Original Article Shared space streets: design, user perception and performance Borja Ruiz-Apila´neza,*, Kayvan Karimib, Irene Garcı´a-Camachac and Rau´ l Martı´nc aDepartment of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, School of Architecture, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Escuela de Arquitectura, Avda. Carlos III, s/n, 45071 Toledo, Spain. E-mail: [email protected] bFaculty of the Built Environment, The Bartlett School of Architecture, University College, London, UK. cDepartment of Mathematics, School of Architecture, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain. *Corresponding author. Abstract Shared space is becoming an increasingly well-accepted approach to street design, pursuing improvement of street uses on foot without restricting other modes of movement. This approach introduces a degree of uncertainty regarding application of traffic rules by minimising traffic signs and conventional physical demarcations to enable different users to share the road space and negotiate their movement through and across it. Despite existing evidence for reduced traffic accidents and casualties, this type of street design remains an unorthodox approach. This article addresses the key issues of road safety, user comfort and revitalization aspects of the shared space, raised in the last decade with a focus on pedestrian users. Based on analysis of the layout, performance and user perception of six study areas, evidence reveals how these schemes affect safety, comfort, the conventional spatial distribution or hierarchy of users, and public life. URBAN DESIGN International (2017). doi:10.1057/s41289-016-0036-2 Keywords: shared space; street design; road safety; pedestrian comfort; street vitality; public space Introduction InterregIIIprojectofthesamename (2005, 2008a, b), which was stimulated by the Shared space is becoming a widespread yet con- ideas of Hans Monderman and his early experi- troversial approach to street and public space ences in The Netherlands. The early diffusion of design that has attracted a great deal of attention this concept in the UK corresponds to one of the during the last decade among urban designers and project’s partners and main advocates, Hamil- those interested in improving the built environ- ton-Baillie (2004, 2008a, b, 2014). ment by rebalancing the conventional transporta- Similarly to the term ‘‘shared space’’, different tion modal share and enhancing pedestrian terminologies, such as woonerf, encounter zone, mobility. Controversies include the appropriate- home zone, shared street and shared zone, have ness of the term itself, the origin of its denomina- been used for different street layouts that do not tion, its definition and more importantly concerns segregate pedestrians from vehicles. These defini- regarding the performance and impact on users of tions have similarities and differences regarding this design approach. their objectives and design features, as broadly The term ‘‘shared space’’ has been widely used discussed by Karndacharuk et al (2014a). Accord- in literature since 2000, as well as in media and ing to Hass-Klau (1990), the very same term among city officials—mainly, but not only, in the ‘‘shared space’’ was already used in the UK during European context. The current proliferation of the 1960s and 1970s, referring to a traffic-calming the term originated with the 2005–2008 street layout applied to cul-de-sac residential ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International www.palgrave.com/journals Ruiz-Apila´nez et al streets. However, the term remained unused as a qualitative report prepared for the Department street design concept for decades, and it is only for Transport by MVA Consultancy (2011) showed recently that it has been re-coined with a related that 4 out of 20 blind or visually impaired users but different meaning. would not use a shared space street again, based Probably because the term was purposely not on an experience that took place across seven clearly defined by those responsible for its rebirth different sites in the UK. Quite recently, Havik et al and dissemination, currently there are a number of (2015) confirmed that blind users and those with different definitions available: ‘‘the meaning […]is visual impairment evaluated shared space evolving as experience is gained and knowledge schemes more negatively, based on the experience expands’’ (Shared Space et al, 2008, p. 3). Despite of 25 people in two shared space locations and two more recent official definitions, such as the one by conventionally designed settings in The the Department for Transport (2011), which would Netherlands. apply only in the UK, the term in this paper is Imrie (2012, p. 2274) argued that, for many intended to refer to a set of built environment visually impaired people, shared space is a design principles that prefer to ‘‘combine rather disabling design ‘‘enlarging socio-spatial divi- than separate the various functions of public sions and inequalities in the urban environment’’. spaces’’ and seek to ‘‘improve the quality of public These concerns were questioned by Parkin and spaces and the living environment for people, Smithies (2012,p.135),whoultimatelysuggested without needing to restrict or banish motorized that ‘‘shared space needs to preserve a safe area traffic’’, as originally proposed in the EU project for pedestrians’’ and ‘‘provide a rich physical Shared Space (2005, p. 5). environment of contrasts in terms of surface On top of the above-mentioned issues, there are tactility, colour contrast, and the enhancement of others related to the functioning and impact of the sound and other sensory clues’’, stressing the call shared space approach, including the traffic safety from Methorst et al (2007)forsafeareaswithin of shared space schemes, how comfortable users shared space streets. As a result, tactile and feel sharing the space and their claimed impact on demarcatedareasthatarenotaccessibleto public life. These concerns are the main purpose of vehicles, i.e. safe zones, and other contributing this investigation, since they remain unclear after solutions have emerged in the most recent shared being partially addressed in previous studies, as space schemes. further explained in the next section. However, safety and comfort issues that are particularly relevant to particular groups of more vulnerable users are not the focus of this research. Research Objectives Rather, this investigation intends to focus on the most vulnerable users of shared space streets Since the early experiences in The Netherlands, from a broader perspective, i.e. that of an average shared space schemes are reported to have effec- pedestrian. Among the possible conflicts between tively reduced traffic incidents and accidents users, the focus here is placed on the pedestrian– (Commission for Architecture and the Built Envi- driver interaction, given that the share of cyclists ronment, 2007; Euser, 2006; Hamilton-Baillie, found in the analysed study areas (SAs) is 2008a; Karndacharuk et al, 2014b). Despite the negligible. Therefore, the main purpose of this lack of sufficient published research on this topic, research is to investigate how safe and comfort- the greatest criticisms do not question the objective able pedestrians feel in shared space streets. As safety of the schemes, i.e. reduction in casualties, has been advanced and is further discussed but focus mainly on the subjective or perceived below, recent research by Hammond and Mus- safety and comfort experienced by users. Among selwhite (2013), Kaparias et al (2012) and Moody others, Methorst et al (2007) argued that the and Melia (2014) investigated these issues, but decrease in accident/casualty numbers could have their results remained inconclusive and/or con- been created by an overall reduction of pedestri- tradictory, motivating the type of research pre- ans, caused by their discomfort with the imple- sented herein. mented schemes. In addition, this study tackles another important This issue of perceived unsafety and discomfort question that has also remained inconclusive to is emphasised for the case of blind or visually date: Does shared space enhance public life? This impaired users, according to the Guide Dogs for revitalization potential is claimed by advocates, the Blind Association (GDBA, 2006). The who claim it can foster ‘‘multiple uses of streets ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International Shared space streets and spaces for every kind of social activity’’ peculiarities and variability present along Exhibi- (Hamilton-Baillie, 2008a, p. 137), and governmen- tion Road, two control streets were included in the tal publications, which refer to it as a ‘‘way of present research as well. The specifics are further enhancing a street’s sense of place [the quality described in the section on the SAs. which makes a street somewhere to visit and spend time in]’’ (Department for Transport, 2011, p. 6). Recent research by Biddulph (2012a, b), Curl Observations et al (2015), Karndacharuk et al (2013), Hammond and Musselwhite (2013) and Moody and Melia A set of systematic on-street observations were (2014) is, again, often inconclusive and/or contra- performed, including counting, mapping and trac- dictory, making it pertinent for new research to ing mainly pedestrian activity. A previous pilot investigate such social issues further. This study study by the authors and the reports available from carefully takes into consideration the work by the the Royal Borough of Kensington and