www.certu.frCertuThe cross-section, a sharing tool for urban roadsEnglish versionwww.certu.frISBN : 978-2-11-129478-3Certucentre dtudes sur les rseaux,les transports,lurbanisme, et les constructions publiquesForeword for publications translated into foreign languagesThe purpose of translated documents and publications is to pass on to non-French speaking readers the French know-how set out in the original publication, whether this concerns methodologies, toolsor best practices.Original publications in French are subject to a checking process, which leads to a Certu commitment regarding their content. English versions do not undergo the same process, and consequently carry no Certu commitment. In the event of differences between the English and the original French text, the French text serves as the reference. www.developpement-durable.gouv.frThe cross-section, a sharing toll for urban roadsUrban roads are characterised by the multiple functions they fulfil: they carry vehicular traffic, providecar parking, accommodate pedestrian traffic, and enable us to access shops, amenities and housing.And yet the car has progressively taken over more and more of the available road space, at the expense of other road users. Today, in response to social and environmental demands, public policy seeks to give priority to other forms of travel, such as cycling, walking and public transport, by controlling car use more effectively.How should streets be organised in order to accommodate all these uses? How can different transport modes and the various needs of residents and other users be reconciled? How should the available space be shared out? Of course, there is no single answer to these questions: each individual street must be considered on its merits and according to the importance of its different functions.With this in mind, this work provides road designers with techniques and tools to help them successfully ration urban road space while maintaining a "unifying" approach. In this guide, the reader will find all the recommendations necessary to create variable cross-sections and their constituent elements: footpaths, carriageways, dedicated spaces for cyclists and public transport, separators, and vegetation.WE ALSO RECOMMANDGuide de la voirie pour les transports collectifsCertu, 2000only available in french on www.certu.frGuideline for cycle facilities urban areasCertu, 2008available in english on www.certu.frRsum franais en fin douvrageVer la sntesis en espaol al fina del libroCertu, 2010only available in french on www.certu.frCarrefours urbains, guidewww.developpement-durable.gouv.frwww.certu.fr The cross-section, a sharing tool for urban roadsMay 2009Foreword for publications translated into foreign languagesThe purpose of translated documents and publications is to pass on to non-French speaking readers the French know-how set out in the original publication, whether this concerns meth-odologies, tools or best practices. Original publications in French are subject to a checking process, which leads to a CERT commitment regarding their content. English !ersions do not undergo the same process, and conse"uentl# carr# no CERT commitment. $n the e!entof differences between the English and the original French te%t, the French te%t ser!es as the reference.Thanks&rafting of this document was super!ised b# 'ean-(uc Re#naud )Certu*.$t has recei!ed contributions from+ &omini"ue ,ertrand- Fran.ois ,runel )Cete de l/Est*- 'ack# 0r1bou!al )Cete 2ormandie centre*- Franck 3onti )Cete 31diterran1e*- 'ean-3arie (ipinski, 4t1phanie 4au!aget and Claude ,ottet )Cete 2ord 5icardie*- Christian ,abilotte, Oli!ier ,aille, 5ascal ,almefre6ol and 'ean-5aul (huillier )Certu*- diagrams + ,ernard du 7erger )Certu* and Fr1d1ric 3icoud ) Cete de (#on*.,esides the members of this focus group, we would particularl# like to thank+ Christine &ef-fa#et )Certu*, ,enard Eneau )Certu*, the 8TTF members and the 8$TF members.THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADSIntroductionrbanroadsarecharacterisedb#themultiplefunctionsthe#fulfil+ the#carr#!ehiculartraffic, pro!ide car parking, accommodate pedestrian traffic, and enable us to access shops, amenities and housing. 8nd #et the car has progressi!el# taken o!er more and more of the a!ailable road space, at the e%pense of other road users. Toda#,in response to social and en!ironmental demands, public polic# seeks to gi!e priorit# to other forms of tra!el, such as c#cling, walking and public transport, b# controlling car use more effecti!el#.9ow should streets be organised in order to accommodate all these uses: 9ow can different transport modes andthe!ariousneedsof residentsandother usersbereconciled:9ow should the a!ailable space be shared out: Of course, there is no single answer to these "ues -tions+ each indi!idual street must be considered on its merits and according to the importance of its different functions.;ith this in mind, this work pro!ides road designers with techni"ues and tools to help them successfull# ration urban road space while maintaining a ? 4haring the public space= Chapter @? ;hich sharing for which urban roads:= Chapter A? The preliminar# studies before the design= Chapter B? ,uilding the cross-section= Chapter C? 4i6ing the constituent elements of the cross-section= 8ppendi% >? The regulator# framework= 8ppendi% @? (ateral margin dimensions between usersCertu May 2009 3THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADSCONTNT!C " # P T$ %!haring the public space&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&'C " # P T$ ()uilding the cross-section&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&(*C " # P T$ +!i,ing the constituent elements of the cross-section&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&-+)ibliography&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&%(+.lossary or terminology&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&%(/Table of contents&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&%++ Certu May 2009THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS%& !haring the public space%&%The notion of sharing%&%&% 0efinition and transcription to the public space The term sharing induces two apparentl# contradictor# notions+4haringDpooling together 4haringDdi!iding into several parts$n both cases, the definition refers to Ebeneficiar#F pla#ers who are, in the case in hand, users of the public space.;e should not be limited to the notion of tra!el mode but rather talk about sharedusesof public space, as these are not solel# restricted to the circulator# function. These uses not onl# include circulation and parking but also+ local life in !arious forms )walking, temporar# occupation for professional or recre-ational purposes, interface with neighbourhood acti!ities*, the installation of urban furniture and planting, functional utilities )sanitation, utilit# networks, etc.*.0id you know1 8sur!e#onthemobilit#ofpeopleli!inginthe(illedistrict showsane%ampleofthe breakdown of tra!el per mode in a large conurbation. The car is the leading means of transport, but it fell between >GGH and @IIJ. ;ith >KA of transport modes, walking is the second most popular mode.Source: Cete Nord-Picardie, on the basis of surveys of household travel 1987, 1998, 2!, "#tro$ole lilloise%Certu May 2009 !THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS!haring 2 pooling together$n this sense of the term, sharing relates to jointappropriation of a single element b# the different beneficiaries.For the public space, this corresponds to the idea of a diversity of uses, their mi% at the same timeandinthesameplace. Thiscanconcerna!ar#ingnumber of uses, dependingon whether di!ersit# is partial or total.For e%ample,there is partial combination of carriagewa#s which,b# default,welcome allmotorised or non-motorised !ehicles, combined bikeKpublic transport lanes, on-road parking without marking whereas pedestrian priorit# 6ones 1 correspond more to total di!ersit#.Pedestrian $riority &ones corres$ond to $laces 'here diversity can be total ($hoto: Cete )#diterran#e*%>The definition of pedestrian priorit# 6ones is on page >J." Certu May 2009THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS!haring 2 di3iding into se3eral parts$n this sense of the word, sharing refers to thebreakdownof the element in "uestion into several portions, and their distribution to beneficiaries.$n the case in hand, this corresponds to the idea of breaking down the total land re"uirementand allocating thus determined elementar# spaces to different uses andKor users.4haring then leads to a separation of these uses, in particular the separation of tra!el modes.This separation is usuall# spatial and permanent through permanent allocation of places des-ignated for gi!en uses.+his leads, for e,a"$le, to identifying ele"ents such as the carriage'ay or thefoot'ay%!ome figures&&&The theoretical capacit# of people transported in a tramwa# site is double that of a bus lane )onthebasisof@CIpeoplepertramwa#and>IIpeopleperbuswithafre"uenc#of@ minutes*.For e"ui!alent width )A m*,a traffic lane processes C times fewer people )with traffic of>,@II !ehicles per hour and >.>C persons per car*.;ith smaller measurements )@ m and >.CI m*, footwa#s and c#cling facilities ha!e a capa-cit# e"ual to a bus lane.Certu May 2009 #THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS,ut the separation can also be temporal, as a space can be allocated to certain uses at certain times of the da#.This ma# be !alid for+ road networks designed to allow di!ersit#-a good e,a"$le of this is access allo'ed to delivery vehicles in $edestrian areasat certain ti"es, or spaces allocated to certain uses-for e,a"$le, reservation of $ar-ing s$aces for deliveries and variable allocationof lanes de$ending on the direction or category of vehicle%. lane for $ublic trans$ort only is used in the "orning in one direction and in the evening in the otherdirection, in line 'ith co""uter traffic%$ Certu May 2009THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADSThe two t#pes of separation are of course not e%clusi!e of each other, as spatial separation can onl# concern part of the total land re"uirement.8s far as the public space is concerned, this dual notion of sharing applies both to linearspaces like streets and public s"uares.$n the first case, the onl# point of interest to us here, the dominance of longitudinal traffic functions, leads us to anal#se separation and di!ersit# in priorit# in the trans!ersal dimen-sion, the transcription of which is e%pressed in cross-sections. This is the main purpose of this document.