REDEFINING CUREPE JUNCTION 
BASED ON USER PERCEPTION 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Thesis 
Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of 

Master of Science in Civil Engineering 
 
 
 
 
 

of 
The University of the West Indies 

 
 
 
 
 
 

Deena D. Dass 
2022 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 
Faculty of Engineering 
St. Augustine Campus 



    

 

March 4th, 2022



i 
 

ABSTRACT 

 

Redefining Curepe Junction based on user perception. 

 

Deena D. Dass 

 
Development at transportation hubs throughout Trinidad and Tobago utilises 
antiquated strategies to resolve complex transportation engineering and urban 
design elements (TEUD), neglecting the input from the end-users. The objectives of 
this research were accomplished by utilising the user perception to identify the 
problematic TEUD elements of Curepe Junction, developing the design guidelines 
and assessing the potential impacts of the redesign. 

In pursuance of designing a successful junction, the leading successful space 
concepts were explored, i.e. Complete Streets, Context Sensitive Solution and 
Portals to Places. Three core elements were identified upon connecting these 
concepts: the people, the furnishings, and the network. While assessing these 
elements in the context of Curepe Junction, 125 hub users deemed all the elements 
of this auto-centric junction as below acceptable levels, identifying the most 
problematic elements as: 

1. Accessibility for the elderly and people with disabilities 

2. Accessibility of transit information 

3. Convenient and comfortable seating accommodations 

Upon redesigning the junction on the advice of the hub users and guided by literature 
utilising successful space concepts, the redesign generated a higher hub user 
satisfaction rate than the current design. This paradigm shift of redesigning for the 
people, by the people, illustrated that successful spaces thrive on the involvement of 
the end-users, ensuring the development of sustainable and practical design 
guidelines. Thus, concluding that the success of a space is directly proportional to 
the extent of the user involvement.  

 
Keywords: Transportation Engineering; Urban Design; Complete Street; The Place 
Diagram; Design Guidelines; Trinidad and Tobago.  



ii 
 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

 
Firstly, I would like to thank the Curepe Junction community. Thank you for 
participating in my surveys, trusting me with your experiences and sharing your 
stories of Curepe with me. This research would not have been successful without all 
the helpful insight I gained from the community. 
  
Secondly, this research project could not have reached its full potential without my 
supervisor and mentor, Dr. Trevor Townsend. I cannot thank you enough for your 
consistent words of encouragement and support. Thank you for always being such 
a dedicated and understanding lecturer. Words cannot describe how invaluable these 
traits are to your students. 
  
Finally, I would like to thank my mom, Camini Dass, and my sister, Anja Dass-
Sinanan. I could not have completed this academic journey without their 
unwavering love and support.   



iii 
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………….i 

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ ii 

List of Figures ...................................................................................................... vii 

List of Tables .......................................................................................................... ix 

List of Acronyms .................................................................................................... xi 

Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................................................................... 1 

1.1 Background ..................................................................................................... 1 

1.2 Problem Statement .......................................................................................... 2 

1.3 Aim ................................................................................................................. 2 

1.4 Objectives ....................................................................................................... 2 

1.5 Key Research Question................................................................................... 3 

1.6 Scope and Limitations .................................................................................... 3 

Chapter 2: Literature Review ................................................................................ 4 

2.1 A Quality Place ............................................................................................... 4 

2.1.1 Characteristics of a Successful Place ....................................................... 4 

2.1.2 Complete Street ....................................................................................... 6 

2.2 TEUD Elements .............................................................................................. 7 

2.2.1 Elements of Transportation Engineering ................................................. 8 

2.2.2 Elements of Urban Design ..................................................................... 10 

2.3 Existing Design Guidelines .......................................................................... 12 



iv 
 

2.4 Existing Methodologies and Analysis .......................................................... 15 

2.4.1 Secondary Data Collection .................................................................... 15 

2.4.2 Primary Data Collection ........................................................................ 16 

2.4.3 Research Validity................................................................................... 18 

2.5 Gaps in Current TEUD Research ................................................................. 19 

2.6 Summary of Key Findings from Literature Review ..................................... 19 

Chapter 3: Research Methodology ...................................................................... 20 

3.1 Research Philosophy ..................................................................................... 20 

3.2 Methodology Sequence ................................................................................ 21 

3.2.1 Phase 1: Gathering the Data .................................................................. 22 

3.2.2 Phase 2: Developing the Guidelines ...................................................... 23 

3.2.3 Phase 3: Validity and Impacts ............................................................... 24 

3.3 Pilot Study .................................................................................................... 24 

3.4 Data Collection and Analysis ....................................................................... 26 

3.4.1 Semi-Structured Interviews ................................................................... 26 

3.4.2 Additional Data ...................................................................................... 29 

3.5 Limitations .................................................................................................... 29 

Chapter 4: Discussion of Findings ....................................................................... 30 

4.1 Integration of Transportation Engineering and Urban Design ..................... 30 

4.2 Reconnaissance Survey of Curepe Junction ................................................. 32 



v 
 

4.2.1 The People ............................................................................................. 32 

4.2.2 The Furnishings ..................................................................................... 34 

4.2.3 The Network .......................................................................................... 37 

4.3 SSI with the Hub Users................................................................................. 44 

4.3.1 The Sociodemographic Factors ............................................................. 44 

4.3.2 Perception of Curepe Junction ............................................................... 48 

4.3.3 Perception of the Elements of Curepe Junction ..................................... 50 

4.3.4 Perception of Convenience .................................................................... 58 

4.3.5 Perception of Historical Preservation and Aesthetics ............................ 61 

4.3.6 Perception of Change ............................................................................. 62 

4.4 Summarising the problematic TEUD Elements ........................................... 64 

Chapter 5: Curepe Design Guidelines ................................................................ 65 

5.1 Building a Community ................................................................................. 66 

5.2 Improving the Furnishings ............................................................................ 68 

5.2.1 Signage and Accessibility ...................................................................... 68 

5.2.2 Comfort and Image ................................................................................ 75 

5.3 Redefining the Network ................................................................................ 82 

5.3.1 The Sidewalk ......................................................................................... 82 

5.3.2 The Crosswalk ....................................................................................... 83 

5.3.3 Bus Turnouts .......................................................................................... 85 



vi 
 

5.3.4 Road markings ....................................................................................... 86 

5.3.5 Parking Accommodations ...................................................................... 88 

5.4 Maintenance .................................................................................................. 89 

Chapter 6: Application of the Curepe Design Guidelines ................................. 90 

6.1 Traffic Signs and Road Markings ................................................................. 91 

6.2 Greenscape Design ....................................................................................... 95 

6.3 Sidewalk Design ........................................................................................... 97 

6.4 Crosswalk Design ......................................................................................... 98 

6.5 Bus Turnout ................................................................................................ 100 

6.6 Parking Zones ............................................................................................. 100 

Chapter 7: Curepe Design Guidelines Verification ......................................... 101 

7.1 Curepe Score Toolkit .................................................................................. 101 

7.2 Evaluation SSI ............................................................................................ 103 

Chapter 8: Conclusion ........................................................................................ 108 

8.1 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 108 

8.2 Opportunities for Further Research ............................................................ 110 

References………………………………………………………………………112 

Appendices……………………………………………………………………...121 

Appendix A: Data Collection ........................................................................... 121 

Appendix B: Semi-Structured Interviews ......................................................... 129 

Appendix C: Design Guidelines ....................................................................... 133 



vii 
 

 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1.1: Research site area of Curepe Junction ................................................... 3 

Figure 2.1: The place diagram .................................................................................. 6 

Figure 3.1: Methodology flow chart summary ....................................................... 21 

Figure 3.2: Curepe Junction boundary ................................................................... 22 

Figure 3.3: Qualitative content analysis approach for SSI ..................................... 28 

Figure 4.1: Seating and shelter at the Curepe Transit Mall .................................... 34 

Figure 4.2: Furnishing flaws throughout Curepe Junction ..................................... 35 

Figure 4.3: Zones with the highest rate of jaywalking ........................................... 36 

Figure 4.4: Curepe Transit Mall ............................................................................. 37 

Figure 4.5 Signal phasing diagram at Curepe Junction .......................................... 40 

Figure 4.6: Land use categorisation of Curepe Junction ........................................ 43 

Figure 4.7: Sociodemographic data: Gender and age ............................................. 45 

Figure 4.8: Sociodemographic data: Gender and occupation ................................. 46 

Figure 4.9: Sociodemographic data: Gender and region ........................................ 47 

Figure 4.10: Sociodemographic data: Service areas ............................................... 47 

Figure 4.11: Key perceptions of Curepe Junction .................................................. 48 

Figure 4.12: Purpose of trip .................................................................................... 49 

Figure 4.13: TEUD element ranking ...................................................................... 51 

Figure 4.14: TEUD element ranking based on age................................................. 52 

Figure 4.15:TEUD element ranking based on gender ............................................ 53 

Figure 4.16: Walk Score® ranking .......................................................................... 61 

Figure 4.17: Importance of input by the hub users ................................................. 63 



viii 
 

Figure 5.1: Enhancing a sense of community ......................................................... 68 

Figure 5.2: Maxi-taxi route map ............................................................................. 72 

Figure 5.3: Information checkpoint ........................................................................ 72 

Figure 5.4: Intelligent transportation system: Bus shelter ...................................... 73 

Figure 5.5: ADA compliant intersection ................................................................ 74 

Figure 5.6: Streetscape: Shelter .............................................................................. 75 

Figure 5.7: Conceptual images for public art ......................................................... 79 

Figure 5.8: Conceptual images of garbage bins...................................................... 81 

Figure 5.9: Conceptual images for sidewalk design ............................................... 83 

Figure 5.10: Partial open bus bay ........................................................................... 86 

Figure 6.1: Redesign of Curepe Junction ............................................................... 90 

Figure 6.2: Signage along the EMR ....................................................................... 92 

Figure 6.3: Road markings along the EMR ............................................................ 93 

Figure 6.4: Itemised redesign of Curepe................................................................. 94 

Figure 6.5: Greenscape design: Activated EMR median........................................ 95 

Figure 6.6: Greenscape design: CTM PBR seating ................................................ 96 

Figure 6.7: Sidewalk design: Trash receptacle sites ............................................... 97 

Figure 6.8: Crosswalk design: Revised phases ....................................................... 99 

Figure 6.9: Bus turnout ......................................................................................... 100 

Figure 7.1: SSI CDG Score for the current vs proposed CJ design ...................... 106 

Figure 7.2: Hub users main concern with Curepe Junction .................................. 107 

 



  ix 

 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: Synopsis of existing methodology............................................................ 15 

Table 2: Data collection and analysis synopsis ...................................................... 26 

Table 3: The three core elements of any TEUD Structure ..................................... 31 

Table 4: Comparing CJ Road dimensions with TCPD's recommended values ...... 38 

Table 5: Curepe Junction's public transportation services ...................................... 41 

Table 6: Summary of businesses within 100m radius of Curepe Junction ............. 44 

Table 7: WAT: Nodes of interest score .................................................................. 60 

Table 8: WAT: Walking facilities .......................................................................... 60 

Table 9: Information sign placement ...................................................................... 71 

Table 10: Matrix example ..................................................................................... 101 

Table 11: Ranking the factors ............................................................................... 102 

Table 12: Curepe score point system .................................................................... 102 

Table 13: Curepe score toolkit .............................................................................. 105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



x 
 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Figure A.1: Curepe Junction road markings and pictorial view sections ............. 121 

Figure A.2: Pictorial view section A-B: Riverside Road ..................................... 122 

Figure A.3: Pictorial view section B-C: Eastern Main Road................................ 122 

Figure A.4: Pictorial view section C-F: SMR intersection road ........................... 123 

Figure A.5: Pictorial view section C-D: PBR and Evans Street ........................... 123 

Figure A.6: Pictorial view section D-E: Southern Main Road ............................. 124 

Figure A.7: Pictorial view section E-F Priority Bus Route and Evans Street ...... 124 

Figure A.8: Pictorial view section A-F Eastern Main Road ................................. 125 

 
Appendix B.1: Stage 3: Hub user SSI questions .................................................. 129 

Appendix B.2: Stage 7: Hub user SSI questions .................................................. 132 

 
Figure C.1: Recommended traffic sign dimensions ............................................. 134 

Figure C.2: Yellow globe for zebra crossings ...................................................... 135 

Figure C.3: Road marking dimensions ................................................................. 136 

Figure C.4: Local greenscape tree suggestions..................................................... 139 

Figure C.5: Conceptual images for greenscape design ......................................... 140 

 

  



xi 
 

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 
APS Accessible Pedestrian Signals 
BTP Boston Department of Transportation 

CAPA Crime and Problem Analysis 
CDG Curepe Design Guidelines 

CJ Curepe Junction 
CSS Context Sensitive Solution 
CTM Curepe Transit Mall 

CTP Calgary Transportation Department 
DG Design Guidelines 

EMR Eastern Main Road 
ISCO International Standard Classification of Occupations 

ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers 
km/h Kilometres Per Hour 
m Metre/s 

MOWI  Ministry of Works and Infrastructure 
NACTO National Association of City Transportation Officials 

PBR Priority Bus Route 
PPS Project for Public Spaces 
PTIGTT Public Transport Improvement Group of Trinidad & Tobago 

PTSC Public Transport Service Corporation 
RQ Research Question 

SMR Southern Main Road 
SSI Semi-Structured Interview/s 

TCPD Town and Country Planning Division 
TE Transportation Engineering 
TEUD Transportation Engineering and Urban Design 

TTPS Trinidad and Tobago Police Service 
UD Urban Design 

WAT Walkability Assessment Toolkit 



  1 

 

CHAPTER 1  

 

INTRODUCTION 

 

1.1 Background 

 

Traditionally, spaces centred around landmark transit services attract heavy 

vehicular and foot traffic. In Trinidad and Tobago, such spaces are predominantly 

found around transit malls, facilitating transfers between the Priority Bus Route 

(PBR), the main public transportation corridor of Trinidad and Tobago, and the main 

roads, connecting the hub to the surrounding communities. Throughout the years, 

such bustling hubs have attracted thousands of captive transit users, locals, and 

foreigners to the array of facilities surrounding the area daily, especially Curepe 

Junction. 

Over the last decade, improvements to Curepe Junction have been stagnant. 

The most recent improvements were upgrades to the pedestrian crosswalks in 2016 

(Loop 2016) and the transit mall and road markings repainting in 2019. 

Policymakers of Trinidad and Tobago traditionally address the need for 

improvements in an ad hoc manner, often neglecting the needs beyond the 

transportation engineering discipline. Despite minor improvements, Curepe 

Junction remains a dangerous and hostile environment, described by Professor 

Ramesh Deosaran as a “crazy Curepe corner” due to the “unchecked craziness 

witnessed daily” (Deosaran 2018, para. 10). 

The ongoing issues experienced by users suggest that a multidisciplinary 

approach can achieve improvements throughout such spaces. Thus, the purpose of 

this research is the use of an interdisciplinary approach to outline a framework for 

redeveloping a dysfunctional public space surrounding such a significant transit hub. 

 

 

 



    2 
 
1.2 Problem Statement 

 

The research problem emerged from continued observation of the sub-

optimal and often dangerous conditions experienced at transportation hubs 

throughout Trinidad and Tobago, and the lack of a multidisciplinary approach to 

treat these multifaceted spaces. Spaces such as Curepe Junction present issues 

beyond the boundaries of the transportation engineering discipline and should be 

addressed accordingly. 

This research aims to identify and address the underlying problematic 

element or elements within the transportation engineering and urban design (TEUD) 

structure of Curepe Junction. Design guidelines will be developed to resolve the 

problematic elements identified by the hub users. The guidelines will eliminate the 

existing discord within the hub and consequently improve the overall functionality 

of Curepe Junction for all its users. This research project will contribute to the 

existing research on TEUD knowledge and produce innovative philosophies for 

Trinidad and Tobago to improve its archaic and dysfunctional transit hubs. 

 

1.3 Aim  

 

This project aims to develop and evaluate the potential impacts of design 

guidelines for the problematic transportation engineering and urban design elements 

within Curepe Junction based on user perception. 

 

1.4 Objectives 

 

The research objectives are as follows: 

1. Identify the problematic TEUD elements at Curepe Junction. 

2. Develop TEUD guidelines to treat the problematic elements identified. 

3. Assess the potential impacts of implementing the TEUD guidelines. 

 

 



    3 
 
1.5 Key Research Question 

 
The question driving this research is: 

1. What are the problematic TEUD elements perceived by the people 

of Curepe Junction? 

 

1.6 Scope and Limitations 

 

This research aims to identify transportation engineering and urban design 

elements of a space, present questions about these elements to the people of Curepe 

and address the dysfunctional elements using an integrated transportation 

engineering and urban design framework. 

Due to the time constraints of the project, the data collected was limited to 

the immediate surroundings of Curepe Junction illustrated in Figure 1.1. The 

surveys focus on pedestrians, as opposed to persons driving past the hub. Even 

though the inclusion of the motorists’ perspectives can be beneficial, the resources 

to distinguish and interview such hub users did not align with the timeline of the 

project. 

 
 
Figure 1.1: Research site area of Curepe Junction 
 
Source: Adapted from Google Earth (2021) 



    4 
 

CHAPTER 2  

 

LITERATURE REVIEW 

 

The chapter explores and reviews the existing knowledge, ranging from 

government policies to academic research. This chapter also identifies the gaps in 

the existing knowledge related to Trinidad and Tobago. 

The basis of transportation engineering encompasses moving people and 

goods as safely, efficiently and conveniently as possible (Garber and Hoel 2020). 

Urban Design, an interdisciplinary field of architecture, urban planning and 

transportation, is described as the art of city building (Bahrainy and Bakhtiar 2016). 

A well-integrated Transportation Engineering and Urban Design (TEUD) structure 

should merge these disciplines to enhance the movement and connectivity of the 

people with the space. The literature reviewed is detailed below into the following 

five subsections: 

1. A Quality Place 

2. TEUD Elements 

3. Existing Design Guidelines 

4. Existing Methodologies and Analysis 

5. Gaps in Current TEUD Research 

 

 

2.1 A Quality Place 

 

2.1.1 Characteristics of a Successful Place 

 

The words “place” and “space” are used interchangeably throughout this 

paper. It is understood they are distinctly different in the urban design field; 

however, for the purposes of this research, these words refer to a generic developed 

area. 



    5 
 

Project for Public Spaces (PPS) consist of a cross-disciplinary team 

dedicated to the placemaking concept. The placemaking concept creates a place of 

quality as visualised by the users based on their observations, experiences and 

aspirations (Wyckoff 2014). With this concept in mind, PPS developed “The Place 

Diagram” by evaluating thousands of public spaces worldwide by looking at, 

listening to, and asking questions of the people who live, work, and play in a 

particular space to discover their needs and envisions. PPS (2016) concluded that 

successful places share four key attributes: 

1. They foster positive social interactions between strangers or friends. 

2. They encourage users to engage in activities. 

3. The users feel comfortable, and the space projects a good image. 

4. They are accessible and well connected to the surrounding area. 

Even though PPS findings are recognised worldwide, Nouri and Costa 

(2017) argues that the diagram must be modified to accommodate the ever-growing 

importance of pedestrian comfort.  

The Place Diagram tool, shown in Figure 2.1, assesses whether a place can 

be deemed successful or not. The tool features three layers: the core layer; the 

intangibles; and the measurables. The core layer considers the four aforementioned 

key attributes focusing on a specified place, while the two outer circles further define 

these four key elements. 

The intangible layer assesses the place based on first-hand observations, 

such as: 

• For sociability: is the place welcoming? 

• For uses and activities: are the activities fun? 

• For comfort and image: is the place clean and safe? 

• For access and linkages: is the place accessible, and are signs readable? 

The outer measurable layer requires quantitative research to gather data on 

features such as: demographics, land use patterns, crime statistics and traffic data. 

 

 



    6 
 

The PPS allows researchers the adaptability to effortlessly implement this 

tool into their research when evaluating the success of the place. Thus, with some 

adjustments, The Place Diagram will be used as the foundation for assessing Curepe 

Junction. 

 
Figure 2.1: The place diagram 
 
Source: Project for Public Spaces (2021b) 
 

2.1.2 Complete Street 

 

Streets play a multidimensional role in the vitality of their surrounding urban 

setting and must adapt to accommodate its ever-evolving stages (NACTO 2013). 

The “Complete Street” philosophy ensures that regardless of the adaptations to the 

street, the design accommodates users of all ages and abilities travelling by all 

modes (Pande and Brian 2016). Traditionally, transportation planning revolved 

around designing for drivers, which had undesirable and unintended outcomes such 



    7 
 
as degraded walking conditions, automobile dependence and urban sprawl (Litman 

2015). The Complete Street approach challenges traditional automobile-centric 

designs by thinking beyond the driver and prioritising all the people, regardless of 

their mode of transport, and in doing so, aims to make places more user-friendly, 

well connected, and sustainable.  

