Rethinking Highways Adoption
In the UK, the conversation around urban design and highway adoption is at a crossroads. As architects, planners, and developers, we're constantly seeking ways to create spaces that not only cater to our need for movement but also enrich our quality of life. However, a deep dive into the current state of highway adoption reveals a complex web of challenges that stifle innovation and, quite frankly, leave our streets lagging behind their Northern European counterparts.
The big question is, why?
Street trees provide a shady place to sit in Poynton. Ideal for bulldogs on a sunny day. (Phil Cooper, 2024)
A tale of two cities: UK vs Northern Europe
Let's start with a bit of context. In cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam, streets are more than just thoroughfares for cars; they're vibrant, living spaces. These cities boast high-quality, integrated designs that prioritise pedestrians, cyclists, and public transport. These urban spaces are safer, more accessible, and more enjoyable.
Contrast this with the typical UK development. Here, the car is often king, with urban design that prioritises vehicular traffic flow over the quality of pedestrian and cyclist experiences. This isn't just about aesthetics; it's about creating environments that support healthier, more sustainable lifestyles.
There have certainly been attempts to do this differently, like the regeneration of Poynton in Cheshire. The problem is, the developments that buck the trend and look to put people, pedestrians and community front and centre are given short shrift by many local authorities.
Streets vs roads
Same thing right?
No.
A road is simple thing. A thing for cars to traverse, to go from point ‘a’ to point ‘b’ and back again. Because the roads are wide and straight, because cars and drivers have little reason to slow down or be aware of hazards or calming schemes and because they’re often made of easy-to-source, uniform materials, councils like to adopt these.
A street is more than a road. It’s a place where people live and communities thrive. Streets don’t prioritise cars and drivers. Yes, they make space for them, but the primary aim of the street is to be a safe and pleasant place for its inhabitants. Because of this, streets aren’t as wide, they have more twists and turns, they implement more traffic calming schemes and require drivers to be more aware of their surroundings.
These qualities make local authorities nervous and that nervousness often deters them from adopting streets from developers. This is because they’re worried about two things: liability and maintenance costs!
Even volume housebuilders can create unusual and pleasant streets, if they can get them adopted. Bloor Homes, Cheshire (Phil Cooper, 2024)
The challenge of highways adoption
As we’ve already hinted, at the heart of the issue is highways adoption—the process by which local authorities take over the maintenance of new roads from developers.
The process is fraught with hurdles that discourage innovative design:
Safety and Liability
Many Local authorities are hyper-focused on safety and liability concerns. While safety is paramount, the current approach often results in overly cautious designs that discourage anything that might introduce perceived risk, such as shared surfaces or unconventional crossings.
Maintenance Costs
The cost of maintaining more complex, high-quality urban spaces is a significant barrier. Many Local authorities, already strapped for cash, balk at the prospect of adopting anything but the most basic designs, fearing the ongoing costs of upkeep.
Institutional Inertia
There's a deep-rooted resistance within many local authorities to adopting non-traditional designs. This is partly due to a lack of funding and partly due to a lack of will or understanding of the benefits these designs bring.
Local authorities and urban road adoption
The reluctance of many local authorities to embrace innovative urban design solutions such as the Poynton project, Copenhagen Crossings, and roads with limited forward visibility encapsulates a broader challenge in urban development. This hesitation often stems from concerns over liability, maintenance costs, and safety. These factors play a significant role in why new developments can end up with roads and highways that remain unadopted by councils, leaving a gap between visionary urban design and the reality of implementation.
The liability dilemma
Many Local authorities are inherently risk-averse, primarily due to liability concerns. Innovative road designs, while enhancing pedestrian safety and promoting a more integrated urban space, introduce unfamiliar elements into the drivers' environment. This unfamiliarity can be perceived as a liability risk, with councils concerned about the potential for accidents and the subsequent blame or legal action that could fall on them.