%&%&( The cross-section, the result of a choiceThe determination of the cross-section is mainl# founded on the de!elopment objecti!es of the street in "uestion- it should be consistent with the functions assigned to that street and with its position in the prioritisation of the road network and the urban conte%t.To achie!e these objecti!es, the choice between separation and di!ersit# of uses can be made b# takinginto considerationthead!antagesand disad!antagesof each configuration with respect to compatibilit# of these uses and b# taking them all into account in the cross-section design process. $n the case of separation, this is e%pressed b# precautions to be taken in terms of ju%taposition and leads to the notion of Eseparator. $n the case of di!ersit#, "uestions should be raised about the possiblecohabitation of uses.This partl# depends on the regulator# field, as certain traffic conditions and use of space are go!erned b# regulations )see below*, but also, and abo!e all, b# best practices and e%peri-ence feedback.3oreo!er, the two senses of the word EsharingF are not mutuall# e%clusi!e-cross-sections defined on this basis e!en usuall# combine spaces allocated to separate uses and places ofdi!ersit#.Certu May 2009 9THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS!amples"Part of thetotal landre/uire"ent canbereserved for a given "ode of trans$ort($hoto: Certu*%. carriage'ay allocated to 0general traffic1 by definition co"bines several trans$ort"odes ($hoto: Cete Nord-Picardie*%.lateral s$aceinthetotal landre/uire"ent isoften dedicated to several uses ($hoto: Cete Nord-Picardie*%%0 Certu May 2009THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS%&(The regulatory frameworkThe design, management and operation of lanes open to public traffic are go!erned b# rules set out in+ Code de la route, Code de la !oirie routiLre, Code de l/urbanisme, Code de la construction et de l/habitation, Code de lMen!ironnement, !arious te%ts relating to accessibilit#, in particular 8ct @IIC->I@ dated >>th Februar# @IIC for e"ual opportunities, participation and citi6enship of disabled persons.$t is worth recalling a few essential rules here relating to terms of use of the public space which authorise the presence of users or not in specific road spaces.Certain di!ersities of use are thus instituted b# regulations that set a definition for certain ele-ments+ thepedestrianareaallows di!ersit#between pedestrians andbic#cles)article R. >>I-@, Code de la Route*- thepedestrianpriority#one, onthecarriagewa#, allows di!ersit#betweenall users. 5edestrians are priorit# users )article R. >>I-@, Code de la Route*- thecarriagewayisthepart ofthestreet whereall motorisedandnon-motorised !ehicles should normall# circulate )article R. >>I-@, Code de la Route*. Cohabitation with pedestrians is possible if there are no footwa#s or suitable !erges for their use )pedestriansthereforeneedtowalkonthesideofthecarriagewa#, accordingto R. B>@-AC, Code de la Route*.Certain t#pes of di!ersit# are allowed b# law if the traffic policing authorit# issues a decree+ in pedestrian areas, onl# access of motorised !ehicles needed to deli!er to the 6one is allowed )article R. >>I-@, Code de la Route*- c#cling tracks and lanes can be open to motorc#cles )article R. BA>-G, Code de la Route*- dedicatedlanescanbeopentose!eral categoriesof user if thema#or/s decree establishing them allows it )article R. B>@-N, Code de la Route*.Other t#pes of di!ersit# are clearl# e%cluded+ footwa#s are onl# allocated to pedestrians, children under H ma# howe!er sometimes c#cle on them )article R. B>@-AB of the Code de la Route*- wa#s reser!ed to one or se!eral categories of users are, b# definition, forbidden to other categories )article R. B>@-N of the Code de la Route*.Certu May 2009 %%THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS+er"s of use of $ublic s$ace i"$osed by regulations %%&+Compatible usesO!erandabo!etheregulator#aspects, di!ersit#betweenthedifferentusesofthepublic space can onl# be en!isaged if the# are compatible in terms of safet# and functionalit# forthe users present.$t is ob!ious that static uses )parking or urban furniture* should not be mi%ed with medium or high speed tra!el speeds for safet# reasons and e!en comfort. Remember that parking is authorised in specificall# defined spaces, or failing that on the carriagewa# unless it hinders traffic. The installation of urban furniture should be designed to be compatible with paths and circulations.8s far as compatibilit# with tra!el modes is concerned, two essential criteria are to be taken into account to appreciate it+ speed differentials and flow !olumes between the rele!ant usercategories which interact with each other.$peed differentialis a fundamental criterion which could make separation between modes desirable and e!en necessar# when too high.For e%ample, the 8$C5R document on non-motorised transport2identified fi!e speed seg-ments where cohabitation did not raise a problem+I ? J km per hourspeeds practised b# pedestrians and other footwa# users-J ? >C km per hourspeeds practised b# the majorit# of c#clists, skaters, electronicall# powered bic#cles- >C ? AI km per hourspeeds practised b# athletic c#clists, most motorised !ehicles in neighbourhood or cit# centre streets- AI ? CI km per hourspeeds practised b# motorised !ehicles on main roads-@,# '.-C. 5outch#-Ti%ier+ ETaking into account 2on-3otorised Transport in road network planningF, $nterna-tional seminar on sustainable de!elopment in road transport, 2ew &elhi, 2o!ember @II> and ETransport 2on 3otoris1F, 'anuar# @II@.%2 Certu May 2009M&'e ()*t&+, -*.&, Cy/.&0&teur,M&t&, Aut&1u, Tra02ay,Tr&tt&)rA)re 3)*t&++e-&)e 4erteBa+'e /y/.a1.e(),te /y/.a1.eC5au,,*e456S)te TC (ar arr6t*(ar arr6t* Pr7sence autoris7e par les te8tes r7glementaires Pr7sence interdite456 La .&) LAURE )03&,e, e+ a0&+t, .eur 3r),e e+ /&03te -*5)/u.e, .*7er, et 3&)', .&ur', Sau8 e+8a+t9art:R:%2-3!Two la#out e%amples for c#clists For the same functions ? presence of pedestrians, one-wa# street, parking needs, necessit# of ensuring c#cling continuit# in both directions ? with a similar total land re"uirement, there are two possible la#out solutions.Consistent 'ith >rand 7yon3s $olicy to develo$ cycling in the city, the idea behind the develo$edsection of the rue de la Part ?ieu 'as to se$arate cyclists fro" general traffic by creating a trac-%9t is a structuring develo$"ent for the city3s cycling net'or- 'ith strong legibility ($hoto: Certu*%7ayout of the rue d35s/uerchin in ?ouai 'here 'ell-established local $ractices involving the $res-ence of cyclists led develo$ers to focus on diversity in one direction 'ith the creation of t'o-'aycycling facilities ($hoto: Cete Nord-Picardie*%Certu May 2009 3%THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS(&%&( Positioning each element 4econdl#, the elements should be positioned in the cross-section according to the principles set out below.0enerall# speaking, the fastest !ehicles )or the ones re"uired to be rapid* are those most dis-tant from buildings. $n this wa#, starting from building frontages and mo!ing to the middle of the road, there are+ pedestrians, bic#cles, motorised !ehicles1 )light !ehicles, light utilit# !ehicles and motorc#cles*, public transport on dedicated lanes.@asic $rinci$le, the "ost ra$id vehicles are set at a distance fro" building frontages%Certain re"uirements are imposed+ 5edestrian areas are placed alongside neighbourhood acti!ities- 5arking 6ones are linked to a pedestrian space+ a footwa#,a path laid outalongside a public transport dedicated lane, a central footwa#, etc. N3otorised !ehicles include passenger !ehicles, light utilit# !ehicles, (07s, motorc#cles and public transport when not in a dedicated lane.32 Certu May 2009 ParkingFootwayCyclists CarriagewayPublic transport!paces organised according to the general rule C Cours Charlemagne 4Ayon6Conte8tEAe-establishing the city on the basis of 'ater, $roducing an urban i"agination on the confluent, thin-ingabout s$ace in ter"s of duration, inti"ately blending the city and the $ar-, co"bining continuity of s$acesand diversity of uses1 are just some of the objecti!es set out b# the project to reno!ate the (#on Confluence district. The Cours Charlemagne is its main street and was planned with all this in mind.New uses, new sharingThe Cours Charlemagne should offer residents south of the (#on peninsula with a link with the rest of the conurbation, pro!ide links to e%isting and future facil-itiesandthereforeopenupandhelptode!elopthe peninsula. Furthermore, it is one of se!en main routes in the non-motorised traffic network identified b# 0rand(#on inthe conurbation/s sustainable urban transport plan.The e%tension of the T> tram line pro!iding efficient public transport with this district induced new sharing of the road network with a role gi!en to each transport mode.$nitiall# mainl# occupied b# motorised !ehicles with a carriagewa# >@m wide for a total land re"uirement of about AA m, this a!enue now offers spaces for pedes-trians, c#cles, public transport and motorised !ehicles. ;ell organised,these spacescombine theefficienc# of public transport, reduction of !ehicle speed, legib-ilit# of c#cling facilities and neighbourhood life. This redistributionof spaceisconditionedb#thestrong re"uirement to maintain the perspecti!e gi!en b# two rowsof planetrees. Thelamp-postsandpostssup-portingthetramwa#linesarepositionedinthetree alignment.The tramwa# platform, carriagewa#s and c#cle lanes are separated b# small le!el differences )around C cm* resulting in a certain permeabilit# fa!ourable to trans-!ersal uses. The Cours Charlemagne offers a new face where all users find their own place.Se$aration and organisation of s$aces follo'ing the general $rinci$le, 'ith, in the centre, thefastest users, and $edestrians in contact 'ith neighbourhood life ($hoto: Certu*%THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADSOther organisations of space are possible, some of which differ from the basic principle. $t is then necessar# to stud# the positioning of each element in detail as the ju%taposition induces conditions on de!elopment and on operation. These points are accompanied b# brief com-ments, details of space design are featured in part fi!e.