The design of a complete street is specific to its context, and therefore, the 

guidelines vary from street to street. Unlike The Place Diagram, there is no 

standardised toolkit for assessing the completeness of the street but rather tailored 

design guidelines that are context-sensitive (Kingsbury, Lowry, and Dixon 2011; 

Hui et al. 2017; Sharpin, Welle Ben, and Luke Nikita 2017). However, there is a 

pattern of elements that emerges in complete street designs that accommodate for 

accessibility by differently-abled and pedestrians; bus lanes; street furniture; 

landscaping and active streetscape; lighting and signage; improved sidewalks, 

shelters and parking facilities (Litman 2015; U.S. Department of Transportation 

2015; Sharpin, Welle Ben, and Luke Nikita 2017). In addition, one can draw 

similarities with key PPS elements for a successful place: sociability, access and 

linkage, and comfort and image. Both are intended to guide the creation of places 

that encourage users to utilise the space, creating an enriched people-centric 

experience. 

 

2.2 TEUD Elements 

 

As previously inferred, the successful place concept by PPS contains 

features of the complete street concept. The trend in approaching these two concepts 

focuses on the users, transport modes, and space connecting and surrounding the 

two. The disciplines that incorporate these elements are transportation engineering 

and urban design. 

 

 

 

 



    8 
 
2.2.1 Elements of Transportation Engineering 

 

According to Rodrigue (2020), the four core components of transportation 

are: 

1. Modes representing the form that accommodates movement. 

2. Infrastructure representing the physical structures that support the 

modes. 

3. Networks representing the connectivity between the infrastructures. 

4. Flows representing the movement between the networks. 

 

On the other hand, Mathew and Rao (2007) consider the four major 

components of transportation engineering to be: 

1. Pavement Analysis and Design representing the physical structure of 

the road design. 

2. Geometric Design representing the physical layout of the 

transportation space. 

3. Transportation Planning representing a collaborative process that 

designs for the current and future transportation network needs. 

4. Traffic Engineering representing the design and operation of the flow 

of modes within a network. 

Moreover, elements of transportation engineering can be viewed from 

different perspectives as they relate to what aspects make up the structure, according 

to Rodrigue (2020), or what disciplines govern the theory behind specific aspects of 

the system, as stated by Mathew and Rao (2007). Therefore, concerning this study, 

a deeper look into elements of public transportation will now be considered. 

Researchers appear to focus on isolating, analysing and improving aspects 

of a transportation space such as accessibility to all and compliance with ADA 

recommendations; vehicular density and flow; corridor design; street furnishings 

such as improved lighting and seating accommodations; multimodal system 

efficiency and pedestrian connectivity to list a few (Rivas 2009; Atallah 2011; Ing 

2016; Martinucci 2016; Abouakalloub 2017). However, even though these 



    9 
 
researchers addressed transportation elements, they mainly generalised their 

observations exclusively qualitatively. 

Ing (2016) is the only researcher within the reviewed literature who 

accounted for more in-depth quantitative considerations such as the Average Daily 

Traffic volumes and Walkability Score for the area. It is pertinent to note that the 

above-mentioned researchers selected elements in conformity with their need to 

satisfy the end-users based on the feedback from their interviews. 

DDS Wireless International Inc. (2018) suggests that a leading 

transportation system should include: multimodal options, easily accessible 

information, fast and frequent transit services, and an interesting and comfortable 

experience. These attributes were common amongst the literature while developing 

the design guidelines. 

The research cited above lacked an in-depth transportation assessment of the 

relevant study areas and primarily addressed dysfunctional transportation elements 

based on surface observations with stopgap solutions. For example, Rivas (2009) 

addresses the heavy traffic experienced by the interviewees by re-routing the traffic 

and implementing time restrictions. Rivas (2009), Atallah (2011), Martinucci (2016) 

and Abouakalloub (2017) proposed temporary solutions based on the survey 

responses and not quantifiable data/ field tests. The credibility of this approach is 

discussed further in Section 2.4.3 Research Validity. 

Different categories of transportation engineering elements all bear 

similarities and stem from three core elements: the unit of carriage; the right of way; 

and the terminal. Translating this to Curepe Junction, these are, respectively: 

walking and all motorised vehicles; the junction’s roads; and the Curepe Transit 

Mall (CTM).  

 

 

 

 

 



    10 
 
2.2.2 Elements of Urban Design 

 

Elements of urban design take the definition of transportation further by 

exploring the space through which people and goods move. Urban design is 

considered on a macro-level, which addresses urban form and micro-level, which 

addresses the pedestrian experience through the space (ASBEC 2015).  

Urban form is an umbrella term used to describe a space based on its physical 

characteristics, such as size, configuration, and nonphysical aspects, such as density. 

Dempsey et al. (2010) deduce the following five elements of urban form based on 

their influence on human behaviour: 

1. Density measures people living or passing through the space and is used as 

a tool to measure the viability of a development. However, Dempsey et al. 

(2010) note that density measurements are perceptive based on the goal of 

the researcher and that the point of a high or too high of density is unclear. 

2. Land Use classifies the development types, i.e. residential, commercial, and 

mixed. Mixed being the most desirable, promoting a range of activities in a 

space, encouraging social interaction and influencing walkability (Healthy 

Spaces and Places 2011). 

3. Accessibility and Transport Infrastructure determines the ease of 

connectivity throughout a space and its environs. 

4. Urban Layout entails the spatial arrangement and configuration of elements 

of the space, such as streets and buildings. This element is crucial for flow 

throughout the space, and heavily influenced the last three elements. 

5. Housing and Building Characteristics denotes the aesthetics of a place, 

contributing to the overall pedestrian experience and uniqueness. 

 

 

 

 

 



    11 
 

In addition, Dempsey et al. (2010) note that even though these five elements 

overlap and play a part in influencing the experience of a space, it is beneficial to 

consider each element separately instead of collectively to appreciate the urban 

form. On the contrary, some urban designers argue that urban design elements focus 

on the attributes of cities and towns, i.e. the buildings, transport, streets, public space 

and landscape (Urban Design n.d.). Comparably, Živković (2019) noted that the 

core elements of urban form are defined by buildings, streets, blocks and plots. 

Collectively, these elements merge into a coordinated design structure, defining the 

urban form. When the urban form is coupled with features that influence the user’s 

experience, the urban design of the space is established. 

Upon further investigation, when considering the urban design features, 

researchers focus on the pedestrian and vehicular circulation, land- and streetscape, 

history, zoning and layout, socio-demographics and proposed development of the 

space (Tariq 2007; Rivas 2009; Atallah 2011; Tuyet 2012; Braswell 2013; Ing 2016; 

Martinucci 2016; Abouakalloub 2017). Throughout the listed literature, researchers 

meticulously reviewed and explored the urban design fabric within the space, 

addressing their qualities, user perception and shortcomings, unlike the research 

regarding transportation elements. The method in which these researchers identified 

such urban design elements to focus on is a combination of theory/ practice, which 

influenced their reconnaissance of the space, and feedback from the study area users. 

Similar to transportation engineering, the elements of urban design can be 

viewed from the standpoint of different divisions of the urban space (Dempsey et al. 

2010; ASBEC 2015) or can be further broken down into the features that form the 

space itself (Živković 2019; Urban Design n.d.). Additionally, when researchers 

study an area, they acquire data and categorise their findings based on the divisions 

of urban design, but they observe the space based on their elementary foundation: 

the buildings, streets, transport, public space, and landscape. 

 

 

 

 



    12 
 
2.3 Existing Design Guidelines 

 

Assessment of transportation hubs reviews elements such as traffic 

conditions. However, the researchers instead focused on providing aesthetic and 

functional enhancements such as: 

• Segregating different modes of transportation, i.e. exclusive bike corridors 

(Martinucci 2016). 

• Incorporating landscape and streetscape techniques (Tariq 2007; Rivas 

2009). 

• Redistribution of the spatial features, such as public squares, to incorporate 

an inclusive land-use strategy (Logan 2012; TCPD 2014; Mohammed 2018). 

The extent of transportation engineering in the research reviewed can be 

summed up as the geometric layout of the streets and pavement, which can be 

considered a construct of urban design. Furthermore, literature focusing on such 

transit spaces explores most, if not all, of the urban design elements detailed in 

Section 2.2.2 above, highlighting quantifiable features such as the 

sociodemographic and intangible qualities of the space, including the aesthetics of 

the buildings and streetscape. 

Other literature focusing on transit systems in an urban setting was published 

in transportation jargon and overlooked the urban design facets explored above 

(Pascucci and Friedrich 2017). Similarly, urban design publications, which focus on 

transportation sites, explore the space solely through the scope of an urban designer 

(Logan 2012; Martinucci 2016; Abouakalloub 2017). Thus, such literature was not 

considered relevant, as integrating transportation engineering and urban design 

disciplines are paramount to this research. 

Design guidelines that encompass TEUD disciplines were partial to urban 

design. This observation may result from urban design, being an interdisciplinary 

field by nature, encompassing aspects of transportation engineering. Thus, this 

research seeks to develop design guidelines that utilise techniques that integrate 

TEUD features. 



    13 
 

Ing (2016) presents the framework most compatible with this research. Ing 

analysed urban design features such as: nodes of interest; existing land uses; built 

environment and aesthetic features; and transportation engineering aspects such as: 

traffic; network routes; pedestrian facilities; traffic and accidents data. Using this 

framework, Ing developed an integrated design toolkit for Kapahulu Ave, Honolulu, 

Hawaii, an example of the type of guidance this research aims to develop. 

A common trend in the literature was acknowledging the need to shift from 

a traditional automobile-driven design paradigm to accommodate other, if not all, 

hub users. This trend is parallel to the complete street concept. Noting this trend in 

modern street design policies and guides across TEUD departments worldwide, 

there has been a demand for greater awareness of other transportation modes and 

accommodating a wider variety of users (Newcombe 2013). Some departments 

implemented this concept by reconceptualising their design manuals. The award-

winning Complete Streets Design Guidelines for the City of Boston (Toole Design 

Group 2015) guide shifts the design paradigm from the separation of modes to 

integrating every mode into each chapter (City of Boston. BTP 2013). Thus, creating 

new tools to balance the modes.  

Furthermore, Laplante and McCann (2008) highlight that complete streets 

are simply an evolutionary step towards accepting all modes of transport by 

accommodating a quick and cheap multimodal fix for all public space users. 

Furthering this notion, Hui et al. (2018) observed that popular complete street guides 

accommodate safe access for all road users but lack essential elements of complete 

street classification and that the extent to which the users must be served varies 

based on the context of the streets. Sousa and Rosales (2010) argue that the complete 

street may not require accommodation for every mode. Context Sensitive Solution 

(CSS) by ITE, is a project-oriented and location-specific process to ensure a road 

project fits its context. CSS is presented as a complementary framework to the 

Complete Streets guidelines instead of an alternative (Laplante and McCann 2008). 

Given the nature of Curepe Junction, segregating public transit, the combination of 

the Complete Street guidance and CSS process, is a well-suited framework guide. 



    14 
 

Toth (2019) expands on the philosophies of CCS and Complete Streets, and 

how they can build communities through transportation rather than building 

transportation through communities. Toth suggests that transit stops can be 

developed into hubs that support the daily needs of the people who heavily rely on 

public transportation. Applying the placemaking concept, together with CCS and 

Complete Streets, PPS developed the Portals to Places initiative. This initiative 

focuses on creating terminals that function beyond an entry and exit point by 

opening communication between the users and stakeholders, to increase transit 

ridership, improve public perception of transit service, and improve quality of life 

for transit riders (Toth 2011; Project for Public Spaces 2019; Toth 2019). 

Other prominent guidebooks referenced within the industry, such as the 

Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation’s Manual for Streets 2 (2010), 

addressed problematic transportation elements with surface-level solutions, lacking 

the in-depth details required for this research compared to the guidebooks detailed 

above. Thus, such literature was only referenced as a general guide and not the main 

source for the design guidelines presented in this research paper. 

While there are many international guidelines, research papers, and few local 

documents for developing a transportation hub, this chapter focused on reimagining 

the space into a more suitable environment for the end-users. The literature review 

identified the gaps in current publications, further validating the need for this 

research, summarising that the Complete Streets, CSS and Portals to Places, appear 

to comprise a solid foundation for a toolkit to improve Curepe Junction. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



    15 
 
2.4 Existing Methodologies and Analysis 

 

A mix of primary and secondary data collection methods used to assess a 

transportation hub and develop public spaces is summarised as below. 

 
Table 1: Synopsis of existing methodology 
 

 

2.4.1 Secondary Data Collection 

 

Evident in Table 1, the initial step in developing design guidelines is 

conducting an in-depth case study. The purpose of the case studies reviewed varied 

depending on the overall goal. These studies focused on exploring similar spatial 

features/patterns (Trancik 1986; Stojanovski 2020), transportation systems (Logan 

2012; Martinucci 2016), trends which the upgraded system wishes to follow (Tariq 

2007; UNDESA 2012; Ing 2016), and the historical character of the studied space 



    16 
 
the researcher is seeking to preserve (Rivas 2009). In this case, the literature selected 

was based on a combination of the trends, but most importantly, the researcher’s 

need to assess an urban transportation space and develop guidelines for the hub 

users. 

 

2.4.2 Primary Data Collection 

 

2.4.2.1 Experimental Data 

 

Site observations to decipher behavioural patterns (Rivas 2009; Martinucci 

2016; Abouakalloub 2017); existing features (Tariq 2007; Logan 2012; TCPD 2014; 

Mohammed 2018); and field measurements of elements within the space were the 

most utilised techniques in developing guidelines. The importance of site visits for 

any TEUD hub cannot be overstated. This approach exclusively creates an 

opportunity for the researcher to observe the space in action and discover scenarios 

that literature cannot portray (Rivas 2009; Ing 2016; Critton and Polstein 2019).  

The recommended size or boundary of the study area varied based on the 

preference of the researchers. Some researchers narrowed their study based on a 

prominent street in the study area (Rivas 2009; Ing 2016), while others relied on 

densely travelled paths (Martinucci 2016; Abouakalloub 2017; Critton and Polstein 

2019). Gehl (2011) discusses the boundaries of the study area based on utilising the 

social field of vision concept. Gehl concluded that at 100m from a transit stop, the 

observer could comfortably identify the details of people and their movement 

patterns. Additional literature indicated that the number of passengers is optimum 

within 100–200m walking distance from a transit stop and halved beyond this 

distance (O'Sullivan and Morrall 1996; Daniels and Mulley 2013). Stojanovski 

(2020) further supported these two concepts, noting that the most effective way to 

study a transit stop is within a 100m radius. Stojanovski reiterates that the optimal 

study area is attributed to visual proximity, stating that 100m is an ideal distance to 

observe the urban features of the space. 



    17 
 

Furthermore, Ing (2016) addressed the walkability of Kapahulu Avenue by 

utilising the walk score. Ing associated the walkability scores with the appeal and 

user-friendly attributes of the space. The Walk Score® is a patented algorithm that 

estimates a location's walkability from a scale of 0 to 100, based on its proximity to 

essential amenities, such as grocery stores and restaurants, that are weighted based 

on importance to the person walking (Carr, Dunsiger, and Marcus 2011; Hirsch et 

al. 2013; Walk Score 2007). 

 

2.4.2.2 Interviews 

 

Semi-structured interviews with people linked to the research topic were the 

most utilised approach in developing guidelines internationally. The interviewees 

ranged from hub users (Rivas 2009; Critton and Polstein 2019) to experienced 

professionals (Tariq 2007; Rivas 2009; Atallah 2011; Logan 2012; Tuyet 2012; 

Abouakalloub 2017; Knupfer, Pokotilo, and Woetzel 2018). Even though Ing (2016) 

did not conduct interviews, she noted the importance of collecting this input from 

the local community and stakeholders of the area, and how such data can aid in 

developing a well-integrated design guideline to suit its users.  

The interview size varied based on the size of the study area. For example, 

Rivas (2009) interviewed 15 randomly selected stakeholders along Boulevard 

Provencher. Conversely, Knupfer, Pokotilo, and Woetzel (2018) sought the advice 

of more than 30 transportation experts from both the public and private sectors 

worldwide to weigh their list of indicators according to the impact on the quality of 

life in 24 cities. Even though the scale of the interviews varied, the approach in the 

analysis was empirically derived, utilising an inductive approach to develop theories 

and trends instead of a preconceived deductive approach. 

 

 

 

 



    18 
 
2.4.2.3 Questionnaires 

 

Laplante and McCann (2008) argue that data should be collected from all 

hub users and modes for a complete street to be truly effective, not just from the 

pedestrians but also from the drivers and community. Even though there is valuable 

information from conducting online surveys, it is evident from Table 1 that this is 

the least preferred option. 

 

2.4.3 Research Validity 

 

The researchers all lacked the final step of testing the validity of their design 

guidelines. Instead, they concluded their research by implementing their toolkits 

instead of testing their validity, especially with the end-users. 

This researcher acknowledges that design guidebooks are a credible source 

of information. However, such books were developed with a range of network 

applicability. Thus, some guidebooks propose a validity check, such as Calgary’s 

Complete Streets Guide (2014), which presents a street’s “completeness” toolkit by 

ranking its features using the weighted factors method. According to Calgary’s 

Complete Streets Guide (2014), the minimum threshold for a section of a street to 

meet the “Complete” criteria is a score of 70. However, this score is specific to the 

recommendations presented in Calgary’s design guide. 

Parker (2019) detailed a simplified scoring technique that establishes his 

toolkit by modes of transportation. Parker further generalises a suggested grading 

system related to his ideal complete street layout. For example, looking at a 

pedestrian mode, Parker (2019) suggests the highest points for sidewalks measuring 

36 inches or wider. Unlike Calgary’s Complete Streets Guide, Parker’s method 

eliminates weighted factors' bias and the need to train individuals who seek to use 

the evaluation toolkit by suggesting how the user may score the design. 

Considering the neglect of such validation checks, in addition to the lack of 

in-depth transportation assessment mentioned earlier in Section 2.2.1, raises the 

question of whether issues observed in a transportation space can be resolved by 



    19 
 
applying surface-level solutions. Unfortunately, this question cannot be answered 

based on their research because they all overlooked the most fundamental validation 

check, the user’s feedback on the proposed design. The consequence of overlooking 

this final step contradicts the premise of “designing for people” if they do not have 

the final say. 

 

2.5 Gaps in Current TEUD Research 

 

The gap identified during this literature review was that the academic 

research addressing TEUD guidelines collectively is predominantly Urban Design-

driven instead of having a well-integrated blend. This research project aims to 

rectify this prejudice and develop design guidelines that balance and integrate 

system. 

 

2.6 Summary of Key Findings from Literature Review 

 

The research consensus identified was that a successful space is achievable 

when a collection of disciplines works together. Furthermore, the core elements 

from each discipline overlapped, matching the inputs of The Place Diagram. This 

diagram is a significant component in achieving a successful place within the 

Complete Street, Context Sensitive Solution and Portals to Places guidance. Thus, 

these concepts and guidelines will play a crucial role in redefining Curepe Junction. 

Based on the synopsis in Table 1, conducting case studies, experimental 

data, and semi-structured interviews are the preferred steps in developing a 

framework for a great place and fulfilling the objectives of this research. 

Researchers have highlighted that a successful design for a specific area is 

efficiently achieved by conducting interviews with the hub users. This approach 

allows the researcher to cater to varying perspectives and explores the ideas, values, 

and vision that the researcher may often overlook. These observations will guide the 

development of the methodology and research going forward and address the 

validity and research gaps identified.  



    20 
 

CHAPTER 3  

 

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 

 

3.1 Research Philosophy 

 

This research aims to develop guidelines to redefine a transportation hub 

such as Curepe Junction, primarily based on qualitative and quantitative judgements 

of hub users. The methodology behind this research is unconventional in its 

approach, especially in Trinidad and Tobago, in that it interprets 100 hub user 

responses to design a space reimagined by its users. The research utilises concepts 

such as The Complete Street, Context Sensitive Solution and Portals to Places to 

present a redefined Curepe Junction. 

Despite using a mixed-methods approach, the primary approach utilised for 

the methodology is qualitative, exploring the interpretations of Curepe Junction 

from the sole perspective of the hub users. While the research features aspects of 

quantitative analysis when gathering data within Curepe Junction, the level of 

analysis required for this research is unsuitable for a purely quantitative approach. 

 

  



 

 

21 

3.2 Methodology Sequence 
 

 
 
Figure 3.1: Methodology flow chart summary 



22 
 

 

Illustrated in the flow chart in Figure 3.1, the research was categorised into 

three phases and is further broken down into eight stages detailed below. Stages 4, 

6 and 8, represents fulfilling objectives 1, 2 and 3, respectively. 

 

3.2.1 Phase 1: Gathering the Data 

 

Phase 1 addresses the scope of the project and the methods of gathering data 

to inform the guidelines. 

- Stage 1 identifies a definitive scope of the research area. Based on 

Stojanovski’s (2020) recommendation, a 100m radius from the centre of 

Curepe Junction was studied, as illustrated in Figure 3.2. This boundary 

encompasses a range of hub users, from people accessing retail stores to 

people utilising both public transportation and private hired transit services. 

 
Figure 3.2: Curepe Junction boundary 
 
Source: Adapted from Google Earth (2021) 



23 
 

- Stage 2 details Curepe Junction’s reconnaissance survey, including 

observations, layout, and general movement around the space. In addition 

to surveying the site, essential data, such as pedestrian counts, were 

collected to determine the sample size for data collection. 

- Stage 3 entails conducting Semi-Structured Interviews (SSI) with the hub 

users, such as the business owners and transit users. 

