David Hughes writes on the benefits of 'Shared Space' for our local area

SHARED SPACE

Democratising streets and saving lives

In a recent e-mail to Improving Our Place Councillor Terry Neville, Cabinet Member for the Environment, Parks and Leisure, said this: “I can confirm that we are looking at the ‘shared streets scheme’ which I have a good deal of enthusiasm for.”  So what was he referring to?

Imagine closing your eyes and stepping backwards from the pavement onto the road on a busy Monday morning in Palmers Green.  A dangerous move? Certainly, but for Dutch traffic engineer Hans Monderman such an act is reputed to have been a party piece, and he was never injured.  Indeed, it is often claimed that in traffic schemes based on Monderman’s principles – and there are now hundreds across North-Western Europe, many in Britain – no-one has ever been killed and collisions are halved.  Improving Our Place has not been able to disprove that claim.

Monderman’s big idea has become known in Britain as Shared Space; an accurate enough name in its way, but it doesn’t fully describe the range of changes the design embraces.  At heart they are: that the maximum speed should not be higher than 30kph (in Britain 20mph), that all traffic signals and barriers such as traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, roundabouts and pavement railings be removed, that everything possible be done to change the appearance of the street to let drivers know that people are as welcome as vehicles – a change usually emphasized by the removal of kerbs, and the use of paving and street furniture such as seating which emphasize the pedestrian function.

So why is Shared Space a safer, more pleasant experience, and why doesn’t traffic grind to a halt?  Because visual ambience is improved, because drivers think rather than obey instructions, because they must negotiate priority by eye contact, and because the visual cues make clear that pedestrians are as entitled to the space as drivers.  All of which means that pedestrians can cross the road safely anywhere, they don’t need to be so desperately worried about their children (at 20mph drivers can stop), the noise levels are held down by steady driving, and steady driving improves air quality.

And the beauty is that vehicle journey times are not increased because impediments to progress like traffic lights and pedestrian crossings are removed.

Like Councillor Neville, Improving Our Place thinks there are grounds for enthusiasm about the role that Shared Space schemes can have in a mix of measures to enhance street environments, strengthen communities, increase children’s independence and improve safety.  We look forward to helping to progress such schemes in the Palmers Green area. 

David Hughes, Improving our Place

**********

Shared space schemes need to be understood as tactics designed to improve quality of life, visual amenity, local economic performance and environmental quality.

They are not primarily intended as traffic schemes

There is sufficient evidence to suggest that well-designed schemes in appropriate settings can bring benefits in terms of visual amenity, economic performance and perceptions of personal safety.

Source: Department of Transport Shared Space Project Nov 2009

**********

Numerous towns and cities around the world have implemented schemes with elements based on the shared space principles. Most streets in Tokyo are shared in practice

Netherlands: Accident figures at one junction where traffic lights were removed have dropped from thirty-six in the four years prior to the introduction of the scheme to two in the two years following it.Only three of the original fifteen sets of traffic lights remain. Tailbacks (traffic jams) are now almost unheard of at the town's main junction, which handles about 22,000 cars a day

Sweden: Since the zebra crossings and traffic signs were replaced with a spacious fountain, benches and other street furniture, the Skvallertorget square in Norrköping has experienced no accidents, mean traffic speeds have dropped from 21 to 16 km/h (13 to 10 mph) and liveability has increased

UK: In Seven Dials, London the road surface has been re-laid to remove the distinction between the roadway and the footway and kerbs have been lowered to encourage people to wander across the street

UK: London's Kensington High Street, has yielded significant and sustained reductions in injuries to pedestrians. It is reported that, based on two years of 'before and after' monitoring, casualties fell from 71 in the period before the street was remodelled to 40 afterwards – a drop of 43% 

UK: Ashford, Kent. The scheme has vastly improved safety records since it opened. As of summer 2009, there have been no reported accidents

USA: West Palm Beach, Florida removed traffic signals and road markings and brought pedestrians into much closer contact with cars. The result has been slower traffic, fewer accidents, and shorter trip times

Source: Wikipedia

**********

 The concept has long been familiar in Italy's historic towns. It has been introduced, at the last count, in 3,500 zones in Germany and the Netherlands, 300 in Japan, 600 in Israel, and in cities as widespread as Lyon, Barcelona, Copenhagen, Melbourne and Portland, Oregon. All have experienced a drop in accidents and most a drop in journey times

Why has the concept not caught on in Britain? The reason is simple. Policy is in the hands of traffic engineers. These people deal with road builders, kit manufacturers, consultants and health and safety inspectors. All have large budgets and a vested interest in treating streets as policed corridors of total control. To them, traffic management involves herding pedestrians into cages and hurling vehicles along fast, one-way streets to bring them to a halt at the next stop light or traffic bump.

As a result, road users in cars and on foot in Britain are probably having to travel twice as far as necessary to get from A to B, with controlled crossings and cars negotiating tortuous one-way systems with long waits at lights. This increases traffic volume, causes more accidents, misallocates road space, slows buses and doubles carbon emissions. It is plain dumb.

What pushed the Kensington High Street scheme was an eagerness by businesses to make their street more attractive against competition from malls. They wanted, "to get away from the idea that streetscape is essentially an exercise in safety engineering". ….. the need to overrule health and safety officials, who seemed uninterested in evidence that accidents would fall. As for engineers in general, they seem to care only about "making it harder for road accident victims to bring successful litigation against highway authorities".

Certainly the concept of people and vehicles sharing the road, and thus rendering it safer and more efficient, is counter-intuitive, because vehicles are regarded as inanimate thugs that do more damage than bicycles and pedestrians. But vehicles are driven by people with eyes, who only become dangerous when treated as automatons. That is why shared space has saved thousands of lives across Europe in the past decade. It also saves pollution, time, money and policing costs.

In Britain the flat-earthers deny evidence and cry that the great god traffic would "grind to a halt" if streets were shared and traffic lights were abolished. Yet as Galileo told the Inquisition, "Eppur si muove", and yet it moves.

Source: Simon Jenkins, Guardian February 2008