This presentation was delivered by Peter Jones from University College London on 2nd October 2015 and highlighted the importance of considering Link and Place when improving street design.

1. Improving Street Design
Through ‘Link and Place’
Peter Jones
Centre for Transport Studies, UCL, London
West Midlands Urban Design Forum, 2nd October 2015

2. LINK
street as a
movement conduit
PLACE
street as a
destination in its
own right
PRINCIPLES: Dual functions of streets

3. LINK
street as a
movement conduit
PLACE
street as a
destination in its
own right
Design objective:
save time
Design objective:
spend time
PRINCIPLES: Dual functions of streets

4. LINK
street as a
movement conduit
PLACE
street as a
destination in its
own right
Design objective:
save time
Design objective:
spend time
PRINCIPLES: Dual functions of streets

5. Through movement:
• Private cars, vans,
goods vehicles
• Public transport
• Cycles
• Pedestrians
Use of a street as a ‘Link’
People movement

6. • People standing, sitting, sightseeing,
shopping, trading
• Public performances, parades,
demonstrations, etc.
Certain vehicle-related activities:
• Parking (including cycle parking)
• Loading / servicing
Use of a street as a ‘Place’

7. Place status
Linkstatus
High Low
HighLow
Each cell represents a
particular type of street with
a specific combination of a
Link and Place status level

8. Neighbourhood
Local
District
City
National
Local
Neighbourhood
District
City
National
I-E
II-E
III-E
V-A
IV-E
V-B V-C V-D V-E
Place status levels
Linkstatuslevels
I-A
II-A
I-B I-C
II-B
I-D
II-C II-D
IV-A
III-B III-C III-D
IV-B IV-C IV-D
III-A

9. Street types in a ‘5 x 5’ Matrix

10. Application to Greater
London by TfL

11. Roads Task Force (RTF) - Key messages
London’s roads need to be looked at as a
whole, in a consistent manner, not just in
terms of moving traffic around London
Their functions have changed over time,
and this needs to be looked at afresh
In particular, we should think of our
road/street network ‘two dimensionally’:
Place:
Street activities
Supporting adjoining frontages
Movement:
General road traffic - cars, vans, etc.
Sustainable travel modes – buses,
walking, cycling

12. Street Types: the intended outcome
A common set of nine ‘street family
types’, but with flexibility for boroughs
to use a finer level of classification, to
meet local needs
Within this general classification, there
will be variation within a street type in
terms of:
Modal priorities
Land use dominance
This will ultimately provide a functional
understanding of the role of different
streets in London, and the kinds of
interventions required to improve the
role they play for Boroughs & Greater
London

13. Street Type Functions matrix

14. Street Types: process and outputs (7/x)Outputs: a set of jointly owned planning tools
Workshops create a map which can be used locally or combined for a
pan-London perspective
For use by Borough officers, TfL planners, consultants, and designers

15. ‘Function’ vs. ‘Form’ vs. ‘Performance’
Movement and Place describe the functions that each street is
intended to perform
The form of the street describes its current layout, management and
appearance
The performance of the street describes how well it is achieving its
various functions, given its current form
SO, ‘improvement’ will mainly involve changing form to better meet
functional requirements and so improve performance, rather than
changing the street functions – i.e. uplifting quality rather than
switching street types

16. Application to
Street Design

17. Different design solutions
• Two urban streets
• Same width
• Different Link/Place status
• Different designs
I-E
II-E
III-E
V-A
IV-E
V-B V-C V-D V-E
I-A
II-A
I-B I-C
II-B
I-D
II-C II-D
IV-A
III-C III-D
IV-B IV-C IV-D
III-A III-B
I-E
II-E
III-E
V-A
IV-E
V-B V-C V-D V-E
I-A
II-A
I-B I-C
II-B
I-D
II-C
IV-A
III-B III-C III-D
IV-B IV-C IV-D
III-A
II-D

18. Neighbourhood
Local
District
City
National
Local
Neighbourhood
District
City
National
I-E
II-E
III-E
V-A
IV-E
V-B V-C V-D V-E
Place status levels
Linkstatuslevels
I-A
II-A
I-B I-C
II-B
I-D
II-C II-D
IV-A
III-B III-C III-D
IV-B IV-C IV-D
III-A
Potential ‘20mph Zone’ cells
20 MPH
ZONES