A qualitative and flexible data collection method, such as SSI, allowed the 

researcher to ask pre-determined questions and expand on specific questions. This 

flexibility provided unique perceptions, expanding the researcher’s awareness of the 

space. 

This technique not only eliminates bias but assisted in understanding the issues 

experienced with the TEUD elements (dependent variables) from varying 

perspectives of the hub users (independent variables) within Curepe Junction 

(control variable). A template of the SSI questions is included in Appendix B. 

 

3.2.2 Phase 2: Developing the Guidelines 

 

Phase 2 explores the process of developing the TEUD guidelines best suited 

for the concerns experienced at Curepe Junction. This phase will also tackle 

objectives 1 and 2 and answer the research question. 

- Stage 4 allowed for the findings and responses from the SSI with the hub 

users to be examined in detail and the problematic TEUD elements to be 

identified, satisfying the first objective, and answering the research question. 

- Stage 5 reviewed guidelines, academic literature, and trends on addressing 

the problematic elements identified. 

- Stage 6 developed the TEUD design guidelines to treat the problematic 

elements within Curepe Junction.; thus, satisfying objective 2. 

 

 



24 
 
3.2.3 Phase 3: Validity and Impacts 

 

As highlighted in Section 2.4.3, past literature lacked validity in the final 

stage of their research. Thus, phase 3 aims to bridge the gap between the conceptual 

guidelines and the end-users and introduce additional validity checks. The inclusion 

of this phase satisfied objective 3 and allowed the researcher to defend the project 

and acquire feedback on the potential impacts of implementing the guidelines. 

- Stage 7 performed validity checks on the guidelines via: 

1. Completeness Score Toolkit was developed to assess the current 

completeness of Curepe Junction and provide an evaluation tool for 

applications throughout hubs in Trinidad and Tobago. This toolkit 

will allow future designers to ensure their proposed design is within 

a “Completeness” design range. 

2. Hub User Review of the redesigned Curepe via SSI allowed the end-

users to provide a diverse and new outlook on the design. This stage 

provided valuable data to the researcher to assess the potential 

impacts the design can have on redefining Curepe Junction. 

- Stage 8 satisfies objective 3. This stage assessed the responses from stage 7 

and highlighted the potential impacts the guidelines can have on Curepe 

Junction. 

 

3.3 Pilot Study 

 

A pilot study involving three randomly selected hub users was conducted to 

ensure that the selected research tool, SSI, performed as anticipated. This allowed 

the researcher to conduct a small-scale Stage 3 trial, in return, providing an 

opportunity to manage any uncertainties responders had with the questions and 

eliminate foreseeable issues by gaining an understanding of the general flow and 

interpretation of questions. Once completed, a period of reflection was undertaken 

to assess the potential of the designed SSI to collect relevant information that would 

guide Stage 6 and allow for a period of refinement. 



25 
 

Overall, the interviewees from the pilot study agreed that the questions 

covered a range of items and adequately captured their views on Curepe Junction; 

thus, no additional questions were necessary., Minor changes were made to the SSI 

after the pilot study, which are itemised below: 

1. The duration of the interviews varied from 15 - 40 minutes, offering 

considerable unrelated information on the open-ended questions. One 

interviewee had to shorten the SSI to avoid missing her ride home. The 

revision allowed for fewer open-ended questions and more yes/ no and 

Likert Scale questions. This change kept the response time below 10 

minutes and kept the answers on track while allowing room for 

discussions where necessary. 

2. The initial SSI layout attempted to segregate different elements, such as 

their walking and travelling experience, and their views on street and 

facility elements. However, their responses and interpretations 

overlapped with one another, deeming most questions repetitive. Thus, 

their experience of Curepe Junction was collated. 

3. Questions on the hub user’s ideal vision or what they would like to 

change in Curepe Junction were deemed too vague, often stating that 

they were satisfied with Curepe. However, when asked about their 

opinions on the physical elements within Curepe, they had unfavourable 

opinions which contradicted their initial response. This issue was 

addressed by removing the vague questions and focusing on the 

interviewee’s opinions on the physical aspects of Curepe and only at the 

end, asking them if there were anything they would like to add or 

recommend. By adding this question at the end, the interviewees were 

reminded about the elements they were dissatisfied with and were better 

equipped to answer. 

4. Questions regarding the physical state of Curepe Junction that the 

researcher could address during the reconnaissance survey were 

removed. Such questions were initially added to eliminate bias on the 

researcher’s part. However, the researcher deemed such questions 



26 
 

unnecessary based on the shared views on obvious physical conditions, 

such as uninviting littered paths and uneven sidewalks.  

Overall, the responses were diverse yet on track with what was anticipated 

and offered information that this researcher believes would provide sufficient 

information to design the guidelines. The decision to use SSI proved most 

beneficial, allowing for flexibility during the interview and providing sufficient time 

and freedom to discuss topics highlighted by the hub user.  

 

3.4 Data Collection and Analysis 

 

Table 2 summarises the primary sources of data and analysis throughout this 

research. 

 
Table 2: Data collection and analysis synopsis 
 

 
 

3.4.1 Semi-Structured Interviews 

 

This research targets user perception in efforts to develop a redefined place 

for the end-users; thus, the main source of data collected was SSI. For stages 3 and 

7, interviews were conducted with hub users.  

Even though most of the researchers mentioned in Chapter 2 randomly 

interviewed hub users as they passed by and the sample size for their SSI varied 

from paper to paper, this research will utilise a more methodical approach in 

determining the appropriate sample size. 

 



27 
 

The modified Cochran Formula for a known population, utilised by Statistics 

How To (2013) and SurveyMonkey (2015), provides a technique for calculating the 

anticipated sample size, and is provided below: 

 

Where: 

• The Z-score, z, is based on the chosen Confidence level. For the purposes of 

this research, a confidence level of 90% was selected, giving a z value of 1.645 

from the Z-Score Table. 

• The Population Proportion, p, is the estimated percentage of the population 

that best contributes to the purposes of the survey. Upon observations of 

movement in Curepe Junction, specifically along the PBR during rush-hour, 

it was observed that for every 10 people that exited a bus, an average of 2 

people passed through the CTM, the other 8 immediately transferred onto 

another bus. Thus, only 20% of people exiting the PBR utilise Curepe 

Junction’s hub and benefit the most from a redefined space. 

• The Margin of Error, e, is the desired level of precision. For the purposes of 

this research and as a recommended error value of best design practice, ± 5% 

margin of error was used. 

• The Population Size, N, is the approximate population size of the study area. 

During Curepe Junction’s rush-hour, an average of 200 people were observed 

moving in and around the CTM. This location was chosen to count hub users 

not only because this location is the centre of the project’s scope area, but it 

also encompasses a range of hub users, from pedestrians to people working in 

nearby shops, as well as individuals living in the area. 

 

 

 

 



28 
 

Using the values listed above, the sample size was calculated to be: 

 
Surveys were conducted randomly throughout the day due to activity 

throughout the hub being consistent during the daylight. This option allowed for 

discussions with individuals who were enjoying the space and expanded the SSI 

reach outside of the commuters rushing through the space during rush hour. 

For stage 7, a portion of the calculated sample size, i.e., 25 hub users, were 

interviewed to achieve general feedback on the redesign. The responses varied on 

random days during the week to ensure that a comprehensive spectrum of 

perceptions was interviewed. Each interviewee was asked questions from the SSI 

interview templates, provided in Appendix A, where the general areas for questions 

directly related to the aim and objectives of the research. Furthermore, each hub user 

was informed of the purpose of the study and that their responses would remain 

anonymous. 

A qualitative content analysis approach was used to evaluate the SSI data 

collected. The responses were transcribed manually to ensure all critical feedback 

were deciphered. This qualitative data collection method coded the data and 

distinguished themes, allowing for the data to be presented graphically. The 

following illustration provides the steps undertook for analysing the SSI feedback. 

 
Figure 3.3: Qualitative content analysis approach for SSI 



29 
 
3.4.2 Additional Data 

 

3.4.2.1 Field Data 

 

During stages 2 and 6, data such as field measurements, pedestrian and 

minor vehicular counts and movements would utilise a measuring tape, tally sheets 

and a stopwatch. This data was developed in illustrative software such as AutoCAD 

to represent Curepe Junction and aid in redesigning the space visually. 

 

3.4.2.2 Literature 

 

The main literature source was via UWI’s Alma Jordan Library. UWI’s 

Library is subscribed to an abundance of Engineering databases, such as ProQuest 

and EBSCOhost, which provide case studies, scholarly journals, dissertations, and 

theses. When additional literature was required, Google Scholar was utilised. 

 

3.5 Limitations 

 

One of the most notable limitations in conducting background research for 

this project was the lack of accessible local resources and data. The only document 

relating to this research was “St. Augustine Education City: Spatial Development 

Strategy and Regulatory Framework” by TCPD (2014). Thus, this paper assumes 

that other documents do not exist and sought external/ foreign research that covered 

the themes of this paper. 

Due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, such as work from home and 

online schooling, in effect throughout Trinidad and Tobago, Curepe Junction was 

notably less congested. Therefore, such people, specifically school children, may 

have provided a unique insight into how one can reimagine Curepe Junction. 

However, based on the 100 hub users' responses, the data was sufficient to develop 

and redefine Curepe Junction. 

  



30 
 

CHAPTER 4  

 

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS 

 

4.1 Integration of Transportation Engineering and Urban Design 

 

When considering any public transportation space, the two disciplines 

utilised are transportation engineering and urban design. Even though these two 

disciplines naturally blend into one another, as detailed in Section 2.2 TEUD 

Elements, they both individually contribute to optimising transportation hubs such 

as Curepe Junction. 

From the above research, it was evident that transportation engineering 

concepts often resurface in elements of urban design. Thus, three core elements 

emerge as key contributing factors across both disciplines, answering three standard 

design questions: 

1. For whom are we designing? 

2. What are we designing? 

3. How can we make this design work for the end-user?  

Answering these questions, as they relate to the elements and concepts of 

any TEUD structure, the following three core elements were found.  

 

 

 

 



31 
 
Table 3: The three core elements of any TEUD Structure 

 
 

 

Comparing the qualities of a great place in Section 2.1 and the elements of 

TEUD in Section 2.2, there are essentially tantamount to each other. A successful 

complete street/ place aims to harmonise the two disciplines. Thus, it can be deduced 

that the success of a space relies on a well-integrated TEUD space, i.e., a place that 

incorporates and expands on all three core elements. 

Furthermore, the latter two core elements, the furnishings and the network 

must be designed for the people in order for the place to be successful, i.e. not one 

sub-grouping of people, such as drivers, but the collective whole.  

 

 



32 
 
4.2 Reconnaissance Survey of Curepe Junction 

 

The reconnaissance of Curepe Junction details the observed behaviour of the 

hub users, the physical characteristics and condition of the space from the 

perspective of the researcher during the period of study. This step is crucial in 

determining the topics to address with the hub users and, ultimately, the design 

guidelines. 

 

4.2.1 The People 

 

The people of Curepe Junction, henceforth referred to as the hub users, are 

those who will be directly affected by changes to Curepe, such as pedestrians, 

residents, business owners and employees, drivers, and travellers. Movement 

throughout Curepe Junction was observed over five months. People of all 

backgrounds, gender and age can be seen hopping from one mode of transport to 

another or making their way to the nearest fast food outlet before travelling. 

Curepe Junction is constantly bustling with movement. Within the transit 

mall, strangers exchange stories and socialise or sit and read their newspapers. 

Vendors, street dwellers, and pedestrians collide on the sidewalks upon exiting the 

mall. Merchants clutter the streets of Curepe, and taxi conductors pester passers-by. 

However, among the chaos, one can find pedestrians passing one another and 

exchanging pleasantries or undauntingly asking for assistance, whether elderly 

requesting help or a novice traveller in need of directions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



33 
 

Beyond the aura of the people, Curepe Junction is labelled as a hotspot. 

Based on documentation obtained from the Crime Records and Information Section 

from the Crime and Problem Analysis Branch of the Trinidad and Tobago Police 

Service (TTPS) from 2017 to 2020, the following are offences experienced within 

and near the research radius (CAPA 2020): 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



34 
 
4.2.2 The Furnishings 

 

Curepe Junction lacks enjoyable features for its users, such as greenery, art, 

proper seating accommodations and adequate shelter. The outdoor seating provided 

at the CTM were often left unoccupied during the study period. Travellers were 

observed huddled inside the building peeping through the bars, occasionally 

checking to see if their transport had arrived, assumedly to avoid the poorly placed 

hostile public furniture, as evident in the image below. 

 

 
 
Figure 4.1: Seating and shelter at the Curepe Transit Mall 
 

 

 

 

 

 



35 
 

In addition to the lack of furnishings, the incorporated features were not 

sufficiently monitored and maintained to ensure continued functionality. The flaws 

observed to contribute to the degradation of the user’s experience are listed below 

and illustrated in Figure 4.2: 

a) Excessive litter throughout the hub due to insufficient garbage bins along the 

streets and timely garbage pickups by the county. 

b) Clogged drains due to a combination of excessive litter and socially 

displaced people purposely clogging the manholes with said litter. 

c) Unsafe sidewalks with missing, damaged or raised manhole covers. 

d) Vendor congested sidewalks, blocking the sidewalk ramps and path. 

e) Malfunctioning signalised crossings, mainly due to anxious taxi conductors 

constantly pressing the buzzer to usher potential passengers their way. 

 

 
 
Figure 4.2: Furnishing flaws throughout Curepe Junction 



36 
 

Due to the defective crossing signals, pedestrians were observed darting 

through ongoing traffic, creating unnecessary traffic delays. In addition to the 

designated crossing sites, two distinct zones had the highest rate of jaywalking, 

highlighted in Figure 4.3.  

The first zone, along the EMR, can be due to factors, such as the previously 

mentioned issues with the signalised lights or the nonchalant culture and law 

enforcement in Trinidad and Tobago, where pedestrians cross wherever they deem 

appropriate opposed to walking to the nearest crosswalk. Pedestrians within the 

second zone, along the PBR and Evans Street, prefer to cross along this zone to 

access the bus shelter instead of walking to the junction’s designated pedestrian 

crossing and looping back. This observation highlights the need for safer, more 

frequent, and better-maintained pedestrian crossing zones around the transportation 

hub. 

 

 
 
Figure 4.3: Zones with the highest rate of jaywalking 



37 
 

Despite the updated exterior, the CTM is poorly maintained and lacks 

cultural and nostalgic character. The pedestrians rarely explore the outdated interior, 

with its neglected commencement plaque obscured within a mall booth. 

 

 
 
Figure 4.4: Curepe Transit Mall 

 

Overall, the furnishings element is in dire need of urban design input. Thus, 

Curepe Junction serves as a “means to an end” rather than an enjoyable and 

aesthetically appealing destination. 

 

4.2.3 The Network 

 

Curepe Junction can be classified as a busy commercial district centred 

around a major transportation hub that services all four cardinal points of Trinidad. 

This section analyses the road network and the built network of Curepe Junction, 

detailing the major cross-sections within Curepe Junction and providing a 

breakdown of the establishments within the 100m study area. 



38 
 
4.2.3.1 The Road Network 

 

The road network within the study’s radius comprises of two major collector 

roads: the Eastern Main Road and the Southern Main Road, a minor collector road, 

Riverside Road, and three access/ local roads: Sellier Street, Evans Street and 

Broome Street. Additionally, the speciality network is named the “Priority Bus 

Route”, which is only accessible to authorised vehicles, such as public transport 

vehicles, first responders, Government Agencies, and permitted private/ commercial 

vehicles. 

 

Appendix A: Data Collection details sectional views of the main roads 

surrounding the junction, inclusive of dimensions, the signage, and a synopsis of 

each lane. Below is a summarised comparison of the measured dimensions within 

the junction and the standard dimensions set out by TCPD (Republic of Trinidad 

and Tobago. TCPD 1988, 48). Evidently, the majority of the actual measurements 

within Curepe fall within the TCPD’s standards.  

 
Table 4: Comparing CJ Road dimensions with TCPD's recommended values 
 

 
 

Regardless of the TCPD compliance, the sidewalks are congested, forcing 

pedestrians to walk along the road and cars and maxi-taxis block the right-of-way. 

In an ideal unobstructed scenario along the EMR, approximately 20 vehicles can 

cross the intersection during. However, it was observed that the flow of traffic within 

the junction was constantly obstructed by maxi-taxis stopping to offload or collect 

passengers, pedestrians jaywalking, cars reversing out of businesses along the 



39 
 
junction and cars illegally parked along the main road. On average, maxi-taxis 

stopped for 25 seconds; pedestrians took 15 seconds to cross the EMR, and cars took 

30 seconds to reverse onto the main road. The green light phase along the EMR was 

observed to be 55 seconds. Thus, if just one of these obstructions occurred, the flow 

of traffic was reduced by half. Unfortunately, a combination of such illegal 

behaviour occurred daily, especially during peak hours. 

Pedestrian movement throughout the intersection was outfitted to function 

on both automatic and actuated pedestrian phases. However, as previously 

mentioned, the latter is malfunctioning due to tampering with the pushbuttons. The 

automatic signalisation at the intersection is both concurrent and protected 

pedestrian phases, where pedestrians can cross during parallel and conflicting 

vehicular traffic and during non-conflicting movements with motorists, 

respectively, as shown in Figure 4.5. 

It was observed that the crossing signals along the EMR were defective, 

which contributed to the high rate of jaywalking, often leaving pedestrians stranded 

at the traffic island. Overall, even though the current pedestrian phase design is 

adequate, excluding the chaotic movement along the EMR, the hub user’s 

movements were often noncompliant. Thus, special attention is needed to 

accommodate the safety of pedestrians as they navigate through the junction.  

 



 

 

40 

 

 
 
Figure 4.5 Signal phasing diagram at Curepe Junction



41 
 

 

4.2.3.2 Modal Choice 

 

Within Curepe Junction, several modes of transportation were observed, 

excluding private cars. The following public transport services can be seen 

frequenting Curepe: 

 
Table 5: Curepe Junction's public transportation services 
 

 
 
Source: Images adapted from Discover Trinidad and Tobago Magazine (2020) 
 

Based on the interviews with the hub users, 38% of the travellers use the 

maxi-taxis, 21% used the taxis and “PH”, preferring the convenience and frequency 

of the “PH” taxis, and 8% used the PTSC buses, predominantly the over 65 years 

hub users. This limited use of the latter was noted as a result of the limited route and 



42 
 
unpredictable wait time. The remaining 33% of hub users used private cars to access 

the hub, admitting that they often utilise public transportation to avoid commuting 

along the traffic-ridden roads of Trinidad and benefit from a park and ride system. 

Overall, 57% of the hub users solely rely on public transportation, and the remaining 

43% utilise these services as a quick and more convenient means of transport. 

Noting that 96% of the hub users stated that they consider public transport a daily 

life necessity, regardless of having access to private transport services. 

 

4.2.3.3 The Built Environment 

 

Within the 100m study radius, 39 lots were identified. In reference to 

Trinidad and Tobago’s Town and Country Planning Division’s land use 

categorisation, four categories were identified and are detailed below. 

1. Residential land use occupies 10% of the 100m study radius. Out of this 

percentage, 45% of these residential buildings facilitate commercial 

activities on their property's ground floor, and only 9% accommodates 

apartments. 

2. Commercial land use dominates the study radius with 80%. From this 

percentage, only 6% of the commercial space is shared by residential use, 

as mentioned above, and only 7% is shared with institutional purposes. 

3. Institutional land use takes up 8% of the study radius, where only one lot 

is solely for institutional purposes, and the others are shared with 

primarily commercial space. 

4. Recreational land use caters 2% of the study radius, and these are simply 

two empty and unbuilt lots that are privately-owned. 

The above is illustrated in Figure 4.6, where one can readily identify the 

study area as a predominantly commercial one. The mixed land use lots are 

presented on the diagram as gradient colours, such as lot 5 representing commercial 

and residential land use, and lot 10 illustrating both commercial and institutional 

land use, as opposed to lot 38, which is solely being used for commercial purposes. 

The privately-owned vacant lots 11 and 22 are also represented on the diagram. 



43 
 

 
 
Figure 4.6: Land use categorisation of Curepe Junction 

 

Within the study area, the predominant businesses were food establishments, 

from fast food outlets to street food, which was closely followed by beauty 

businesses, from hair products and services to spas. A summary of the types of 

businesses in Curepe Junction is provided in Table 6, and the detailed listing of each 

lot can be found in Appendix A. 

 

 

 

 

 



44 
 
Table 6: Summary of businesses within 100m radius of Curepe Junction 
 

 
 

4.3 SSI with the Hub Users 

 

This research aims to design a space that mostly aligns with the hub user’s 

vision of Curepe Junction. Thus, Stage 3 of this research asked 100 hub users a 

series of questions, provided in Appendix B.1, to determine their views on the space. 

The questions varied, from getting to know their likes and dislikes of the area, to 

their personal experience while manoeuvring though the space. The following 

analyses the responses from the SSI. 

 

4.3.1 The Sociodemographic Factors 

 

Throughout the interview process, people were approached randomly, 

regardless of their age, race, and gender. The sociodemographic factors are 

discussed and detailed below. This random method proved to be most suitable 

because the responses provided opinions and insight from a range of backgrounds. 

