Tuesdays at APAâDC
Tuesdays at APA–DC 13th May 2014
The Community Streets Program in Hounslow, London: A Community-Led Approach to Street Design Gareth James Community Engagement and Transport Initiatives Officer, London Borough of Hounslow
[email protected]
The London Borough of Hounslow
Population: 254,000 18th largest of 32 Boroughs Image: London Councils
Context Mayor of London's transport strategy published May 2010 Each borough must develop a Local Implementation Plan (LIP) to support delivery of the Mayor’s strategy
LIP covers 2011-31, but the Delivery Plan is updated every 3 years, detailing the funding allocation and which strategic goals each program is designed to help achieve Community Streets funding allocation for 2011-14 was $1.35M and goals are to increase walking and cycling, reduce CO2 emissions, and improve accessibility of the transport system
Community Streets Overview Jointly run by Community Partnership Unit and Transport Planning Residents’ applications assessed based on the case put forward and any additional information that is readily available (e.g. accident data)
Aim is to develop innovative, low-cost methods of improving the streetscape, enhancing livability, and achieving LIP goals Community-led with extensive public engagement, to deliver better solutions, social inclusion, and community cohesion Concept designs by Sustrans; construction-level designs and implementation by Hounslow Highways
Oriel School - Background Application by “Hounslow Road and Oriel School Community Streets Group” approved in May 2010; concerns they had outlined included:
Crossing the service road
Need for traffic calming
Speeding around the school area
Poor parking practices by parents
Meetings held to gather feedback from stakeholders Reviewed School Travel Plan, a visual parking assessment, traffic counts, and accident data Developed vision document and refined designs through further community meetings and officer input Design concept approved by Area Forum in September 2011
Oriel School - Before
Oriel School – Design • Anti-skid coloured surfacing – blue indicates pedestrian desire lines • New seating • Bollards to discourage pavement parking • Mosaic bollard at entrance provides gateway feature
Oriel School – After (Oct 2013)
Oriel School – After (Oct 2013)
Wigley Road - Background Council had been looking at potential solutions to the rat running issue Speed humps not deemed by TfL to be best solution
Community Streets project launched July 2012 Objectives were agreed at initial residents’ meetings: Discourage rat running Reduce speeds Address parking problems Improve walking and cycling environment Enhance green areas
Wigley Road – Project Area
Wigley Road – Design Agreed an approach that could include road closures, traffic calming, and place-making Gathered baseline speed and volume data Developed designs through extensive engagement:
12 “official” meetings (and several more besides)
Emails, letters, phone conversations, and blog
“Door knocking” and home visits
Trialed closure of service road access for 7 weeks in Sept. 2013 Conducted new traffic counts to compare with baseline data Communicated results of trial to residents by letter and on the blog 69% support for road access closure (74% including petition)
Access Closure Results Jan 2012 Street Amesbury Eastbourne (1) Eastbourne (2) Little Park Marlborough Meadow Pevensey (1) Pevensey (2) Slip Road Wigley (1) Wigley (2) Woodlawn
Average Speed (MPH)
23.1 22.3 22.6 19 25.5 24.7 18.4
April 2013
Oct 2013 (During trial)
Volume Volume Volume Average Speed Average Speed (Combined (Combined (Combined (MPH) (MPH) week average) week average) week average)
2594 1616 963 301 2159
9.5
3001
20.2
1805
25
2503
17.1 11.7 25.4 23.2 21.1 19.7 27.1 22.3
18.2 20.9
1501 632
16.2 20.7
218 1899 1357 1496 477 297 1224 1464
237 1020
1872 401
“Street trial”
(March 2014)
“Street trial” (March 2014)
Lessons Learned Bring together urban designers and those responsible for implementation as early in the process as possible The process naturally brings communities together, but beware of hidden tensions
The bottom-up approach may need some parameters (e.g. a longlist) to ensure investment is targeted at areas with the greatest need For larger projects, it’s important to consider who qualifies as “local”
Look for opportunities to augment the investment in the area and sustain the project’s cohesion benefits (nearby projects involving non-profits, active travel initiatives, forming a residents’ association) Mainstreaming the community-led approach into other transport programs requires careful planning and adequate resources
