shared space ltn 1-11

8/3/2019 Shared Space LTN 1-11

1/56

Shared Space

Local Transport Note 1/11

October 2011


2/56

The Department or Transport has actively considered the needs o blind and partiallysighted people in accessing this document. The text will be made available in ull on theDepartments website in accordance with the W3Cs Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.The text may be reely downloaded and translated by individuals or organisations orconversion into other accessible ormats. I you have other needs in this regard please

contact the Department.

Department or TransportGreat Minster House33 Horseerry RoadLondon SW1P 4DRTelephone 0300 330 3000Website www.dt.gov.uk

Crown copyright 2011

Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.

You may re-use this inormation (not including logos or third-party material) ree o chargein any ormat or medium, under the terms o the Open Government Licence. To view thislicence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or write to theInormation Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail:[email protected].

Where we have identiied any third-party copyright inormation you will need to obtainpermission rom the copyright holders concerned.

ISBN 9780115532092

Printed in Great Britain on paper containing at least 75% recycled ibre.

Cover photograph: Ben Hamilton-Baillie

Published by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from:

Online

www.tsoshop.co.uk

Mail, Telephone, Fax & E-mail

TSO

PO Box 29, Norwich, NR3 1GN

Telephone orders/General enquiries: 0870 600 5522

Fax orders: 0870 600 5533

E-mail: [email protected]

Textphone 0870 240 3701

TSO@Blackwell and other Accredited Agents


3/56

Shared Space 3

Contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................5

The Equality Act 2010 ......................................................................................................................8

Evidence base .................................................................................................................................9

Risk and liability ..............................................................................................................................9

2. Understanding shared space ..................................................................10

Demarcation and sharing ..............................................................................................................11

Trac fow and speed ...................................................................................................................13

Design fexibility ............................................................................................................................14

Eye contact....................................................................................................................................14

3. User needs and behaviour .......................................................................16

Pedestrians....................................................................................................................................16

Disabled people ............................................................................................................................17

Cyclists ..........................................................................................................................................19

Drivers ..........................................................................................................................................19

4. Scheme development ...............................................................................20

The design team ............................................................................................................................22

Stakeholder engagement ..............................................................................................................22

Checking the design......................................................................................................................24

Monitoring .....................................................................................................................................25

5. General design considerations ...............................................................26

Data collection ..............................................................................................................................27

Space allocation ............................................................................................................................28

Designing to maintain ....................................................................................................................29


4/56

Shared Space4

Materials ........................................................................................................................................30

Historic streets ..............................................................................................................................31

6. Detailed design .........................................................................................33

De-cluttering .................................................................................................................................33

Designing or low speed ................................................................................................................34

Transition to shared space ............................................................................................................36

Crossings ......................................................................................................................................37

Level suraces ...............................................................................................................................40

Tactile paving .................................................................................................................................41

Comort space ..............................................................................................................................42

The ladder grid ..............................................................................................................................43

Parking and loading.......................................................................................................................45

Cycle parking ................................................................................................................................46

Public transport .............................................................................................................................46

Seating ..........................................................................................................................................47

Trac signs and road markings ....................................................................................................48

Lighting ..........................................................................................................................................48

Drainage ........................................................................................................................................49

Wheel loading ................................................................................................................................50

Alternative routes...........................................................................................................................50

Remedial measures .......................................................................................................................50

7. References .................................................................................................51

Index ....................................................................................................................53


5/56

Shared Space 5

1. Introduction

This Local Transport Note (LTN) focuses on shared space in high streetenvironments but many of its principles will apply in other settings.

It places particular emphasis on stakeholder engagement andinclusive design.

1.1 Shared space is a design approach that seeks to change the way streets operate byreducing the dominance o motor vehicles, primarily through lower speeds and

encouraging drivers to behave more accommodatingly towards pedestrians.

1.2 There is no such thing as a deinitive shared space design. Each site is dierent andthe way a street perorms will depend on its individual characteristics, the eaturesincluded and how these eatures work in combination.

1.3 On the Continent, shared space is oten used to smooth traic low and reducedelays at major junctions. In the UK, it is usually applied to links and minor junctionswith the aim o allowing pedestrians to move more reely within the space.

1.4 This Local Transport Note (LTN) is mainly concerned with the use o shared space

on links. While it ocuses on High Street environments, many o its principles willapply to other types o shared space. It is intended to assist those designing andpreparing street improvement and management schemes. It explains how thescheme development process introduced in LTN 1/08 Traic Management andStreetscape (DT, 2008a) can be applied to shared space projects, and presents aseries o design considerations and recommendations to inorm that process.

1.5 Particular emphasis is placed on stakeholder engagement and inclusive design,where the needs o a diverse range o people are properly considered at all stageso the development process. It also stresses the importance o sustainable design,where long-term maintenance needs are considered as part o the design process.

1.6 In a conventional street, motorist behaviour is largely governed by the highwayinrastructure. Although pedestrians and motorists are equally entitled to occupy thecarriageway, pedestrians generally exercise little control over vehicular traic, otherthan at controlled crossings such as Zebra and Pelican crossings.

1.7 In shared space the messages are more subtle the environment provides lessormal indication as to how drivers are expected to behave, thus making theirprogress within the street increasingly dependent on interpreting the behaviour opedestrians, cyclists and other motorists.