Thus, ensuring that the redefined Curepe Junction can adequately satisfy the 

spectrum of hub users that use the space on any given day. 

 

 

 



45 
 
4.3.1.1 Gender and Age 

 

The ratio of male to female responders were 63:37, with the highest response 

age being 51 – 70 years for men and 31 – 50 years for women, illustrated below. 

The highest overall age group was 41 – 50 years. Overall, older men were 

enthusiastic to chat about Curepe, rehashing their nostalgic stories and current 

experiences. 

 

 
 
Figure 4.7: Sociodemographic data: Gender and age 
 

 

4.3.1.2 Occupation 

 

Using the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) as a 

guide, the following chart represents the response gender to occupation. The highest 

response rate was from retirees, presumably because their time was more flexible, 

and they were able to discuss Curepe in detail instead of busy working hub users. 

Aside from the retirees, the male trade workers and the female professionals were 

the second-highest amongst the grouping. 



46 
 

 
 
Figure 4.8: Sociodemographic data: Gender and occupation 
 

 

4.3.1.3 Service Areas 

 

When observing a transportation hub, one identifies the hub’s service areas. 

Based on the data below, it was anticipated that the predominant areas centred 

around the junction, within the Tunapuna/ Piarco region. The common regions 

identified were Curepe and St. Joseph, where 19% of the surveyed population 

resides in Curepe, and 20% resides in St. Joseph. 



47 
 

 

 
 
Figure 4.9: Sociodemographic data: Gender and region 

 
 
Figure 4.10: Sociodemographic data: Service areas 
 



48 
 
4.3.2 Perception of Curepe Junction 

 

This research is based on the hub user’s point of view of Curepe; thus, the 

first question targeted their general attitude towards Curepe Junction. This question 

was intentionally vague to encourage a range of answers. However, ironically, the 

majority of the responses were similar, addressing the amenities, safety concerns, 

and tone of Curepe. Below presents the reoccurring attributes of Curepe Junction, 

as expressed by the hub users, with the bold and uppercase words being the most 

prevalent responses. 

 
 
Figure 4.11: Key perceptions of Curepe Junction 

 



49 
 

When asked the purpose of their trip, predictably, 40% of the responses were 

using the transport services found throughout Curepe. It is important to note that 

only one female visited Curepe to relax and socialise and later rated her feeling of 

safety as acceptable. This was a rare response from a female’s perspective compared 

to the accumulated data from the other females during the surveys. 

 
 
Figure 4.12: Purpose of trip 

 

In terms of Curepe Junction being pedestrian-friendly, 52% of the hub users 

deemed the junction not pedestrian-friendly. The remaining 48% said that even 

though the pedestrian facilities were unsatisfactory, and upgrades were needed, the 

people of Curepe and the overall atmosphere made them feel welcome. This 

response coincided with the researcher’s observation of the area, where the hub 

users made the furnishings work for them, as best as they could, and were generally 

pleasant to one another, which contributed to the overall tolerable pedestrian 

experience. Regarding riding a bicycle through Curepe Junction, 83% of the hub 

users would rather walk or drive through the area, regardless of proper and secure 

biking facilities. This eliminates the need for biking accommodations throughout 

the junction, which ironically is a common inclusion to hubs in international design 

guidebooks (City of Boston. BTP 2013; The City of Calgary. CTD 2014; NACTO 

2016).  

 



50 
 
4.3.3 Perception of the Elements of Curepe Junction 

 

The hub users were asked to rate 17 TEUD elements throughout Curepe 

Junction. The charts below detail the responses of each element, pinpointing the 

overall predominant ranking per element, depicted in Figure 4.13. To further explore 

trends between the demographics, this overall predominant ranking was then 

compared with predominant ranking amongst the responders’ age groups and 

gender, presented in Figure 4.14 and Figure 4.15 respectively. 

According to Decker (2018), Likert data should never be averaged but 

preferably summarised by determining the most recurring ranking. This technique 

justly reflects the feedback because the responses are ranked on a five-point 

numbering scale for convenience and are then converted to the user’s agreement or 

disagreement on an item. Values were only averaged when the most frequently rank 

were equally split. For example, in Figure 4.14, the connectivity element for the 51 

to 70 age group was ranked 3.5 because 13 people voted for an acceptable 

connectivity and 13 people voted for Curepe Junction having good connectivity. 

Predictably, hub users ranked 10 of the 17 elements as overall acceptable. 

This could be because change and development are so uncommon to Curepe that 

pedestrians have accepted how things are. Either way, people traditionally tend to 

offer neutral responses, especially for busy hub users who may not feel passionate 

about certain aspects of Curepe Junction. Even though some of these hub users 

generally gave very surface-level responses for the remaining questions, some 

further expressed their views on the latter questions, which varied slightly from their 

original ranking. Thus, even though a Likert scale and yes/ no questions are 

expeditious and straightforward for such scenarios covered in this research, it is 

good practice to include open-ended questions that further touched on the main 

elements the researcher wishes to examine. 

 



 
 

 

51 

 
 
Figure 4.13: TEUD element ranking 

 

Likert Scale Rating: 1 = Very Poor; 2 = Poor; 3 = Acceptable; 4 = Good and 5 = Excellent 



 
 

52 

 

 
 
Figure 4.14: TEUD element ranking based on age 

Likert Scale Rating: 1 = Very Poor; 2 = Poor; 3 = Acceptable; 4 = Good and 5 = Excellent 



 
 

53 

 
 
Figure 4.15:TEUD element ranking based on gender

Likert Scale Rating: 1 = Very Poor; 2 = Poor; 3 = Acceptable; 4 = Good and 5 = Excellent 



54 
 

 

Below elaborates on the overall elements, predominantly ranked below 3 in 

the charts above, deeming these elements as problematic and would be addressed in 

the redesign of Curepe Junction. 

 

4.3.3.1 Accessibility 

 

Regarding accessibility for the elderly and people with disabilities, it was 

clear that Curepe Junction does not adequately cater to such hub users. 64% of 

pedestrians ranked this element as very poor. This score was predominant regardless 

of age or gender. The younger pedestrians stated that they often need to assist the 

disabled and older hub users because the facilities around Curepe are virtually non-

existent. Many older hub users complained that the ramps leading to the CTM lead 

to stairs, which defeated the purpose of the ramps. Additionally, aside from the 

poorly designed and vendor-blocked ramps, many hub users commented on the 

uneven and dangerous sidewalks with exposed and broken manhole covers. Even 

highlighting the hazardous drainage drops and overall discontinuity of sidewalks 

throughout the hub, forcing them to walk along the roads. 

On conversing with a visually impaired traveller, he indicated the presence 

of no audio indicators throughout Curepe that would ideally allow him to manoeuvre 

through Curepe freely. Instead, he must rely on a sighted person to assist him. Based 

on initial observations, it came as no surprise that this element ranked low, for these 

inconveniences can be frustrating and make for a very daunting and unpleasant 

commute; thus, this item must be addressed in the design guidelines. 

 

4.3.3.2 Cleanliness 

 

44% of people ranked the cleanliness of Curepe Junction as very poor, with 

31% of people ranking the cleanliness as acceptable, predominantly from the 51 – 

70 age group, and the majority of the female responders ranking the cleanliness as 

poor. These varied responses could be based on the days the interviews were done, 

where the county recently cleaned, and where the interviewer was standing. The 



55 
 
majority of the 51 – 70 age group was found around the CTM, which was generally 

kept clean, hence their response. 

Based on the observed space and the key perception responses of Curepe 

referencing the space as “dirty and smelly,” it was anticipated that majority of the 

hub users would rank this element low. The cleanliness and maintenance of the 

junction require consistency. 

 

4.3.3.3 Driving Behaviour 

 

This element questions the pedestrian’s view on the drivers’ behaviour as 

they attempt to cross the street. The driving behaviour element was perceived by 

36% of the responders as poor, and 31% as very poor. As mentioned previously, 

pedestrians often jaywalk throughout Curepe, due to malfunctioning signalised 

crossings or insufficient crosswalks, creating a clash between modes on the road. 

Hub users were very vocal when asked to elaborate on why they ranked this element 

low, stating that Curepe can be very dangerous to people on foot and better facilities 

need to be implemented to protect the pedestrians. 

When asked about the pedestrians crossing habits, 54% admitted to crossing 

wherever and whenever they got the chance, while 28% claimed to use the crosswalk 

sometimes when working but would quicker resort to jaywalking. Some hub users 

even questioned the locations of the crosswalks, noting that most of the road 

markings were faded and not placed more frequently. Since crossing the streets of 

Curepe was such a task, the hub users were asked if they thought a walkover would 

be beneficial. Unfortunately, 73% of the pedestrians disagreed, stating that it would 

be a waste of infrastructure and would cross whenever they got a chance. 

This high percentage of negative responses must be addressed in redesigning 

the space to satisfy the 52% of hub users that deemed Curepe Junction as 

automobile-centric and make the Curepe Junction work for all its users. Since a 

pedestrian overpass design was eliminated, the guidelines must cater for an effective 

means to protect the pedestrians and not cause any further delays to the drivers. 

 



56 
 
4.3.3.4 Information Accessibility 

 

Throughout the junction, the lack of transportation services information 

made this element the second-highest ranked element voted as “very poor”. The hub 

users stating that people working in the CTM are often clueless and are of no help. 

Novelty travellers seek information directly from the drivers of the transport 

services or people waiting for transport. 

Generally, people visiting Curepe know their way around, or have some idea 

of the layout. Even though the CTM station signage is visible, the commuters 

complained about its poor positioning, sizing, and schedules and mapped routes. 

Additionally, travellers stated that the buses and maxis do not comply with the 

guides available via the Public Transport Service Corporation (PTSC) of Trinidad 

and Tobago’s website. 

In addition to travel routes, travellers commented that the CTM does not 

supply tickets for the PTSC buses and mentioned that they must cross the ever-busy 

EMR to purchase their passes. These inconveniences suggest that facilities and 

accommodations must be made to make the hub users’ commute smoother. 

 

4.3.3.5 Safety  

 

59% of the responders deemed Curepe Junction unsafe, while 30% ranked 

their safety throughout Curepe as acceptable, with the caveat being solely during 

daylight. This acceptable ranking primarily originates from the 51 – 70 age 

grouping, who limit their movement around the CTM. This response was expected 

based on the data received from CAPA and the news reports about Curepe Junction. 

The hub users suggested that more police presence be implemented, 

questioning why the mobile police unit stationed at the hub was removed a few years 

ago. Upon interviewing the Sergeant at the St. Joseph Police Station, just 500m from 

the hub, he noted that the mobile unit was simply a temporary fixture and is 

dispatched on an as-needed basis. 



57 
 

After expressing the outcry by the hub users for more on foot police patrols 

within the junction, he stated that they currently do not have the manpower but noted 

that they conduct random patrols during the morning and lunch periods. However, 

for the duration of the study period of Curepe, the latter was not observed. 

 

4.3.3.6 Seating 

 

Accessibility to comfortable and convenient seating accommodations was 

the third-highest ranked element voted as “very poor.” Proper seating 

accommodations were only provided within the CTM, which faced away from the 

PBR. Travellers noted that they often had to leave their seats every couple of 

minutes to check on the arrival of their transport, so most times, they preferred to 

stand and wait, in fear of missing their ride. The only seating accommodations 

available along the PBR were the red bars discussed in Section 4.2.2 The 

Furnishings. 

 

4.3.3.7 Shelter 

 

Shelter from the sun and rain throughout the junction was deemed very poor 

by 35% of the hub users, with a close 33% of the hub users ranking the shelter as 

accessible. Similar to the cleanliness element, this response varied based on the 

location of the interview. Excluding the comfort of the CTM’s shelter, people caught 

in the rain were often stranded hovering outside of the commercial buildings, which 

were often awning-free. 

Pedestrians mentioned that they were frequently chased from sheltering 

within commercial spaces, leaving them exposed to the elements. Upon further 

discussions with people within these commercial spaces, the awning-free design, 

even though it would shelter innocent hub users, they would encourage street 

dwellers to seek refuge and litter their storefront spaces, deterring potential 

customers. Thus, an innovative approach is needed to address the shelter issues, 

satisfying the pedestrians and the businesses. 



58 
 
4.3.3.8 Other Elements 

 

There were noteworthy positive attributes of Curepe Junction, such as the 

connectivity of the space and the frequency of transportation services. The 

consensus was that the layout of Curepe Junction allowed for good pedestrian flow. 

From exiting buses at the PBR to accessing taxis, private vehicles, and businesses 

within walking distance from the CTM. They agreed that improvements were 

needed for the hub to function as intended. However, 91% of the hub users naturally 

considered themselves a way-finder, meaning that regardless of the signage and 

accessibility issues, they can improvise and get where they need to be. 

 

4.3.4 Perception of Convenience 

 

Based on the SSI responses, 45% of the hub users preferred to walk no more 

than 5 minutes to facilities around Curepe. As expected, the most frequented 

locations were food and baked goods, groceries, and pharmacy. Upon reviewing the 

layout of the space, referencing Figure 4.6, these places of interest centre around the 

CTM. 

Additionally, even though the hub users consider the junction convenient 

and often patronise the businesses in the area, they were asked what inclusions they 

would implement to the junction. The most common responses were for better 

dining and shopping options, noting that the current businesses were very 

unappealing and often filthy. Younger hub users suggested accommodations for 

recreational activities such as an arcade or training facility. The older hub users 

suggested the addition of government agencies to facilitate day to day transactions 

at such a central location as Curepe. 

70% of the hub users were unaware of the businesses within the CTM. They 

described the mall as uninviting, admitting to using the ground floor as a 

thoroughfare. The mall can accommodate 30 tenants, but only 10 of the 30 units 

were occupied. Upon further communications with a CTM vendor, occupying her 

booth for almost 30 years, potential vendors are deterred by the low foot traffic 



59 
 
throughout the mall and the ever-increasing rent. She emphasised that for her, the 

mall is convenient and safe. 

On the contrary, when conversing with street vendors about occupying a unit 

within the CTM, they stated that they were sceptical about the affordability of the 

commercial spaces and were unfamiliar with the application process. 

The CTM has potential, and with the encouragement and guidance from such 

optimistic CTM’s tenants, the space can fulfil some of the requests from the hub 

users for added facilities within the junction and reclaim the sidewalks for 

pedestrians. This improvement can embody the Portals to Places concept, 

prioritising the basic needs of the hub users within a five-minute walking radius 

from the hub. 

 

4.3.4.1 Walkability of Curepe Junction 

 

The following section determines the walkability of Curepe Junction, 

loosely mimicking the patented Walk Score (2007) and The Partnership for a 

Walkable America (2015). This Walkability Assessment Toolkit (WAT) was 

developed to determining a quick and simple check for Curepe Junction. 

- Step 1: Determine the comfortable walking time for the hub users. 

Based on the SSI, the preferred walking time was 5 minutes or less. 

 

- Step 2: Rank the proximity of the following amenities from 1 – 5. The highest 

score, 5, is given to amenities within 5 minutes or less from the CTM. The 

nodes of interest determined by the hub users. 

For example, 30% of the hub users mentioned St. Mary’s Bakery as a go-to 

destination; thus, the bakery is a node of interest. St. Mary’s Bakery is just 

across the EMR from the CTM; thus, the score is 5. 

 

 

 

 



60 
 
Table 7: WAT: Nodes of interest score 
 

 

- Step 3: Allow the hub users to rank the current walking facilities. The 

predominant scores, detailed previously in Figure 4.13, highlight the highest 

score, 5, as favourable/ excellent walking conditions. 

 
Table 8: WAT: Walking facilities 
 

 
 

- Step 4: Determine the walk score. 

 

Based on the calculated data above and the Walk Score® table below, the 

Walk Score of Curepe Junction is 65, meaning the space is somewhat 

walkable, where some of life’s activities can be accomplished on foot within 

a 5-minute radius.  



61 
 

 
 
Figure 4.16: Walk Score® ranking 
 
Source: Walk Score (2007) 

 

4.3.5 Perception of Historical Preservation and Aesthetics 

 

In Curepe, the only homage to its origins is an unnoticed plaque within the 

CTM that only 3% of the interviewed were knowledgeable of. The fascinating 

evolution of transport services in Trinidad are not celebrated throughout such central 

hubs as Curepe Junction. Many of the older hub users mentioned the “good old 

days” and expressed their compassion for the younger generation, who are not privy 

to such historical information. 67% of the hub users indicated that they were 

unaware of the origins of Curepe Junction, and 87% of the total hub users expressed 

their desire to have some form of historic preservation celebrated throughout the 

hub.  

When discussing the aesthetic of Curepe Junction, 43% of the hub users 

ranked the appearance as just acceptable, with an outstanding 80% of the hub users 

expressing their desire to see more greenery added to the junction, whether it is for 

shade, fruit trees to feed the wildlife and socially displaced, or just for added 

curbside appeal. Aside from curbside beauty, 87% of the hub users stated that the 

recent CTM paint job uplifted their mood while travelling and brightened the dull 

Curepe Junction. Overall, the majority of the interviewees wish to see more art 

added to beautify the hub. Some beautification suggestions were to celebrate local 

art along the walls of the PBR leading up to the CTM, functioning as a point of 

reference for travellers, alerting them that their stop is approaching. 



62 
 

In correlation to appearance, overall cleanliness plays a pivotal contributing 

factor. The significant components hampering the cleanliness of the junction are the 

garbage and drainage issues experienced throughout the hub due to the socially 

displaced and poor maintenance by the Regional Corporation. The hub users pointed 

out the wickedness of the homeless who roam the hub, stating that they litter and 

scatter the garbage, often purposely clogging the manhole covers and drains. This 

malicious behaviour encourages vermin and flooding, emitting foul scents 

throughout the hub. This deterrent has severe ramifications on businesses and 

livelihood, often discouraging people from venturing throughout the hub. 92% of 

the interviewees expressed the need to rectify this issue by implementing design 

features, often referred to as hostile architecture, to deter the homeless from 

destroying Curepe Junction. The remaining 8% understands that something must be 

done to improve the space but suggests developing a collective organisation to 

relocate and assist these street dwellers. Surprisingly, irrespective of the 

abovementioned concerns, an unexpected 49% of the hub users stated that they 

would still visit the hub during their leisure. Expressing that the hub still attracts 

them for food, socialising or even just relaxing and taking in the activities. Even 

though the poll was divided, the statistic demonstrates the appeal and the potential 

of Curepe Junction when redefined. 

 

4.3.6 Perception of Change 

 

One of the main gaps in the development of hubs in Trinidad and Tobago is 

the lack of user involvement and transparency in the development process. When 

questioned if the hub users were ever surveyed, 95% stated that they had not, while 

5% stated that the surveys they participated in focused on acquiring 

sociodemographic information. 

Regarding formal communication, if the hub users had issues with Curepe, 

90% did not know where to go or whom to address. Out of the remaining 10%, only 

one person made a formal suggestion to the councillor to repaint the CTM. 



63 
 

Regarding hub users’ involvement towards future development, 40% 

declined. They believed that it would be a waste of their time, or by the time their 

suggestions became a reality, they would be long gone before they experience it. 

The remaining 60% expressed their keen interest in participating in change, 

ideally suggesting community meetings to keep abreast of plans and weigh in on 

issues they have experienced. When asked why it was important for the hub users 

to have a say, the most common responses and reoccurring themes are presented 

below. 

 

 
 
Figure 4.17: Importance of input by the hub users 
 

Based on the responses in the figure above, it is evident that the most 

qualified people who should inform the redesign of any space are the people who 

have the most involvement with the space itself. The commuters, the workers, the 

businesses owners, and the residence are the people who have experienced every 



64 
 
flaw and strength within the study area. Thus, concluding that a researcher/ 

bystander cannot accurately interpret the problematic elements within a study area 

by oneself. 

 

4.4 Summarising the problematic TEUD Elements 

 

Overall, based on the charts and discussions above, it is interpreted that the 

issues faced by the hub users are predominantly universal, regardless of the hub 

user’s age, gender, and background. Below summarises the problematic TEUD 

elements that would be addressed in the following chapter. 

• The People - Even though there is a sense of community, some hub users 

sensed a disconnect between the different social groups. Community 

building tactics can prove beneficial. In addition to strengthening the 

community feel within Curepe, the major concern that must be addressed is 

the crime and abundance of illegal activities that occur in the area. 

• The Furnishings - There were many minor furnishing issues addressed 

above, such as the lack of shelter, visual appeal, maintenance, seating 

accommodations, signage, and information accessibility within the CTM, to 

name a few, that collectively compromised the overall user experience. This 

TEUD element catered for most of the issues faced by the hub users within 

the hub, deeming it the most problematic core element. 

• The Network – The immediate concern from the hub users regarding the 

network was the poorly designed and damaged sidewalks. They stressed that 

the redesign must be safer and more accessible for all hub users. The 

crosswalk facilities also need to be revised to reduce/ eliminate potentially 

dangerous jaywalking behaviours. Apart from the pedestrian network, 

accommodations should be made for parking facilities and a designated bus 

bay to mitigate the delays along the main roads. 

  



65 
 

CHAPTER 5  

 

CUREPE DESIGN GUIDELINES  

 

This chapter aims to develop design guidelines utilising the theories and 

concepts considered throughout this research to address the problematic elements 

identified by the hub users. The following sections present guidelines to improve 

and redesign the three core TEUD elements: The People, The Furnishings and The 

Network.  