Thank you
The Community Streets Program in Hounslow, London: A Community-Led Approach to Street Design Gareth James Community Engagement and Transport Initiatives Officer, London Borough of Hounslow
[email protected]
The London Borough of Hounslow
Population: 254,000 18th largest of 32 Boroughs Image: London Councils
Context Mayor of London's transport strategy published May 2010 Each borough must develop a Local Implementation Plan (LIP) to support delivery of the Mayor’s strategy
LIP covers 2011-31, but the Delivery Plan is updated every 3 years, detailing the funding allocation and which strategic goals each program is designed to help achieve Community Streets funding allocation for 2011-14 was $1.35M and goals are to increase walking and cycling, reduce CO2 emissions, and improve accessibility of the transport system
Community Streets Overview Jointly run by Community Partnership Unit and Transport Planning Residents’ applications assessed based on the case put forward and any additional information that is readily available (e.g. accident data)
Aim is to develop innovative, low-cost methods of improving the streetscape, enhancing livability, and achieving LIP goals Community-led with extensive public engagement, to deliver better solutions, social inclusion, and community cohesion Concept designs by Sustrans; construction-level designs and implementation by Hounslow Highways
Oriel School - Background Application by “Hounslow Road and Oriel School Community Streets Group” approved in May 2010; concerns they had outlined included:
Crossing the service road
Need for traffic calming
Speeding around the school area
Poor parking practices by parents
Meetings held to gather feedback from stakeholders Reviewed School Travel Plan, a visual parking assessment, traffic counts, and accident data Developed vision document and refined designs through further community meetings and officer input Design concept approved by Area Forum in September 2011
Oriel School - Before
Oriel School – Design • Anti-skid coloured surfacing – blue indicates pedestrian desire lines • New seating • Bollards to discourage pavement parking • Mosaic bollard at entrance provides gateway feature
Oriel School – After (Oct 2013)
Oriel School – After (Oct 2013)
Wigley Road - Background Council had been looking at potential solutions to the rat running issue Speed humps not deemed by TfL to be best solution
Community Streets project launched July 2012 Objectives were agreed at initial residents’ meetings: Discourage rat running Reduce speeds Address parking problems Improve walking and cycling environment Enhance green areas
Wigley Road – Project Area
Wigley Road – Design Agreed an approach that could include road closures, traffic calming, and place-making Gathered baseline speed and volume data Developed designs through extensive engagement:
12 “official” meetings (and several more besides)
Emails, letters, phone conversations, and blog
“Door knocking” and home visits
Trialed closure of service road access for 7 weeks in Sept. 2013 Conducted new traffic counts to compare with baseline data Communicated results of trial to residents by letter and on the blog 69% support for road access closure (74% including petition)
Access Closure Results Jan 2012 Street Amesbury Eastbourne (1) Eastbourne (2) Little Park Marlborough Meadow Pevensey (1) Pevensey (2) Slip Road Wigley (1) Wigley (2) Woodlawn
Average Speed (MPH)
23.1 22.3 22.6 19 25.5 24.7 18.4
April 2013
Oct 2013 (During trial)
Volume Volume Volume Average Speed Average Speed (Combined (Combined (Combined (MPH) (MPH) week average) week average) week average)
2594 1616 963 301 2159
9.5
3001
20.2
1805
25
2503
17.1 11.7 25.4 23.2 21.1 19.7 27.1 22.3
18.2 20.9
1501 632
16.2 20.7
218 1899 1357 1496 477 297 1224 1464
237 1020
1872 401
“Street trial”
(March 2014)
“Street trial” (March 2014)
Lessons Learned Bring together urban designers and those responsible for implementation as early in the process as possible The process naturally brings communities together, but beware of hidden tensions
The bottom-up approach may need some parameters (e.g. a longlist) to ensure investment is targeted at areas with the greatest need For larger projects, it’s important to consider who qualifies as “local”
Look for opportunities to augment the investment in the area and sustain the project’s cohesion benefits (nearby projects involving non-profits, active travel initiatives, forming a residents’ association) Mainstreaming the community-led approach into other transport programs requires careful planning and adequate resources
Thank you
