
park at the pavement
Speed-cushions located 5 meters (one car length) in front of
the pedestrian crossings to
secure 30 km/h.
One driving lane in each direction. Parking between foot way
extensions i.e. narrowing of the
pedestrian crossings
Introduced measures
The main measure was to introduce
speed cushions at all five intersections
along Regementsgatan. This was done
to ensure a maximal speed of 30 km/h
(85-percentile). The speed cushions
were combined with lateral shifts in the
carriageway. The total street width was
narrowed to one traffic lane in each direction.
Effects
The assessment studies of the reconstruction consisted of before and after
studies of i) studies of drivers give way
behaviour to crossing pedestrians ii)
speed measurements iii) conflict studies
iv) time consumption for different road
user groups v) emissions. In the before
situation children’s safety and behaviour
at pedestrian crossings were studied indepth.
The aim of the design of the cushion is to
reduce speeds for cars to the same extent as if there were ordinary humps
while buses and heavy traffic will be able
to bestride the cushion thus not having to
reduce speed as much to get a comfortable crossing.
Migration of traffic to parallel streets by
35%. Reduction of the 85 percentile
speed by 51%. Reduction of number of
serious conflicts by 22% and considerable reduction of the severity of the conflicts as the 85-percentile speed at the
evasive action was reduced from 60 to
28km/h.
Short elevated
refuge at crossings
Line of trees on
the north side
Street width = 30m
Side space = 14 m
Width between
side space = 16 m
Median strip = 1 m
Two-way cycle path on the
south side
Crossable median strip in paving stone
10 m long elevated refuge at
crossings
Elevated pedestrian and cycle
crossings over side-streets
Line of trees on both sides
Street width = 30 m
Side space = 22 m including the
parking between foot way extensions
Width between side space = 8
m
Median strip = 1 m
The proportion of car drivers giving way
to pedestrians and cyclists with the aim
of crossing increased considerably.
Compared to 50% at the control sites,
92% of the elderly pedestrians felt more
safe and comfortable when crossing Regementsgatan after the reconstruction.
(The introduction of a new law for pedestrian crossings probably contributed to
the higher proportion in the after situation
at the control site).
Time consumption increased by 12%
(27.5 seconds) for car drivers driving the
whole case section in the east direction
and by 23% (47 seconds) for those driving in the west direction. Time consumption, however, decreased by 2-3 seconds
for pedestrians, cyclists and car drivers
from the side streets. HC, CO, NOX,
CO2 and particles increased by 15%.
Also with consideration taken to the
lower traffic flows there is a net increase.
Effects due to
the reconstruction
Traffic flow
Car ADT
Truck ADT
Speed
85 percentile speed
Serious conflicts
Total number of
serious conflicts
Car-car conflicts
Car-pedestrian
conflicts
Car-cyclist conflicts
Conflicting speed at
evasive action (85
perc)
Time consumption
Drive a car in east
direction
Drive a car in west
direction
Before
After
10800
1000
8100
700
53-58km/h
28-34km/h
38
29
9
13
11
11
16
60
7
28
237sec
264.5sec
207sec
254sec
Comment
Today Regementsgatan is an arterial street with much better conditions for cyclists and pedestrians. The improved and safer crossing facilities for pedestrians are especially appreciated by
children and elderly. Comment from an old woman “Nowadays I dare to visit my friend on the
other side of the street”. The very narrow carriageways and limited space for loading and
unloading has, however, made conditions for bus traffic and goods delivery more difficult.
Example three: Frederikssundsvej
The street is a primary road that ensures
the connection between the different districts of Copenhagen. These roads carry
the main part of the bus and bicycle traffic. The case street consists of 3 character sections.
Section 1 is 920 m long and gives an impression of a wide suburban street. It has
an average distance between building
lines is 32 meters.