19. Basic Criteria
• Each street activity requires a certain amount of
SPACE and TIME
• Some activities may also require – or benefit
from – ‘street design elements’:
– Reserved space/time on the street (e.g. bus
lane)
– Street furniture (e.g. seating)
• Potential range of provision, from Minimum to
Desirable
• ‘Link’ and ‘Place’ can assist in decisions about
how to allocate ‘discretionary’ space/capacity

20. Example: Place users
Place Street User Group Street Activities Infrastructure Requirements
Car users
Motorcyclists
Cyclists
Parking vehicle Parking space
Adequate lighting
Van/truck user Loading/unloading Loading provision
Adequate lighting
Bus operators Loading/unloading passengers Protected kerbside stopping
Easy access for mobility restricted
passengers
Adequate lighting
Bus passengers Waiting for bus Shelter and seating
Lighting and security
Service information
Pedestrian (strollers’) Window shopping
Queuing for services
Chatting to friends
Waiting for friends
Resting
Comfort break
Adequate lighting
Space to carry out the activities
Weather protection
Seating
Public toilets

21. ‘Desirable’ and ‘Minimum’ provision
CYCLE
LANE
Minimum Recom’nd Maximum
Mandatory,
with flow
1.2m 1.5m 2.0m
Advisory, with
flow
0.8m 1.2m 1.5m
Mandatory
contra-flow
1.5m 2.0m 2.5m

22. ‘Footprints’ of some street furniture
Size of Furniture
(width x length)
Total Footprint
Cycle stand 0.10m x 0.60 m 0.60m x 1.30m
Bench 0.48m x 1.06m 1.18m x 1.18m
Rubbish bin 0.50m x 0.50m 1.20m x 1.50m
Bus stop area 1.30m x 3.25m 2.40m x 3.90m
Source: Rachel Palfreeman, MSc Dissertation, 2008

23. Link Place
Carriageway Running lanes for
through traffic
Pedestrian crossings
Parking and loading
bays
Footway Pedestrian/cycle
movement zones
Traffic direction/
information and
regulatory signs
Street furniture and
social space
Mapping activities onto spaces

24. The ‘trade-off’ triangleLinkspace
capacity
Total street w
idth
EN
VELO
PE
O
F
O
PTIO
N
S
Place space
capacity
A
B
Linkspace
capacity
Total street w
idth
EN
VELO
PE
O
F
O
PTIO
N
S
Place space
capacity
A
B
Total street w
idth
EN
VELO
PE
O
F
O
PTIO
N
S
Place space
capacity
A
B
Total street w
idth
=
15m
Place space
capacity
Linkspace
capacity
[5m,10m]
Total = 15m
Link = 10m
Link = 5m
Place = 5m Place = 10m
[10m,5m]
Total = 15m
Total street w
idth
=
15m
Place space
capacity
Linkspace
capacity
[5m,10m]
Total = 15m
Link = 10m
Link = 5m
Place = 5m Place = 10m
[10m,5m]
Total = 15m
In simple terms…

25. Potential design situations
Pdes PdesLdes Pmin PminLmin
Pmin Pmin
Lmin
Pdes Pdes
Ldes
Lmin
Pmin Pmin
Place
Link
Ldes
Pdes
Envelope
of options
Place
Link
Lmin
Pmin
Envelope
of options
Place
Link
Lmin
Ldes
PdesPmin
Envelope
of options
Place
Link
Lmin
Pmin
Envelope
of options
No possible
options to meet
all minimum
needs
Available space
between
desirable and
minimum levelsAvailable space
just meets
minimum needs
Available space
exceeds
aggregated
desirable needs
Pdes PdesLdes Pmin PminLmin
Pmin Pmin
Lmin
Pdes Pdes
Ldes
Lmin
Pmin Pmin
Place
Link
Ldes
Pdes
Envelope
of options
Place
Link
Lmin
Pmin
Envelope
of options
Place
Link
Lmin
Ldes
PdesPmin
Envelope
of options
Place
Link
Lmin
Pmin
Envelope
of options
No possible
options to meet
all minimum
needs
Available space
between
desirable and
minimum levelsAvailable space
just meets
minimum needs
Available space
exceeds
aggregated
desirable needs