6/56

Shared Space6

1.8 Every street represents a balance between movement (the capacity toaccommodate through traic) and a sense o place (the quality which makes astreet somewhere to visit and spend time in, rather than to pass through). Sharedspace is a way o enhancing a streets sense o place while maintaining its ability to

accommodate vehicular movement.

1.9 Some streets operate naturally as shared spaces they have never been designedas such. However, the purpose o this LTN is to assist those considering newschemes. Within the scope o this LTN, thereore, shared space is deined thus:

Shared space:A street or place designed to improve pedestrian movementand comfort by reducing the dominance of motor vehicles and enabling allusers to share the space rather than follow the clearly defined rules implied

by more conventional designs.

1.10 Streets that encourage sharing o the space are not new. Many historic streetsoperate as shared spaces, particularly narrow streets in historic core zones andresidential mews. There are many other long-established examples throughout thecountry, ranging rom unctional streets such as Chertsey Road in Woking, Surrey(see Figure 1.1) to the more relaxed environment o Seven Dials in Covent Garden,London. Shared space has also been applied to some arterial routes, restoring theirtraditional place unctions. Home Zones and some country lanes, particularly thosewith a Quiet Lanes designation, tend to operate as shared spaces.

Figure 1.1 Chertsey Road in Woking


7/56

Shared Space 7

1.11 Sharing in the context o this LTN is a measure o how well pedestrians are able touse the space as they wish without having to deer to vehicle users, including cyclists(cycles are vehicles). A key indication o the amount o sharing taking place is howwell pedestrians mix with vehicle users in the main body o the street. Sharing may

be acilitated by, or example:

introducing physical and psychological eatures that encourage lowervehicle speeds;

removing any implied priority o vehicles over pedestrians in the carriageway;

reducing demarcation between pedestrians and vehicular trac; and

introducing eatures not necessarily limited to the sides o the street, such asseating, public art and caes, which encourage pedestrians to use the space.

1.12 Sharing is deined thus:

Sharing: The ability and willingness of pedestrians, facilitated by thesympathetic behaviour of motorists and others, to move freely around thestreet and use parts of it that, in a more conventional layout, would beconsidered largely dedicated to vehicular use.

1.13 In general, sharing between vehicle users and pedestrians should take place in thestreets carriageway area, not the sides o the street which should mainly be thepreserve o pedestrians.

1.14 For the purpose o this LTN, reerences to drivers or motorists generally includemotorcyclists. In addition, reerences to the carriageway and the ootway include thenotional carriageways/ootways in level surace schemes.

1.15 Tangible indicators o sharing include:

pedestrians occupying the carriageway;

increased levels o social interaction and leisure activity;

people spending longer in the street (evidence o an enhanced sense o place);

drivers and cyclists giving way to pedestrians;

pedestrians crossing the street at locations, angles and times o theirchoosing; and

drivers and cyclists giving way to one another.


8/56

Shared Space8

1.16 Some shared space streets omit conventional kerbs these are oten called sharedsurace streets. However, the term is not necessarily an accurate description o theway the space operates not all such suraces will be truly shared. In this LTN,thereore, the term level surace is used to describe this eature. A level surace is

deined thus:

Level surface: A street surface with no level difference to segregatepedestrians from vehicular traffic.

1.17 A level surace is oten intended to remove a physical and psychological barrier topedestrian movement. It can also indicate to drivers that pedestrians are notconined to the ootway and that they can expect to encounter them in the whole othe street.

1.18 While shared space appears to work well or most people, some disabled and olderpeople can eel apprehensive about using the space, particularly where a levelsurace is used. In order to address this, this LTN adopts the concept o comortspace. Comort space is deined thus:

Comfort space:An area of the street predominantly for pedestrian usewhere motor vehicles are unlikely to be present.

1.19 In general, comort space only needs to be considered when designing streets witha level surace.

The Equality Act 2010

1.20 Shared space can provide beneits or many disabled people but, i it is poorlydesigned, it can be problematic or some, particularly blind and partially sightedpeople. Consideration o the needs o disabled people (among other groups) is animportant part o shared space design. The duties under the Equality Act 2010 areparticularly relevant.

1.21 The Equality Act 2010 introduced a public sector Equality Duty which came intoorce on 5th April 2011. The Duty requires public bodies to play their part in makingsociety airer by tackling discrimination and providing equality o opportunity or all.Authorities will need to consider how dierent people are likely to be aected bynew scheme proposals and due regard should be given to the eect they mighthave on those protected by the Duty.

1.22 The Equality Duty replaces three earlier public sector equality duties race,disability and gender and covers additional protected characteristics such as ageand religion, etc. Further inormation is given in Equality Act 2010: Public SectorEquality Duty What Do I Need To Know? A Quick Start Guide or Public SectorOrganisations (GEO, 2011).


9/56

Shared Space 9

Evidence base

1.23 The advice in this LTN is evidence-based. It draws on a programme o researchcarried out speciically to inorm the preparation o this LTN. An early output rom

this work was a report entitled Stage 1: Appraisal o Shared Space (MVA, 2009).The appraisal report came to two key conclusions on the relative saety and theamenity value o shared space, including those with level suraces. The researchprogramme continued, building on the appraisal stage. The additional researchoutputs were:

Shared Space: Operational Assessment (MVA, 2011b);

Shared Space: Qualitative Research (MVA, 2011c).