The following are the key sources of material used to develop the guidelines: 

• Guide to Developers and Applicants for Planning Permission (1988) 

• Boston Complete Street (2013) 

• Trinidad and Tobago Highway Code (2013) 

• Urban Street Design Guide (2013) 

• Calgary Transportation Plan and Complete Streets (2014) 

• Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act Chapter 48:50 (2016) 

• Transit Street Design Guide (2016) 

• A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2018) 

• San Francisco Urban Design Guidelines (2018) 

• Traffic Signs Manual (2021) 

• Project for Public Spaces (2021a) 

• What Makes a Successful Place? (2021b) 

 

 



66 
 

 

5.1 Building a Community 

 

The hub users, specifically the people who work and live in the area, 

indicated that Curepe lacked a sense of community and disconnect in 

communication. Additionally, they had creative ideas and suggestions to improve 

the hub but did not know to whom to address their concerns. The CDG suggests 

establishing committees and cooperatives such as: 

1. The Curepe Business Committee – In charge of providing a platform 

for business owners and employees of the Curepe to express their 

concerns. 

2. The Traveller and Residential Committee - In charge of providing a 

platform for regular travellers and residents of the Curepe to express 

their concerns. 

3. The Curepe Hub Co-op – A collective of the above two groups where 

main concerns and problems can be resolved or addressed, that cannot 

be otherwise resolved in their respective committees. Issues such as 

late garbage collection, pests and rodent control, malfunctioning 

traffic/ pedestrian devices, broken and exposed manhole covers, and 

crime can be discussed. It would be beneficial to introduce liaisons 

within The Ministry of Rural Development and Local Government, 

Municipal Corporation, Curepe Junction’s Councillor and the TTPS. 

 

By developing such committees, with multiple stakeholders, a range of 

problems and solutions can be resolved. Once such committees and co-ops are 

established and functioning as an effective avenue to vocalize and resolve concerns, 

for this initiative to be sustainable, there must be a sense of community pride. 

 

 

 

 



67 
 

To foster such pride, members can partake in community building activities 

and tactics, such as: 

1. Fundraisers to generate financial resources for community-based 

projects. 

2. Beautification programs including ensuring the streets are litter-free, 

creating community art and minor maintenance of street furnishings. 

3. Recreational activities such as card tournaments. Along the Brian 

Lara Promenade in Port of Spain, the older folks meet to play card 

games. 

4. Workshops that can be held in CTM to share trades and crafts. 

5. Mentorship programs to encourage and motivate the street dwellers 

of Curepe. These programs can be administered by business owners, 

longstanding tenants of the CTM and respected pillars of Curepe. The 

initiation of such programs can potentially reduce crime and 

congestion along the sidewalks. 

 

The above-listed tactics are visually illustrated in Figure 5.1. An additional 

benefit of an enhanced sense of community, is the feeling of safety. Two main 

perceptions of Curepe Junction were fear and unsafe. By instilling a neighbourly 

environment, hub users can feel safer navigating through the hub, knowing they are 

in an area where the community shows pride in the hub and looks out for one 

another. 

In addition to establishing a community, an increased presence of law 

enforcement was the most suggested improvement for Curepe Junction. The CDG 

suggests acquiring consistent and frequent police patrol to prohibit the lawless 

attitude of the hub, such as but not limited to delays in traffic due to illegal street 

parking; abrupt maxi stops and jaywalking; vandalism and littering; and illegal street 

vending. 



68 
 

 
 
Figure 5.1: Enhancing a sense of community 
 
Source: Image (a) Elmaleh (2017); Image (b) Michigan Economic Development Corporation 

(2018); Image (d) Invasive (2019) 
 

5.2 Improving the Furnishings 

 

75% of hub users’ recommendations were directed to improving the 

furnishings of Curepe. This section suggests features to improve and add furnishings 

to the hub to make the space work better for its users. 

 

5.2.1 Signage and Accessibility 

 

One of the major concerns was that the hub lacked accessibility, whether for 

information or features, to aid the elderly and differently-abled. This section details 

two categories of signage: traffic signs and information signs and recommending 

improvements for user accessibility. 



69 
 
5.2.1.1 Traffic Signs 

 

The general design principles for traffic signs are that they should be: 

1. Designed to meet foreseeable traffic conditions and speeds. 

2. Suitably conspicuously designed and located so that they would 

engage the attention of drivers and pedestrians at a safe distance to 

enable them to take appropriate actions. 

3. Instantly recognizable as traffic control devices. 

4. Contain essential information as clearly as possible at a glance. 

5. Legible at a sufficient distance to avoid averting the driver’s eyes at 

angles beyond the line of sight. 

6. Effective, regardless of the time of day and weather conditions. 

 

Traffic signs throughout Curepe should be designed per the Trinidad and 

Tobago Highway Code (2013) and the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act 

Chapter 48:50 (2016). Where current signs do not comply with the code, they should 

be reviewed. Recommended details for traffic signs can be found in Appendix C, 

inclusive of yellow globes, which should be installed at crosswalks away from 

signalised traffic. This ensures that sufficient warning is given to approaching 

drivers and guides the pedestrians at night. 

 

5.2.1.2 Information Signs 

 

Informative signs around Curepe are placed in obscure locations, often 

missed by the hub users. In addition to the poorly placed signs, there is an absence 

of signs regarding transport routes, schedules, cost of fares and nearby amenities. 

Despite 91% of the hub users identified as way-finders, unfamiliar travellers must 

rely on other hub users or their smart devices for assistance. Adapted from the 

Signage Guideline by The University of New South Wales (2016), the CDG 

recommends the following guidelines to encourage visitors to explore the hub on 

their own and make manoeuvring through Curepe more convenient and comfortable.  



70 
 
• For the installation and maintenance, signs should be: 

1. Glass Reinforced Plastic, or similar quality material, is recommended 

due to its vandal-proof features, as well as its high impact resistance. 

2. Positioned and erected so that they do not create a hazard.  

3. Cleaned regularly and kept in good condition. 

4. Removed and replaced immediately once the information on the sign 

is no longer relevant or outdated, or the sign becomes damaged or 

illegible. 

 

• For the visibility of the signs, they should be: 

1. Adequately illuminated with natural or artificial light so that signs are 

legible at night or on gloomy days. 

2. Distinctly designed to engage the attention of the hub users and 

legible. 

3. Contain essential information as clearly as possible. 

 

• For the positioning of the signs, they should be: 

1. Mounted as close as practicable to the observer’s line of sight. 

2. Strategically located to allow hub users ample time after viewing the 

sign to make their decisions accordingly. 

3. Placed on permanent structures, however, if placed on moveable 

objects, such as doors, the change in position would not obstruct the 

purpose of the sign or cause it to be obscured. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



71 
 

Where current information signs, such as taxi route signs and CTM bus bay 

signs, do not meet the requirements listed above, they should be replaced, updated, 

or relocated according to the CDG. The table and images below represent conceptual 

ideas for informational signs that can aid travellers of Curepe Junction. 

 
Table 9: Information sign placement 
 



 

 

72 

 
 
Figure 5.2: Maxi-taxi route map 
 
Source: The Public Transport Improvement Group of Trinidad & Tobago (2015) 

 

 
 
Figure 5.3: Information checkpoint 
 
Source: Zhuang (2020)  



73 
 

 

5.2.1.3 Accessibility 

 

Providing posted schedules may not always be a feasible option for all the 

public transportation modes throughout Curepe. Due to constant delays experienced 

by the hub users regarding the PTSC buses, provisions for information accessibility 

to its riders can be accommodated via the inclusion of a tracking application, similar 

to Uber or TT RideShare. PTSC or a third-party designer can develop this 

application to accommodate real-time public transportation tracking services. This 

service can be accessed via smartphones or digital screens within the CTM. Such 

recommendations can progress into providing the hub users with public Wi-Fi, 

charging ports and live radio broadcast within the hub, as illustrated below. 

 

 
Figure 5.4: Intelligent transportation system: Bus shelter 
 
Source: Adapted from The Freedom Press (2018) and Compare and Recycle (2019) 
 

The design should promote an inclusive environment. The surveys and field 

observations identified Curepe’s ADA compliance shortcomings. A hub would not 

truly be accessible without its obligation to mandate ADA compliance. Thus, the 

CDG recommends the following accommodations targeted for the comfort of the 

elderly and disabled hub users. 



74 
 

1. Ensure all sidewalks accommodates a minimum 1.2m wide clear pedestrian 

zone. 

2. Include Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) at all crosswalks, such as 

audible tones and vibrotactile surfaces to inform users when the cross signals 

have been activated. 

3. Ensure ADA compliant warning pad are included at all transit and stair 

landings, and crosswalk curb ramps directly linked to the CTM. 

4. Ensure handrails are placed at all stairs throughout the hub. 

 

 
 
Figure 5.5: ADA compliant intersection 
 
Source: Adapted from Ingimage (n.d.) 

 



75 
 
5.2.2 Comfort and Image 

 

5.2.2.1 Shading Elements 

 

The heat, humidity and rain experienced at Curepe Junction can be very 

uncomfortable for pedestrians. The modern façade building designs further 

exacerbated the uncomfortable walking experience throughout Curepe. Business 

owners prefer these flat-faced building designs to discourage street dwellers, but at 

what cost to the hub users? Based on the hub user’s feedback, there must be a 

compromise. 

The CDG suggest including shading elements such as building overhangs, 

awnings and street trees with hostile architecture, illustrated below. Subtle hostile 

architecture techniques, such as raised cobblestones and tree barriers, facilitate 

functionality by allowing unimpeded pedestrian movement while prohibiting the 

socially displaced from sleeping and loitering around these shelter zones. 

 

 
 
Figure 5.6: Streetscape: Shelter 
 
Source: Adapted from Deniscristo (n.d.) 
 

 



76 
 

By controlling the microclimate of Curepe, pedestrians can comfortably 

shop and explore Curepe. This inclusion can boost businesses further from the 

transit hub and encourage the relocation and dispersion of street vendors. Thus, 

reducing the clutter surrounding the CTM and reclaiming the pedestrian zones along 

the sidewalks. 

 

5.2.2.2 Greenscape Design 

Including greenery, such as trees and shrubs, to streets, referred to as 

greenscape by Boston Transportation Department (2013, 47), can help foster an 

enjoyable pedestrian experience through the space whilst creating an aesthetically 

pleasing and sustainable environment. Introducing greenscaping into Curepe is a 

means of optimizing the use of the street space and reclaiming sidewalk space in the 

form of road/ lane diets. In addition to giving Curepe Junction character and shade, 

strategic greenscape designs can reduce energy consumption, stormwater build-up, 

and filter and absorb greenhouse gases and airborne pollutants. Greenscape designs 

can also balance the hostile design elements throughout the hub by providing fruit 

trees for the socially displaced, as suggested by the hub users. 

The inclusion of greenscape design also acts as a traffic and pedestrian 

calming measure. Instead of traditional barricades and bollards, strategically placed 

greenscaping is an inexpensive and visually pleasing control tactic to guide 

pedestrian footpaths.  

Thus, the CDG recommends the following: 

1. Ensure the greenscape compliments the adjacent elements and do not 

obstruct features such as business entryways, pedestrian zones and 

should be a minimum of 3m from bus stop landing zones. 

2. Include a “raised tree bed” designs outside the CTM, facing the PBR. 

There is an excess of space between the CTM and PBR. By introducing 

a lane diet, the space can comfortably accommodate greenscaping and 

seating. This design recommendation allows travellers to have an 

unobstructed view of the PBR, while providing shade and seating 



77 
 

accommodations. Thus, creating a relaxing and comfortable setting for 

captive transit users. 

3. Ensure the design incorporates hostile architecture along the seats and 

is designed for a minimum recommended bed height of is 0.5m. 

4. Activate the central median/ island along the EMR with plantings and/ 

street trees. Including greenscape along the EMR will restrict 

jaywalking and shift all pedestrian crossings to the designated 

crosswalks. Additional enforcement can be to include barricades 

bordering the centre median. 

5. Introduce bioswales at curbs that experience ponding. Bioswales are 

shallow depressions in the landscape to capture, treat, and infiltrate 

stormwater runoff. The bioswale vegetation should be diverse, with 

minimum maintenance requirements. 

6. Include fruit trees into the landscape to help feed the socially displaced. 

7. Ensure all greenscape elements are well maintained to preserve 

visibility throughout the junction and discourage hotspots. 

8. Ensure all trees and vegetation added are barricaded to prevent  

pedestrian interference.  

 

Recommended local trees and conceptual images can be found in Appendix C. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



78 
 
5.2.2.3 Celebrating Character 

 

Hubs of every community should showcase the unique character and culture 

of the area. The public realm should be not only inclusive and accessible but also 

interactive and engaging. Incorporating art at such a busy transportation hub like 

Curepe, entertains the captive transit users; thus, enhancing the overall pedestrian 

experience. 

The following guidelines seek to incorporate public art to celebrate and 

enhance the character of Curepe Junction. The CDG recommends the following: 

1. Before executing public art projects, committee meetings should be 

held to discuss and approve all potential projects with the respective 

artist/s. Additionally, committees can host yearly art competitions to 

inspire community involvement, preserving a designated wall for the 

winner to beautify. 

2. Incorporate sanctioned public art along the PBR walls leading up to the 

CTM. 

3. Incorporate sanctioned art, such as sculptures, paintings, and interactive 

art, within or along the CTM. Such displays of art can relay Curepe and/ 

Trinidad and Tobago’s history and culture. These inclusions provide 

entertainment for the captive transit user, and also encourages passers-

by to visit the CTM. Thus, establishing an inviting transit mall for 

potential business/ tenants.  

4. Incorporate art along abandoned buildings throughout the hub. 



 

 

79 

 

Figure 5.7: Conceptual images for public art



80 
 

 

Figure 5.7 presents conceptual images of public art around Trinidad and 

Tobago. The images range from ideas for parading competition winners to 

sculptures honouring Trinidad and Tobago’s culture and achievements. The CTM 

can be embellished with similar visuals to showcasing the history of transportation 

services in Trinidad and Tobago, such as the trams and trolleybuses. 

With the inclusion of public art throughout the hub, Curepe Junction can 

experience a plethora of opportunities and benefits such as: 

1. Encourage and provide a constructive avenue for the younger 

generation to express themselves artistically. 

2. Foster respect, stewardship, and pride towards the image of Curepe. 

Essentially, the greater the visual appeal of a space, the less inclined 

people are to litter and vandalise the space. 

3. Encourage hub users to partake in community and committee 

activities. 

4. Create conversational pieces, boosting the sociability of the hub. 

5. Create educational opportunities, not only for the 87% of hub users 

who expressed their keen interest in the history of Curepe or past 

transportation systems, but for all future passers-by. 

6. Strengthen the sui generis nature of Curepe Junction, allowing Curepe 

to be distinguishable from the other PTSC Transit Malls. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



81 
 
5.2.2.4 Litter Free Streets 

 

The streets and drainage systems of Curepe Junction are consistently 

polluted by garbage. The litter is typically caused by socially displaced people 

scattering the garbage searching for food or littering by hub users. The CDG 

presents the following recommendations to improve the cleanliness of the hub, 

accompanied by conceptual images: 
 

1. Strategically locate trash receptacles near crosswalks and bus stops. 

2. Distributed garbage bins, at a maximum distance of 70m, along the streets 

of large commercial buildings, such as the CTM and Lot 29: TT Connect. 

3. Ensure a clearing space of 0.5m around each bin is maintained. 

4. Ensure all public bins are securely enclosed with flaring tops to limit/ 

prohibit socially displaced people, rodents, and stray animals from easily 

accessing the garbage. 

5. Ensure bins are securely bolted to the sidewalks. Such bins should rest on 

structural soil to allow for the treatment and infiltration of waste liquids. 

6. Ensure bins are cleaned weekly to avoid still water build-up. 

 
Figure 5.8: Conceptual images of garbage bins 
 
Source: Image (a) ACC Recycling Division (n.d.); Image (b) Canova (2012); Image (c) Mill 

Valley (2015) 



82 
 
5.3 Redefining the Network 

 

5.3.1 The Sidewalk 

 

The CDG aims to connect the sidewalks and while ensuring the design 

complies with ADA requirements. Upon observing the footpaths of the hub users, 

the sidewalks often abruptly end, forcing the pedestrian to share the streets with 

drivers. This dangerous design, coupled with the poorly maintained sidewalk 

surfaces, resulted in hub users ranking this element problematic. 

The CDG recommends the following improvements and inclusions for the 

sidewalks throughout Curepe, accompanied by conceptual images: 

1. Ensure all sidewalk surface elements such as manhole covers and service 

boxes sits flush with the pedestrian walking path. Regularly maintain the 

surface elements, repairing and/ replacing damaged covers where necessary. 

If the damaged concrete manhole covers persist, consider using cast iron 

manhole cover. 

In the theme of activating the sidewalks and celebrating the character of 

Curepe, popular footpaths, for example, from the CTM to the doubles 

vendors and Chaguanas maxi-taxi stands along Havlock Street, can be 

guided by ornate manhole covers, similar to the markers along the Freedom 

Trail, in Boston, Massachusetts. Localised versions can showcase national 

emblems and birds, or even imagery of past transportation services like the 

trams. 

2. Ensure all major sidewalks, i.e. along the EMR, PBR and SMR, measure a 

clear minimum pedestrian zone width of 1.5m. 

3. Ensure all minor sidewalks, i.e. along Riverside Road, Evans Street, Sellier 

Street and Broome Street, measure a clear minimum pedestrian zone width 

of 1.2m. 

4. Ensure all the streets are equipped with sidewalks on either side, where 

applicable. 



83 
 

5. Ensure all curb openings for inlet drains have gratings to prevent unwanted 

debris and trash from entering the drainage system. 

 

 
 
Figure 5.9: Conceptual images for sidewalk design 
 
Source: Image (a) D. (2013); Image (b) Ma'ruf (2019) 
 

5.3.2 The Crosswalk 

 

Based on the findings, it is evident that the crosswalks throughout the hub 

needed upgrading and expanding to improve the flow of movement throughout the 

hub. The CDG recommends the following upgrades to the crosswalks throughout 

Curepe: 

1. Ensure all major sidewalks are connected by marked crosswalks. 

2. Each crosswalk at the signalised Curepe Junction should be equipped with 

the following: 

• Zebra crossing/ continental road markings, which should be installed 

at each leg of the signalised intersections. 

• Stop line at a minimum of 1.2m and a maximum of 9m distance from 

the approaching crosswalk. 

• Pedestrian crossing sign. 



84 
 

• ADA compliant pedestrian crossing street furniture, i.e., Accessible 

Pedestrian Signals. 

3. Each crosswalk at an unsignalised locations should be equipped with the 

following: 

• Zebra crossing/ continental road markings. 

• Stop/ Yield lines at a minimum of 1.2m and a maximum of 9m from 

the approaching crosswalk for traffic speeds equal or less than 

50km/h. 

• Stop/ Yield and Pedestrian crossing signs or Yellow Globe crossing 

street furniture. 

4. The inclusion of additional crosswalks at the high jaywalking zones 

identified is recommended. These additional crosswalks would decentralise 

the foot traffic experienced at the junction and declutter the sidewalks, 

allowing for a safer and more efficient means of crossing the streets in 

Curepe. These additional crosswalks should adhere to the above-listed 

guidelines for unsignalised locations and maintain a minimum distance of 

60m from adjacent signalised intersections and crosswalks (City of Boston. 

BTP 2013, 179). 

5. Crosswalks should be a minimum width of 2.5m to 3m and outfitted with 

ADA-compliant curb ramps to allow for a smooth transition between the 

street/sidewalk interface. The cross-slope of the walking zone must not 

exceed 1.5%. 

6. Ensure all crosswalks are adequately lit. 

7. It is recommended to only implemented automatic pedestrian phases at 

Curepe Junction, due to the previously highlighted issues regarding the 

crossing pushbuttons for the actuated pedestrian phases. 

8. Incorporate safe pedestrian movement throughout the junction. This 

includes adjusting the vehicular signal phases throughout the junction to 

ensure pedestrians can access all points of the hub safely.



85 
 

 

5.3.3 Bus Turnouts 

 

Aside from jaywalking, the only other grievance experienced by the drivers 

of Curepe is the impromptu stops by maxi-taxis. Ideally, a bus stop should be located 

to facilitate the eastbound EMR travellers, near the CTM; however, no such bus 

stops are located along the EMR within the study area. In the absence of a designated 

bus stop, the public transport drivers stop where they see fit to accommodate their 

passengers. These impromptu stops become very problematic to the procession of 

traffic trailing the maxi-taxi. 

The CDG proposes a bus turnout lane located at the far-side of Curepe 

Junction, i.e. immediately after an intersection. Turnouts, also referred to as bus 

bays, function to remove the bus from the travelled way and is preferred when space 

for expansion is limited. Partially open bus turnout design is recommended due to 

the following reasons: 

1. They allow traffic to proceed along the travel route without delays. 

2. They allow the buses to decelerate as it moves through the intersection 

to enter the bay, eliminating the need for a deceleration lane and 

reducing the taper entrance length. 

3. They allow the buses to utilise the traffic signals to safely renter the 

travelled way, reducing the required distance of the acceleration/ 

merging lane. 