$paces destined for public transport 5ositioning public transport laterall# can reduce its speed+ one-wa# public transport lane alongside footwa#s+stops take up less space in the section-fa!ourable to busKbic#cle cohabitation-need for wide footwa#s or adapted public transport speed-deli!er# and collection of household refuse made difficult . one%waypublic transport lanealongside parking+distances public transport from pedestrians-fa!ourable to busKbic#cle cohabitation-could disturb parked !ehicles-deli!er# areas to be de!eloped closer to demand-collection of household refuse made diffi-cult-laid out Ead!ancedF stop-!ehicles must be able to cross separators . two%way public transport lane )on a two-wa# traffic lane*+residential access difficult-deli!er# and collection of household refuse made difficult-poor legibilit# in intersections-in the presence of parking alongside the dedicated lane, the insertion of separators accessible to pedestrians could induce their longitudinal mo!ement-pedestrian crossing re"uiring refuges.Caption+ fa!ourable aspect, unfa!ourable aspect, recommendation.3 Certu May 2009THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS$paces for cyclistsThe c#cle lane is a lane on the carriagewa#,it is alwa#s positioned to the right of traffic.C#cle tracks are separate lanes, the# can be positioned between parking areas and the foot -wa#+ a one%waylane placed between footwa# and park-ing area+a broadened lane to take into account parking and the curb of the footwa#-well defined separation between footwa# and path-good safet# in the main section with respect to pas-senger !ehicles-recommended for lanes with little lateral acti!it# and strong circulator# function-possible conflicts with pedestrians accessing parked !ehicles-in-depth stud# of intersections for good !isibilit#-separation between c#cle path and parking designed not to hinder pedestrians accessing their !ehicle-difficult insertion in general traffic. two%waypathplacedbetweenfootwa#andpark-ing+located independentl# to the right or left-well defined separation between footwa# and the c#cle path-good safet# in the main section with respect to pas-senger !ehicles-possible conflicts with parked passenger !ehicles )to be modulated depending on the width of the c#cle path*-precise stud# needed at intersections to ensure good !isibilit#-difficult insertion in general traffic.Caption+ fa!ourable aspect, unfa!ourable aspect, recommendation.Certu May 2009 3!THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS2ase of central footways$n wide a!enues, a central footwa# is possible if its geometric features allow pedestrians to walk on it+ for pedestrians on the central footwa#+the recommended width is o!er >I m-in the a%is, pedestrian crossings at junctions are in conflict with !ehicles turning left. This la#out is unusual, making conflicts less ob!ious. for c#clists on the central footwa#+good safet# in the main section-as for pedestrians, conflicts at intersections are not ob!ious-access to the c#cle path forces c#clists to cross the carriagewa#.Caption+ fa!ourable aspect, unfa!ourable aspect, recommendation.3" Certu May 2009 Carriageway central footwayTHE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS2ase of one%way roadsThe position of spaces in one-wa# roads follow the same rules as those presented for two-wa# roads )see paragraph @.>.@*.C#clists should be allowed to take the contraflow b# setting out a Edouble c#cling wa#F or opening of a public transport lane )see part C for si6ing conditions*.Two%way c#cle paths on two%way public transport dedicated lanes are placed independentl#+to the right of the traffic direction, the general traffic direction is ju%taposed to the opposite direction of the dedicated lane+there is a risk of full-frontal impact and therefore of more serious accidents-but mutual !isibilit# is good-legibilit# of the de!elopment is lower for trans!ersal uses in particular for pedestrians, refuges are necessar#-it is necessar# to insert an insurmountable separator.totheleftwith respect tothe trafficdirection, thegeneral traffic directionisju%taposed against the same direction of the dedicated lane-mutual !isibilit# is less good than in the pre!ious case with more fre"uent impact risks-but less serious-legibilit# of the de!elopment is better for trans!ersal uses-the separation should be more or less surmountable.2ase of service roadsThe basis principle to place the fastest users in the centre is respected. The neighbourhood access functions of others are isolated.The ser!ice road is designedlike accesslanes, optingfor adi!ersit# oftrafficand speed reduction+de!eloped in the spirit of a AI 6one-without specific de!elopments for c#clists as the# ride along the ser!ice road-longitudinal or angle parking-narrow lanes which are ne!ertheless accessible to emergenc# ser!ices and deli!eries.Caption+ fa!ourable aspect, unfa!ourable aspect, recommendation.Certu May 2009 3#!er3ice roads Footway Carriageway THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS(&%&+ !tudying the limits between road spaces;hen each space making up the cross-section has been positioned, it is necessar# to look atthe limits. The designer has !arious possibilities to create this separation- as mentioned in part one, marking on the carriagewa#, a simple difference in surfacing and materials, le!eldifference between spaces, insertion of linear emerging s#stems )solid or not*, narrow reser -!ations and installation of urban furniture are all possible solutions.The decision to separate spaces ph#sicall# or not and the choice of separator should take into account the ad!antages and disad!antages presented b# each s#stem, according to the criteria mentioned in part one.-ses in!ol!ed are of course decisi!e, with respect to the le!el of ser!ice e%pected generall# and indi!iduall# )in terms of safet#, comfort and fluidit#*+ The t#pe of uses that need to be separated should be taken into account mainl# b# differential crossing of user speed and categor#- The conditions of use of the space in "uestion can lead to seeking a greater or lesser degree of permeabilit# of spaces, therefore a !ar#ing degree of surmountabilit# in separators )e%amples+ protection of the allocated space, access to lateral parking*- The nature and importance of trans!ersal uses )pedestrian crossing, neighbourhood access, parking, spacing between junctions* should also be integrated for the same reasons- Therelati!epositioningofspacesbetweenthemalsoinfluencesonthedegreeof surmountabilit# of separators..ccess to lateral $ar-ing i"$lies a sur"ountable se$arator at lo' s$eed ($hoto: co""unaut# urbaine de )arseille Provence "#tro$ole*%3$ Certu May 2009THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS. configuration inducing a :u,ta$osition of traffic directions contrary those i"$osed by the Code de la route re/uires se$arator to be "ore difficult to cross($hoto: Certu*%3ight%of%way constraints ha!e a necessar# impact on choice, which interacts with the width of rele!ant spaces and users/ perception+ it is usuall# preferable toleave roomfor users rather thanseparators)in particular to non-motorised modes, but taking care with an# per!erse effects )speed, undesired uses*- to the contrar#,relati!el# wide or surmountable separators can help to reduce the width of separated spaces when uses allow it- the impacton users/ perception of space allocated to them )wall effect, guidance,etc.* is linked to the form, nature of the separator )emergence, !isual contrast, etc.*.+his $aved gutter visually reduces a !%1B " 'ide carriage'ay ($hoto: Cete de l45st*%Certu May 2009 39THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS. %B " 'ide curb can se$arate the cyclistfro"$ar-edvehiclesby"in-i"ising hindrance for $assengers and cyclists ($hoto: Certu*%9n a 'ide and relatively illegible s$ace, the se$arator can facilitate guidance ($hoto: Certu*%The management and operationof spaces induce constraints which need to be integrated when choosing the separator+ the presence of ph#sical separators can pro!e incompatible with certain maintenance tasks )sweeping, snow clearance, access to networks, refuse collection, etc.*- collection of surface water should be taken into account for installation )run-off and collection of water*- e%ceptional situations induce constraints on the formof the separator )riskof congestiondue toa brokendown!ehicle, accessibilit#of emergenc#ser!ices, passage of e%ceptional transport, etc*.$ntegrationinthegeneralarchitecturalpartofthestreetguidesthechoiceofmaterials, form, possible use of plants andKor urban furniture.8 simple difference of materials constitutes a purel# indicati!e separation that could pro!e to be enough when the rele!ant spaces can remain permeable to other uses without damaging the general operation. $t can be reinforced b# urban furniture or marking in the case of car -riagewa#s.0 Certu May 2009THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS3arkinghasaregulator#character, definedb#law )$$4R*. 5artone)01n1ralit1s*ofthis instruction defines it as aroad signcategory, whereaspartse!en )3ar"uessur chauss1e* specifiestheconditionsofuse. $t isreser!edforcarriagewa#sandisusedtomaterialise traffic lanes and parking. $ts road connation does not recommend it for the urban en!iron-ment e%cept in the specific case of dedicated lanes for which it is better adapted.Other options, which can be grouped under the term of $hysical se$arators, can be used to separate all spaces in the cross-section+ public transport dedicated lane, carriagewa#, c#cle path, footwa#, etc. $ndications are gi!en in part fi!e of this guide on their creation and si6ing.(&(!i,ing appropriate to the total land reDuirementConstituent elements of the section are calibrated on the basis of standard widths or widths generall# accepted in the same conte%t but ju%taposed to form one or se!eral outline cross-sections.Their precise adjustment will be done in a second phase after ha!ing checked that the# can be inserted into the total land re"uirement and that the# work.(&(&% Calibrating each element of the sectionEach criterion of the programme has an impact on one or se!eral constituti!e elements of the road network. The problem lies in interrelations between criteria and the cumulati!e needs each element has to satisf#+5edestrian circulation conditions the footwa#, parking-neighbourhood acti!ities determine parking, the footwa#. The latter acts as an inter-face between pri!ate and public areas-the importance gi!en to c#clist circulation, according to general traffic conditions,justifies the choice of the t#pe of c#cling facilit# and parking !olume-the presence of public transport has an impact on the carriagewa#, the footwa# and justifies the e%istence or not of dedicated lanes-general traffic objecti!es define the carriagewa# and how parking is processed-landscaping objecti!es and urban furniture influence the footwa#, the central reser!a-tion and proportions between spaces.$t is noted that the footwa# is the element most often used and too often not considered to be a priorit#. 4t is therefore the footway that should be calibrated first.The presence of se!eral spaces and their relati!e positioning lead to the insertion of separat -ors. 4ome ha!e no impact on the trans!ersal dimension such as curbs or marking - the latter is often included in the calibration of traffic lanes -others occup# a place in the section thatshould not be underestimated )see paragraph A.N*.Complementar# to a functional approach to the de!elopment of the cross-section, reflection on its form leads to si6ing spaces differentl#. 8 few ideas are proposed below.5roportion between buildings and road spacesThe heightKwidth ratio offers a perception of the place where the building asserts its presence to !ar#ing degrees. ;hen designing the cross-section, it is necessar# to take this ratio into consideration so that the street ma# be read in line with re"uired user beha!iour.Certu May 2009 %THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADSFor a new road, it is possible to work on these dimensions, in particular in urban planning documents, b# defining the public right-of-wa#, distance of the building and its height.Rehabilitation of an e%isting road network doesnot allowfundamental modification ofthisratio. 