1.24 Where research is mentioned in the text but unreerenced, it relates to the aboveresearch. Other resources are reerenced.

Risk and liability

1.25 Chapter 2 o the Manual or Streets (DT, 2007) provides useul advice on the issueso risk and liability. The subject is covered in greater detail in Highway Risk andLiability Claims (UKHLJTG, 2009).


10/56

Shared Space10

2. Understanding shared space

Shared space enhances a streets sense of place.

As the level of demarcation between pedestrians and drivers is reduced,the amount of sharing increases.

In shared space, a design speed of no more than 20 mph is desirable.

2.1 Most public space in urban areas is provided by streets. Well designed streets can

oer opportunities or recreation, social interaction and physical activity. Poorlydesigned streets can be indierent or unwelcoming, contributing to communityseverance, reducing social cohesion as well as suppressing levels o walking andcycling. They can also have a negative impact on local economic perormance.

2.2 I a street does not perorm well or people wishing to spend time in it, it is anindication that its place unction is too low. The relationship between place andmovement is best understood by considering the place/movement matrix, aconcept introduced in the Manual or Streets (DT, 2007) see Figure 2.1. The matrixshows how the ratio o the place unction to the movement unction can varydepending on the type o route in question.

Figure 2.1 Place/movement matrix (from the Manual for Streets (DfT, 2007))

Place status

Movemen

tstatus

Motorway

High street

Residential street

AndrewCameronWSPandBobW

hite,

KentCountyCouncil


11/56

Shared Space 11

2.3 Shared space streets are essentially areas where the balance has been redressed inavour o the place unction, although not necessarily at the expense o movement.Indeed, it is important that the movement unction is retained i the street is to betruly shared. The movement unction could even be enhanced i the implementation

o shared space results in less delay to drivers. Manual or Streets 2 WiderApplication o the Principles (CIHT, 2010) develops the place/movement conceptand emphasises how context inluences the balance to be achieved.

2.4 Shared space does not represent a particular type o street. It is more a broad set odesign approaches aimed at encouraging sharing as a way o improving the streetsplace unction. It can achieve this, in part, through minimal use o traic signs andother traic management related street urniture. Traic signals are oten removed,with indications o priority at minor junctions omitted. These changes modiy theway the street operates by creating an environment that encourages drivers,pedestrians and cyclists to behave in a more co-operative manner.

2.5 Shared space challenges the assumption that segregating pedestrians and vehiclesby high levels o demarcation improves saety. Available evidence indicates acomparable number o casualties in shared space streets and conventional streets.This is despite the act that some o the schemes studied experienced increaseduse by pedestrians and cyclists ater conversion to shared space. At its simplest,reducing demarcation might mean removing guardrailing. At the other end o thescale would be the implementation o a level surace, where conventional kerbs areomitted and pedestrians share an undierentiated surace with vehicles.

2.6 Shared space is oten applicable where the buildings ronting the street have a

strong heritage or cultural signiicance. It is particularly suitable where the quantityand type o surrounding land-use generates a high level o pedestrian demand oruses other than simply movement through the space. Shared space can also beappropriate at junctions or squares, where pedestrian desire lines are more diverse.Such settings, where streets come together, can provide good opportunities orcreating distinct ocal points.

2.7 Shared space should not be pursued or its own sake. Improving pedestrianmovement and comort, as well as creating vibrant spaces, or example, are likely tobe primary objectives, and a high level o sharing should only be considered anobjective in its own right i it contributes to these higher-order ones.

Demarcation and sharing

2.8 Research shows that, as the level o demarcation between pedestrians and driversis reduced, the amount o interaction taking place between these modes increases.Reducing demarcation indicates that the street is meant to be shared equally by allusers o the street. Implied priority or vehicles is reduced, as are physical andpsychological barriers to pedestrians using the street.


12/56

Shared Space12

2.9 From the drivers perspective, the behaviour o other users in shared space tends todetermine how they drive. By making it easier or pedestrians to move around thestreet in ways that best suit them, shared spaces present drivers with anenvironment that is dierent each time, requiring greater awareness and more

cautious behaviour on their part.

2.10 A high level o interaction might be indicated by, or example, a pedestrian beginningto cross the street without waiting or an approaching car to pass, with theexpectation that it will slow down. From the drivers point o view, it could be thelevel o acceptance o a pedestrian doing this combined with a willingness to slowdown. The other end o the interaction scale could be represented by a pedestrianwaiting at a signal controlled crossing. In this case, there is no interaction, becauseboth pedestrian and driver are responding to the traic signals, not to each other.Sharing is synonymous with interaction in the above sense so, as demarcationreduces, sharing tends to increase. This relationship is illustrated in Figure 2.2.

2.11 Demarcation and other physical eatures alone do not dictate the level o sharingthat takes place, but they can give a broad indication o what might be expected.Table 2.1 shows the general eect o particular eatures on sharing. A combinationo eatures is generally more inluential on user behaviour than the sum o the eectso individual eatures. As the degree o sharedness (i.e. the physical aspects o astreet that encourage sharing) increases, vehicle speeds tend to reduce.