Maintenance and costs
Another significant barrier is the perceived increase in maintenance costs associated with more complex road designs. Features like elevated crossings, differentiated paving materials, and non-standard road layouts require specialised upkeep, potentially leading to higher long-term costs. Local councils, often operating within tight budget constraints, may be hesitant to adopt infrastructure that could increase financial burdens.
Safety concerns
Safety is often a paramount concern for local authorities, but their approach is frequently conservative, focusing on traditional designs that have long been considered safe because they are familiar. The introduction of designs that force drivers to slow down and engage more actively with their environment—such as twisty roads and integrated crossings—can be seen as antithetical to these traditional safety paradigms. Despite evidence suggesting these features can enhance overall safety, especially for pedestrians and cyclists, the shift in mindset among those responsible for highways adoption has been slow.
The unadopted roads phenomenon
The culmination of these concerns contributes to the phenomenon of unadopted roads in new developments. Developers may be willing to experiment with innovative urban design to create more liveable, attractive, and sustainable communities. However, without the backing of local authorities to adopt and maintain these roads, a disconnect emerges. This leaves developers in a limbo, with roads that serve their intended purpose in design but not in official status, impacting everything from maintenance to emergency services access.
Poynton stands proud as an exemplar for how innovative street design can create liveable streets. (Phil Cooper, 2024)
The benefits of people-focussed streets
We’ve heard why local authorities tend to be reluctant when it comes to streets with a people focus, but what about the other side of the coin? What case is there to be made for people-focussed streets?
Increased community cohesion
When streets are set up for people rather than cars, it's easier to meet people, easier to visit, and easier to co-parent, care and support one another. In short, people-focussed streets lend themselves to proper community.
Crime reduction
When streets are used frequently by the people who live there, criminals avoid them.
Improved health and well-being
When streets are walkable streets, when children can safely play, when the air is less polluted by traffic, and where there is room to cycle and spaces to exercise, people are happier and healthier.
Reduced social isolation
People-focused streets make it easier for elderly people or people with limited mobility to get out and about while also making it easier for visiting carers, neighbours and family to support their loved ones.
They encourage modes of transport other than the car
When places are people-focused, people treat transport differently. Areas become pleasant for walking and cycling, people will choose to pop to the shops on foot, workers will opt for non-car commuting and kids will walk to school.
A people-focused place is a big part of the 15-minute city concept. Dispensing with the hair-brained conspiracy theories that rampage across social media, the backbone of 15-minute cities is a focus on people, their health and their lives. And that can only be a good thing.
So yes, people-focused streets are not without cost but the upshot of that cost to society is paid back in health benefits, productivity, social value and even carbon reduction. Our government and we as a society need to think holistically about the costs and benefits of our streets. We Can’t be so tunnel-visioned on cost to simply think cheaper and easier means better.
Nansledan, in Newquay, is an example of how particularly unusual street design can create exciting and distinctive places. Also an example of what you can achieve when the landowner is the Duchy of Cornwall. (Phil Cooper, 2021)
Bridging the gap
Addressing the gap between innovative urban design and the willingness of local authorities to adopt such designs requires a multifaceted approach. This includes:
Education and Evidence: Providing more information and evidence on the safety, cost, and community benefits of innovative road designs to local authorities.
Policy Reform: Considering changes at the governmental level to encourage or even mandate more progressive approaches to urban road design and adoption.
Collaboration: Encouraging closer collaboration between developers, urban designers, and local authorities from the early stages of planning to ensure all concerns are addressed and integrated into the design process.
A different body than the highways authority: This could be a body with a different purview, one that takes a more even-handed view in weighing up the adoption of streets.
The bottom line
The road to reconciling the vision of modern, integrated urban spaces with the realities of local authority adoption is fraught with challenges. However, by understanding the concerns at play and working collaboratively towards solutions, there is potential to create urban environments that are not only safe and functional but also enrich the lives of those who navigate them daily.