9owe!er, otherelementsin the section can be adjusted to offer a dif-ferent perception of the place+ creation of tree alignments, presence of urban fur-niture, modification in the footwa#-car-riagewa# ratio, etc.+ree align"ents create a closed s$ace for the carriage-'ay (2CD E 1* instead of an o$en s$ace 'ith a ratio over2%5roportion between constituent elements of the cross%section The carriagewa# has a breaking effect in the public space. $nappropriate hea!# traffic and road width are some of the factors that accentuate this rupture and reinforce the feeling of insecurit# and discomfort for pedestrians. E!en if it does not alwa#s help to sol!e the prob-lem, whendesigningthecross-section, it isimportant torespect satisfactor#proportions between footwa# and carriagewa#.Therearenorulesbut proposalsha!ebeenimaginedtobalancethedimensionsofroad spaces which are more fa!ourable and more harmonious to neighbourhood details+in5aris, asof>HA@, theengineer, 5artiot hadestablishedthepropor-tionofAKCforthecarriagewa#and @KC for footwa#s, it was applied until >GAI-Esafer cit#,no-accident neighbour-hoodF e%periments focusedonthe proportions of the rue de 3Qt6ig )JN* with a footwa#-carriagewa# ratio of )(>R(@*K(A D S-broad a!enues are designed with a AKAbreakdown, this is thecaseof the rue Faidherbe in (ille )see para-graph C.> of part fi!e* or the e%ample of Tro#es below.2 Certu May 2009THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADSTroyes @586A5 F Narro' foot'ays and do"inance of the carriage'ay $roduce the i"age of a distributionroad ($hoto: ville de +royes, ?% 7e Nev#*%.8+5AFCarriage'ayreducedtothestrict "ini"u", 'ideandco"fortablefoot'aysandGCGbrea-do'n offer an i"age 'here the carriage'ay gives 'ay to lateral s$aces ($hoto: ville de +royes,?% 7e Nev#*%8neffort will alsobemadenot tounbalancethesectionb#fa!ouringafootwa#at the e%pense of another unless in !er# narrow streets or if one side of the street has a specialinterest )shop fronts, sea front, etc.*. $n the latter case, to the contrar#, it is recommended to set out a diss#mmetrical section.8or e,a"$le, at Cagnes-sur-)er, the foot'ayontheseafront isvery'ide thus encouraging$edestrians to'al- along it, the one on the building side iss"aller in si&e ($hoto: Certu*%Certu May 2009 3THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS(&(&( !ufficient total land reDuirement$f the projected section fits within the total land re"uirement, more room could be gi!en in priorit# to+pedestrians-bic#cles, gi!ing them separate lanes if this is not alread# the case-public transport, in particular on the station le!el-occupation of the public domain )pa!ement caf1s, kiosks, urban furniture, etc.*-parking )if there is demand and if this creation is compatible with general polic#*.The choice to focus on a specific mode will depend on the e%isting or desired nature of the road and objecti!es of the programme.#i8-en-Pro3ence 4%+6,EFORE ? The cours 3irabeau before its rede!elopment included B traffic lanes with lon-gitudinal parking on one side, i.e. a width of >B m between its curbs. $llegal parking was fre"uent on the side not de!eloped for that purpose as well as in bus lanes.8FTER ? $n the earl# nineties, the town council decided to reno!ate the Cours, one of its aims being to recreate a real walking place pedestrians. For that, it was necessar# to controlmotorised traffic, recon"uer the space and enlarge footwa#s. The Cours was de!eloped into aAI6oneandradicall#transformedwithacarriagewa#reducedtoJmetres)two-wa# traffic*, considerabl# enlarged lateral spaces and parking remo!ed throughout its length.Photo: Cete )#diterran#e Certu May 2009THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS(&(&+ $estricted total land reDuirement$f the planned section is not immediatel# included in the a!ailable total land re"uirement, it is considered to restrict it.The designer should in this case approach this difficult# b# reconsidering the project in !iew of the de!elopment programme. 4ometimes this results in reconsidering one or se!eral of its objecti!es.8 few "uestions ma# be raised+$s it possible to reduce the width of certain spaces: Reducing dimensions could pro!e pos-sible but e%perience shows howe!er that often this burdens the operation of the space- it will then be necessar# to re!iew the objecti!es of the programme. $t is thus possible to+optimise the width of a single element of the section without e%cessi!el# modif#ing the general operation-reduce the speed of !ehicles or flows b# reducing the width of the carriagewa#-opt for separators that are less space consuming. .ll road net'or- s$aces have here been reduced to reveal conflicts: s$ace available to $edestriansoccu$ied by stalls (1*, $ar-ing that overla$s onto the carriage'ay (2* hence 'ing "irrors that e,ceed the gauge 'ithout obstacle8 (G* ($hoto: Certu*%H9ere marked b# white posts.Certu May 2009 !THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS$s it possible to opt for a di!ersit# of uses: ;e ha!e seen that di!ersit# presents the ad!ant-age of being less space consuming+putting bic#cles back into general circulation, b# de!eloping the road network in the AI 6one. $f there are public transport lanes and it is not reasonable to put bic#cles with cars )!er# high car flows, se!eral car lanes*, it ma# be possible to put bic#cles with buses-de!eloping space in the AI 6one, in the shared space or pedestrian area-@y treating this lane as a G &one, cyclists are "i,ed 'ith "otorists 'ithout having to create cyclelanes ($hoto: Cete Nord-Picardie*%putting public transport in a pedestrian priorit# 6one, with or without specific man-agement gi!ing priorit# to public transport in a short length or e!en in a single lane.+e"$oral dedicated lane 'ith tra"'ay and general traffic ($hoto: Certu*%" Certu May 2009THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS$s it possible to remove an elementfrom the section: This is onl# possible for elements that are not indispensable to the operation of the road network and do not jeopardise user safet#+partial or total remo!al of parking. $t can for e%ample be placed off the road-remo!al of one or se!eral traffic lanes, mo!ing from @ to > lanes per direction in the main section is often possible without reducing the itinerar#/s capacit#-de!iating part of traffic to another itinerar# b# ensuring that difficulties are not transferred elsewhere, modif#ing the traffic plan to make the road one-wa#-creating an alternati!e o!er short distances-theconstructionof onesingle, properl#si6edfootwa#onthesidewhere acti!it# is stronger, or e!en no footwa# on light traffic roads while of course reducing motorised !ehicle speed )for e%ample b# setting up a shared space*.9t is $referable to offer one single foot'ay that is co"fortable for $edestrians than t'o e,cessivelynarro' ones ($hoto: Certu*%Certu May 2009 #$ede3elopment of a structuring a8is in restricted total land reDuirement - !chiltigheimThe urban conte8tThe northern sector of the 4trasbourg conurbation is structured b# three north-south radial a%es.One of them consists of the route de ,ischwiller in the municipalities of 4chiltigheim and ,ischheim and the rue de la R1publi"ue in the municipalit# of 9oenheim.The,ischwiller-R1publi"uea%isdri!esthenorthsector/surbanrecomposition. Total landre"uirementbefore de!elopment consisted of a >I m carriagewa# lined with two parking lanes with footwa#s >.CI m or sometimes I.CIm wide on the most restricted sections.This a%is, which is N km long, mainl# acts as a municipal accessand transit road with traffic flows between >I,III and >C,III !ehicles per da#. The section co!ered b# this operation measures A.@ km. $t is co!ered b# two urban bus lines.ObEecti3esThe rede!elopment objecti!es of the ,ischwiller-R1publi"ue a%is target the rede!elopment of the a%is with three issues+ securing economic and commercial functions along the a%is, reinforcing east-west relations betweenthe ,ischwiller-R1publi"ue a%is andother north-southradials and, finall#, assert municipalcentralit#. The de!elopment of the a%is should allow+better incorporationof non-motorisedmodes )pedestrians andbic#cles* toguaranteeenhanced safet# b# redistributing a larger share of public space to them-impro!ement of bus circulation within this a%is b# setting aside bus lanes and accounting for them more effecti!el# at junctions.0escription of the de3elopmentThe major factors taken into account to establish the cross-sections are+>.BI to >.HI m footwa#s,a J.CI m carriagewa# )imposed b# the public transport operator*,a parking strip between >.HI and @ m.The total land re"uirement is between >I and >J m. 8fter se!eral !ariants, it appears that it was impossible to create c#cle lanes so it was decided to reduce !ehicle speed to AI km per hour to take into account the presence of c#clists ingeneral traffic. 8lthough not classified as a AI 6one, the processingof the carriagewa# is similar+ an alternating parking 6one forming chicanes, central traffic island, reduction of the traffic lane.@efore .fterTHE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS$s it possible to find a different design for the separation between the section/s spaces:remo!ing or modif#ing separators that occup# the territor# in the section-making separators e%ceptionall# eas# to cross in order to allow greater permeabilit# so that a user can e%ceptionall# cross into the lateral space to which he or she is not allocated. $t is thus possible to calibrate spaces to the minimum+c#cle lane or bus lane and traffic lane, low footwa# curbs and narrow carriagewa#, etc.7o' foot'ay edges can e,ce$tionally allo' t'o 7>Hs to cross ($hoto: Cete de l45st*%$s it possible to obtain more total land re&uirement: The aim is to in!estigate propert# ac"uisition possibilities to increase the total land re"uire-ment on a section or hot spot.This is an iterati!e approach which needs to in!ol!e all inter!ening parties.Narrow total land reDuirements;hen the total land re"uirement is narrow )less than H or >I m*, the design needs to answer the same "uestions as abo!e. $t is howe!er necessar# to take care not to aggra!ate the initialsituation and not trap users )a person with reduced mobilit# forced to use the carriagewa# without being able to use the footwa#,a c#clist on the carriagewa# without an escape, a narrow carriage wa# without an occasional refuge for !ehicles, etc.*.Thinking about the trans!ersal dimension to deal with these narrow rights of wa# is not the onl# solution- it is thus necessar# to re!iew punctual features linked to the specificit# of the urban conte%t.Tuestions often find their answers b# in!estigating the following possibilities in-depth+ grouping together functions in the same space )therefore more di!ersit#* while taking care to set upmeasures in fa!our of !ulnerable users )creation of AI 6ones, mi%ed area or pedes-trian priorit# 6one, etc.