26. Allocating ‘discretionary’ space
Pmin Pmin
Lmin
Pdes Pdes
Ldes
Lmin
Pmin Pmin
Place Place
Link
Lmin
Ldes
PdesPmin
Envelope
of options
Place
Link
Lmin
Pmin
Envelope
of options
No possible
options to meet
all minimum
needs
Available space
between
desirable and
minimum levelsspace
needs
Pmin Pmin
Lmin
Pdes Pdes
Ldes
Lmin
Pmin Pmin
Place Place
Link
Lmin
Ldes
PdesPmin
Envelope
of options
Place
Link
Lmin
Pmin
Envelope
of options
No possible
options to meet
all minimum
needs
Available space
between
desirable and
minimum levelsspace
needs
Position of the street
segment in the
Link/Place matrix
determines relative
space to allocate to Link
and Place requirements
Linkstatus
Place status

27. Case study: Context-sensitive design
Freiburg, Germany
• Population = 210,000
• Disruption from trams from congestion
• Poor accessibility at tram stops
• Poor pedestrian environment
• High traffic volumes
• High traffic speed
Two design sections:
• Same Link status
• Place status higher in the second
design section

28. Applying the principles – section 1
• Central carriageway portion to be converted to a dedicated tramway
• Cycle lanes added
• Segregated tram, cycle and traffic provision

29. • Higher Place status, district shopping centre
• The design offers greater street provision to pedestrians, cyclists and street
scene improvements
• Tram not specially segregated, but shares the carriageway with general traffic
(separation in time through traffic signals only)
Applying the principles – section 2

30. Different balance along a route
Link status is the same
Place status is higher on design section 2
Relative Link status to Place status is lower on design section 2

31. Engaging the Public in
Street Design

32. • Link and Place provides a good,
intuitive framework for involving local
groups in street design – particularly
where have different views
• Has been trialled using a combination of
physical (‘blocks’) and electronic
(‘bytes’) techniques
• Minimum requirements defined; scale
blocks make design constraints clear
• Example: Bloxwich High Street, Walsall
Role in engagement

33. Public engagement process
• Workshop 1
– Describes the background to and reasons for
the exercise
– Allows groups of stakeholders to use the
Blocks to propose their own solutions.
• Workshop 2
– Stakeholders are shown their own plans,
along with the planners solution, in LineMap.
– The aspects of each plan can be discussed
on screen, and combined into a new plan.

34. Design considerations
national
highwaycity
boulevard
district
high street
local
streets
Place status
Linkstatus
LINK Function:
3
8
4
12
13
Minimum
spaces
Crossings
Bus Stops
Disabled Bays
Loading Bays
Parking Bays
3
8
4
12
13
Minimum
spaces
Crossings
Bus Stops
Disabled Bays
Loading Bays
Parking Bays
PLACE:
Function:

35. Street design elements
1:250
• Use of colour to
denote different types
of space usage
• Some of these based
on current street
colour categories, e.g.
blue denotes disabled
parking (blue badge)
• Size is based on size
of space actually
needed to fit facility in
Feature Colour
Vehicle Lane Grey
Bus Lane Red
Cycle Lane Green
General Parking Yellow
Disabled Parking Blue
Loading Brown
Bus Stop Orange
Traffic Island Cyan
Signal Crossing/
Zebra Approach
Magenta

36. 60mm
Example of loading bay block
1:250

37. Complete Tool Kit

39. Inputs to Workshop Two
Both maps were
displayed on
the walls outside
Maps were also
placed on tables so
participants
could get a more
detailed look

40. Converting blocks to road markings

41. The display includes the full plan, information about red
routes and a description of the planning process.

42. A role for different professionals
Traffic
engineers
.
Urban
designers
Link Place
PlanningDesign
Transport
planners
Urban
planners