4. The partially open design, i.e. the inclusion of a sidewalk extension 

versus an open bus bay, prevents other drivers from using the bus bay 

for overtaking and acceleration movements. 

5. There is no need to relocate utilities and traffic signals at the curb. 

6. They allow a safe, comfortable, and effective means of allowing 

travellers to board and alight the maxi-taxis. 

 

 

 



86 
 

The design requirements of a partially open bus turnout are detailed below 

and illustrated in Figure 5.10. 

1. Stopping area length caters for the bus length with an additional 3m. The 

standard 12-seater small maxi-taxi is 5.5m. Therefore, the minimum 

stopping area length is 8.5m. 

2. The minimum bus bay width to cater for a small maxi-taxi is 3m. 

3. Taper exit length for a posted speed limit equal to or below 65km/h (40mph) 

uses the following formula (FHA 2012, Table 6C-4): 

 
 

 
 
Figure 5.10: Partial open bus bay 
 
Source: TCRP (1996, Fig. 7) 
 

5.3.4 Road markings 

 

Road markings are a form of visual aid for road users that improve traffic 

operations, road safety and driving comfort by improving the optical guidance of 

drivers. The general design principle for markings is that they should be: 



87 
 

1. Designed to suit the foreseeable traffic conditions and speeds on the 

roads. 

2. Suitably conspicuous to engage the drivers at sufficient distances. 

3. Designed to be easily interpret in a timely manner to react accordingly. 

4. Effective, regardless of weather conditions or time of day. 

Road markings consist of both lines, such as “▬  ▬  ▬” and words, such 

as “STOP”, and are often considered safer for drivers, due to its placement along the 

travelled path. There are two types of road marking categories: 

1. Regulatory Markings - These prohibit or restrict movement or used for 

mandatory markings, such as stop lines or solid prohibit of lane change 

lines. 

2. Guidance Markings - Used to aid drivers along the travelled path, such 

as the broken line indicating the centreline of lanes. 

The road markers throughout the hub are faded and require regular 

maintenance to upkeep the operational quality this CDG set out to achieve. Below 

lists the guidelines for the road markers throughout Curepe. 

1. Ensure all markings are white, except those of prohibitive or restrictive 

nature, such as the box intersection along the EMR, which should be 

yellow. 

2. Hot Applied Thermoplastic Materials is the recommended material for 

regulatory road markings due to its effectiveness during wet surface 

conditions. All other road markings can use Road Marking Paint. 

3. Longitudinal markings should be 0.1m thick, or unless stated otherwise, 

with a minimum length of 20m for continuous/ solid lines only. 

4. Transverse markings should be 0.3m thick, or unless stated otherwise. 

Road markings should be designed per the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic 

Act Chapter 48:50 (2016). Where current markings do not comply with the code, 

they should be reviewed. Recommended details can be found in Appendix C. 

 

 



88 
 
5.3.5 Parking Accommodations 

 

Illegal on-street parking is prominent throughout the hub, especially near the 

junction along the EMR and SMR. Even though most commercial buildings provide 

storefront parking, drivers are often conflicted on where to park because of the heavy 

foot and vehicular traffic. Drivers must decision whether to wait for a clearing on 

the sidewalk and park at the designated spots or illegally parallel park along the 

main road. Due to the lack of traffic warden presence, drivers often opt for the latter. 

This practice creates unnecessary congestion and bottlenecks near the junction. 

The CDG recommends the following to accommodate for parking within the 

hub: 

1. Ensure traffic wardens are present during peak hours to ensure the 

enforcement of the traffic laws, such as no street parking and pickup/ 

drop-offs. 

2. Ensure proper enforcement of TCPD guidelines concerning the 

provision of sufficient parking facilities for commercial spaces and 

ensuring commercial buildings setbacks comply with the Town and 

Country Planning Act. Chapter 35:01 (Republic of Trinidad and 

Tobago. TCPD 1988, sect. 5.7). 

3. Develop empty lots, with the approval of landowners, to facilitate 

parking facilities. Once approved, these lots should accommodate park 

and ride options, encouraging more hub users to use public 

transportation. The parking facilities must be per Guide to Developers 

and Applicants for Planning Permission by TCPD (Republic of 

Trinidad and Tobago. TCPD 1988, sect. 5.10). 



89 
 

 

5.4 Maintenance 

 

A robust maintenance program must be enforced to sustain the CDG. The 

committees and co-op must work in conjunction with the Tunapuna/ Piarco 

Regional Corporation to ensure the upkeep of the following maintenance and 

operation schedule: 

1. Ensure the streets are cleaned weekly. 

2. Ensure the garbage is collected three times a week. 

3. Ensure the drainage infrastructure is cleaned and serviced bimonthly. 

This includes cleaning silt traps and ensuring all manhole covers and 

grates are properly functioning to prohibit garbage from entering the 

drainage system. 

4. Ensure greenscape maintenance, such as pruning, is done monthly. 

5. Ensure pavement structure assessment is done biannual. 

6. Ensure lane marking assessment is performed biannually. 

7. Ensure sidewalk condition assessments are conducted biannual. 

8. Ensure streetlights are maintained biannually. 

The above list is a general guide for when maintenance works are typically 

required; however, improvement and repair works may be instantaneous and should 

occur on an as-needed basis, ensuring the safety and the quality of the junction. 

 

 



90 
 

 

CHAPTER 6  

 

APPLICATION OF THE CUREPE DESIGN GUIDELINES 

 

The following sections present the conceptual design and associated 

improvements throughout Curepe Junction. Each aspect of the design guidelines and 

other information discussed throughout the research, from the complete street 

ideology to the site analysis and hub user surveys, are all incorporated into the 

design described and shown within this section. The illustrations presented below 

represent the physical inclusions to the study area, as detailed in the CDG and are 

further discussed throughout this chapter. 

 

 
 
Figure 6.1: Redesign of Curepe Junction 

 



91 
 

 

6.1 Traffic Signs and Road Markings 

 

Figure 6.2 presents the traffic signage placements, and Figure 6.3 presents 

the road marking details along the EMR. The illustrations include the additional 

crosswalk zone, outfitted with yellow globes, the proposed bus bay, and no stopping/ 

no parking signs along the main road. Even though there are traffic signs littered 

throughout the study area, the placements of these signs are often missed or do not 

give the hub users sufficient time to react. The redesign ensures the traffic signs are 

relocated in a clear, unobstructed view for the drivers, per the CDG. 

As shown, reduce speed warning signs and pavement markers were both 

placed before the unsignalised crosswalks. The inclusion of both signs and road 

markings increases the pedestrians’ safety and allows the drivers sufficient warning 

and allotting appropriate reaction time to slow down and heed the potential hazard. 

Regarding the road marking illustration, the labels, represented by “L-#” and 

“T-#” in Figure 6.3, references the line codes detailed in Appendix C.4. The 

proposed design catered for markings throughout the hub, such as parking zone 

designation and restrictions, as shown in Figure 6.1, guiding drivers and pedestrians 

to travel through the junction effectively.  

In addition to ensuring the drivers are sufficiently warned with posted signs 

and markers, the redesign recommends introducing routine traffic wardens and/ 

facilitate wrecking services, especially near the intersection.



 

 

92 

 
 
Figure 6.2: Signage along the EMR 

 



 
 

93 

 
 
Figure 6.3: Road markings along the EMR



94 
 

 

The redesigned map below highlights features added or improvements made 

to Curepe, discussed in detail below.   

 

 
 
Figure 6.4: Itemised redesign of Curepe 

 

 

 

 

 

 



95 
 
6.2 Greenscape Design 

 

❶ 

Centre median activated with strategically placed greenscape designs to 
prohibit pedestrians from crossing the EMR outside the designated 
crosswalk zones, illustrated in Figure 6.5. 
The design facilitates safe crossing zones for pedestrians and minimum 
delays for drivers. 

❷ 
This curb location was observed to experience the most street ponding; thus, 
a bioswale is added. 
The greenscaping added along the curb also prevents jaywalking. 

❸ 
Multifunctional greenscape design to accommodate shelter, seating and 
aesthetics for hub users around the CTM, illustrated in Figure 6.6. 
The design incorporates subtle elements of hostile architecture with the 
seating bars and curved design, on a raised seated platform. 

 

 
 
Figure 6.5: Greenscape design: Activated EMR median



 

 

96 

 
 
Figure 6.6: Greenscape design: CTM PBR seating 



97 
 

 

6.3 Sidewalk Design 

 

❹ 

The redesign ensures a pedestrian can walk to any point within the study 
zone without the need to share the road with vehicles, except at 
crosswalks. 
The sidewalk redesign caters for a clear pedestrian zone width of 1.5m for 
major roads and 1.2m for minor roads. 

 

 
Figure 6.7 presents the proposed trash receptacle sites along the sidewalks 

throughout the study area. As shown, the sites are concentrated along the EMR and 

are located at every crosswalk throughout the hub. This placement allows 

pedestrians to conveniently discard their garbage regardless of where they are in 

Curepe Junction. 

 

 
 
Figure 6.7: Sidewalk design: Trash receptacle sites 

 



98 
 
6.4 Crosswalk Design 

❺  

Crosswalks at all signalised intersections were outfitted with ADA 
compliant furnishings, such as warning pads and Accessible Pedestrian 
Signals. The APS phasing would be automatic, eliminating the need for 
pushbuttons. 

This crosswalk layout encourages movement near the traffic lights by 
restricting ADA compliant crosswalks to the signalised intersections. This 
design decision ensures all safety measures are catered for by limiting the 
elderly and disabled movements only to occur when vehicles are 
stationary. 

❻ 

Additional crosswalk along the EMR, 70m from the intersection, to 
distribute the foot traffic at the junction and restrict jaywalking. Since this 
inclusion is away from the signalised junction, pedestrians may cross the 
EMR when there is a gap in traffic. This crosswalk incorporates a stagger 
or “z” design with a pedestrian refuge zone between lanes. This design 
application forces pedestrians to assess oncoming traffic before 
progressing through to the second phase of the crossing. 
 
Sufficient signage and safety measures must be installed at these 
crosswalks. 

❼ 
Additional crosswalk 110m from the junction, along the PBR, to facilitate 
convenient access and egress to and from the westbound bus shelter. 

❽ 

Referencing the current signal phases, both facilitates vehicular 
movements along the EMR. The inclusion of an exclusive pedestrian 
phase will allow safe and protected pedestrian movements across the 
EMR. This supplementary phase can be implemented after phase 1, 
deferred only the EMR movements of phase 2, creating a third phase, 
represented in Figure 6.8. Delaying phase 1 was not a recommended 
option because this would affect the northbound SMR traffic, creating an 
all-red vehicular phase across all the signals, which is not ideal for such a 
busy intersection. The recommended pedestrian time to facilitate this 
exclusive pedestrian phase is 15 seconds. 



 

 

99 

 

 
 
Figure 6.8: Crosswalk design: Revised phases



100 
 

 

6.5 Bus Turnout 

 

❾ 

A bus turnout was incorporated in front of the commercial lot no. 19 on 
the far-side of the EMR junction. This location was selected due to the 
availability of space and the frequency of maxi-taxi stops at this location. 
The redesign overlays the bus lane partially on lot 19’s storefront parking. 

From evaluating the site, cars exiting lot 19 often face difficulties merging 
back onto the EMR, conflicting with ongoing traffic and creating 
confusion and delays within the box intersection. Additional parking for 
lot 19 is available on the western side of the building, along Riverside 
Road. Thus, with the addition of the proposed bus bay, free traffic flow 
along the EMR would be achieved.  

 

 
 
Figure 6.9: Bus turnout 
 

6.6 Parking Zones 

 

❿ 
Designated parking accommodations on the southern side of the CTM for 
the mall tenants. 

⓫ 
Designated parking accommodations on the northern side of the CTM for 
both the mall tenants and visitors/ customers. 

⓬ 
Undeveloped/ abandoned lots of land with the potential to provide car 
park facilities for the hub. 

 



101 
 

 

CHAPTER 7  

 

CUREPE DESIGN GUIDELINES VERIFICATION 

 

7.1 Curepe Score Toolkit 

 

The evaluation criteria developed below adapt the concepts within the 

Complete Streets Guide by Calgary Transportation Department (2014) and Parker 

(2019). The toolkit for assessing the “completeness” of the current and proposed 

design of Curepe, presented in Table 13, was developed using the following: 

1. Design elements/ factors from the CDG following the format of the 

three core TEUD elements discussed in Section 4.1. 

2. Design element rank, determined by the hub users and analysed by 

applying the Pairwise Matrix approach. 

3. The hub users' current and proposed design score via the Likert scales 

were applied throughout this research. 

The Pairwise Matrix compares individual factors against each other. The 

most important element receives a score of one (1) and the other receives a zero (0) 

in its respective row. The score, determined by the hub users, was placed in the 

“grey” shaded rows in Table 11. The remaining responses were inferred to avoid 

repeated questions to the busy hub users; thus, completing the matrix. 

For example: If hub users perceive factor C as more important than factor F, 

the rank = 1; thus, the subsequent column asks if factor F is more important than 

factor C, which would be “no” based on the above. Therefore rank = 0, as illustrated 

in Table 10. Thus, the higher the total, the superior the factor.  

 
Table 10: Matrix example 
 
Factors C F Dummy Total 

C x 1 1 2 

F 0 x 1 1 



102 
 

Including a dummy column ensures at least one point is given to each factor. 

These ranks are then applied to the Curepe score tool. Equally distribute ranks 

values for design elements with multiple sub-elements, such as the furnishings and 

network. 

The factors for evaluating the design are: 

• Community Pride = C 

• The Furnishings = F 

• The Network = N 

• Maintenance = M 

 
Table 11: Ranking the factors 
 
Factors C F N M Dummy Total 

C x 1 1 1 1 4 

F 0 x 1 1 1 3 

N 0 0 x 0 1 1 

M 0 0 1 x 1 2 
 

The evaluation toolkit totals 50 points, and the points scheme are detailed below. 

 
Table 12: Curepe score point system 
 



103 
 

 

7.2 Evaluation SSI 

The final semi-structured interviews conclude the assessment of the design 

guidelines. The questions can be found in Appendix B, where the hub users were 

asked to assess the importance of the design elements using a pairwise matrix, 

results posted in Table 11. Community pride was deemed the most important 

element. The consensus was that without the respect and satisfaction of the people 

of Curepe, all the other elements would not function as intended. 

The responses parallel previous research, where the principal consideration 

for any design must be the people/ the community. The design should then include 

features that enhance their experience within the space, i.e. the furnishings, and 

ensure the sustainability of such features, i.e., maintenance. Regarding the network, 

hub users stated that once improvements can be made to the already established 

network, the Curepe network can optimally function with the space; thus, this was 

deemed the least important of the four elements. The problems experienced with the 

network, addressed in Chapter 4, were the unreliable PTSC buses and the delays 

along the travelled path due to jaywalking and maxi-taxis. 

The hub users were then asked to score the current design elements. They 

were then introduced to the CDG and were asked to re-score the design elements 

based on the proposed design. The responses, presented in Table 13 and Figure 7.1 

were almost unanimous, with the main disagreement being the current sense of 

community experienced at Curepe. 

The sense of community was deemed to be highly subjective. Before scoring 

this element, hub users mentioned their safety concerns and neighbourly attributes 

throughout Curepe. As anticipated, the street vendors predominantly ranked the 

current community element as three or higher, whereas the travellers predominantly 

ranked this element as two and below. Responses from business employees were 

inconsistent depending on their proximity to the central part of the hub and how 

often they interact with the space. 

 

 



104 
 

After presenting the proposed design, all the responses shifted to three and 

above. The hub users explained that by developing the committees, they are 

presented with opportunities to forge bonds with their fellow hub users to transform 

Curepe into a safer environment for everyone.  

Overall, as shown in Table 13, the current Curepe design scored 20 out of 

50, and the proposed design scored total. The current Curepe design score matches 

the initial interpretation of the space, where there are problematic elements 

experienced throughout the hub. The consensus for the proposed design was that the 

CDG presented covered all the issues they have experienced over the years. 

For the final question of the SSI, the hub users reiterated their desire for the 

following: 

- More police presence needed at the junction by either reintroducing the 

mobile police post or establishing a permanent unit. Hub users suggest 

developing the vacant space at the corner of the CTM to accommodate 

a glass office with intermittent police patrol, illustrated in Figure 7.2. 

- The unused units within the CTM can operate as a community centre 

that hosts workshops, mentorship programs and life skills training for 

at-risk youths. 

- Engage the organisations such as the Social Displacement Unit to assist 

the street dwellers of Curepe.  

 



 

 

105 

Table 13: Curepe score toolkit 
 



106 
 

 

 
 
Figure 7.1: SSI CDG Score for the current vs proposed CJ design 



107 
 

 
 
Figure 7.1 (continued) 
 

 
 
Figure 7.2: Hub users main concern with Curepe Junction 
 
Source: Image (a) Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (2014a, 2014b); Image 

(b) Dhalai (2018)  



108 
 

CHAPTER 8  

 

CONCLUSION 

 

8.1 Conclusion 

 

The research aim was to develop and assess the potential impacts of design 

guidelines for the problematic TEUD elements within Curepe Junction. This paper 

achieved this by exploring the junction through the lens of the hub user. This concept 

was designed to create a paradigm shift for addressing dysfunctional hubs in 

Trinidad and Tobago. The conventional approach uses trained engineers to assess a 

hub; this dissertation introduced the user factor as a resourceful solution. This 

technique addressed the objectives of this research, i.e. identifying the problematic 

TEUD elements of Curepe Junction, developing the design guidelines and assessing 

the potential impacts. 

The literature revealed that successful spaces have three core elements 

stemming from the multifaceted TEUD disciplines: The People, The Furnishings 

and The Network. Translating these core elements in the context of Curepe Junction, 

17 main elements were identified and assessed by 100 hub users. The findings 

indicated that by prioritising the perception of the hub users, the research accounted 

for years’ worth of experiences, noting that all three core elements of the hub were 

severely neglected and disconnected. 

Upon interviewing the hub users on their experience with these elements, 

they ranked 59% of the 17 elements as acceptable, 6% as poor and  35% as very 

poor. Below identifies the main problematic elements and answers the research 

question: 

• 64% of the interviewees ranked the accessibility for the elderly and 

people with disabilities as very poor. 

• 62% of the interviewees ranked the accessibility and presence of 

transportation services information as very poor. 



109 
 

• 61% of the interviewees ranked the accessibility to comfortable and 

convenient seating as very poor. 

The multidisciplinary nature of the problematic elements demanded more 

than the traditional transportation engineering and urban design manuals. Thus, 

concepts such as the Complete Streets, Context Sensitive Solution and Portals to 

Places were explored, noting no literature was outfitted for local use. 

After analysing the problematic elements, the second objective was 

completed by developing The Curepe Design Guidelines. These guidelines were 

developed to shift the design precedent from an outdated automobile-centric 

junction to one where hub users of all ages and backgrounds feel comfortable. 

Furthermore, the CDG ensured that each step was designed with the user in mind, 

from building a community that celebrates the sui generis character of Curepe, to 

ensure each part of the hub is easily accessible with comfort and image in mind. 

The final objective was achieved by comparing the current design with the 

redesign. Based on the final interviews, the toolkit further validated the importance 

of the hub users’ involvement, with 70% of the elements scoring “excellent” and the 

overall maximum points achieved for the redesign. 

The interviewees initially perceived Curepe as a very social hub, so it was 

no surprise that the most critical design element identified was the sense of 

community. By designing a space that promotes community pride, Curepe Junction 

has the potential to become a “third place” that encourages socialisation and pride, 

transforming Curepe Junction into a thriving community, boosting businesses and 

character. Initially, 60% of the users associate the hub with negative connotations, 

describing the space as unsafe, lawless, dirty and chaotic. However, when presenting 

the redesign, the hub users were eager to interact with the hub and visit more often 

for reasons other than travel. Furthermore, by improving the furnishings and 

network of Curepe, the design satisfies the innate way-finding behaviour of the 

people of Curepe Junction, creating a space hub users can comfortably enjoy and 

explore on their own. The potential impact of implementing the guidelines is 

advocating for an inclusive environment, satisfying all the hub users regardless of 

their age, gender, disability, and role in Curepe. 



110 
 

Even though only 60% of the hub users felt that it was important to have a 

say in the design, each hub user expressed their experience with Curepe Junction, 

whether good or bad. Overall, all the interviewees expressed their desire to have a 

better functioning hub, which consequently attributed to the success of the Curepe 

Design Guidelines. 

In conclusion, the intention for developing the CDG was to inspire 

stakeholders, policymakers and designers to develop areas in Trinidad and Tobago 

based on user perception. Even though this paper is specific for Curepe Junction and 

its community, the adoptability and practical significance of this research are 

attributed to the modular technique developed and utilised throughout. Therefore, 

the CDG can be universally applied to similar hubs throughout Trinidad and 

Tobago, including Croisee and City Gate. 

 

8.2 Opportunities for Further Research 

 

The list below offers opportunities and recommendations to further the 

concepts and ideas presented throughout this research project: 

1. Develop and establish Common/ Public Space Policies for Curepe 

Junction. Vending on the streets of Curepe may be inevitable; 

however, by developing such public space implementation 

strategies, policymakers can manage the chaotic streetscape of 

Curepe Junction and find common ground with the street vendors of 

the area. 

