Manual for Streets 2026 Survey Results

Survey finds Manual for Streets in use by vast Majority of Highway Authorities

The Survey and the Seminar

Manual for Streets was published in 2007 and nearly twenty years on, a survey has been undertaken by Matthew Moody  of all 153 English Local Highway Authorities (88% response rate) and with 10 expert interviews to determine the extent of MfS usage.  The findings were released at a seminar hosted by the University of Westminster and chaired by Katja Stille.

• According to the survey, nearly all authorities (over 90%) stated that they use MfS for residential and mixed-use streets.
• For main roads, most prefer the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) because it provides the specific technical tables and numbers they need.

Local Highway Authorities were asked to indicate their approach toward 19 key elements of Manual for Streets, and the responses were scored

Highest levels of support

• Minimum 2m footway width (88%)
• 20mph design speeds for residential streets (88%)
• Junction visibility splays (86%)
• Stopping sight distances (86%)
• Pedestrian crossings on desire lines (85%)

Lower levels of support

• Tight corner radii at other junctions <6m (61%)
• Large vehicles using full carriageway width (59%)
• Tight corner radii - side/minor junctions <2m (58%)
• Direct frontage access on 30mph roads (57%)
• Use of crossroads at junctions (53%)

It should be noted that all the above Manual for Streets recommendations are supported by a majority of highway authorities.

While MfS promotes a "Movement and Place" approach, 71% of councils still reported that they categorize roads based on traffic flow.  

A major sticking point is designing corners, with some highway engineers struggling with balancing the turning radii of large refuse collection lorries, versus the need to provide safe crossings for pedestrians, children and disabled people.   

Panel Discussion Highlights

Experts discussed why it is still difficult to move away from vehicle-centred street design.

Katja Stille noted that much had changed since the publication of Manual for Streets 1 - there were e-scooters, electric vehicles, growing concern over climate change and issues such as urban heat islands, and extreme flash flooding which made urban greening and SuDS increasingly important. There was growing concern over adoption of highways, and the impact on final design and the downgrading of materials used in street construction.  The Government was consulting on reducing dependency on privatly managed streets. 

Andreas Markides, provided a perspective on the historical progress of street design and the persistent obstacles preventing higher standards today.   He praised Manual for Streets (MfS) for "killing off" the rigid, car-centric DB32 standards and moving the profession toward more people-focused design.  He argued that while highway engineers are often blamed for poor outcomes, many barriers are social, cultural, and financial: Land values and commercial pressures often dictate what gets built.  Inadequate maintenance budgets lead authorities to choose basic materials such as concrete and asphalt over more attractive options.  Local councillors sometimes override technical experts in favour of political agendas. 

Amy Burbage from Homes England noted that developers often choose the "fastest and cheapest" route to get their streets approved.  Developers often propose people-friendly streets but then change them back to old-fashioned, vehicle-dominated designs to satisfy highway authority requirements.  Turning to design for cycling, she said that there was a risk of just "adding" bike lanes and trees to roads without ever taking away space from cars.  The result was over-wide highways.

Brian Deegan from Active Travel England called for street design guidance to provide a "translation" of high-level objectives such as attractiveness, into technical detail.  Engineers were happy to use the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, and Manual for Streets needed to provide an equivalent level of detail.   Manual for Streets, in effect, needed to be an urban design manual with clear technical detail to enable construction.

Rachel Aldred, from the University of Westminster, said that most streets are not new builds but need to be "retrofitted".  Guidance needed to advise councils on how to improve streets during regular maintenance, such widening a footway or reducing the corner radii of a junction to help pedestrians cross more safely and conveniently.  She highlighted the need for steady funding to enable long-term change. Funding for walking and cycling projects is often inconsistent, making it hard for local councils to plan for the future.

Next Steps for Manual for Streets 3

Mandatory Status:The panel agreed that the upcoming MfS 3 needs to be more than just "advice". It should be linked directly to national planning policy, and its use should be mandatory.

Practical detail: MfS3 needs to solve practical problems, such as how to accommodate service vehicles while keeping street corners safe for pedestrians.

New Metrics: Instead of measuring success by levels of congestion, length of traffic queues and visibility splays, engineers should work to metrics based on greenery, cycleway length, and public realm quality.

Digital and Dynamic Guidance: The updated manual should be a digital, graphical document that is updated constantly by a standing committee.

Involvement: Highway authorities have a lot of power but don't ’feel empowered as they are excluded from early stage conversations over the design of new development. 

Education and Training: Manual for Streets 3 needs to be implemented through a sustained, long-term training programme that is strong enough to change the organisational culture of local authorities and consultants. 

Leadership: The panel noted that MfS 3 had been 7 years in preparation, and called for those at the top to be leading from the front rather than holding back important documents.