Section 2 is 1.410 meter long. There are
4-5-storey houses on both sides of the
street with many shops in the ground
floor and flats in the upper parts. It gives
the impression of a quite normal arterial
street. The average distance between
building lines is 25 meters.
Section 3 is 550 meter long with 3-4 storey housing blocks and a park on one
side of the street and 9-13- storey tower
blocks and a church on the other side of
the street. It gives the impression of being a wide street.
All along the case there are pavements,
cycle paths and space for parking/trees
on both sides of the street.
Problem
As compared to the rest of Copenhagen
there is a higher proportion of elderly
(67+) living in the districts surrounding
Frederikssundsvej and the proportion of
traffic injuries with elderly involved is also
higher at Frederikssundsvej.
Decision- and design process
The overall interest of the Road Directorate in road safety for the elderly population and the specific problems for this
group at Frederikssundsvej made this
street a natural choice. The overall aim
was to demonstrate that accidents with
elderly can be reduced. The main objective declared was to improve security
and to improve the crossing facilities es-
Country: Denmark
City: Copenhagen
SWEDEN
pecially for children, elderly and disabled
persons. A project group was established
in 1996 and consisted of representatives
from the police, the Road Directorate, the
Danish Road Safety Council and the
Municipality of Copenhagen.
Frederikssundsvej
before
The project targets were expressed as:
1) a 40% reduction of traffic injuries
among elderly in year 2000 as compared
to 1986-87
2) lower speeds
3) increased number of options to cross
the street
4) increased knowledge in traffic behaviour among elderly
5) improved road safety for other age
groups
A draft design was presented in December 1996. The first building meeting was
held in August 1998. An invitation to
submit tenders was launched at the
same time. The reconstruction was finalised in December 1998.
Cycle lane marked on the carriageway
Frederikssundsvej
after
Public participation
In 1997 a questionnaire was distributed
to appr. 1000 randomly selected elderly
persons living along or close to
Frederikssundsvej. The questionnaire
contained questions about mode of
transport, perceived risks and knowledge
about traffic regulations. Later, as a consequence of the questionnaire, a leaflet
informing about give-way rules at bus
stops was distributed. Continuous meetings with the elderly councils and the bus
planning authority to discuss strategies.
There were also some 20 events with
elderly clubs. The reconstruction design
was the product of a co-operation between the project group, the bus planning authority, the elderly councils and
was influenced by the responses to the
questionnaires distributed to the elderly
residents. Before the start of the reconstruction another leaflet was distributed
informing about the project. In the implementation phase local shopkeepers
were informed about the project.
Segregated bus lane
Frederikssundsvej
before
Frederikssundsvej
after
Introduced measures
The reconstruction consisted of the following elements:
–
a painted median strip marked with
white lines and red asphalt
–
kerbed median islands
–
sidewalk extensions in connection to
the median islands; the same width
as the parking lane.
–
zebra stripes
–
platforms between cycle path and
bus at the bus stop
–
blue painted cycle crossings
–
changes of the signal phases to increase capacity for motorised traffic
– reduced number of parking spaces
Traffic
space
width (m)
Effects
By introducing a median all along the
street, as a painted “ghost” median at
stretches and kerbed islands at crossings, the expected effects were reduced
speeds, decreased overtaking and consequently fewer injury accidents.
Traffic flow
Reduction of motorised traffic volumes
by 16%. The AADT for motorised traffic
is around 20 000. Bicycle traffic increased by 52%.
Traffic safety
There has been a general improvement
of the traffic safety situation in the Copenhagen area between the before and
after period. Taking this into account
there is, nevertheless, a 32% reduction
in the number of killed and injured between the before and after period.
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
Median
(m)
Number of traffic
lanes in each direction
11,5
8,5
Section
1
3
1 (2 at intersection)
1
11
8
Section
2
3
1 (2 at intersection)
1
14
12
Section
3
2
2
1,5-2
Frederikssundsvej
before
Vehicle speeds
At section 1 the vehicle speed was
measured before and after the reconstruction. The average speed was reduced by 8 km/h from 52.4 to 44.4 km/h.