Figure 2.2 Demarcation and sharing

Conventional

streets

(Least shared)

Shared space

(Most shared)

Interaction between modesLow High

igh

Demarcationbetweenmodes


13/56

Shared Space 13

2.12 Incorporating eatures rom Table 2.1 into a design does not necessarily mean that aparticular level o sharing will be achieved. Other actors have an inluence such asstreet layout, rontage activity, pedestrian composition (e.g. shoppers, tourists etc.)and pedestrian activity (e.g. sitting and chatting, using street caes, etc.).

Table 2.1 Influence of typical features on sharing

Less shared design More shared design

Kerbs Low kerbs, chamered kerbs No kerbs

Pedestrian barriers No pedestrian barriers

Vehicles restricted to parts o

street, e.g. by bollards, street

trees, etc.

Implied vehicle paths using

surace materials, or example

No barriers to vehicle

movement

Poor quality or unwelcoming

public space characteristics

A ew places where people

can rest and chat

Presence o eatures such as

caes, markets, abundant

seating, planting, public art, etc.

Conventional road markings Limited road markings No road markings

Traic signals No traic signals

Signal controlled crossings Zebra crossings Courtesy crossings or

no crossings

Traffic flow and speed

2.13 Sharing is also a unction o reduced traic low and speed. In general, sharedspace schemes achieve their maximum beneits when pedestrians use the space inthe street that would be dedicated primarily to vehicular use in a conventionalsetting. For pedestrians to ully share the space, relatively low motor traic lowsand speeds are usually necessary.

2.14 The Manual or Streets (DT, 2007) suggested that, above 100 motor vehicles perhour, pedestrians treat the general path taken by motor vehicles in a shared spaceas a road to be crossed rather than a space to occupy. However, this igure is not anupper limit or shared space. Shared space streets with substantially larger lowshave been reported to operate successully, albeit with reduced willingness opedestrians to use all o the street space.

2.15 Vehicle speed has a signiicant inluence on pedestrians willingness to share thespace and drivers willingness to give way to pedestrians (and others). As vehiclespeeds decrease, the proportion o drivers giving way increases, so the streetbecomes more shared. This is where the design speed becomes important. Thedesign speed is a target speed that designers intend most vehicles not to exceedand is dictated primarily by the geometry o tracked vehicle paths within the street.For shared space, a design speed o no more than 20 mph is desirable, andpreerably less than 15 mph (see Chapter 6).


14/56

Shared Space14

2.16 The design speed need not be the same as the speed limit. It is worth noting thatthe speed limit in any given situation is not an indication o a sae speed to travel at it is simply the speed that a driver cannot legally exceed. There are many roadswhere it would be unwise to travel at the speed limit, and it is perectly acceptable

to adopt a design speed below the posted speed limit. For example, a street with aspeed limit o 30 mph could be designed to create an environment where vehiclestend not to exceed 12 mph. Ten shared space sites were studied during theresearch or this Local Transport Note (LTN). All had speed limits o 30 mph butachieved average speeds o around 20 mph.

2.17 Although evidence indicates that vehicle low and speed are important designconsiderations, the low and speed igures given above are not meant to be treatedas absolute or critical thresholds, or pre-conditions or eective design. As withother considerations, they are design inputs that need to be taken into account.

Design flexibility

2.18 A key beneit o shared space, particularly where there is a level surace, is that itcan allow the street to be used in dierent ways. For example, street caes and thelike may be present during the day, while at night the area occupied by daytimeactivities could be given over to people visiting night-time entertainment venues.A street could also host regular street markets or occasional events such asstreet theatre.

2.19 The aim should be to design to allow or this variety o use as appropriate, while

maintaining the sel-calming eect o the overall design, particularly during thedaytime when it is likely to be most necessary. Note that A-boards, tables andchairs rom caes, pubs and other businesses occupying the street space mayrequire licensing rom the local authority. In addition, a Traic Regulation Order willusually be required to close streets or events.

2.20 The design o a shared space is not necessarily complete on implementation. Thenature o the scheme might initially have a signiicant eect on improving driverbehaviour, but suicient time is necessary to review schemes in operation, allowlonger-term responses to settle into place, and make urther changes i necessary.

Eye contact

2.21 It has oten been suggested that, when crossing a shared space, it is essential orpedestrians to make eye contact with drivers. However, during research into userinteraction in shared space, no instances o negotiation by eye contact wereobserved indeed, there appeared to be very little overtly demonstrativecommunication o any sort between pedestrians and drivers. Instead, people tendto communicate through more subtle signals, and this communication can oten beone-way. For example, drivers tend to slow down or people who appear as i theyare about to cross, even though they may not have expressed any intention o

doing so (or even have been aware o the driver). A pedestrian wishing to cross a


15/56

Shared Space 15

shared space might initially look or approaching vehicles, but there is nothing tosuggest that this is any dierent rom what takes place when people cross aconventional street.

2.22 Eye contact cannot be relied upon, given the diiculty in establishing it with a driverthrough a vehicle windscreen, especially at a distance. It is important that this isunderstood to avoid undermining the conidence o blind and partially sightedpeople using shared space.


16/56

Shared Space16

3. User needs and behaviour

Pedestrians should be in a position to choose whether they interact withvehicles in shared space.

The availability of comfort space and adequate seating is of benefit to alldisabled people.

