Tuesdays at APA–DC 13th May 2014

The Community Streets Program in Hounslow, London: A Community-Led Approach to Street Design

Gareth JamesCommunity Engagement and Transport Initiatives Officer, London Borough of Hounslow

gareth.james@hounslow.gov.uk

The London Borough of Hounslow

Population: 254,000

18th largest of 32 Boroughs

Image: London Councils

ContextMayor 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 OverviewJointly 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 - BackgroundApplication 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 runningReduce 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)

StreetAverage Speed

(MPH)

Volume (Combined

week average)

Average Speed (MPH)

Volume (Combined

week average)

Average Speed (MPH)

Volume (Combined

week average)

Amesbury 17.1 218Eastbourne (1) 9.5 3001 11.7 1899Eastbourne (2) 23.1 2594 25.4 1357Little Park 22.3 1616 20.2 1805 23.2 1496Marlborough 22.6 963 21.1 477Meadow 19 301 19.7 297Pevensey (1) 25.5 2159 27.1 1224Pevensey (2) 25 2503 22.3 1464Slip Road 24.7 1872Wigley (1) 18.4 401Wigley (2) 18.2 1501 16.2 237Woodlawn 20.9 632 20.7 1020

Jan 2012 April 2013 Oct 2013 (During trial)

Access Closure Results

“Street trial”

(March 2014)

“Street trial” (March 2014)

Lessons LearnedBring 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 long-list) 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