Dear all
Last week I invited responses to the question "Whatever happened to
road hierarchy?"
The answer seems to be "alive and well" - in various forms. There are
of course several different kinds of hierarchy co-existing. Some of
these are official categorisations linked to legal status, management
and funding. Some are linked to design standards, traffic and 'degree
of national importance'.
In the UK, the conventional quartet of "Primary Distributor, District
Distributor, Local Distributor, Access Road" does not seem to have a
clear-cut status. Inherited from the Buchanan Report, it lives on in
IHT's Transport in the Urban Environment, albeit in modified form. A
variety of modified, adapted and evolved versions or road hierarchy
exist, which may use some of the original types. An example is the
case of Fife, where the category "District Distribuutors" lives on
but the other terms do not (instead there are such things as
"Principle Roads", "Residential Core Roads", and so on.)
The present exercise did not show up explicit examples of coexistence
of conventional and urban design typologies, nor explicit named cases
where urban design style street types map to conventional hierarchy -
though some general indications were suggested. No respondent claimed
that road hierarchy was no longer used.
A conclusion seems to be that in the US, "functional classification"
largely remains an integrated system linking administrative, legal,
'functional' and design considerations. In the UK, however, it seems
that things are not so clear-cut. It seems that legal/administrative
categorisations (e.g. trunk road) live on for purposes of road
management, maintenance, finance, etc. However, Buchanan's road
hierarchy (Primary Distributor, etc.) does not seem to have a clear
official status. Whereas in 1963 it was at the heart of the national
system set out in Traffic in Towns, it seems to be less fundamental
now. It has been modified - even compromised - and exists in a
variety of local guises (i.e. in different local authority
documents), but without apparently a single consistent rationale.
Thanks to all who responded.
best wishes
Stephen
|