The reduction of the 85th percentile was
of the same magnitude, from 61.3 to
53.2 km/h.
Frederikssundsvej
after
Mode of transport
Between the before and after situation
the number of bus passengers increased
by 10%.
Comment
There are many positive comments to the Frederikssundsvej project: The median has
lowered the speeds and improved crossing conditions, especially for the elderly. The
islands at bus stops have improved conditions considerably for cyclists and bus passengers. The blue painted cycle crossings have reduced accidents between cyclists
and turning cars. There is, however also some annoyance with the project: Migration
of traffic to adjacent roads. Congestion - which however is due to missing green
waves and not due to the reconstruction.
To conclude - the comments to the project are mixed but generally users seem to be
happy with the reconstruction.
Country: Greece
City: Kalamaria
Example four: Ikonomidi Street
Kalamaria is one of the fifteen Municipalities of Greater Thessaloniki Area (GTA),
the second one in population size, after the
central Municipality of Thessaloniki (its actual number of residents is approximately
120.000).
Ikonomidi is located at the
northwest part of Kalamaria.
GTA
Kalamaria
(
The case street is approximately 1.100 meter long. The daily traffic volume is 8.00010.000 vehicles, including 2 public transport
(bus routes). Buildings at Ikonomidi street
study area have 4 floors in average, mainly
with residential use.
Athens
(
Problem
Until 1995, Ikonomidi was a two-direction
collector street with low traffic volumes.
Due to traffic problems of the adjacent
street, the Traffic Plan of 1989 proposed
one-way operation, Ikonomidi being the
second street of the pair of one-way
streets. Therefore, in September 1995, Ikonomidi street was turned into one-way operation. After the implementation of the
scheme, Ikonomidi became an arterial,
passing through a purely residential area.
As a result, the traffic volume increased
significantly, the environmental conditions
and the road safety deteriorated, the illegal
parking on the sidewalks caused further
problems both to pedestrians and traffic
flow.
Street: Ikonomidi
±
Kalamaria
Decision- and design process
The implementation of the new traffic
scheme and the deterioration of the environment caused strong reactions from the
inhabitants. Therefore, the City Council decided that the Municipality should take
some action to improve the place function
of the street and to do something about the
unpleasant effects of the one-way scheme.
The Technical Department of the Municipality started to work with the residents in order to record all experienced problems and
suggestions to improvements.
0
500
1,000
Meters
Kalamaria and Ikonomidi Street Area
Ikonomidi Street
After
Public participation
The public was involved in each stage of
the design process. They met one by one
with the technicians expressing their problems and visions and commented on the
study.
Introduced measures
–
–
–
–
–
Reduced space for motorized traffic
Increase of on-street parking facilities
Traffic calming measures in sections
with sensitive land uses
Improvement of pedestrians level of
service
Enhanced area aesthetics
The interventions were mainly towards a
safer environment. The street width was
reduced from 10,5 to 8,0 m and parking
bays were constructed along the sidewalks.
The carriageway pavement was changed in
front of the school complex and a pedestrian-activated traffic signal was installed.
Traffic signals were also installed at two
major junctions, and road humps were constructed at every priority junction at the approaches of the vertical local streets. Warning and control traffic signs, as well as
pavement marking were applied, including
marking signs on the pavement. Finally,
the sidewalks were reconstructed with new
materials and design, new lighting poles
were installed and the sidewalks planting
was reformed and organised in a better
way. Therefore, both the operational and
geometric characteristics of the street were
changed.
Playground
Effects
Ikonomidi is a one-way arterial street and
has remained so after the reconstruction.
The average daily traffic volume hasn’t
changed, however both the pedestrian
safety and flow conditions have improved
significantly. The speed level has decreased and the crossing of the street has
been improved. Also, the illumination and
the greenery has upgraded the aesthetics
of the area.