The reduced impact of motor vehicles often found in a shared spaceenvironment is attractive to cyclists.

There is a notable improvement in drivers giving way to pedestrians whenvehicle speeds fall to around 15 mph.

3.1 Designing shared space, like any street improvement scheme, involves addressingcertain key requirements, including that:

the scheme should meet the needs o all users by embodying the principles oinclusive design;

routes should orm a coherent network at a scale appropriate to the users;

inrastructure must be acceptable in terms o road saety and personal security;

the scheme should be comortable to use and accessible to disabled people; and

the environment should be interesting and aesthetically pleasing.

3.2 In a de-cluttered environment, the physical arrangement o the street assumes anenhanced role in inluencing user behaviour.

Pedestrians

3.3 Pedestrians needs are broadly deined in Manual or Streets (DT, 2007). The keyactors aecting pedestrian comort in shared space appear to be the volume, typeand speed o traic. Pedestrians generally preer wide ootways and narrowcarriageways.

3.4 Pedestrians tend to move dierently within dierent spaces, and will not necessarilyuse all o the street area available to them. Their willingness to occupy the spacedepends largely on the behaviour o drivers and cyclists. There is a tendency ormaking increased use o the available space as vehicle lows reduce. For example,at Seven Dials in London (see Figure 3.1), while the perimeter ootways providecomort space, around two in three people pass through the junction using the

shared area.


17/56

Shared Space 17

3.5 Reducing the deinition between carriageway and ootway can encourage thisbehaviour. When a street is shared, people move more reely and are more likely toollow their desire lines within the street including when crossing. The morepedestrians using the street, the more slowly vehicles tend to travel. Pedestrians

should be in a position to choose whether they interact with vehicles. Where a levelsurace is used, the provision o clearly identiiable comort space where vehicularencroachment is unlikely can be beneicial.

Disabled people

3.6 There are over 10 million disabled people in the UK. The term disability covers awide range o conditions and includes people with physical, sensory or learningimpairment. Four broad categories o disability are described below. They are notmutually exclusive many disabled people, particularly older people, have more

than one impairment, the extent o which may vary rom day to day. Someimpairment conditions may not be evident to other people.

3.7 Inclusive Mobility a Guide to Best Practice on Access to Pedestrian and TransportInrastructure (DT, 2002) provides advice on accommodating the needs o disabledpeople in the built environment. Although it does not speciically cover sharedspace, much o its guidance and design principles are valid in these settings.

3.8 The availability o comort space and plentiul seating is o beneit to alldisabled people.

Figure 3.1 Seven Dials, London

Photo:BenHamilton-Baillie


18/56

Shared Space18

Mobility impairment

3.9 This type o impairment includes people who walk with some orm o aid such as astick or walking rame and those who use wheelchairs. Around 70% o disabledpeople have mobility diiculties, and wheelchair users comprise approximately

one-tenth o this.

3.10 Well maintained, even suraces ree rom clutter and obstructions signiicantlyinluence the comort levels o people with impaired mobility. Ambulatory peoplewith impaired mobility oten need regular opportunities to rest.

3.11 Mobility impaired people oten ind using a surace with a pronounced crossalldiicult. Along pedestrian desire lines, a crossall o between 1 and 2% is preerredand 2.5% should be regarded as the maximum in most cases.

Visual impairment

3.12 About 2 million people in the UK have some orm o visual impairment. O these,around 95% have a degree o residual vision. This highlights the importance o tonalcontrast in aiding navigation. Blind and partially sighted people may use one ormore mobility aids, including indicator canes, long canes and guide dogs. Most donot use any mobility aid.

3.13 Evidence suggests that the most important navigation eature or blind and partiallysighted people is the building line, and this is best kept uncluttered by temporaryobstructions such as A-boards. Temporary obstructions present a particular problem,as their locations cannot be learned. An outer shore-line is conventionally providedby the kerb. I the context and objectives o a shared space scheme proposalindicate that a kerb-ree design is desirable, mitigating measures may be required.

3.14 For many partially sighted people, tonal contrast is especially useul in enablingthem to perceive boundaries such as the edge o the carriageway or the comortspace. However, complicated surace patterns can be conusing and disorientating,and this needs to be taken into account when incorporating them into street designs.

Hearing impairment

3.15 Hearing loss ranges rom mild to proound deaness. Around 10% o people withhearing problems are prooundly dea. Dea people can have balance problems,

which may create diiculties or them on suraces with a pronounced crossall.

Cognitive impairment

3.16 This condition includes people with learning diiculties, people who have acquiredcognitive impairment with age, and people with mental health problems, all owhom may ind street environments challenging. Some may experience diicultiesin recognising where they are, even in their local environment. Legibility o the streetis thereore an important component o design, and reducing clutter can help inthis respect.


19/56

Shared Space 19

3.17 The use o easily identiiable eatures such as trees, pieces o street sculpture, orthe acades o landmark buildings can complement street legibility and may beespecially useul in helping people with cognitive impairment orientate themselvesin the space.

Cyclists

3.18 Detailed guidance on general design or cyclists in is provided in Local TransportNote (LTN) 2/08 Cycle Inrastructure Design (DT, 2008b).