*- onl# keeping indispensable spaces )usuall# one carriagewa# an at least one footwa#*-reducingthecarriagewa#totheminimum)fore%ample, without lateral parking, Bm allows two passenger !ehicles to cross and C.CI m allows two (07s to cross !er# slowl# with wing mirrors folded down if necessar#*- making a street one-wa# b# modif#ing the traffic plan-makingseparatorssurmountable)itispossibletochoosenarrowcarriagewa#sofBto B.CI m which allow two passenger !ehicles to cross and ha!e low footwa# curbs so that two (07s ma#, e%ceptionall#, cross*- remember to create punctual facilities )refuges, locks, alternating traffic, etc.* which offera good alternati!e between safet# and circulation.Certu May 2009 9Punctual narrowing to moderate speed and facilitate neighbourhood access - OisselConte8t2eighbours of this urban road which attracts traffic that is alread# "uite hea!#)>B,III !ehicles per da# in both directions* with the presence of (07s and buses, ha!e filed complaints, in neighbourhood meetings,onthee%cessi!espeedsanddangersincurredwhenthe#lea!etheirhomes. ThetownofOissel )pop.+>>,III*, one of the AN municipalities of the conurbation of Rouen )pop.+ B@I,III*, therefore decided to find a solution despite !er# small room for manoeu!re gi!en the !er# small a!ailable total land re"uirement.ObEecti3es Obtaining a significant slowdown in traffic $mpro!ing safet# of neighbourhood access )impro!ing mutual !isibilit#*;ain featuresThede!elopment consisted,onthe sectionin"uestion measuringBII m )N.GI m total land re"uirement including C.BI m of carriagewa#* in setting up speed ramps and protectors, i.e.+ One-shot speed ramps alongside a certain number of neighbourhood accesses impro!ing !isibilit# and pro!iding a slowdown factor when two passenger !ehicles cross each other and alternating traffic when a passenger !ehicle crosses an (07 or bus- in the middle of the section in "uestion, the traffic light junction )e%isting* has been adapted into a plat -form with the aim of slowing down speeds- AI km per hour speed limit throughout the narrow section, i.e. BII m.CommentsThe total land re"uirement did not allow for regulator# si6ed footwa#s. The# were not in fact modified. To increase efficienc# with respect to the objecti!es )stronger wall effect*, the features set up are EtougherFthan those initiall# scheduled b# the engineering office.Photo: Cete Nor"andie-CentreTHE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS(&+#dapting cross-sections to specific points $n the urban en!ironment, the main section of a gi!en se"uence will be fre"uentl# disturbed b# specific points+ reduced total land re"uirement, junctions, engineering structures. The sec-tion, plannedinthesespecificpoints, must adapt tothedifferent sectionsconsideredforwhichtheinitial constraintse!ol!e. Theaimhowe!erisnot todesignthesectionsolel# according to these points which ha!e a short length that not make up a se"uence.(&+&% Occasional reduction of the total land reDuirement;hen the total land re"uirement is reduced in a specific point and it is not possible to main-tainthechosensection, it isnecessar#tolookat whichfunctionscanbedownsi6edordeleted o!er a short linear section )parking, general traffic, etc.*. $f this is impossible, redu-cing the speed limit from CI to AI km per hour is a wa# of reducing specialised spaces. $t isalso possible to set up alternating traffic controlled b# traffic lights or not. The road network is thereb# de!eloped to ensure safet# and accessibilit# of all users.6ccasional reduction of total land re/uire"ent solved by alternating traffic 'hile -ee$ing both foot-'ays($hoto: Cete de l45st*%The section obtained should alwa#s satisf# the !erification re"uirements set out abo!e, in particular accessibilit# of the road to persons with reduced mobilit# and emergenc# !ehicles.Certu May 2009 !%THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS(&+&( Fones with bends $n sections with bends, the width of the carriagewa#, as well as the installation of urban fur-niture are determined with the turning diagram of long !ehicles which defines wheel traject -or# and chassis o!erhang. The use of $T tools,like the 0iration software,can be used to check this.Photo: Cete de l45st(&+&+ @unctions and approaches$mpro!ement in !isibilit# conditions at junctions and pedestrian crossings, junction manage-ment )addition of dedicated lanes or not*, creation of refuges for pedestrians or bic#cles, can modif# the section at the approach and at the junction.The most fre"uentl# encountered cases are+the creation of left-turn and right-turn lanes,the insertion of c#cle tracks upstream of junctions,the creation of pedestrian refuges )minimal width+ @ m*,interruption of parking,the stopping of a tree or plant alignment.The reader should refer to the Carrefours urbains guide for detailed design of intersections.(&+&? Public transport stationsThe installationof stops for public transport re"uires particular attention. 8stationar# !ehicle can ha!e conse"uences on the circulation of other motorised modes and the station itself re"uires designing the pedestrian area in order to reduce journe#s, make them safe and lea!e room for passers-b#. &e!elopments for bic#cles at stations should allow continuit# and safet# of the journe# b# limiting conflicts.!2 Certu May 2009THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS(&+&' On or under engineering structuresEngineering structures are permanent spots in the de!elopment. Their calibration is subjected to strong constraints+ financial, geometrical, technical or operational.$n e%isting structures, it is not possible to reproduce upstream or downstream sections. $t is necessar# to adapt them to height and width gauges as well as load conditions. The t#pe ofstructure )tunnel, reduced gauge, subwa#,bridge, etc.* and its length could justif# it being treated as a specific se"uence or a transitional 6one between two se"uences. On this section,functions can be selected or downgraded depending on total land re"uirement reductions.Punctual interru$tion of a bus lane at this lo'er $assage($hoto: Cete )#diterran#e*%For new structures, it is possible to maintain the section on either side b# ensuring itinerar# continuit#. $t can be useful to add an additional space dedicated to a use )c#clists, pedestri -ans, etc.* if it represents marginal e%tra cost with respect to the whole structure. The cross-sectionof crossingstructuresintegratesseparatorsandrestraint s#stems neededfor user safet#. For undergroundstructures, thesectionis determinedaccordingtotheheight gaugeof !ehicles. For their calibration, it is recommended to refer to the specialised guides published b# the 4etra9 and the CET60.Certainusers)c#clistsandpedestrians* areusuall#forbiddentocrosstunnels. $t isthen necessar# to pro!ide continuit# in their surface itinerar# or in a dedicated structure.G4er!ice dM1tudes techni"ues des routes et autoroutes.>ICentre dMUtudes des tunnels.Certu May 2009 !3THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS(&?Consistency checks with the whole proEect The cross-section is just one part of the project e!aluation and checks set out below should not be done afterwards- the# are an integral part of the design.The process is to start b# establishingone)orse!eral*outlinesectionsthatmeet theobjecti!esofthemainsection then assess, adapt and e!en "uestion them with respect to other design issues+8wareness of trans!ersal users, in particular at junctions- accessibilit# to certain !ehicle categories- emergenc# !ehicles, ser!ice !ehicles, e%ceptional transport, the constraint imposed b# the networks.Theseelements arehighlightedhereasthe#donot alwa#s formall#appear inthepro-gramme. Finall#, as in all projects, a general assessment of objecti!es is indispensable.(&?&% Trans3ersal uses8fter ha!ing designed the road in its main section, it is necessar# to check that all the factors consideredtogether guaranteetheright mo!ement conditionsinthetrans!ersal direction )pedestrians, residents, etc.*.2::%:% I+ t5e 0a)+ ,e/t)&+The following should be ensured+ 3utual !isibilit#, particularl# at junctions, pedestrian crossings, neighbour-ing entries, public transport stops- That the presence of insurmountable separators does not incur malfunctions for trans!ersal uses+ neighbouring e%its, left-hand turns, pedestrian crossings )in par-ticular checkthat thewidthof thecarriagewa#is compatiblewiththecrossing according to the same recommendations as junctions*.2::%:2 At Cu+/t)&+,The reader should refer to recommendations for the design of urban junctions featured in the >GGG Carrefours urbains Certu guide. 9ere we co!er the specific factors in!ol!ed in design-ing junctions liable to impact the design of the main section. The approach will be dimen-sional but also functional.! Certu May 2009THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADSThe spaces making up the cross-section are calibrated to allow+ Turning of !ehicles as the# come to intersections. The dimen-sions of footwa# curb cur!e angles, the width of the carriage-wa#s andlocationof urbanfur-niture will be studied in detail to ensure good !ehicle turning.Photo: Cete de l45st Thelengthof pedestriancrossingsandthereforethewidthof carriagewa#s should not e%ceed >@ m with lights and H m without lights. 8bo!e that, an intermedi -ate refuge island measuring at least @ m wide is re"uired. The la#out of specific left-hand turn lanes andKor right-hand turn lanes re"uires additional right-of-wa# on the approach to the junction. Often the remo!al of parking upstream of the junction allows insertion of these specific lanes which are narrower than con!entional lanes. ;hen junctions are too close up, these specific lanes occup# the whole lane linear between intersections.Choosing to organise spaces, and therefore circulations, in a cross-section leads, in certain cases, to configurations which can lead to major malfunctions capable of calling into "ues-tion the !er# design of the cross-section. Thela#out of lateral two-wa#sitesreser!edforpublictransport orc#clists leads to conflicts with !ehicles/ turning mo!ements from the main road which are dif-ficult to manage. These malfunctions appear in two-wa# or one-wa# roads. $n the presence of close junctions, one-wa# c#cle lanes or paths contiguous to the carriagewa# are preferable to separate ones. The flow at junctions is clearl# lower than in the main section. ;hen junctions are !er# close,the# determinethe number of lanesinordertoguaranteesufficientinstant flow and storage.Certu May 2009 !!THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADSGalence 4(-6The grands boule!ards surrounding the old town of 7alence had become a major transita%is with a @%A network occup#ing the whole right-of-wa#. O!erflow of half transit traffic b# the new orbital to the south, led the council to rehabilitate the boule!ards to share the space in a more balanced wa#.The road, reduced to A lanes, was placed outside a pedestrian platform on which a dedicated lane was placed for buses, which was also open to c#clists.The carriagewa#, G m wide, includes a traffic lane in each direction and a central space. The latter, alternatel#, allows se!eral functions+- facilitating and securing pedestrian crossings b# the creation of refuges-- ensuring automobile traffic flow at intersections b# allocating this space to left-hand turn mo!ements.Photo: Certu(&?