Zebra crossing in front of the school complex
Comment
Ikonomidi street is an example of how the
place function of an arterial street can be
upgraded without changing its link status. In
addition, after the implementation of the
reconstruction scheme, there are no reactions about the one-way operation of the
street. Overall, the general feeling, both for
the decision making process and the existing situation of the street, is positive.
Guard railing in front of the school, parking bays &
colourful slab patterns
Example five: Meridiana Avenue
The Meridiana Avenue is situated in the northern part of Barcelona and is the major access
road from the north to the centre of the city. It
connects with three external important motorways in the urban and interurban area. The facades are formed by mayor blocks with mainly
dwellings from 4 to 10 floors. The ground floor
contains shops and some small industries and
garages.
Country: Spain
City: Barcelona
Before
The buildings are from different decades in the
20th century. The most important part from the
60’s and 70’s.
Under the boulevard train and metro lines with
mayor stations are running, which made it problematic to plant trees along the street when the
former design was put in place during the 60’s
and start of the 70’s.
Problem
The boulevard had two main commitments: canalise access traffic to the centre of Barcelona
and communicate the northern quarters of the
city with the centre. Since the end of the 60’s
the Meridiana Avenue has been connected with
the north motorway to Girona and France. The
boulevard – or urban motorway – was constructed with two central carriageways and two
service roads, each with 3 lanes. In the service
roads one lane was used for delivery vans
and/or parking. The separation between the
carriageways was narrow (aprox. 1.5 m), and
many pedestrians were hit while waiting for
crossing at light signals.
Constructed partly as urban motorway, there
were up to 900 metres between footbridges or
signalised pedestrian crossings. This situation
reduced the effectiveness of the many bus services along the avenue.
The 6 central lanes experimented high speed
level outside peak hours which lead to many
accidents especially with pedestrians. The most
heavily charged stretch of the Meridiana Avenue supported 145.000 vehicles per day, with
the following noise and emission problems. A
high share of heavy goods vehicles incremented the environmental pressure.
After
Decision and Design Process
Before the Olympic games in 1992 a second
motor ring road was built around Barcelona
which absorbed part of the access traffic
through the centre. A basic traffic idea was decided by the Municipality. The lower traffic and
road space demand of the Meridana Avenue,
inside the ring road area, should be passed
over to pedestrian, cyclist and public transport
uses. It was therefore decided to enlarge the
sidewalks, reduce the number of traffic lanes by
two or four, dependent of the stretch of the
road, and eliminate service roads. Even so the
new design maintain between 8 and 10 lanes
for the motorised traffic.
The design was organised and decides in the
Urban Planning Department of the Municipality,
in collaboration with the Traffic Department. No
special neighbour participation took place.
Two different design options were chosen.
Close to the centre (a strech of about 500 m),
with less traffic demand, a cross section with a
wide central median (rambla) was planned with
4 traffic lanes per direction. The sidewalks have
been enlarged. In one part of this street section
it is possible to park and make delivery operations.
The rest of the avenue (a strech of about 2 km)
implicated a more narrow median (2.5 metres)
and 5 traffic lanes in each direction. Very wide
sidewalks with special public lightning for the
pedestrians and with bicycle paths were constructed. The crossing possibilities have been
improved, with the opening of two new intersections with their corresponding pedestrian crossings. The barrier effect has been reduced considerably.
The conditions for motorised traffic have been
maintained and have even been improved due
to the effect of the ring road. The permeability
has gained, especially for pedestrians with better waiting conditions for pedestrians who have
to wait in the centre median.
Trees have been planted along most of the
boulevard, where train tunnels and stations permit sufficient space. Outside peak-period
vehicle speeds are lowered due to the new design. Mean speed has however increased due
to general less traffic volume. Overall safety
has been improved.