3.19 The reduced impact o motor vehicles can be attractive to cyclists and it mayencourage them to divert rom other, less attractive cycling routes. However,pedestrian movements in the street are also likely to increase, creating potential orgreater interaction with cyclists. In mitigation, research suggests that cyclists have ahigh awareness o pedestrians in shared space and tend to ride around them or giveway. Cyclists were ound to be more likely to avoid or give way to pedestrians thanvice versa.

3.20 An important advantage or cyclists that shared space has over pedestrianisedareas is that they are not subject to prohibitions. Many pedestrianised areas prohibitcycling or restrict it to certain times o day.

3.21 Cyclists preer smooth, well maintained suraces. Substantial surace texture (e.g.cobbled-eect setts) can be hazardous or cyclists, particularly when turning. Theability to securely park cycles close to the destination is important or cyclists.

Drivers

3.22 Research ound that drivers tend to preer conventional streets because they provideclearly deined areas or pedestrians and vehicles. In shared space, they perceive anincreased need to be aware o other users, particularly as pedestrians are morelikely to occupy the carriageway and their behaviour may be less predictable.

3.23 Where road signing is simpliied and uncertainty in priority is introduced in built-upareas, drivers tend to become more attentive and engaged with their surroundings,moving with greater care and at a lower speed.

3.24 When the behaviour o pedestrians becomes more diicult to predict, drivers tendto be more cautious. Drivers are more likely to behave courteously to pedestrianswhere they appear to be the dominant user group the presence o pedestrians inthe carriageway signiicantly increases the likelihood o drivers giving way.

3.25 As speeds reduce, drivers increasingly give way to pedestrians. There is a notableimprovement in drivers giving way when vehicle speeds all to around 15 mph.

3.26 Reducing the level o demarcation o the pedestrian area (see Figure 2.2) and theamount o ormal traic management eatures both tend to lead to reduced speeds

and, hence, more sharing.


20/56

Shared Space20

4. Scheme development

A well planned development process is essential to the success of a scheme.

Stakeholder engagement plays a pivotal role.

A quality audit should be considered for all shared space projects.

Post-scheme monitoring is important.

4.1 Scheme development is divided into a number o stages. Each stage requires

careul consideration i the scheme is to meet its intended purpose, satisy theneeds o all its users and continue to operate over time as designed. Following acollaborative, well planned development process rom the outset will help ensure theschemes success.

4.2 The development process recommended in this Local Transport Note (LTN) isderived rom LTN 1/08 Traic Management and Streetscape (DT, 2008a). Beorethe process can begin in earnest, it is necessary to establish what is required, why itis required and how the scheme will deliver it. LTN 1/08 categorises these elementsas Vision, Purpose and Action Figure 4.1 illustrates how they might apply to ashared space proposal.

4.3 The conceptual stage is led by the overarchingVision and aspirations or the site(whether it is a High Street, public square or town centre) and the area in which thesite is located. Providing an inclusive, vibrant and convivial environment is anexample o a vision that could lead to a scheme being developed as shared space.

Figure 4.1 An example of Vision, Purpose and Action (based on LTN 1/08Traffic Management and Streetscape (DfT, 2008a))

An inclusive, vibrant and convivial street

environment in the town centre

To stimulate economic activity through

increased pedestrian activityManage traffic speeds and improve the

pedestrian experience by narrowing

the carriageway, using tighter geometry,

de-cluttering the street, providing

street seating etc

Vision

Purpose

Action


21/56

Shared Space 21

4.4 The Purpose describes the reasoning behind the overarching vision in thisexample, it is to stimulate economic activity. Deining the purpose provides both adesign brie and a baseline against which outcomes can be measured. The visionand associated purposes o a scheme are best documented at an early stage in the

design process. This documentation will provide the basis or subsequent qualityaudit and evaluation.

4.5 Action describes the individual measures required to enable the scheme to realiseits purpose. It is only at this stage that decisions are made as to whether implementingshared space (possibly with a level surace) would be an appropriate action. Otheractions might then include measures such as narrowing the carriageway, etc.

4.6 A scheme development process is shown in Figure 4.2. Stakeholder engagement isa particularly important aspect o shared space development. For simpliication,Figure 4.2 shows the input rom stakeholder engagement as a discrete part o the

design process. In practice, engaging stakeholders is a continuous process that canstart at the conceptual stage beore the initial design is prepared and be ollowed byadditional engagement exercises at various stages o scheme development.

Figure 4.2 The scheme development process (based on LTN 1/08 TrafficManagement and Streetscape (DfT, 2008a)

Designchampion

Equalities

issues

Strategy/

vision

Policy

context

Scheme

value

assessment

Funding

and

timescales

Project/

scheme brief

Regulations

guidance and

standards

Input from

stakeholder

engagement

Input from

Access

Officer

Design

techniques

Design

checklist

Quality

auditing

Site

supervision

Contractor

involvement and

continuity

Maintenance

programme

Maintenance

agreement

Performance

monitoring

Scheme

evaluation

Projectmanager

Traffic engineerUrban designerQuality auditor

ContractorMaintenance

contractor

Project

initiation Design Implementation

Maintenance

amd monitoring


22/56

Shared Space22

The design team

4.7 Shared space schemes tend to have wide-ranging objectives beyond moretraditional single-issue (e.g. road saety) traic management schemes objectives

such as inclusiveness, street vibrancy and regeneration. It is thereore beneicial toassemble a multi-disciplinary project team which, in addition to the projectsponsors, could include the ollowing, or example:

highway/trac engineers;

urban designers;

town planners/conservation ocers;

landscape architects;

accessibility/mobility specialists;

maintenance team managers;

lighting engineers; and

contractors.

