Table Of ContentDesigning Streets 2002 24/11/06 10:51 Page 1
The 2002
Designing Streets
for People Report
Ideas and recommendations on how to
transform our streets into places…
for people
for business
for pleasure
for shopping
for talking
for movement
…for life
The final report of the
DESIGNING STREETS FOR PEOPLE Inquiry
Designing Streets 2002 24/11/06 10:51 Page 2
Designing Streets for People was first
published in 2000
Are the recommendations of the original report gaining acceptance?
Recommendation of the original Walking Response Street Scene Paving
Designing Streets for People Report 2000 in Towns from Audit the way:
& Cities Government Commission CABE
✪
Single point of contact
✪
Street Partnerships and Agreements
✪
Street Excellence Model
✪ ✪ ✪ ✪
Public Realm Strategy
✪ ✪ ✪ ✪
Street Management and Design Codes
✪ ✪ ✪ ✪
Consolidate powers
✪ ✪
Simplify legislation
✪
Economically efficient funding
✪ ✪ ✪ ✪
Economics and social impact of utilities maintenance
✪ ✪ ✪ ✪
Improve skills and resources
✪ ✪ ✪ ✪
Pay special attention to the needs of pedestrians
Placecheck: £5 million awarded for 10 pilot projects
2 T H E 2 0 0 2 D E S I G N I N G S T R E E T S F O R P E O P L E R E P O R T
Designing Streets 2002 24/11/06 10:51 Page 3
Contents
Introduction 4 C
O
N
T
E
N
The vision 6
T
S
The reality 7
What’s gone wrong? 8
Summary of the proposals 12
The proposals 14
Background 42
ISBN 978 0 7277 3195 1
ISBN 0 7277 3195 5
© The Institution of Civil Engineers, 2002,
R eprinted 2006
Published for the Institution of Civil Engineers by Thomas Telford
Publishing, Thomas Telford Ltd, I Heron Quay, London E14 4JD
Designed by Kneath Associates and printed by Latimer Trend
T H E 2 0 0 2 D E S I G N I N G S T R E E T S F O R P E O P L E R E P O R T 3
Designing Streets 2002 24/11/06 10:51 Page 4
Introduction
Streets! We all use them every day. But why are they as they are? Could
they be better places? Can they be better managed and add more to the
quality of life for those who use them, live in them or work in them?
The Designing Streets for People Working Group began its investigation into
the way we plan, design, manage and maintain our streets to try to answer
these questions. During the investigation a number of key documents have
been published including the “Rogers report”, the Government’s Ten Year
Transport Plan and the Urban White Paper. The proposals contained in this
report complement and support these developments.
From the autumn of 2000 to the summer of 2001 the consultation draft
“Designing Streets for People” report has been the subject of extensive
consultation and discussion, and has already had a significant impact. The
Working Group now present the 2002 final report, which looks at actions
needed to improve our street environment over the first 25 years of the new
millennium. Many actions can be taken immediately. Others will take longer.
Good progress is being made in a number of the proposals and progress
reviews will be published from time to time.
The Working Group is grateful to all the individuals and organisations who
submitted evidence to the investigation. Listening to and considering this
evidence has been a key part of our work and has helped enormously.
We believe that the results of our work are worthy of consideration and we
commend them to you.
Edward Chorlton
Chair, Designing Streets for People Working Group
An “Urban
Renaissance”
depends on
the street
being
recognised
as important
4 TT HH EE 22 00 00 22 DD EE SS II GG NN II NN GG SS TT RR EE EE TT SS FF OO RR PP EE OO PP LL EE RR EE PP OO RR TT
Designing Streets 2002 24/11/06 10:51 Page 5
About the Designing Streets for
People Inquiry
I
N
T
R
O
D
The Designing Streets for People Inquiry, which began in 1998, is a U
C
fundamental review of the way we design, manage, and maintain our
T
streets. It reflects on how the role of the street is changing within the urban I
O
environment, including the impact of increasing car use. It examines how we N
design, manage and maintain our streets, and suggests improvements to
better reflect current thinking in:
■ Community empowerment and social inclusion
■ Sustainability
■ Urban Renaissance i.e. the quality of life in towns and cities
■ Integrated transport and land use planning
Its recommendations are based on evidence provided by professionals,
academics, the public and politicians.
To avoid legal complexity, the report has been written in relation to legislation
applying to England, but the proposals are intended to be considered in
terms of the UK as a whole.