Introduced Measures:
Before
•
•
•
•
4 carriageways with 12 lanes
80 km/h speed limit in central lanes
3 medians, 1-1.5 meter wide
Up to 900 metres between pedestrian crossings
• Sidewalk width: 1-6 m
• Sparsely greenery
• Public lighting only for vehicles
After
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2 carriageways with 8 to10 lanes
50 km/h speed limit
2.5 metre wide central median
300-350 m between pedestrian
crossings
Sidewalk width: > 10 m
Trees on both sides in most of the
length of the street
Public lighting both for pedestrians
and vehicles
Bicycle lanes on sidewalk on each
side of the boulevard
Effects:
Before
After
115.000
veh/day
86.000
veh/day
Lorry flow ADT
28.000
2.000
Mean Speed
19 km/h
24 km/h
Traffic Flow
Car flow ADT
Personal Injury accidents
Collisions
Pedestrian accidents
Comments
The Barcelona motor ring road has helped to reduce the traffic level and especially the
number of heavy goods vehicles on the Meridiana Avenue. This permitted a reduction of
the width of the carriageway without reducing the service level for the motorised traffic.
The street life is now under important change with more pedestrians on the sidewalks,
partly because more shops open taking over the space from the small industries and garages.
The improvement of the crossing possibilities for pedestrians has changed the street;
from a through way with an important barrier effect separating city quarters, to a more
urbanised arterial street with better conditions for a larger group of street users.
Example Six: Trafalgar Square
Country: UK
City : London
Trafalgar Square is located at the very centre of London and its statue of Charles the First
is used as the origin point for calculating all London distances. London’s most famous
square was designed by John Nash and laid out between 1829 and 1845 to commemorate
Nelson’s victory in the battle of Trafalgar. Since then it has become a landmark of London
and site to many historical events, art exhibitions, public gatherings, celebrations, protests
and victory parades
Problem
The area formed one of the busiest traffic junctions in London, the Square being dominated
by a traffic gyratory with poor pedestrian access. Despite this, it attracted large numbers of
visitors. Key pedestrian routes were difficult and required people to take long detours instead of direct routes along desire lines. Because of the lack of pedestrian crossings, there
were serious accident problems at adjoining junctions and along North Terrace. The main
problem was the vehicular dominance of what should be a pedestrian-friendly civic space.
Final traffic layout around Trafalgar Square
Decision and Design Process
The project (part of World Squares for All
study) was commissioned in 1996 and while
previous studies had recognised Trafalgar
Square’s failure to fulfil its role as an important
civic space, this study recognised the area as a
public square of international importance.
With the central objective of improving access
for everyone, a new masterplan proposed a
scheme that tried to resolve the conflicting
Before – North Terrace is part of a gyratory
needs of traffic and pedestrians. Extensive negotiations with planning authorities, heritage
groups, local businesses and residents, Londoners and visitors, a client steering group including national and local government offices,
departments and agencies ensured that all key
user groups were consulted and their views influenced the design.
Backed by wide public support, the reconstruction was completed in 2003. Total project cost
was £25 million.
After – North Terrace is part of Trafalgar Square
Introduced measures
Before the redesign, North Terrace acted as
part of national route A4 connecting London to
Bristol. The key redesign feature was the
pedestrianisation of North Terrace that reconnected the National Gallery and further enhanced the square to be enjoyed by everyone.
To make this possible, traffic was re-routed
around the square and comprehensive traffic
changes were carried out.
A variety of measures were designed at 28
junctions adjacent and in the surrounding area
of Trafalgar Square.
Most introduced improvements to pedestrian facilities, such as
new protected crossing points, increased
crossing times and reduced waiting times.
Several new bus lanes were installed in Piccadilly and Whitehall.
Redesign also included streetscape and environmental improvements such as new surfacing of pedestrian areas, installation of public
toilets, new lifts (enabling access between two
levels of the square), new cafe, seating, comprehensive re-lighting and landscaping.