4.8 The concept o pedestrians saely sharing the street with vehicles is, at irst, likely toappear counter-intuitive to people unamiliar with shared space. However, sharedspace is a way o redressing the gradual loss o place unction that has arisen overthe years with increasing volumes o motor traic. It can also bring about widersocial, economic and amenity beneits. Explaining how shared space can achievethis by encouraging appropriate driver behaviour can be a particular challenge.Designating a design champion to communicate the vision, design intentions anddesired outcomes can thereore be beneicial.

4.9 The design champion, usually rom the project sponsors, will need to be involved atall stages o the project to ensure that design integrity is maintained and the visionis delivered. He or she needs to be willing to listen to concerns people may haveabout the scheme and explain how the design is intended to address them. LTN1/08 Traic Management and Streetscape (DT, 2008a) provides more advice on therole o the design champion.

4.10 To deliver a project to the required standard within speciied timescales and tobudget, it is important that there is both an understanding o the vision, purpose andactions by all the parties involved, and agreement to deliver them. This requires earlyengagement with all the project team members, even i some are not scheduled toplay a major role until the latter stages o the project.

Stakeholder engagement

4.11 Stakeholder engagement plays a pivotal role in the development o shared space.

Schemes are more likely to be successul i engagement is inclusive, involving awide cross-section o the community. The Parliamentary Advisory Council or


23/56

Shared Space 23

Transport Saety report, Kerb Your Enthusiasm (PACTS, 2010) discusses theimportance o the engagement process and its inluence on developing the designto meet the needs o its users.

4.12 The engagement process can contribute to the vision and purpose, as well as to thedesign process itsel. It also provides a mechanism or checking rom time to timethat the vision o the scheme is being adhered to. Apart rom groups or individualsrepresenting the interests o motorists, cyclists and pedestrians, stakeholders couldinclude, or example:

local access groups representing disabled people;

community associations;

local retailers; and

local business groups.

4.13 Organisations such as Living Streets have experience o supporting communityengagement throughout the cycle o planning and implementation.

4.14 The views o local access groups are especially important. They represent the viewso disabled people who are most likely to use the street and their input is particularlyuseul in this respect. Where mobility oicers are employed in an area, it might beworthwhile approaching them with a view to their providing amiliarisation training orblind and partially sighted people when the scheme opens. Such training can beparticularly helpul to those who may be initially concerned about using the street in

its new orm.

4.15 There will be dierent models o engagement, depending on the scale andcomplexity o the project. For many projects, stakeholder engagement can beco-ordinated through a steering group (which could be chaired by the designchampion, where nominated). Apart rom the above stakeholders, the steering groupmight also include project sponsors and proessional transport/design bodies.

4.16 Careul consideration needs to be given to the means by which designs arecommunicated to stakeholders, some o whom will be unable to use purely visualpresentation methods. The use o more inclusive and imaginative engagement

techniques will help to secure ownership rom the community and other stakeholders.It will also help designers to understand their requirements. This is important or thelong-term success o the project.

4.17 As it will be necessary to express the objectives and design ideas to a wideaudience, it is useul to consider a range o communication techniques such as:

site walkabout with stakeholders;

site visits to other shared space environments;

3-D computer visualisation techniques;

physical models;


24/56

Shared Space24

community street design events (e.g. temporary street mock-ups); and

web-based communication.

4.18 The proposal might be challenged by some stakeholders, so it is important thatdesign decisions agreed at the concept stage are properly documented or laterreerence. Challenges to shared space oten revolve around a case or implementingmore conventional street design eatures. However, such eatures can compromisethe original vision and purpose o the scheme, so designers need to give this careulconsideration. It might be preerable to address any concerns through the use omitigating measures that are more sympathetic to the ethos o shared space.

Checking the design

4.19 It is recommended that a quality audit is considered or all shared space projects.

The audit needs to be inormed by the scheme vision and purpose. Manual orStreets (DT, 2007) and Manual or Streets 2 (CIHT, 2010) provide some useulinormation about quality audit as well as when and how each stage should beundertaken. Further advice on quality audit is in preparation by the CharteredInstitution o Highways & Transportation and the Department or Transport.

4.20 Quality audits might include the ollowing:

street character review;

road saety audit;

cycle audit/review;

access audit (including emergency services and deliveries);

parking audit;

walking audit;

non-motorised user audit (DMRB HD42/04);

community street audit;

equality impact assessment;

visual quality audit;

unctionality audit;

place check; and

materials audit.


25/56

Shared Space 25

4.21 The above will help to orm the evidence upon which design decisions can be basedand against which outcomes can be measured. It is not necessarily exhaustive. Forexample, i the scheme is likely to have a signiicant eect on the surroundingnetwork, a traic management audit may be required to understand its implications

or movement patterns and journey times.

4.22 For any street improvement scheme to continue ulilling its objectives over time, it isimportant that maintenance requirements are considered rom the outset andbudgeted or. A maintenance assessment will help ensure these requirements havebeen properly considered.