&( #ccessibility to emergency 3ehicles Roadnetworksshouldallowaccesstobuildingsb#emergenc#!ehiclesand, ingeneral,parking of ladder !ehicles. This accessibilit# is imposed b# the Code de la Construction.2::2:% A//&u+t)+7 8&r t5e e0er7e+/y ,er4)/e, 3r)+/)3.e ;hen the main section of the road is modified, it is necessar# to make sure that the emer -genc# accessibilit# function is still possible. Two notions ha!e to be taken into account+The first consists in positioning the road concerned b# the new de!elopment. $f it is a struc-turing a%is of the cit#, the designer should la# out the road to gi!e ma%imum accessibilit# to emergenc# ser!ices. For e%ample, it is important to a!oid creating insurmountable separa-tionsthatconfineemergenc#!ehiclesinaspacethatcouldbeblockedb#generaltraffic without an# possible means of escape. The aim is to allow emergenc# !ehicles to reach their place of inter!ention faster. This function becomes essential when the road leads to certain risk buildings.!" Certu May 2009THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADSCentral lane reserved for e"ergency services (and buses* :ustified by necessary accessibility to ris-facilities ($hoto: Certu*%The second consists in ensuring that all roads allow emergenc# !ehicles, depending on the nature of buildings, to circulate and park ne%t to buildings. The approach slightl# depending on whether it is to rehabilitate or create a road. Fore!isting roads, their dimension conditions the construction of the t#pe of building for the granting of planning permission. To be clear, an e%isting street with a carriagewa# width in e%cess of A m allows housing to be considered accessible b# ladder !ehicles. The houses werebuilt inconse"uence. ;henmodificationsinter!eneonthesite, it isnecessar#to ensure that road de!elopments once more respect the same building fire pre!ention rules as before+ width of the carriagewa#,accessibilit# to h#drants, turning of emergenc# !ehicles,etc.7ew roads will be si6ed according to the t#pe of buildings ser!iced. For e%ample, it will not be necessar# to calibrate the roads of a housing estate for emergenc# !ehicles if the houses ha!e their last floor less than H m up and a fire h#drant is located less than @II m wa#.4t is essential to consult emergency services when formulating the project8s objectives and constraints92::2:2 R&a' ')0e+,)&+,The Code de la Construction introduces two t#pes of emergenc# roads+ Ethe ladder laneF, road that ma# be used to set up ladders, Etheemergenc#!ehiclelaneF, roadthat ma#beusedb#emergenc#ser!ice !ehicles. The# lead to the ladder lane from the public road.Their features differ slightl# depending on which regulations are applied+ regulation on hous-ing buildings, on establishments recei!ing the public or tall buildings. The main dimensions are specified in the following tables+Certu May 2009 !#THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS For the ladder laneD)0e+,)&+a. /&+,tra)+t, &8 t5e .a''er .a+eType of buildinghousing Public buildingTall buildingLe+7t5 90< %0 0 %0 0 -D)'t5 &8 r&a', e?/.u')+7 3arE)+7 .a+eA 90CKbend radius- free height+ A.CI m- distancebetweenthefrontageandcarriagewa#or ladder lane+ between > m and H m.?i"ension and $osition of the e"ergency vehicle $ar-ing &one%!$ Certu May 2009THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS2hen the carriage'ay is at least 8 " fro" the building, the foot'ay cleared of all obstacles should allo' $ar-ing of ladder vehicles ($hoto: Certu*%(&?&+ #ccessibility to urban ser3ice 3ehicles$t is necessar# to check that the planned section satisfies re"uirements for the passage of ser-!ice !ehicles or offers alternati!e solutions. The main ser!ices to be taken into account are+ collectionof householdrefuse for whicha minimal carriagewa#widthof A.CI misrecommended)circular nV NN->@Cdated>Cth8ugust >GNNof theFrench 3inistr# of $nfrastructure recommends this !alue for pri!ate lanes, it does not impose it on public roads*- deli!eries and remo!als b# (07s with ma%imum headroom of @.JI m- cleaning of roads b# !ariable si6ed !ehicles from >.NI m to @.CC m- snowclearance- thedecreeissuedb#the3inistr#of $nfrastructureon>Hth 2o!ember >GGJ does not fi% a minimum !alue for winter ser!ice !ehicles but ma%-imum widths depending on the !ehicle t#pe )see appendi% >*. $n the urban en!iron-ment, councils in charge of this ser!ice tend to prefer small si6ed !ehicles which na!-igate more easil#instreets andthus sol!e the problems of obstacles, including parking. ;hen looking at the crossing of conurbations !ia national or departmentalroads, the designer should take into account the operator/s opinion.(&?&? Transit of e8ceptional transport4o-called e%ceptional transport is one with dimensions or weight not compliant with the gen-eral stipulations of the Code de la Route. $n the decree dated @Jth2o!ember @IIA )2OR+ ET4IAI>G>J8*, e%ceptional con!o#s are classified into three categories according to their weight, width or height*. Their geometric features are summarised in the table below+Certu May 2009 !9THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS$n the case of the de!elopment of an urban road included in an e%ceptional con!o# itinerar#,the# should whene!er possible be taken into account66. Rather than si6ing the cross-section according to the gauge of these specific users, the aim is rather to check that the# can transit in certain conditions.$f the choice of part of the de!elopment or other restricti!e factors do not allow it, the e%cep-tional con!o#, subject to specific time )or da#* restrictions and a police escort, can take the whole right-of-wa#, o!erlapping onto the opposite direction lane or taking a wa# in the com-plete wrong direction.The straight line mo!ement of a con!o# re"uires freeing !ariable space according to its cat-egor# )see table*. 9owe!er, the width to be cleared on the ground rarel# corresponds to the width of the con!o#, the width of the a%les often being less than that of the load transported.The width to be cleared is not on the ground le!el but rather CI cm abo!e ground. The estim-ation of the space to be cleared when turning or at intersections is more difficult and means anal#sing the turning diagram.Sto$$ing traffic allo's this convoy to transit through a street 'hich is not calibrated for its gauge($hoto: Cete Nor"andie-Centre*%>>The +rans$orts e,ce$tionnels et a"#nage"ents de voirie en "ilieu urbaindocument published b# the Certu in @II> e%plains in detail how to plan the road network to allow their transit."0 Certu May 2009THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS(&?&' !uspended or buried networksThe aim is to check that all suspended or buried network elements ha!e been positioned and that their supports or protuberances are compatible with the planned sections.To de!elop an e%isting network, the# are a constraint. Their presence could be incompatible with certain elements of the section, for e%ample+ with c#cle traffic )c#cling lanes and paths*- with separators )curbs, bumps*- buriednetworksareincompatiblewithtreealignments whenlocatedinthe space necessar# to de!elop their roots. The 2F 5 GH-AA@ norm dated Februar# @IIC defines the distance rules between buried networks and neighbouring rules between networks and plants- ne%t toparking6ones for operatingreasons andaccessibilit#tonetworks )unless to neutralise these spaces*.Photo: Cete Nord-PicardiePhoto: C% Chain, Certu.ccess to net'or-s can be difficult o'ing to surface develo$"ent%Certu May 2009 "%THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADSFor new roads, the location of networks should be in line with the section/s de!elopment. Checking the section consists in ensuring that the spaces are si6ed to recei!e networks and in particular protuberances which take up more space than the networks themsel!es and "ues-tioning their positioning relating to operating constraints in the e!ent of an inter!ention on these networks )the constraint is often suffered b# pedestrians whereas a free space of >.BI m minimum should be kept around an# obstacleW*.(&?&- #ssessing the proEect8ssessing the cross-section profile consists in checking to which degree it allows the projectto achie!e the objecti!es set. $f se!eral sections are studied, the choice should be done after assessment of each one. 8ssessment should answer the following "uestions+ ;hat is impro!ed: )safet#, accessibilit#, local life, etc.* ;hat is the le!el of satisfaction obtained with respect to initial objecti!es: ;hat are the risks of malfunction or de!iated uses: $s the section part of a sustainable de!elopment approach ensuring e!olution and durabil-it# possibilities:The de!elopment will be assessed at all design stud# phases and in particular when all the de!elopments andrelatedoperations will bedetermined. $t canbepresentedinse!eral forms+ EtheoreticalF through check-lists, anal#sis charts or !alue estimation methods but also in situ with the implementation and assessment of a temporar# de!elopment.8n assessment grid can be simpl# done in the form of a table with in columns the pre-selec-ted sections and a line for each objecti!e. The latter can be assessed on the basis of indicators that can be pre-established in the programme.8n Einitial sectionF column will be used to match up to the original.