2. The proposed inclusion of the bus turnout creates an opportunity to 

use traffic simulation programs such as Aimsun. In addition, future 

research can assess the impact of the bus bay on the level of service 

at the junction. 

3. Introduce tactical urbanism before executing costly redesigns. This 

social experiment technique is an inexpensive means of assessing 

temporary changes to the built environment. This concept revitalises 

a portion of the streetscape to create a dialogue between the hub users 



111 
 

and the urban and transportation planners. Examples of this concept 

are the “Mierīgi!” Blue Street Project by Fine Young Urbanists 

(2014) and the “Fun Theory” initiated by Volkswagen to influence 

positive human behaviour by making mundane activities fun, such as 

throwing trash in a bin or crossing at a designated crosswalk (PBJ 

Designs 2016). Such creative approaches allow decision-makers to 

sanction design changes confidently. 

 

 

  



112 
 

REFERENCES 

(ASBEC) Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council. 2015. "What is 
Urban Design?". Accessed September 22, 2020. 
https://urbandesign.org.au/what-is-urban-design/. 

AASHTO. 2018. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 7th ed.: 
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 

Abouakalloub, Bassma Eissa. 2017. "Assessing Doha's Street Network From the 
Perspective of the 'Complete Streets' Concept." Master’s thesis, Qatar 
University. 

ACC Recycling Division. n.d. "New Downtown Trash Cans." Photograph. 
Pinterest. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/518688082054847216/. 

Atallah, Joelle. 2011. "Perceptions of Public Transportation with a focus on Older 
Adults." Master’s thesis, The Ohio State University. 

Atlas. 2009. "Deaderick Street." Photograph. Atlas. https://the-
atlas.com/projects/deaderick-street. 

Bahrainy, Hossein, and Ameneh Bakhtiar. 2016. "Urban DesignUrban Design 
Definition Definition, Knowledge Base and Principles." 5-28. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32665-8_2. 

Braswell, Allen D., II,. 2013. "Transit-Oriented Development - An Urban Design 
Assessment of Transit Stations in Atlanta." Master’s thesis, Georgia 
Institute of Technology. 
https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/48754/DanielBraswell_
Transit-
Oriented+Development.pdf;jsessionid=F7B4083A651FE8E67A855222EE
0D18C7.smartech?sequence=1. 

Canova, Pat. 2012. "University of Florida Campus Gainesville Designated Trash 
and Landfill Recycling Bins Near Crosswalk.". Photograph. Alamy Stock 
Photo. https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-university-of-florida-campus-
gainesville-designated-trash-and-landfill-48146566.html. 

CAPA (Crime and Problem Analysis). 2020. Data on Serious Crimes in the 
Curepe Area for the period 2017 – 2020. edited by Crime and Problem 
Analysis (CAPA) Branch. 

Carr, Lucas J., Shira I. Dunsiger, and Bess H. Marcus. 2011. "Validation of Walk 
Score for Estimating Access to Walkable Amenities." British Journal of 
Sports Medicine 45 (14): 1144. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2009.069609. 



113 
 
Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation. 2010. Manual for Streets 2: 

Wider Application of the Principles. London: CIHT. 

City of Boston. BTP (Boston Transportation Department). 2013. Boston Complete 
Streets: Design Guidelines. Boston, Massachusetts: BTP. 

City of Calgary. CTD (Calgary Transportation Department). 2014. Calgary 
Transportation Plan and Complete Streets. Alberta, Canada: CTD. 

City of San Francisco. SFPD (San Francisco Planning Department). 2018. San 
Francisco Urban Design Guidelines. San Francisco, California: SFPD. 

Compare and Recycle. 2019. ""Nomophobia" - The Modern Day Epidemic." 
Illustration. Compare and Recycle,. 
https://www.compareandrecycle.co.uk/blog/nomophobia-the-modern-day-
epidemic. 

Critton, Eve, and Jeb Polstein. 2019. Destination Station: Transforming Bus Stops 
Through Community Outreach. (Project for Public Spaces). 

D., Alyssa. 2013. "Paul Revere House & Modern Molasses Cookies." Photograph. 
Suitcases & Sweets. 
https://suitcasesandsweets.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/modern-molasses-
cookies/. 

Daniels, Rhonda, and Corinne Mulley. 2013. "Explaining Walking Distance to 
Public Transport: The Dominance of Public Transport Supply." Journal of 
Transport and Land Use 6 (2): 5-20. 
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.sastudents.uwi.tt:2048/stable/26202654. 

DDS Wireless International Inc. 2018. "6 Key Components to a Great Public 
Transit System." https://ddswireless.com/blog/6-key-components-to-a-
great-public-transit-system/. 

Decker, Fred. 2018. "How to Average Likert Scales." Sciencing.com. 
https://sciencing.com/average-likert-scales-6181662.html. 

Dempsey, Nicola, Caroline Brown, Shibu Raman, Sergio Porta, Mike Jenks, Colin 
Jones, and Glen Bramley. 2010. "Elements of Urban Form." In Dimensions 
of the Sustainable City, edited by Mike Jenks and Colin Jones, In Future 
City, 21-51. Springer, Dordrecht. 

Deniscristo. n.d. "Colorful City with Shops." Illustration. Dreamstime. 
https://www.dreamstime.com/street-colorful-city-shops-image115903577. 

Deosaran, Ramesh. 2018. "Crazy Curepe Corners." Trinidad and Tobago 
Newsday, August 12, 2018, para. 10. 
https://newsday.co.tt/2018/08/12/crazy-curepe-corners/. 



114 
 
Department for Transport. 2021. "Traffic Signs Manual." 

https://trafficsignsmanual.co.uk/home/#pdf. 

Dhalai, Richardson. 2018. "414 Homeless People in Trinidad, Committee Hears." 
Photograph. Trinidad and Tobago Newsday. 
https://newsday.co.tt/2018/05/17/414-homeless-people-in-trinidad-
committee-hears-2/. 

Elmaleh, Miri. 2017. "How To Run A Community Yard Sale Fundraiser." 
Photograph. FlipGive. https://www.flipgive.com/stories/how-to-run-a-
community-yard-sale-fundraiser. 

FHA (Federal Highway Administration). 2012. Manual on Uniform Traffic 
Control Devices for Streets and Highways. 2009 ed.: U.S. Department of 
Transportation. 

Fine Young Urbanists. 2014. "Mierīgi!" November 3, 2014, 2:43 Vimeo video: 
posted by Fine Young Urbanists. 

Garber, Nicholas J., and Lester A. Hoel. 2020. Traffic and Highway Engineering. 
Enhanced Fifth ed., edited by Hilda Gowans. Boston: Cengage Learning. 

Gehl, Jan. 2011. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Translated by Jo 
Koch. New York: Island press. 

Google Earth. 2021. Map of Curepe. 

Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. 2014a. "Trinidad and 
Tobago Police Service in Action with overnight anti-crime operations." 
Photograph. News.Gov. http://www.news.gov.tt/content/trinidad-and-
tobago-police-service-action-overnight-anti-crime-operations-
0#.YLhX34WSmUk. 

---. 2014b. "Trinidad and Tobago Police Service to Serve you better- Complete 
Audit Coming Soon." Photograph. News.Gov. 
http://www.news.gov.tt/content/trinidad-and-tobago-police-service-action-
overnight-anti-crime-operations-0#.YLhX34WSmUk. 

Grubb, Sophie. 2020. "The 'Hostile' Anti-Homeless Architecture You've Probably 
Never Noticed in Bristol." Photograph. Bristol Live. 
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/gallery/hostile-anti-
homeless-architecture-youve-4673509. 

Healthy Spaces and Places. 2011. "Mixed Land Use." Last Modified April 19, 
2011. Accessed September 23, 2020. 
http://www.healthyplaces.org.au/site/mixed_land_use.php. 



115 
 
Hirsch, Jana A., Kari A. Moore, Kelly R. Evenson, Daniel A. Rodriguez, and Ana 

V. Diez Roux. 2013. "Walk Score® and Transit Score® and Walking in 
the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis." American Journal of 
Preventive Medicine 45 (2): 158-166. 
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2013.03.018. 

Hui, Nancy, Shoshanna Saxe, Matthew Roorda, Paul Hess, and Eric J. Miller. 
2017. "Measuring the completeness of complete streets." Transport 
Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2017.1299815. 

---. 2018. "Measuring the completeness of complete streets." Transport Reviews 38 
(1): 73-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2017.1299815. 

Ing, Stephanie E. 2016. "Redefining the street as a third place: A design toolkit for 
Kapahulu Avenue." Doctorial thesis, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa. 

Ingimage. n.d. "Image ID:INH_38192_51829." Illustration. Ingimage. 
https://www.ingimage.com/imagedetails/100985780/INH_38192_51829-
Ingimage-contributors-Isometric-colored-virtual-augmented-reality-city-
c.html. 

Invasive. 2019. "Community Workshops." Photograph. Invasive. 
https://invasivequeerkudzu.com/. 

Kingsbury, Kevin T., Michael B. Lowry, and Michael P. Dixon. 2011. "What 
Makes a “Complete Street” Complete?: A Robust Definition, Given 
Context and Public Input." Transportation Research Record 2245 (1): 103-
110. https://doi.org/10.3141/2245-13. 

Knupfer, Stefan M., Vadim Pokotilo, and Jonathan Woetzel. 2018. Elements of 
success: Urban transportation systems of 24 global cities. (New York: 
McKinsey & Company). 

Kuntzman, Gersh. 2008. "GREEN BEGETS GREEN." Photograph. The Brooklyn 
Paper. https://www.brooklynpaper.com/green-begets-green/. 

Laplante, John, and Barbara McCann. 2008. "Complete Streets: We Can Get There 
from Here." Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Journal 78 (5): 24 
- 28. 

Litman, Todd. 2015. "Evaluating Complete Streets." Victoria Transport Policy 
Institute (blog). https://www.vtpi.org/compstr.pdf. 

Logan, Suzanne. 2012. "Urban Planning And Transport Planning: the Need for an 
Integrated Model the Case Study of the Ethekwini Cbd, Umgeni Road 
Corridor " Master’s thesis, University of Kwazulu-Natal. 



116 
 
Loop. 2016. "Legislative Solutions to Road Safety in the Works." Loop, December 

7, 2016. http://www.looptt.com/content/legislative-solutions-road-safety-
works. 

Ma'ruf. 2019. "Curb Drain Hole Detail." Photograph. A Pictures of Hole 2018. 
http://www.villageinframe.com/curb-drain-hole-detail/. 

Martinucci, Domenico Anderson. 2016. "Multimodal Transportation in Northeast 
Seattle: An Integrated Design." Master’s thesis, University of Washington. 

Mathew, Tom V., and KV Krishna Rao. 2007. Introduction to Transportation 
Engineering. Mumbai, India: NPTEL Web Course. 

Michigan Economic Development Corporation. 2018. "Durfee + Central 
Community Beautification." Photograph. Patronicity. 
https://www.patronicity.com/project/durfee__central_community_beautific
ation#!/. 

Mill Valley. 2015. "City Gives Downtown Trash Cans a Makeover." Photograph. 
Enjoy Mill Valley. https://www.enjoymillvalley.com/blog/city-gives-
downtown-trash-cans-a-makeover. 

Mohammed, Asad. 2018. Urban-Transportation Research Topic: Views and 
Thoughts. edited by Interview by Author. 

NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials. 2013. Urban 
Street Design Guide. Island Press. 

NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials). 2016. Transit 
Street Design Guide. Island Press. 

New York City DOT. n.d. "Connected Tree Bed." Photograph. The City of New 
York. https://www.nycstreetdesign.info/landscape/connected-tree-bed. 

Newcombe, Tod. 2013. "Complete Streets Policies Surge in Popularity." Urban 
Notebook (blog). October 2, 2020. 
https://www.governing.com/columns/urban-notebook/col-complete-streets-
policies-surge-popularity.html. 

Nouri, A. Santos, and João Pedro Costa. 2017. "Placemaking and Climate Change 
Adaptation: New Qualitative and Quantitative Considerations for the 
“Place Diagram”." Journal of Urbanism: International Research on 
Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 10 (3): 356-382. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2017.1295096. 

O'Sullivan, Sean, and John Morrall. 1996. "Walking Distances to and from Light-
Rail Transit Stations." Transportation Research Record 1538 (1): 19-26. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198196153800103. 



117 
 
Pande, Anurag, and Wolshon Brian. 2016. Traffic Engineering Handbook. Seventh 

ed., edited by Institute of Transportation Engineers. Hoboken, New Jersey: 
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Parker, David N. 2019. "Complete Streets Evaluation Tool for the City of 
Worcester." Bachelor's thesis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute. 

Partnership for a Walkable America, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, 
FHWA, and EPA. 2015. Walkability Checklist: How Walkable is your 
Community? 

Pascucci, Federico, and Bernhard Friedrich. 2017. "Evaluation of Traffic Quality 
of Shared Space Streets." Heureka, Stuttgart. 

PBJ Designs. 2016. "The Fun Theory." https://pbjdesign.ca/the-fun-theory/. 

Project for Public Spaces. 2016. "Placemaking: What if we Built our Cities 
Around Places?". https://assets-global.website-
files.com/5810e16fbe876cec6bcbd86e/5a6a1c930a6e6500019faf5d_Oct-
2016-placemaking-booklet.pdf. 

---. 2019. "Portals to Places Initiative." Public Space Resources (blog). September 
5, 2020. https://www.pps.org/portals-to-places. 

---. 2021a. "From "Wider and Faster" to Streets as Places." 
https://www.pps.org/category/streets-transportation. 

---. 2021b. "What Makes a Successful Place?". 
https://www.pps.org/article/grplacefeat. 

Repblic of Trinidad and Tobago. MAGLA (Ministry of Attorney General and 
Legal Affairs). 2016. Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act Chap. 48:50. 
Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago: MAGLA. 

Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. MOWI (Ministry of Works and Infrastructure). 
2013. Traffic Control Devices Manual - Part A: Roadside Traffic Signs. 
Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago: Traffic Management Branch. 

Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. TCPD (Town and Country Planning Division). 
1988. Guide to Developers and Applicants for Planning Permission. Port-
of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago: TCPD. 

Rivas, Julio. 2009. "Boulevard Provencher: Urban Design Guidelines." Master’s 
thesis, University of Manitoba. 

Rodrigue, Jean-Paul. 2020. The Geography of Transport Systems. Fifth ed. New 
York: Routledge. 



118 
 
Sharpin, Anna Bray, Welle Ben, and Luke Nikita. 2017. "What Makes a Complete 

Street? A Brief Guide." World Resources Institute, Ross Center. 
https://thecityfix.com/blog/what-makes-a-complete-street-a-brief-guide-
nikita-luke-anna-bray-sharpin-ben-welle/. 

Sousa, Lindsey, and Jennifer Rosales. 2010. "Contextually Complete Streets." 
Green Streets and Highways Conference, Denver, Colorado, United States. 

Statistics How To. 2013. "Sample Size in Statistics (How to Find it): Excel, 
Cochran’s Formula, General Tips." Accessed October 22, 2020. 
https://www.statisticshowto.com/probability-and-statistics/find-sample-
size/. 

Stojanovski, Todor. 2020. "Urban Design And Public Transportation – Public 
Spaces, Visual Proximity and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)." 
Journal of Urban Design 25 (1): 134-154. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2019.1592665. 

SurveyMonkey. 2015. "Sample size calculator." Accessed October 22, 2020. 
https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size-calculator/. 

Tariq, Mohammed Mesbahul. 2007. "Livable streetscape: Creating a pedestrian 
network in the Town of Morden, Manitoba." Master’s thesis, University of 
Manitoba. 

Taylor, Caroline, and Jeremy Taylor. 2020. "Discover Trinidad and Tobago." 
Discover. 

TCPD (Town and Country Planning Division). 2014. St. Augustine Education 
City: Spatial Development Strategy and Regulatory Framework. Town and 
Country Planning Division, (The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago: 
Government of The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago). 

TCRP (Transit Cooperative Research Program). 1996. Report 19 - Guidelines for 
the Location and Design of Bus Stops. Washington, D.C.: National 
Academy Press. 

The Freedom Press. 2018. "826 Modern Bus Shelters." Illustration. The Freedom 
Press. http://thefreedompress.in/news/2017/09/19/ghmc-to-erect-826-
modern-bus-shelters-across-city/. 

The Licensing Authority. 2013. "The Highway Code." TTRegs. 
http://www.ttregs.com/the-highway-code/the-highway-code.php. 

The Public Transport Improvement Group of Trinidad & Tobago. 2015. "Red-
band (Route 2) Maxi Map draft #1." Map. PTIGTT. 
https://ptigtt.wordpress.com/. 



119 
 
The University of New South Wales. 2016. HS732 Signage Guideline. 

Toole Design Group. 2015. "National Planning Excellence Award for Boston 
Complete Streets Design Guidelines." Toole Design. Accessed October 1, 
2020. https://tooledesign.com/insights/2015/04/national-planning-
excellence-award-for-boston-complete-streets-design-guidelines/. 

Toth, Gary. 2011. "Are Complete Streets Incomplete." Project for Public Spaces. 
Accessed September 5, 2020. https://www.pps.org/article/are-complete-
streets-incomplete. 

---. 2019. "From Place to Place: A Transportation Placemaking Evolution." 
Institute of Transportation Engineers. ITE Journal 89 (10): 16-17. 

Trancik, Roger. 1986. Finding Lost Spaces - Theories of Urban Design. USA: Van 
Nostrand Reinhold Company. 

Tuyet, Le T. 2012. "Sustainable Urban Transport Assessment - Evaluation 
Opportunities for Asia Cities: The Case Of Hanoi." Master’s thesis, 
Polytechnic University of Milan. 

U.S. Department of Transportation. 2015. "Complete Streets." 
https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/complete-streets. 

UNDESA. 2012. Shanghai Manual: A Guide for Sustainable Urban Development 
in the 21st Century. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 
(Shanghai: UN). 

Urban Design. n.d. "Elements Of Urban Design." Accessed September 23, 2020. 
http://www.urbandesign.org/elements.html. 

Vance, Steven. 2015. "Bioswales for Stormwater Management." Photograph. 
Habitat Network. https://content.yardmap.org/learn/bioswales-for-
stormwater-management/. 

VirtualExpo Group. 2017. "Streetlife Oval Tree Isle." Photograph. ArchiExpo. 
https://trends.archiexpo.com/streetlife/project-51161-240530.html. 

Walk Score. 2007. "Walk Score Methodology." Accessed August 15, 2020. 
https://www.walkscore.com/methodology.shtml. 

Wyckoff, Mark A. 2014. "Four types of placemaking." Better Cities & Towns 3 
(5): 7 - 8. https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/four-types-placemaking. 

Zhuang, Justin. 2020. "One Designer’s Quest to Redesign Singapore’s Subway 
Signage." Photograph. AIGA Eye on Design. 
https://eyeondesign.aiga.org/one-designers-quest-to-redesign-singapores-
subway-signage/. 



120 
 
Živković, Jelena. 2019. "Urban Form and Function." In Climate Action, edited by 

Walter Leal Filho, Ulisses Azeiteiro, Anabela Marisa Azul, Luciana 
Brandli, Pinar Gökcin Özuyar and Tony Wall, 1-10. Cham: Springer 
International Publishing. 