Before – Trafalgar Sq is dominated by a gyratory
After – enhanced public space with a central staircase
joining the Square with the National Gallery and pedestrianised North Tce gyratory
North Terrace – formed part
of a traffic gyratory encircling
Trafalgar Square
National Gallery – cut off
from the Square by traffic
on North Terrace
Poor pedestrian access
to the Square
Trafalgar Square before reconstruction – North Terrace (on the left) fragments the
square as part of a roundabout around a gyratory providing poor pedestrian access.
New wide staircase doubling as secondary seating
Pedestrianised
North Terrace
Improved pedestrian
access at a number of
points
New lifts
Trafalgar Square after reconstruction – North Terrace was pedestrianised, now acting as
better pedestrian link in the area and connecting the National Gallery to Trafalgar Square.
The new space reinforces Trafalgar Square’s status and value as a ‘World Square’.
Effects
The closure of North Terrace and the wider works described above resulted in a 40% reduction of traffic in morning and evening peak periods, representing a reduction of 3,000 pcu’s.
Part of the reduction was accounted for by the Congestion Charge scheme (which in 2003
introduced a £5 charge for all cars entering central London), whilst the remainder was
gradually displaced over a wider area of Central London to ensure that no individual junction became significantly worse.
In addition, the prioritization of pedestrian movement has been significantly improved with
increased pedestrian crossing and clearance times at ten of the junctions and doubled pedestrian times at five of the junctions.
The project has succeeded in improving pedestrian access at Trafalgar Square with parallel
improvements in the amenity, function and design of the public space and streetscape.
Comment
National
Ie
Id
Ic
Ib
Ia
City
IIe
IId
IIc
IIb
IIa
District
IIIe
IIId
IIIc
IIIb
IIIa
Neighbour
hood
IVe
IVd
IVc
IVb
IVa
Local
Ve
Vd
Vc
Vb
Va
Local
Neighbour
hood
District
City
National
Link status
In terms of ARTISTS classification table, North Terrace acted as a Ia type road before reconstruction. The redesign re-weighed the relative significance of the A4 as an arterial
route and Trafalgar Square as an urban space and an important national landmark, and
placed a much higher importance on North Terrace to function as a place. Now it could be
classified as a type Va on the ARTISTS classification table.
Place status
North Terrace performed
as type Ia street prior to
reconstruction
North Terrace
performs as type Va
after reconstruction
APPENDIX D
PIAP - PROJECT EVALUATION TOOL
In 2004, Transport for London (TfL) developed a new appraisal process (under trial
at the time of writing) for all TfL street infrastructure projects under £2 million. PIAP
(Project Identification, Appraisal and Prioritisation) is an excel-based tool, containing
a number of forms/tabs that assist users in project identification, internal
consultation, evaluation of project impacts and obtaining approvals. Below is a view
of a PIAP Summary sheet (one of many PIAP components) that presents some of
the outputs of the PIAP evaluation:
The basis of PIAP
appraisal is a multi-criteria
analysis based on nine
priority areas derived from
London Mayor’s Transport
Strategy.
Financial analysis of
quantifiable costs and
benefits represented
as a cumulative cash
flow graph and ratios –
benefit to cost ratio,
net present value and
whole life cost
The Scheme
Impacts chart in
PIAP represents: in
green – cumulative
positive impact and
in red – cumulative
negative impact.
Condition Assessment
chart in PIAP shows
condition for a priority
area for existing
situation (orange bars)
and estimated condition
after project
implementation (blue
bars).
Between four and eight
criteria were selected to
represent each of the nine
priority areas. For
example, selected criteria
for ‘Buses’:
The underlying principle of PIAP is assessment
of both existing site conditions and estimated
conditions after scheme implementation for all
criteria on a seven-point condition scale (from
1-critical to 7-outstanding). Average criteria
scores for each of the nine priority areas are
then graphically plotted on the charts with
comparative bars for ‘before’ and ‘after’.