$t is also possible to use other methods based on &uality approaches like safet# checks for road projects for the road safet# aspect of all users or the R4TI@ grid finalised b# the A#seau scientifi/ue et techni/ue de /uestionne"ent et d4analyse des critKres de d#velo$$e"ent dur-able. ,oth are part of a general approach.8ssessments conducted throughout the project help to minimise anomalies that can appear during the safet# inspection before commissioning. (ikewise, it is alwa#s recommended to conduct a simulation on site before definiti!e construction. Remember that the correction of anomalies after construction is costl# and sometimes impossible."2 Certu May 2009THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS+& !i,ing the constituent elements of the cross-sec-tionThe si6ing of each element of the cross-section is based on the principle that each user needs sufficient space to mo!e in conditions that guarantee a le!el of safet# and ser!ice compliant with the re"uirements set out in the programme.For that, it is necessar# to consider that each user mo!ing in the public space ? pedestrian, c#clist, automobile, bus, tramwa#?occupiesa!olumedefinedb#agauge9Thisgauge !ariesaccordingtotheuserin"uestion)acariswiderthanac#cle*, dependingonthe !ehicle t#pe )a cit# car is narrower than a saloon*, it !aries in time )!ehicles are now widerthan those built in the eighties* and also according to the use and place )for e%ample, ne%t to a station, pedestrians will be carr#ing luggage and thus take up more space- a parking car will need additional lateral space to open doors, wider for a disabled person than an able-bodied person*.Thereisadifferencebetweenstaticgaugewhichrepresentsthecontour of astationar# !ehicle and the dynamic gauge when it is in mo!ement. The latter inter!enes in the calcula-tion of widths as it integrates trajector# !ariations linked to the user/s beha!iour, at different accessor# mo!ements or e%cess cur!e widths.5,a"$le:+he dyna"ic gauge of a cyclist 'ill not be that of the bicycleL cyclist'hen sto$$ed as the action of $edalling induces lateral "ove"ents thatneed to be ta-en into account%Furthermore, pedestrians, like c#clists or motorists, do not mo!e just a few millimetres from the edge of the space in which the# tra!el. The# need additional space on each side of the gauge to gi!e users Eair spaceF allowing them to mo!e safel# without coming into conflict with other users or elements in the section.5,a"$les: +'o vehiclescrossing eachother naturally "ovea'ay ata distancethat "ainly de$ends on their s$eed% 7i-e'ise, a "argin should be leftbet'een $edestrians and a bus to ta-e into account the s$eed differen-tial bet'een the" +he 'all effect $roduced by $ar-ed vehicles "eansthat vehicles travelling on the carriage'ay instinctively "ove a'ay%Theimportanceofthesemarginsshouldnot beminimisedinthedesignofthesection. E%cessi!el#narrowsi6ingcanleadtomalfunctionsandrisksforusers. 'u%taposingtwo spaces calibrated to a minimum, without considering what happens between them, ine!itabl# leads to malfunctions e!en with separators.5,a"$les: 8oot'ays too narro'ly calibrated along a narro' street 'ill induce astrong feeling of insecurity for $edestrians% . narro' carriage'ay 'ith an e,cessively narro' $ar-ing &one 'ill $roduce ris-s of collisions 'ith'ing "irrors (vehicles "ore or less 'ell $ar-ed* or $ar-ing across thefoot'ay and carriage'ay% .long narro' roads, it is $referable to setout co"fortable $ar-ing &ones over 2 "%$n contrast, e%cessi!e si6ing could gi!e too much comfort and lead to undesired uses of the space+ e%cessi!el# wide c#cling lanes encourage motorists to park or e!en tra!el in them just as wide carriagewa#s encourage speeding.Certu May 2009 "3THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADSFinall#, all these factors put together produce a EcomfortableF space for users in a gi!en con-te%t.;henreadingthe following paragraphs,it isindispensableto knowthisdesign principle. The reader, for each space making up the profile will find+ its calibration on the basis of the gauge of the user in "uestion, an estimation of additional margins induced b# lateral occupa-tion and the impact of the presence of se!eral users in the same space.The widths given below should be considered as basic design tools9 3arely taken from regulations) we recommend adapting them :more or less; according to the location and uses as presented in parts two and three9" Certu May 2009THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS+&%!paces aimed at pedestrians 0enerall# speaking, pedestrian traffic is located+ on footwa#s which are higher than the carriagewa#- in spaces at the same le!el as the carriagewa#- the limit between the pedes-trian area and the carriagewa# can be materialised b# a gutter, bollards, posts, a spe-cific material, marking, etc.- in pedestrian areas- greenwa#s or non-motorised wa#s which are co!ered in paragraph C.@ Espaces aimed at c#clistsF.Footwa#s and spaces at the same le!el as the carriagewa# can be lateral )most fre"uent* or central )between two carriagewa#s*. $n the latter case, the separation width between the two carriagewa#s should be enough to allow pedestrians to walk safel# and comfortabl#. This chapter specificall# co!ers lateral spaces like footwa#s and spaces at the same le!el asthe carriagewa#.The role of the footwa# is not onl# limited to the sole function of pedestrian mo!ement. $t also hosts se!eral uses including the installation of urban furniture which needs to be taken into account in si6ing- in some cases, when the width of the footwa# allows it, the road oper-ator can authorise the installation of temporar# acti!ities such as pa!ement caf1s, stalls, mar-kets, etc.+he foot'ay does not have a sole function 'hich is used by $edestrians ($hoto: Cete de l45st*%+&%&% !i,ing for all able-bodied or disabled pedestriansThe EpedestrianF generic co!ers se!eral categories of users ranging from alert persons who mo!e rapidl# and reduced mobilit# persons )elderl# people, children, disabled persons* who, e!er# da#, ha!e to deal with man# obstacles that hinder their mo!ements.Aeduced "obility $ersons (Certu*%Certu May 2009 "!THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADSThe basic principle behind the design of a footwa# will therefore be to si6e it for reduced mobilit# persons firstl#. Remember that the law imposes rules that take into account the dif-ficulties these persons, depending on their disabilit#, ha!e to face to guarantee accessibilit# to road networks for all.$t is therefore eas# to understand that a wide footwa#, without obstacles, for pedestrians onl# and separated from other traffic, is the best solution for their re"uirements. Furthermore, it is ob!ious that the wider and more comfortable it is, the more automobile traffic is attenuated and the more pedestrians assert their presence. $f the footwa#/s sole function is for pedestrians and if there are not too man# of them,a width of 29/0 m is recommended. This width ensures+ ma%imum clearance allowingtwo pedestrians to cross each other comfortabl# )>.HI m*, possible EsterilisationF of part of the footwa# to install e!er#da# urban furniture )I.NI m*.. 2%B " foot'ay is reco""ended to allo' $edestrian circulation and the installation of urban fur-niture%$n certain cases, a hea!# flow of pedestrians )shopping street for e%ample* can re"uire pedes-trian walking space width calculated according to the flow. 0enerall# speaking, it is accepted that the flow corresponding to a @ m pedestrian walking space width is about+ @,III pedestriansKhour along buildings with shops )reasons for mo!ing+ shopping, walk-ing, strolling, etc.* A,III pedestriansKhour in other cases )reasons for mo!ing+ home-work tra!el, etc.*.$tisob!iousl#necessar#toincreasethefootwa#widthtoaccommodatehighflows. The 9ighwa# Capacit# 3anual62)!ersion @III* proposes a formula to calculate flow )&* per metre of pedestrian footwa# in pedestrianKminute taking into account the speed of walking )7* in metresKminute and densit# )d* in pedestriansKm2+& D 7 % d.>@English reference document co!ering road capacit#."" Certu May 2009Photo: Cete Nord-PicardieTHE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS:hat the regulations impose&&&$n an# case, footwa#s should be calibrated according to regulator# recommendations resul -ting from the 8ct dated >>th Februar# @IIC including decrees nV @IIJ->JCN and @IIJ->JCH dated @>st &ecember @IIJ and its application decree dated >Cth 'anuar# @IIN which impose a Eminimal footwa# width of >.BI cleared of furniture or an# other obstacleF or an# occupa-tion of the public space )pa!ement caf1, etc.* with a slope lower than or e"ual to @X.This width can sometimes be reduced to >.@I m in the absence of a wall or obstacle on eitherside of the footwa#.+&%&( # footway should take into account neighbourhood acti3ities Yet the footwa#, for all that, is not solel# limited to longitudinal circulation of persons. $ts Esocial dimensionF needs to be taken into account when defining a cross-section with the man# uses encountered+ strolling or shopping in streets with hea!# commercial acti!it#- waiting in front of a school- waiting at public transport stops- temporar# occupations such as stalls, pa!ement caf1s- urban furniture, bins, refuse sorting containers, plants- use b# roller skaters, considering that the Code de la Route assimilates them to pedestri -ans e!en though the# are not alwa#s well accepted.These occupations also determine the width of footwa#s and should not be implemented to the detriment of accessibilit#.2idth needed for certain everyday uses of $edestrian s$aces%;ith this in mind, when a !er# wide footwa# is a!ailable, it is not enough to lea!e the min-imum >.BI m imposed b# regulations for pedestrian use and allocate the rest for other uses.Certu May 2009 "#THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADSFor e%ample, the Cit# of 5aris accessibilit# chart imposes the following !alues+ the occupation of the footwa# b# other acti!ities is onl# acceptable when it is wider than A m- o!er and abo!e A m, pa!ement caf1s should not occup# more than one third of the width of the footwa# )Eone third ruleF*.Dere, the $ave"ent caf# occu$ies all the foot'ay s$ace, inco"$atible 'ith $edestrian traffic ($hoto: Cete de l45st*%6n a 'ide foot'ay, various uses are $ossible by leaving enough s$ace for $edestrians ($hoto: Certu*%Finall#, good safet# is primaril# achie!ed b# maintaining clear mutual !isibilit# between the different users of the road network, whether motorists, pedestrians or c#clists."$ Certu May 2009THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADSThe major safet# conditions to be sought for EmodestF accesses )e.g. access to pri!ate hous-ing* are therefore+ guaranteed visibility+ enough !isibilit# distance between a !ehicle lea!ing access and a pedestrian walking on the footwa#- respecting )if it is possible to inter!ene sufficientl# upstream in the design of access* a certain distance between the traffic lane and the gate of a houseKblock of flats in such a wa# as to allow off-road parking of a passenger !ehicle when entering and e%iting.The design of the space dedicated to pedestrians will ha!e a direct impact on !isibilit# condi-tions+ an increase in its width contributes to impro!ed mutual !isibilit#.+&%&+ Installing urban furniture on the footway 0enerall# speaking, the footwa# should also recei!e urban furniture. $ts location determines its dimensions. The width of the footwa# and installation of urban furniture should be stud-ied together following the rules set out below.3:%:3:% Guara+tee)+7 3e'e,tr)a+ 2a.E)+7 ,3a/e Respect for the minimum walking space mentioned in paragraph >.@ leads us to identif# two cases.The case of fairl#wide footwa#s )ine%cess of @.CI m*,where the installation of most urban fur-niture is possible b# respecting comfortable pedes-trian walking space of >.HI m, a width that allows two wheelchairs to cross each other. The furniture will then be aligned together with respect to a foot-wa# strip set aside for that purpose.The case of narrower footwa#s, where the furniture tends to be located along building frontages. $n !er# restricted spaces, cer-tain installations can be placed near to frontages. 