 

 

  



121 
 

APPENDICES 

 

APPENDIX A: DATA COLLECTION 

 

 
 
Figure A.1: Curepe Junction road markings and pictorial view sections 
 
Source: Adapted from Google Earth (2021) 
 



 

 

122 

 
Figure A.2: Pictorial view section A-B: Riverside Road 
 

 
Figure A.3: Pictorial view section B-C: Eastern Main Road 



 
 

123 

 
Figure A.4: Pictorial view section C-F: SMR intersection road 

 
Figure A.5: Pictorial view section C-D: PBR and Evans Street 



 
 

124 

 
Figure A.6: Pictorial view section D-E: Southern Main Road 
 

 
Figure A.7: Pictorial view section E-F Priority Bus Route and Evans Street 



 
 

125 

 
Figure A.8: Pictorial view section A-F Eastern Main Road 
 

 



126 
 

 

Table A.1: Lot listing of Curepe Junction 
 

Lot 
No. Name of Business Type of Business/ 

Services Land Use Category 

1 Residential Residential Residential Residential 

2 Panoptic Niche Perfumery & Boutique Clothes Commercial Clothes 

2 Residential Residential Residential Residential 

3 Residential Residential Residential Residential 

5 Farida’s Roti Shop Food Commercial Food 

5 Residential Residential Residential Residential 

6 Roxanne’s Bar and Suya Spot Bar Commercial Bar 

6 Defined Hair and Nails Beauty – Hair and 
nails Commercial Beauty 

6 Breakfast and Lunch Express Food Commercial Food 

7 Residential Residential Residential Residential 

8 Zulaka and Sons Poultry Depot & Mini Mart Grocery Commercial Grocery 

9 Residential Residential Residential Residential 

10 Curepe Medical Lab Healthcare Commercial Healthcare 

10 Pentecostal Church Church Institutional Church 

10 UWI Eastern Caribbean Health Outcomes 
Research Network Education/ Research Institutional Education 

12 Residential Residential Residential Residential 

13 Nicole’s Delights Food Commercial Food 

13 Residential Residential Residential Residential 

14 Residential Residential - 
Apartments Residential Residential 

15 Street Vendor clothes and shoes Commercial Clothes 

15 Fresh Choice Fruit and Vegetable Mart Grocery Commercial Grocery 

15 Curepe One Stop Shop convenience store Commercial Home Store 

15 Highest High Definition photocopy and net 
café Commercial Print 

16 St. Mary’s Bakery Food - Bakery Commercial Food 

16 Dr. Cy Anil Warren – Physician and Surgeon Healthcare - Doctor’s 
Office Commercial Healthcare 

17 Sherry’s Hairdresser Beauty - Hair Commercial Beauty 

17 Made 2 Love Beauty - Nail Commercial Beauty 

17 Amin’s Roti Shop Food Commercial Food 

17 Infinity Dental Care Healthcare - Dental Commercial Healthcare 

17 Dr. Wahid Mohammed – Family Practitioner Healthcare - Doctor’s 
Office Commercial Healthcare 

17 ISA Technology Print and copy Commercial Print 

17 Tai Chi Classes Extra-Curricular Institutional Recreational 

18 ATM - RBC Banking Facility Commercial Banking 
Facility 

18 Caribbean Trim Beauty – Hair/ Barber Commercial Beauty 

18 NLCB Lottery Centre Gambling/ Lottery Commercial Gambling 

18 J.A. & M Supermarket Grocery Commercial Grocery 

18 Codecc Pharmacy Limited Pharmacy Commercial Healthcare 

18 Church - Pentecostal Church Institutional Church 

18 Hair World Beauty - Hair Commercial Beauty 



127 
 
Table A.1 (continued)   

Lot 
No. Name of Business Type of Business/ 

Services Land Use Category 

19 ATM – Republic Bank Banking Facility Commercial Banking 
Facility 

19 Club Bounce Bar & Club Commercial Bar 

19 Royal Castle Food Commercial Food 

19 Street Vendor Produce Commercial Produce 

20 KFC Food Commercial Food 

21 Mima’s Beauty Longue Beauty - Hair and Wax Commercial Beauty 

21 Subway Food Commercial Food 

21 Prestige Convent Care Education - Day care 
& Preschool Institutional Education 

21 St. Joseph Academy Education - 
Improvement Classes Institutional Education 

23 Sommer In Style’s Beauty - Spa and 
Beauty Salon Commercial Beauty 

23 Chidoz Marketing Clothes and 
electronics Commercial Clothes 

23 Sons of Fire Ministries Church Institutional Church 

24 Orchestrated Hair Beauty - Hair Commercial Beauty 

24 Super Savers Supermarket grocery Commercial Grocery 

24 Residential Residential Residential Residential 

25 TTPOST Government services Commercial Postal 

26 Curepe Transit Mall - Sponge Bar/ Juices Commercial Bar 

26 Curepe Transit Mall - DVD & Nails Beauty Commercial Beauty 

26 Curepe Transit Mall – Barber beauty Commercial Beauty 

26 Curepe Transit Mall - Best Price Clothes Commercial Clothes 

26 Curepe Transit Mall - Food Connoisseur Food Commercial Food 

26 Curepe Transit Mall - Food Connoisseur Food Commercial Food 

26 Curepe Transit Mall – Mini Mart grocery Commercial Grocery 

26 Street Vendor Vegetable Stall Commercial Produce 

26 Curepe Transit Mall - Seamstress Seamstress Commercial Seamstress 

26 Curepe Transit Mall - Seamstress Seamstress Commercial Seamstress 

26 Curepe Transit Mall - Seamstress Seamstress Commercial Seamstress 

26 Curepe Transit Mall – Shoe Repair Shop Shoe repair Commercial Shoe 

26 Curepe Transit Mall – Artist Shop Art Institutional Recreational 

27 Scotiabank ATM Banking Facility Commercial Banking 
Facility 

27 Peter’s Bar Bar Commercial Bar 

27 Selwyn & Son’s Barber Shop Beauty - Hair Commercial Beauty 

27 Mandy’s Fashion Clothes Commercial Clothes 

27 Eastern Avenue Clothes Commercial Clothes 

27 It’s A Deal DVD shop Commercial Electronic 

27 Food Vendor (Ice Cream Food Commercial Food 

27 Jackpot Gambling Commercial Gambling 

27 S & J Mini Mart Grocery/ fresh produce Commercial Grocery 

27 Bobby’s & Sons Jewellery Jewellery Commercial Shopping 

27 - 28 NLCB Lottery Centre Gambling/ Lottery Commercial Gambling 



128 
 
Table A.1 (continued)   

Lot 
No. Name of Business Type of Business/ 

Services Land Use Category 

28 Papa John’s Food Commercial Food 

28 Nova ICT (Information & Communication 
Tech) Print & Gaming Commercial Print 

29 Sky’s Beauty Salon Beauty - Hair and nails Commercial Beauty 

29 Elysian Beauty Studio Beauty - wax and nails Commercial Beauty 

29 TT Connect Government Services Commercial Government 

29 Pinceps Branding Printing company Commercial Print 

29 Bmobile Utilities Commercial Utilities 

30 Grasshopper Bar Bar Commercial Bar 

30 B & M Exclusive Clothes Commercial Clothes 

30 Bimini Food Commercial Food 

30 R & Y BBQ & Jerk Food Commercial Food 

30 NLCB Lottery Centre Gambling/ Lottery Commercial Gambling 

31 Automative Technology College (ATC) Education – trade 
courses Institutional Education 

33 Hello Chicken Food Commercial Food 

33 Lin’s Food Food Commercial Food 

33 Street Vendor Fruit and veg stall Commercial Produce 

34 - 35 Trini Wok Delights Food Commercial Food 

35 Bibi’s One Stop Fashions Clothes Commercial Clothes 

35 Digicel Utilities Commercial Utilities 

35 Street Vendor Electronic Kiosk Commercial Electronic 

35 Residential Residential Residential Residential 

36 Junction Bar Bar & Gaming Commercial Bar 

36 Nails and Hair by Afron Beauty & Clothes Commercial Beauty 

36 M Genterprises Clothes Commercial Clothes 

36 Jingdu Chinese Fast Food Food Commercial Food 

38 Wincent’s Member’s Club Gambling Commercial Gambling 

38 Courts Furniture store Commercial Home Store 

39 UNIPET Gas Station Commercial Gas 

39 U-store Grocery & Bakery Commercial Grocery 

  



129 
 

APPENDIX B: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS 

Appendix B.1: Stage 3: Hub user SSI questions 

Date:_______________  Time: am/pm Sex: M/F Age:_______ 

Occupation: ______________  Address: ___________________________ 

 

1. What comes to mind when you think of Curepe Junction such as your likes and dislikes? 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

2. What brings you to Curepe Junction today? 

☐ Travel ☐ Work ☐ Errand 
☐ Socialise ☐ Relax Other _______________ 
   

3. Would you say Curepe Junction is pedestrian friendly? ☐ Yes ☐ No 

4. Would you ride a bike through Curepe Junction? ☐ Yes ☐ No 

5. Rate your experience through Curepe Junction from 1 to 5: 

Element of Curepe Rating Rating ≤ 2, please state 
why? (Optional) 1 2 3 4 5 

Ease of accessibility for elderly and differently abled       

Aesthetics of Curepe Junction       

Cleanliness of Curepe Junction       

Connectivity between Priority Mall and its surroundings       

Driving behaviour while you are crossing       

Ease of crossing the streets around Curepe Junction       

Frequency of transport services       

Accessibility of information for the public transit services       

Priority Mall Lighting       

Feeling of Safety       

Seating accommodations around the Priority Mall       

Shelter from sun and rain       

Sidewalk path, is there sufficient walking room?       

Signage and information visibility such as bus/ taxi signs       

Street Lighting around Curepe Junction       

Travelling experience to & from Curepe Junction       

Walking experience through Curepe       

Likert Scale Rating: 1 = Very Poor; 2 = Poor; 3 = Acceptable; 4 = Good and 5 = Excellent 

6. What is a comfortable walking time for you to get to a desired location or run an errand? 

☐ ≤ 5 minutes ☐ 5 – 10 minutes ☐ 10 – 15 minutes 
 
7. What vendors/ amenities do you visit around Curepe Junction? 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

 

 



130 
 
8. What vendors/ amenities would you like to visit if it were nearby? 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

9. Are you aware of all the businesses/ services the terminal mall has to offer? ☐ Yes ☐ No 

 

10. When crossing the road, do you: 

☐ Always use the crosswalk ☐ Use the crosswalk sometimes 
☐ Always cross wherever and whenever there is a chance 

 

11. Do you think a pedestrian overpass would an asset to Curepe Junction? ☐ Yes ☐ No 

12. Do you consider yourself a way-finder (someone who does not need directions to find their 

way around- or a way-follower (someone who relies on directions)? ☐ Finder ☐ Follower 

13. What mode of transport did you use to get here? 

☐ Private Car ☐ Taxi/ PH ☐ Maxi 
☐ PTSC Bus ☐ Walk/ Cycle Other _______________ 

 

14. What mode of transport are you waiting on? 

☐ Private Car ☐ Taxi/ PH ☐ Maxi 
☐ PTSC Bus ☐ Walk/ Cycle Other _______________ 

 

15. What is the average time you wait for your preferred transport services? 

16. Would you say that public transportation is a daily life necessity? ☐ Yes ☐ No 

17. How often do you travel?  

☐ Everyday ☐ Few days per week ☐ Few days per month 
 

18. Do you rely on public transportation services as your only form of transport? ☐ Yes ☐ No 

If no, why did you decide to travel today? 

19. Would you be interested in a park and ride system? ☐ Yes ☐ No 

20. Would you like to see greenery added to Curepe Junction? ☐ Yes ☐ No 

If yes, where would you like to see greenery added? __________________________________ 

21. Are you aware of the history of Curepe Junction? ☐ Yes ☐ No 

22. Does such historical information interest you? ☐ Yes ☐ No 

23. How has the recent paint job to the Curepe Transit Mall change your mood while travelling 

through Curepe? 

☐ I love it, it uplifts my travelling experience ☐ The aesthetics does not affect my travels 
 

 

 

 



131 
 
24. Would you like to see more visual upgrades around Curepe Junction? ☐ Yes ☐ No 

If yes, where would you like to see upgraded? 

_______________________________________ 

 

25. Do you agree to introduce design features to deter the homeless and undesirable behaviour, 

such as vandalism to Curepe Junction? ☐Agree ☐Disagree 

If disagree, why? _____________________________________________________________ 

26. Would you visit Curepe during your free time? ☐ Yes ☐ No 

27. Have you ever been surveyed for Curepe Junction? ☐ Yes ☐ No 

28. If you have suggestions to improve Curepe, do you know where to submit them or who you 

need to speak to? ☐ Yes ☐ No 

29. Have you ever formally submitted any suggestions to the relevant authority? ☐ Yes ☐ No 

If yes, what was the outcome of your submission? 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

30. Would you like to have a say in future development in Curepe Junction? ☐ Yes ☐ No 

31. How would you like to be involved and informed? 

☐ Community Meetings ☐ Online Surveys ☐ Post 

32. During which aspect/s of the development would you like to be involved in? 

☐ Initiation Stage ☐ Planning & Design Stage ☐ Both 

33. Why is it important for you to have an input in the development of Curepe Junction? 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

34. Do you have any other improvements/ recommendations or even your vision to of Curepe 

Junction that you would like to add that was not covered in this survey? 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

 

 
 

 



132 
 

 

Appendix B.2: Stage 7: Hub user SSI questions 

Date:_______________  Time: am/pm Sex: M/F      Age:_______ 

Occupation: ______________  Address: ___________________________ 

1. Determine the importance of the following elements: 

i. Would you say having a sense of community pride is more 
important than improving the furnishings of Curepe? ☐ Yes ☐ No 

ii. Would you say having a sense of community pride is more 
important than developing the network of Curepe? ☐ Yes ☐ No 

iii. Would you say having a sense of community pride is more 
important than the maintenance of Curepe? ☐ Yes ☐ No 

iv. Would you say improving the furnishings is more important 
than the developing network of Curepe? ☐ Yes ☐ No 

v. Would you say improving the furnishings is more important 
than the maintenance of Curepe? ☐ Yes ☐ No 

vi. Would you say the developing the network is more important 
than the maintenance of Curepe? ☐ Yes ☐ No 

  

2. Score the following design elements of Curepe from 1 to 5. 
Likert Scale Rating: 1 = Very Poor; 2 = Poor; 3 = Acceptable; 4 = Good and 5 = Excellent 

Design Element Current Score Proposed Score* 
Community Pride   
The Furnishings - - 

 

Traffic and Information Signage   
Inclusive Accessibility   
Shelter/ Shading Elements   
Greenscape Design   
Celebrating Character   
Sanitation Accommodations   

The Network - - 

 

The Sidewalk   
The Crosswalk   
Bus Stop Accommodations   
Road Markings   
Parking Accommodations   

Maintenance   
* Present the CDG and application. 

 

3. What would you like to add or change about the proposed design? 

________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

 

 



133 
 

 

APPENDIX C: DESIGN GUIDELINES 

  

 Traffic Sign Location/ Use 

D
an

ge
r W

ar
ni

ng
 

 

“Pedestrian Crossing” sign at all crosswalks. 
Positioned a minimum of 45m from the 
crosswalk. 

 

“Disabled Access Crossing” sign at crosswalks 
with ADA compliant furnishings, i.e. near the 
CTM 
Positioned a minimum of 45m from the 
crosswalk. 

 

Located at crosswalks below D-1 or D-2 that are 
not at an intersection. 

R
eg

ul
at

or
y 

Si
gn

s 

 

“Maximum Speed Limit” sign near popular turn 
off locations, such as Curepe Junction, and 
along the roadway. 
Positioned 5km apart. 

 

“Maximum Speed Limit” sign near popular turn 
off locations, such as Curepe Junction, and 
along the roadway. 
Positioned 8 - 10km apart. 

 

“Direction to be followed” sign located near the 
restricted intersection where only straight ahead 
movement is permitted. 
Positioned within 10m from the intersection. 

 

“No Entry” sign located near the restricted 
intersection. 
Positioned a minimum of 50m from the 
intersection. 

  

“No Stopping” sign along the main roads and 
PBR. 
“No Parking” sign along the main roads. 

Figure C.1: Traffic signs and locations for Curepe 
 
Source: Adaptations from The Licensing Authority (2013) and Republic of Trinidad 

and Tobago. MOWI (2013) 

 



134 
 

 

Located at taxi zones and the proposed bus bay 

 

 

“Box Junction” warning sign placed just before 
entering Curepe Junction. Suggested penalty 
fees added to ensure drivers do not enter the box 
junction unless their exit is clear. 

 

“No Parking” signs placed near the CTM to 
facilitate the tenants and customers/ visitors of 
the mall. 

  

Taxi signs to guide taxi zones 

 
Figure C.1 (continued) 
 
 
 
 

 

Figure C.1: Recommended traffic sign dimensions 

 



135 
 

Globe Bulb: 

• Diameter = 275 mm 

• Illuminated by a flashing 

light. 

 

Globe Post: 

• Post Height = 2.5m 

• Coloured black and white 

in alternate horizontal 

bands that are clearly 

visible to approaching 

traffic. 

• Each band width = 300mm 

Figure C.2: Yellow globe for zebra crossings 
 
Source: MAGLA (2016, p. 375) 

 

  



136 
 
Figure C.3: Road marking dimensions 

 Line 
Code Road Marking 

Lo
ng

itu
di

na
l M

ar
ke

rs
 

L-1 
 

Use: Edge, lane line prohibiting lane change/ overtaking. 

Location: Near intersections and crosswalks. 

L-2 
 

Use: Lane Lines 

Location: Throughout the hub where safe overtaking can be 

facilitated. 

L-3 
 

Use: Continuity Lines 

Location: Directly after line type 1, which can later transition 

into type 2. 

Tr
an

sv
er

se
 M

ar
ke

rs
 

T-1 

 
Use: “Stop” line 
Location: Placed in conjunction with stop signs at all 
intersections. 

T-2 

 
Use: “Give Way” lines to enforce road user preference 
Location: Placed 1m from pedestrian crossing. 



137 
 

T-3 

 
Use: Zebra Crossing/ Continental Crosswalks 
Location: At all crosswalk zones throughout Curepe. 

T-4 

 
Use: “Yellow Box Marking” to enforce clear zones. 

Location: At EMR and Riverside Road junction. 

A
dv

is
or

y 
M

ar
ke

rs
 

A-1 

 
Use: “Keep Clear” marking to enforce clear zones for queuing 

vehicles.  

Location: Near taxi zones, allowing a clear lane for overtaking 

vehicles along Evans Street. 



138 
 

A-2 

 
Use: “Slow” marking added as an additional warning sign to 

warn drivers of hazard. 

Location: Before crosswalk along the EMR and PBR. 

Source: Adapted from Department for Transport (2021) 

 

 



139 
 

 
 
Figure C.4: Local greenscape tree suggestions 



140 
 

 
 
Figure C.5: Conceptual images for greenscape design 
 
Source:  Image (a) VirtualExpo Group (2017); Image (b)  Grubb (2020);   Image (c)  Atlas 
(2009); Image (d)  (Kuntzman 2008); Image (e)  Vance (2015); Image (f)  New York City DOT 
(n.d.) 

 


	Abstract
	Acknowledgements
	List of Figures
	List of Tables
	List of Acronyms
	Chapter 1
	Introduction
	1.1 Background
	1.2 Problem Statement
	1.3 Aim
	1.4 Objectives
	1.5 Key Research Question
	1.6 Scope and Limitations

	Chapter 2
	Literature Review
	2.1 A Quality Place
	2.1.1 Characteristics of a Successful Place
	2.1.2 Complete Street

	2.2 TEUD Elements
	2.2.1 Elements of Transportation Engineering
	2.2.2 Elements of Urban Design

	2.3 Existing Design Guidelines
	2.4 Existing Methodologies and Analysis
	2.4.1 Secondary Data Collection
	2.4.2 Primary Data Collection
	2.4.2.1 Experimental Data
	2.4.2.2 Interviews
	2.4.2.3 Questionnaires

	2.4.3 Research Validity

	2.5 Gaps in Current TEUD Research
	2.6 Summary of Key Findings from Literature Review

	Chapter 3
	Research Methodology
	3.1 Research Philosophy
	3.2 Methodology Sequence
	3.2.1 Phase 1: Gathering the Data
	3.2.2 Phase 2: Developing the Guidelines
	3.2.3 Phase 3: Validity and Impacts

	3.3 Pilot Study
	3.4 Data Collection and Analysis
	3.4.1 Semi-Structured Interviews
	3.4.2 Additional Data
	3.4.2.1 Field Data
	3.4.2.2 Literature


	3.5 Limitations

	Chapter 4
	Discussion of Findings
	4.1 Integration of Transportation Engineering and Urban Design
	4.2 Reconnaissance Survey of Curepe Junction
	4.2.1 The People
	4.2.2 The Furnishings
	4.2.3 The Network
	4.2.3.1 The Road Network
	4.2.3.2 Modal Choice
	4.2.3.3 The Built Environment


	4.3 SSI with the Hub Users
	4.3.1 The Sociodemographic Factors
	4.3.1.1 Gender and Age
	4.3.1.2 Occupation
	4.3.1.3 Service Areas

	4.3.2 Perception of Curepe Junction
	4.3.3 Perception of the Elements of Curepe Junction
	4.3.3.1 Accessibility
	4.3.3.2 Cleanliness
	4.3.3.3 Driving Behaviour
	4.3.3.4 Information Accessibility
	4.3.3.5 Safety
	4.3.3.6 Seating
	4.3.3.7 Shelter
	4.3.3.8 Other Elements

	4.3.4 Perception of Convenience
	4.3.4.1 Walkability of Curepe Junction

	4.3.5 Perception of Historical Preservation and Aesthetics
	4.3.6 Perception of Change

	4.4 Summarising the problematic TEUD Elements

	Chapter 5
	Curepe Design Guidelines
	5.1 Building a Community
	5.2 Improving the Furnishings
	5.2.1 Signage and Accessibility
	5.2.1.1 Traffic Signs
	5.2.1.2 Information Signs
	5.2.1.3 Accessibility

	5.2.2 Comfort and Image
	5.2.2.1 Shading Elements
	5.2.2.2 Greenscape Design
	5.2.2.3 Celebrating Character
	5.2.2.4 Litter Free Streets


	5.3 Redefining the Network
	5.3.1 The Sidewalk
	5.3.2 The Crosswalk
	5.3.3 Bus Turnouts
	5.3.4 Road markings
	5.3.5 Parking Accommodations

	5.4 Maintenance

	Chapter 6
	Application of the curepe Design Guidelines
	6.1 Traffic Signs and Road Markings
	6.2 Greenscape Design
	6.3 Sidewalk Design
	6.4 Crosswalk Design
	6.5 Bus Turnout
	6.6 Parking Zones

	Chapter 7
	Curepe Design Guidelines Verification
	7.1 Curepe Score Toolkit
	7.2 Evaluation SSI

	Chapter 8
	Conclusion
	8.1 Conclusion
	8.2 Opportunities for Further Research

	References
	Appendices
	APPENDIX A: DATA COLLECTION
	APPENDIX B: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS
	APPENDIX C: DESIGN GUIDELINES