The proposed recommendations will help to achieve an Urban Renaissance
as promoted in Government policy such as “Planning for the Communities of
the Future”, “A Better Quality of Life”, the Urban Task Force’s “Towards an
Urban Renaissance”, “By Design”, and the National Strategy for
Neighbourhood Renewal.
TT HH EE 22 00 00 22 DD EE SS II GG NN II NN GG SS TT RR EE EE TT SS FF OO RR PP EE OO PP LL EE RR EE PP OO RR TT 5
Designing Streets 2002 24/11/06 10:51 Page 6
The vision—the Street in 2025
T Streets in 2025 are:
H
E
V
I ■ Streets where people are proud and happy to live
S
I
O ■ Streets that are liveable, attractive and enjoyable places
N
■ Streets that provide a dramatic improvement in our quality of life
What do you think of your street?
“It’s pleasant, attractive and interesting”
“It’s safe, clean and quiet”
“It’s somewhere to meet people”
“It functions well: there’s no litter, it’s well maintained, and there are minimal
roadworks”
“Neighbours work together to make improvements”
“There’s variety: peaceful streets, lively streets, streets for business, play
streets, bustling streets, quaint streets…there are streets for anything,
everything and everyone”
How the street is managed:
Community involvement and ownership
Communities are involved in their street. Businesses, retailers, and residents
have a vision for improvement, and are part of a partnership that is
managing the street and actively trying to bring about change.
People have a sense of ownership and pride in their street. They participate
in local governance and are confident that they possess the influence to
bring about improvements.
Co-ordinated management
Behind the scenes is a streamlined and holistic management approach
characterised by a culture of collaboration, innovation, and co-operation to
ensure a high quality of design, development and maintenance.
There are open and simplified processes, and clear responsibilities.
There is minimal bureaucracy: a simple, flexible system of regulation and
guidance. The focus is on community involvement and continuous
improvement.
6 T H E 2 0 0 2 D E S I G N I N G S T R E E T S F O R P E O P L E R E P O R T
Designing Streets 2002 24/11/06 10:51 Page 7
The reality
Streets form a huge part of T
H
E
our lives…
R
E
A
L
Streets account for about 80% of public space in urban areas and provide IT
Y
the setting for billions of pounds worth of property. They are routes for
sewage, waste, electricity, communications, gas, and clean water – as well
as people. They provide the focus of local communities and are the basic
building blocks of democracy.
...but they aren’t providing the
quality of experience we want…
Despite their importance, we neglect streets. Local streets have seriously
lacked investment in the years up to the new millennium, and have been
poorly managed. The problems created by this are not just about
appearance and function. Streets have a huge impact on the attitudes and
perceptions of society.
…the consequences of which
are manifold:
■ Only 20% of people are happy with urban life
■ Increasing pressure to develop the countryside
■ Growing dependence on motorised transport
■ Increasing impact of car use on communities
■ The public realm has become a consumer item (i.e. people pick and
choose where they live rather than carry responsibility)
■ Loss of community spirit and a weakening of democracy
T H E 2 0 0 2 D E S I G N I N G S T R E E T S F O R P E O P L E R E P O R T 7
Designing Streets 2002 24/11/06 10:51 Page 8
What’s gone wrong?
W Four reasons why we don’t have
H
A
T liveable streets
’
S
G
O
N
1. We have not managed to balance the growth in
E
traffic with people
W
R
O The increase in traffic and vehicle ownership has been progressive, year on
N
year. The increase has been accommodated freely through a policy of
G
? “predict and provide”. While there have been some attempts to restrict
traffic growth, it continues to increase, and is forecast to continue to do so.