9owe!er, own-ers of the rele!ant buildings need to gi!e their permission. Certu May 2009 "9THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADSCantile!ered elements will be placed at least @.@I m high6'.Positioning of urban furniture on $edestrian 'al-ing s$ace should be avoided ($hoto: Cete de l45st*%The pedestrian area is a place mainl# dedicated to pedestrians but it is howe!er necessar# to take into account e%ceptionall# accepted users+ emergenc# !ehicles, deli!er# !ehicles, etc.That is wh# urban furniture needs to allow clearance for their access. Furthermore, it should not obstruct !isibilit# of shop windows and shops and lea!e enough space for pedestrians to walk along frontages.$t should be designed in compliance with the recommendations of the decree dated >Cth 'anu-ar# @IINontheaccessibilit#of roadnetworksandpublicspacesandinparticular low obstacle detection.>ACantile!ered urban furniture less than @.@I m high should be brought into line b# a low element installed no more than I.BI m from the ground or b# a raised element at least A cm )e%tract of the decree dated >Cth 'anu-ar# @IIN*.#0 Certu May 2009THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS3:%:3:2 Sa4)+7 ,3a/e /&+,u0e' 1y ur1a+ 8ur+)ture Thegrowthof citiesandthede!elopment of indi!idual andcollecti!etransport leadto crowdingofourfootwa#s. $t ispossible, throughappropriatedesignandinstallations, to limit the proliferation of urban furniture allowing space sa!ing and better legibilit#.To a!oid e%cess furniture, it is necessar# to focus on furniture that is essential to the cit#/soperation ? traffic signs, lighting, network emergences, shelters for public transport users, bins, etc. ? reducing others which are not alwa#s indispensable )bollards, barriers, ad!ert-ising boards* and e!en ban pri!ate-interest features that ha!e nothing to do on the footwa#.$t is also possible to group together se!eral functions either in furniture design )phone booths built into bus shelters, benches with built-in flower bo%es* or in its installation )baskets orboards fi%ed onto lighting masts*. 4ometimes these features fall under the responsibilit# of different people who need to be in!ol!ed in the project.8ligning furniture also helps to impro!e pedestrian walking space. $n the presence of trees,urban furniture will be better laid out in their alignment.4ometimes,there are additional spaces, with occasional enlargements which, for e%ample,could be used to install furniture.Finall#, during road rehabilitation work, certain technical adjustments could be made at an acceptable cost in the project/s econom# like bur#ing suspended cables and network emer-gences.3:%:3:3 D),ta+/)+7 ur1a+ 8ur+)ture 8r&0 t5e ,)'e &8 t5e /arr)a7e2ay $f located on the footwa# curb side, a distance between the edge of the carriagewa# and the furniture should be maintained to ensure user safet#, protection of facilities and accessibilit#.$n the urban en!ironment, there are no formal rules on this positioning. The designer should be able to calculate it according to lateral occupation )parking, circulation, etc.* and the t#pe of furniture )board, bus shelter, low furniture, lighting mast, etc.*. Road user safet#rban furniturecancreatean obstacle. &istancingitfrom theedge of the carriagewa# is fa!ourable for safet#. Remember that accidents against obstacles make up ABX of fatal injur-ies in the urban en!ironment. These are increasing in number and are more serious when crossing small conurbations and in main streets where the speed limit is CI to NI kmKh.Certu May 2009 #%THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS$n the urban en!ironment, no rules set out a protecti!e distance. The Certu/s document, .cci-dents contre obstacles en"ilieuurbain, co""ent li"iter leur no"bre et leur gravit#,presents useful ideas ontheir installation. $t highlights specific risks linkedtocertain obstacles.5rotection of installationsTo gi!e enough space to the gauge of !ehicles loc-ated on a carriagewa#, a distance between the edge of the carriagewa# and the outer edge of furniture is necessar#. $t is determined according to the trans!ersal slope of the carriagewa#,the presence of wing mirrors and the height of the furniture.8rticle H g* of the ministerial instruction on road signagespecifies that Ethedistancebetweenthe plumb of thee%tremit# ofaroad signlocated on the side of the carriage wa# and neighbouring bank ofthise%tremit#shouldnot belessthan10 cmF andinaconurbation, it ispossibletoEaccept a shorter distanceF. $n constricti!e sites or in a dense urbanen!ironment, it isalsopossibletoreduce sign si6e.$ntowns, adistancebetween.0 cmand/0 cm pro!ides enough protection in most cases.8longsidelongitudinal parking, adistanceof/0 cmbetweentheurbanfurnitureandthe !ehicle is necessar# to open doors. This distance is increased to 10 cm in angled parking 6ones in order to take into account cantile!ering of !ehicles that o!erlap onto the footwa#.This is necessar# to si6e the footwa#.;hen bus shelters are placed on the edge of the carriagewa#, the# should be placed/0 cm from the edge for cantile!ered elements such as the roof. 8 minimum width of 90 cm should also be allowed between the bus shelter and the edge of the footwa# to let people in wheel -chairs through. This is increased to >.BI m if the pedestrian space is not accessible from the side of the built frame.#2 Certu May 2009$ue Faidherbe> .C m wide materialising a non-allocated place used as an escape b# bic#cles during peak hours. (ikewise, all users can mo!e comfortabl# on this le!el pa!ing, which has no superfluous curbs. The fire ser!ice and cash escort companies can easil# access their parking areas thanks to mo!able posts. 8ll this is done in an eas# relationship with other users thanks to a fairl# broad carriagewa#.The man# parking possibilities offered nearb# )(ille station, place du g1n1ral de 0aulle or perpendicular streets* allowed parking to be deleted.# reference +H ,oneThe rue Faidherbe s#mbolises a cit# centre public area shared b# all transport modes that can li!e together safel#.$n a traffic flow control situation, the contractors rebalanced the position of cars while allowing each resident to choose, in all circumstances, the most con!enient transport mode+ foot, bic#cle, car, bus ormetro. These de!elopments accompan# a new li!ing en!ironment. The rue Faidherbe, after this makeo!er,has become a fa!ourite walking place.The cit# is shared better. The rue Faidherbe in (ille is compelling proof. $t shows the cit# council/s determination to reduce the position of cars while lea!ing fle%ible use.Photo: Cete Nord-PicardiePhoto: Cete Nord-PicardieTHE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS+&(!paces aimed at cyclistsTheCodedelMEn!ironnement initsarticle(. @@H-@introduces, amongotherthings,the obligation to design the urban road network b# fa!ouring c#cle traffic.8 c#cling itinerar# can consist of se!eral de!elopments that are not limited to tracks or lanes.8AI6one, apedestrianareaorapedestrianpriorit#6onewithconsistentinstallationsin themsel!esguaranteec#clist traffic. Finall#, otherpossibilitiesincludeopeningcollecti!e transport sites to c#cle traffic or creating a speciall# dedicated direction.The factors determining the choice of a t#pe of de!elopment result from the stud# of the urban conte%t and objecti!es of the programme, in particular+ political orientations in terms of transport )sustainable urban transport plan, local urban de!elopment plan, spatial planning and sustainable de!elopment proposal, etc.*, the hierarchic le!el of the road in the network )see part B*, the speed limit for motorised users, present flows )c#clists and other users*, the t#polog# of users.This chapter onl# co!ers the main section. For more complete design, it is necessar# to referto the Aeco""andations $our les a"#nage"ents cyclablesguide published b# the Certu in @IIH.The presence of c#clists in general traffic or in spaces dedicated for public transport and the design of parking 6ones are co!ered in paragraphs A.A to A.C.:hat the regulations impose&&&8rticle(. @@H-@oftheCodedelMen!ironnement setsout theroadoperator/sobligations with respect to the de!elopment of c#cling itineraries+ E2hen constructing or renovating urbanroads, 'iththee,ce$tionof "otor'aysandurbanra$idroads, cycleitinerariesshould be included in the for" of trac-s, ground "ar-ings or inde$endent lanes, de$endingon traffic needs and constraints% +he develo$"ent of these cycle itineraries should ta-e into account the orientations of the urban trans$ort $lan, if one e,ists1.2on-compliance with the pro!isions of the law can result in the cancellation of delibera-tions appro!ing the project and call into "uestion budgetar# feasibilit#. $t could, in the case of an accident in!ol!ing a c#clist after its completion, trigger off legal personal penal liabi -lit# action against the ma#or )article @>AA-AB of the Code g1n1ral des collecti!it1s territo-riales*.+&(&% !i,ing according to use Thisparagraphisusedtospecif#afewelementsof basicpracticesconcerningc#clists without which specific la#outs would not be satisfactor#.4e!eral factors need to be taken into consideration to define the width of a c#cling de!elop-ment+ t#pe and rate of occupation en!isaged+ adults, schoolchildren, families out for a outing: $s the structure used b# other users )roller bladers, pedestrians, mopeds, etc.*: $s it one-wa# or two-wa#, in a town centre or in a periurban en!ironment: Can two c#clists o!er -take each other in complete safet#, etc: Certu May 2009 #!THE CROSS-SECTION, A SHARING TOOL FOR URBAN ROADS immediate!icinit#ofthede!elopment+presenceor notoflateral parking,non-usable width )gutter, positioning of water collection grids*, risks of side-swiping b# trucks thatspeed past, uphill or downhill sections, the c#clist/s d#namic gauge.namic gauge is obtained from the JI cm wide static gauge of a bic#cle to which is added an e%tra width of @I cm on each side for balance. The dynamic gauge of a c#clist is there-fore 6 m98dult bic#cles measure 69.@C m when there is low motorised traffic or when right-of-wa# is restricted. For the passage of specific points, it isabsolutel#necessar#toreducetolessthan>metrese%cluding marking. +&(&+ Cycle tracksThe c#cle track is a carriagewa# e%clusi!el# allocated to c#cle traffic. $t is therefore separ-atedfromothercarriagewa#sb#aph#sical separator+ le!el difference, curb, reser!ation, etc. $n the main section, the c#cle track offers good safet# conditions, the le!el of safet# is less good in intersections )difficult insertion into the carriagewa#, reduced !isibilit#*. That iswh#it iswell adaptedtoperiurban networkswheretherearefewintersections. The position of the tracks in the cross-section will depend, among other