EDG and Manual for Streets

The Essex Design Guide Highways Technical Manual has been updated to respond to changes in the way we design, use and access new developments. Street and road design has, and will continue to evolve as the dependence on cars reduces over the next decade.

The table below references how the updated Essex Design Guide relates to, the Manual for Streets (the national guidance on street design). The table sets out how the two guidance documents align, including an explanation on where they differ and the reasons why.

Essex Design Guide Section Compliance with Manual for Streets
Highways Technical Manual 
Pedestrian and Cycle Movement Like the EDG the MFS suggests 2m is the minimum footway width, it also states Footway widths can be varied between different streets to take account of pedestrian volumes and composition. Unlike the EDG no specified measurements are detailed by MFS for pedestrian and cycle routes.
Bus stops, Routes and Termini MFS does not specify a bus stop catchment distance instead MFS states that bus stops should be based on trying to ensure they can be easily accessed on foot. MFS states: Streets on bus routes should not generally be less than 6.0 m wide (although this could be reduced on short sections with good inter-visibility between opposing flows). The speed reducing table length requirement and bus turning circle are not specified in MFS.
Street Design Unlike the EDG the MFS is not as specific about its street criteria.
Access No figures for comparison.
Street Types Unlike the EDG the street requirements for Street Types A-F & H are not specified by MFS. MFS suggests Street Type G - Mews court width is between 7.5 and 12m (MFS Figure 5.3)
Parking Square Most requirements detailed in this EDG section are not specified by the MFS. MFS Figure 5.3 suggests the typical widths for different types of street suggests a square is 18 - 100m.
One-way Street Unlike the EDG the MFS recommends that streets with one-way operation are avoided, to enable the creation of a permeable network.
Speed Restraint within a 20mph zone Specific requirements of each EDG engineering measure are not specified in MFS. MFS states: Evidence from traffic-calming schemes suggests that speed-controlling features are required at intervals of no more than 70 m in order to achieve speeds of 20 mph or less.
Junction Spacing Unlike the EDG the MFS is not as specific about junction spacings.
Junction Types and Design EDG's specifies requirements for T junctions, Islands and mini roundabouts, staggered junctions and non right angled junctions however these requirements are not specified in the MFS. In terms of Crossroads MFS supports their use as they are convenient for pedestrians, they minimise diversion from desire lines when crossing the street and make it easier to create permeable and legible street networks.
Visibility EDG's vehicle and pedestrian sight-splay requirements are not specified by the MFS. Forward visibility bullet point three not specified by the MFS, table compliant with MFS.
Planting in Sight Splays Unlike the EDG the MFS states: Slow growing species with narrow trunks and canopies above 2 m should be considered.
Turning Heads Unlike the EDG the MFS is not as specific about turning heads.
Vertical Clearance under structures Unlike the EDG the MFS is not as specific about vertical clearance under structures.
Gradients Unlike the EDG the MFS is not as specific about gradient changes.
Cul-de-sacs MFS does not reference cul-de-sacs.
House Drives Unlike the EDG the MFS is not as specific about gradient changes.
Bollards Unlike the EDG bollard height requirements are not specified by the MFS. MFS states: the width between constraining vertical features such as bollards should be no more than 3.5 m, in particular circumstances this may be reduced to a minimum value of 2.75 m, which will still allow for occasional large vehicles.
Kerbs MFS does not reference kerb design.
Street Lighting EDG British Standards compliant with MFS. MFS allows a mounting height between 5-6m.
Access for Fire Tenders In addition to the EDG points, the MFS states: the access route could be reduced to 2.75m over short distances, provided the pump appliance can get to within 45m of dwelling entrances. MFS also states that if an authority or developer wishes to reduce the running carriageway width to below 3.7 m, they should consult the local Fire Safety Officer.
Commuted Sums No figures for comparison.
Adoption and Maintenance of roads, footpaths and open spaces No figures for comparison.
Streets and Roads 
Services Unlike the EDG service strip and service intake to dwellings are not specified by MFS
Post Boxes No figures for comparison.
Television and Radio aerials and Satellite dishes No figures for comparison.
Street Name-plates and Markers No figures for comparison.
Refuse Collection 25m requirement compliant with MFS.
Pedestrian and Cycle Movement 20mph requirement compliant with MFS.
Designing Streets in Support of Buses MFS does not specify a bus stop catchment distance instead MFS states that bus stops should be based on trying to ensure they can be easily accessed on foot. The speed reducing table length requirement and bus turning circle are not specified in MFS.
Vehicular Movement in Residential Areas No figures for comparison.
Character and Speed Unlike the EDG the MFS does not specify the number of units for new residential areas.
Street Types No figures for comparison.
Access to Non-Residential Uses Unlike EDG the MFS does not specify a vehicle weight limit or road width for large vehicles.
Speed Restraint The first point of EDG section is not detailed by the MFS. Unlike the EDG the MFS states: Evidence from traffic-calming schemes suggests that speed-controlling features are required at intervals of no more than 70m in order to achieve speeds of 20 mph or less.
Surface Materials No figures for comparison.
Gateways Unlike the EDG a minimum headroom is only given for routes used by cyclists in the MFS.
Smart Technology No figures for comparison.
Car-Free Zones 45m compliant with the MFS
Parking, Garage Courts and Servicing Unlike the EDG the requirements specified for Mixed-use Streets are not detailed in the MFS.
Adoption Criteria No figures for comparison.
Street Trees No figures for comparison.
Public Art Unlike EDG the MFS does not detail a public art contribution requirement

 


Page updated: 15/02/2018


Make the most of the Essex Design Guide, register today

As well as ensuring you are always in the know about future changes and updates to the Essex Design Guide, registering with us will enable to you to add and manage bookmarks throughout the site, so your most-used areas of the guide are always easy to find.

Register for updates

© 2018 Copyright Essex County Council. All rights reserved.