800
ort 700
p
s
n 600
Lack of sed tracle km) 500
oriehi
investment moton v 400
h in (billi 300
wt
Our expenditure on vehicles o
outweighs our expenditure on Gr 200
the public realm by over 10 to 1. 100
We are not spending enough to 0
maintain our streets, let alone 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
manage the balance between
Source: Government statistics
people and vehicles through
measures such as traffic
calming, pedestrianisation, The main consequences of increase in vehicle use include:
homezones, or intelligent
transport systems. ■ Streets turning into drive-throughs
■ Congestion affecting the economy and restricting mobility
80
■ Loss of the tranquillity and safety that many people use their vehicles to
70 obtain
60 ■ Danger and intimidation of pedestrians
on 50 ■ Excess car parking blighting streets
billi 40
£ ■ Loss of the public realm
30
■ Social exclusion for those who have no use of a car
20
10 ■ Reallocation of space away from residents and local people to vehicles
and through-traffic
0
Highways Vehicles
Source: Government statistics
8 T H E 2 0 0 2 D E S I G N I N G S T R E E T S F O R P E O P L E R E P O R T
Designing Streets 2002 24/11/06 10:51 Page 9
2. Responsibilities have been divided and Residents will
fragmented. People do not feel empowered
wait for local
W
a) No one owns the street or has sole responsibility H
There are numerous organisations, parties and stakeholders who have an authorities to A
T
interest in the street, or need the street to go about their business or daily lives. ’S
No one has sole responsibility to see that everyone’s interests are balanced, clean up litter
G
protected or advanced. Instead there is a series of unrelated organisations that O
N
manage the street as a set of unrelated components. There is no single point of or look after E
contact for the management of the street or its improvement. This divided W
responsibility inevitably creates bureaucracy and hinders improvement. grass verges R
O
N
b) People feel powerless to make improvements G
?
People know what kind of environment they would like to live in, but few
think that they could bring this about in their own neighbourhood. Many
people will say that it is an impossible task and not worth attempting. Others
will have tried to make improvements only to have been confronted by a lack
of resources, or complex bureaucracy and legislation.
c) Fatalism
We tend to accept streets as
they are. We don’t think they
can be any better. To live and
work in an attractive place, many
people believe that the only
solution is to move.
What are streets for?
Streets are used for many things by many different people. The
activities identified below are a small cross section of all the functions
of a street.
Somewhere to meet and chat
A safe, attractive route to the shops, school,
work, friends - and the rest of the world
Place to sit Attractive view
Somewhere to park the car
Play area Exercise
DIRECT DEMANDS
Play
Things people want to do
THROUGH TRAFFIC
DERIVED DEMANDS
Removals Things people need to have Refuse collection
Delivery of goods Refuse storage
Telephone Fire, Ambulance, Police Gas
Water Electricity
Cable Drainage
Sewerage
T H E 2 0 0 2 D E S I G N I N G S T R E E T S F O R P E O P L E R E P O R T 9
Designing Streets 2002 24/11/06 10:51 Page 10
A plethora of 3. The knowledge base is prescriptive, complex,
and biased towards vehicles
both
W
H a) Vehicles – not people – are the focus of attention
A mandatory Practice, regulations and standards have developed around accommodating
T
’S and managing vehicles.
and advisory
G
O b) The knowledge base is prescriptive, complex and focussed on
N
E guidance Single Interest Solutions
W There is an avalanche of different guidance, laws, regulations, professions
R exists and specialisms. Much of the guidance is prescriptive, which discourages
O
N innovation. This body of knowledge is structured on narrow professional
G lines, and deals with the street as a set of unrelated components that are
?
managed independently. One profession’s solution is another’s problem. For
example:
■ Utilities which dig the road to maintain underground services, but as a
result increase road maintenance costs, and cause traffic hold-ups.
■ Refuse collection services which are cost effective but blight the street
with bins
■ People who concrete their front gardens to provide off-street parking,
thereby reducing the attractiveness of the street
■ People who drive along a street, and introduce noise, air pollution and
danger to residents.
This single-issue approach to streets leads to a waste of resources and
creates streets that fail to meet our needs.
c) National standards prevail over local distinctiveness
Guidance tends to be copied rather than interpreted, leading to the
replication of standard designs across the country.
d) Practices have been slow to change
Street design and practice follows a long-standing vehicle-orientated
tradition; but needs, technologies and lifestyles have changed. In the 1950s,
utilitarian solutions were acceptable and appropriate, but the same solutions
applied in 2002 are not adequate. It is important to challenge and justify
long-standing principles, and to develop a culture that encourages
experiment and innovation.
e) Practitioners avoid innovation for fear of litigation
Local authorities’ fear of litigation constrains innovation, and leads to slavish
copying of standard designs and practices. Practitioners should instead
manage risk using professional design skills based on robust but flexible
guidance to tailor solutions to individual streets. However, in 2002 there is no
career incentive for those professionals involved in street design to use their
judgement in accepting non-standard solutions.
10 T H E 2 0 0 2 D E S I G N I N G S T R E E T S F O R P E O P L E R E P O R T