* Journey time reliability
* Journey time duration
* Waiting conditions
* Alighting and boarding,
accessibility
* Bus ride quality
* Effectiveness of shared
taxi and bus facilities
* Enforcement of bus
strategy measures
PIAP draws together traditional financial assessments with a new more lateral
approach and thus presents a more balanced and broader view of the project’s
impacts. PIAP captures project strengths and weaknesses and presents a project
evaluation tool to assist stakeholders, consultees and decision-makers in making a
decision about the project.
APPENDIX E
LIST OF ARTISTS DELIVERABLES
Deliverables within the project
WP1 - Classification and assessment of arterial streets
D1
A framework for classification and assessment of Arterial Streets. Prepared by
Stephen Marshall, Peter Jones and Ian Plowright, University of Westminster.
2004.
D1.1 A first theoretical approach to classification of arterial streets. Prepared by
Stephen Marshall, University of Westminster. 2002.
D1.2 A first theoretical approach to sustainability consepts and assessments tools.
Prepared by Ian Plowright, Univ of Westminster. 2002.
Appendix - Approach of the Sustainability Concept - Internal technical note.
Prepared by D'Ieteren Emmanuel, Morelle Sylvaine, Hecq Walter Centre for
Economic and Social Studies on the Environment Université Libre de Bruxelles.
2002.
WP2 - Comparative assessment of European arterial streets
D2
European Arterial Streets. Historic changes, Existing situation and processes.
Prepared by Søren Underlien Jensen, Atkins. 2004.
D2.1 Existing problems on arterial streets. Prepared by Paulo Ribeiro and Pires da
Costa. University of Porto. 2004.
D2.2 Existing Decision-Making and Design Processes. Prepared by Søren Underlien
Jensen, Atkins. 2002.
D2.3 Long and Short Term Effects of Arterial Street Design and Traffic Control.
Prepared by Panos Papaioannou, Fani Hatziioannidou, Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki. 2002.
WP3 - Stakeholder participation
D3
Stakeholder participation in the reconstruction process. Prepared by Jytte
Thomsen, Intra S.L. (2004)
D3.1 Participation Tools. Prepared by Jytte Thomsen, Intra S.L. 2003.
D3.2 Decision, design and prediction tools. Prepared by Søren Underlien Jensen,
Atkins. 2004.
Appendix 1: Poster of street elements and posters from 13 reconstructed streets
Appendix 2: Street Elements Information pack
Appendix 3: Transparent Overlays
D3.3 Evaluation of tools for the reconstruction process. Prepared by Jytte Thomsen,
Intra S.L. 2004.
WP4 – Practice for the future
D4
Arterial Streets – guidance for the future. Prepared by Åse Svensson, Lund
University. 2004.
Various other reports produced within ARTISTS
National reports
Inventory of 48 arterial case study streets in 9 European cities. The inventory includes
both reconstructed and unchanged streets. The reconstructions are, however, not
realized within the frames of the ARTISTS project.
Case Study Guide – a manual for writing the national reports
Technical Annex – specific details regarding the data collection
National reports from: Denmark, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Hungary, UK,
Germany and Belgium.
Summary of stakeholder participation at national street study cases: Kalamaria,
Greece. Girona, Spain. Freiburg, Germany. Copenhagen, Denmark. Malmö, Sweden.
London, UK.
Focus groups 1 and 2 (Problems, needs and visions)
Participation Forum Guide WP3 - Focus Group 1 and Focus Group 2
ARTISTS FG1+2 Guide for evaluation
ARTISTS FG1+2 Evaluation report
Focus group 3 (Design workshop)
Participation Forum Guide WP3 - Design Workshop
ARTISTS FG3 Guide for evaluation
ARTISTS FG3 Evaluation report
Focus group 4 (Seminar/Exhibition)
Participation Forum Guide WP3 - Seminar Guide - Event Guide
Participation Forum Guide WP3 - Seminar Guide - Design Guide
ARTISTS FG4 Evaluation report