Shared space – research, policy and problems

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.

Shared space streets: design, user perception and performance

“…Therefore, the main purpose of this research is to investigate how safe and comfortable the pedestrians feel in shared space streets. As it has been advanced and will be further discussed along this paper, recent research by Hammond and Musselwhite (2013), Kaparias et al (2012) and Moody and Melia (2014) have investigated these issues, but their results remain inconclusive and/or contradictory, demanding for the type of research presented in this article.…”

“…This revitalization potential is claimed by the advocates who claim it can foster for "the multiple uses of streets and spaces for every kind of social activity" (Hamilton-Baillie, 2008a, p.137) and the governmental publications that refer to it as a "way of enhancing a street's sense of place [the quality which makes a street somewhere to visit and spend time in]" (Department for Transport, 2011, p.6). Recent research by Biddulph (2012), Curl et al (2015), Karndacharuk et al (2013), Hammond and Musselwhite (2013) and Moody and Melia (2014) are, again, often inconclusive and/or contradictory, making it pertinent for the new research to further investigate the social issues. This study carefully takes into consideration the work by the above mentioned researchers and build upon their work to develop an applicable set of research methods.…”

The domestication of planning ideas – the case of Shared Space

“…Instead, they critically point to a tendency of environmental determinism (Hammond & Musselwhite, 2013) in shared space discourses, the simplification and generalizations of user needs, the danger of excluding impaired individuals (Imrie, 2012) and political biases of texts that advocate shared space (Moody & Melia, 2013).…”

Editorial

“…One example, highlighted by the recent report from Lord Holmes of Richmond (Holmes, 2016) is shared space, the deliberate removal of demarcations between vehicles and pedestrians. Shared space was originally promoted as a means of improving the pedestrian environment but a growing body of evidence demonstrates that it can create an environment that is hostile to vulnerable pedestrians (Moody and Melia, 2014), particularly visually impaired pedestrians (Norgate, 2012).…”