Abstract
Shared space is an approach to street design which minimises demarcations between vehicles and pedestrians. It has become particularly influential in the UK, where a comprehensive study of shared space schemes has informed recently published national guidance to local highway authorities. This paper critically examines the claim made in the guidance that it is ‘evidence based'. Primary research reported in the paper examines one of the sites in the ‘official study' in Ashford, Kent, in greater depth, using video observation and a street survey of pedestrians. The findings show that most pedestrians diverted away from their desire lines, gave way to vehicles in most cases and felt safer under the original road layout. This evidence, and the analysis of the ‘official study', cast doubt on some aspects of the methodology and its interpretation in the national guidance. The authors conclude that some of the claims made on behalf of shared space have overstated the available evidence, and that caution is needed in implementing shared space schemes, particularly in environments of high traffic flows.
Highlights
The concept of ‘shared space’ between vehicles and pedestrians in streets is becoming increasingly influential across several countries, in Europe (Hamilton-Baillie, 2008; Shared Space, 2011)
The authors conclude that some of the claims made on behalf of shared space have overstated the available evidence, and that caution is needed in implementing shared space schemes, in environments of high traffic flows
Primary research described in this paper focuses in greater depth on one of the sites studied by MVA Consultancy (2010a, 2010b)
Summary
The concept of ‘shared space’ between vehicles and pedestrians in streets is becoming increasingly influential across several countries, in Europe (Hamilton-Baillie, 2008; Shared Space, 2011). It should be noted that the Dutch towns where the first shared space schemes were implemented (see Figure 1) have a high degree of segregation between soft modes and general traffic (e.g. Figure 2), designed to protect and to give a distance/time advantage to these modes These claims appear to have been made in advance of any systematic evidence to support them, as reviewed . Manual for Streets 2 – which extended the principles of the earlier guidance to mixed-use streets – removed this caveat about traffic volumes, and suggested that shared space might be a ‘more desirable’ alternative to pedestrianisation in some contexts (CiHT, 2010) This approach raises a number of issues, not all of which can be addressed here, but clearly depends upon the validity of the claims that shared space designs create significant improvements for pedestrians ( ‘improvements’ are defined and measured)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Transport
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