4.23 In ollowing contemporary practice on clutter reduction, designers o shared spacemay wish to take a minimalist approach to design, only introducing eatures whenthey are deemed necessary to achieve the desired unctionality. Those undertakingreviews as part o the quality audit will need to be mindul o this approach so that

any improvements they suggest are sympathetic to it.

4.24 It may be appropriate to test the design using traditional traic management tools,such as junction modelling or micro-simulation, but these have their limitations.While they can help in assessing the potential eects on traic patterns, they arenot designed to speciically model interaction between pedestrians and vehicles.Implementing shared space may increase traic low on alternative routes and,while this may be outweighed by the beneits o a new scheme, it needs to betaken into account.

4.25 Scheme proposals can be tested to a certain extent through temporary

interventions, such as switching o traic signals, installing temporary streeturniture etc.

Monitoring

4.26 Post-scheme monitoring is important or recording user behaviour and assessingwhether a scheme is operating as planned. It is also helpul or checking i theoriginal vision is being realised.

4.27 Monitoring shared space schemes over time can show how they perorm against arange o indicators such as improved pedestrian dwell times, commercial uplit,

etc. Monitoring could also include social actors such as peoples perceptions o thenew arrangement. Continuing dialogue with stakeholders will provide eedback andhelp to identiy any operational problems that need to be addressed. Suchmonitoring can also inorm uture shared space designs.

4.28 For any analysis o post-scheme data to be meaningul, pre-scheme records o thevarious perormance indicators are necessary to provide the baseline data. In thecase o operational saety analysis, three years o pre-scheme personal injuryaccident data are required.

4.29 It is important to ensure that unding will be available or any proposed monitoring

strategy. Funding will also be required to cover modiications to the scheme aterimplementation, should any become necessary.


26/56

Shared Space26

5. General design considerations

Changing the way a street operates requires an understanding of howpeople currently use the space.

Shared space can make it easier for the available area to be used flexibly.

Maintenance requirements need to be considered from the outset.

Successful shared space streets do not have to use costly materials.

Extra care is needed in sensitive areas such as historic streets.

5.1 Recent guidance on street design includes the Manual or Streets (DT, 2007), LocalTransport Note (LTN) 1/08 Traic Management and Streetscape (DT, 2008a) andManual or Streets 2 Wider Application o the Principles (CIHT, 2010). Thesedocuments emphasise the importance o designing streets as places instead osimply corridors or movement. Traic Advisory Lealet (TAL) 1/11 Vehicle SecurityBarriers within the Streetscape (CPNI/DT, 2011) provides guidance on protectingthe public and key inrastructure rom vehicle-borne attack.

5.2 Introducing shared space is likely to result in a substantial change in street character

and the way it operates. Some issues thereore require careul consideration in theearly stages o design, such as respecting local architecture, conserving historiceatures, accessibility, construction constraints and utilities. The design team willneed to be able to explain what the changes mean to the streets users and otherstakeholders.

5.3 In determining whether shared space is an appropriate response, it is important tounderstand:

the context o planned and potential improvements, land use, landscape,conservation, rontage and street activity;

how the street is intended to t in the place/movement matrix, and how this canbe achieved through the implementation o shared space; and

the architectural context and vernacular style, especially in historic settings.

5.4 There is likely to be a signiicant variation in pedestrian and vehicle movementpatterns over a 24-hour day. The designer will need to take these changes intoaccount to allow or lexibility o use.

5.5 As a general rule, a good design will avoid isolated pockets o the space beinghidden rom the rest o the street.


27/56

Shared Space 27

5.6 Design considerations generally all into three categories:

physical and operational;

behavioural; and

materials, implementation and maintenance.

Data collection

5.7 Changing the way a street operates to bring about an increase in the level o sharingrequires an understanding o how people currently use the space. It is thereoreuseul to collect a certain amount o baseline data to inorm the design whilerecognising that planned patterns and levels o use might be quite dierent romthose being recorded.

5.8 Useul baseline data include the ollowing:

trac speed;

classied vehicle counts including cycles;

pedestrian crossing movements (at crossings and other desire lines);

pedestrian fows along the street;

pedestrian composition;

collision data;

night time trac and pedestrian activity;

location within the trac and pedestrian networks;

identication o desire lines;

existence o trip generators such as hospitals, schools, retail outlets, andleisure centres;

attitudinal surveys o drivers, cyclists and pedestrians, including disabled people;

views rom residents, retailers, town centre managers, community saetyocers, local access groups, mobility ocers, etc.;

assessment o the quality o the pedestrian environment;

assessment o land use and rontage activity;

analysis o context, e.g. existing street patterns, architecture;

records (in historic areas) o existing materials and street urniture;

user audit, e.g. community street audit, access audit; and


28/56

Shared Space28

observation o how people use the existing space, e.g. sitting, waiting,socialising, etc.

5.9 Useul lessons can be drawn rom observing how other shared space streets

operate. However, diering street contexts and the range o behavioural variablesmeans that wholesale comparisons are unlikely to be helpul. It is the way thatparticular elements work, either individually or in combination, that is important.Studying these aspects will help the designer decide which might be transerable.

Space allocation

5.10 Shared space schemes provide an opportunity to review the allocation o spacewithin the whole o the street. The concept o space allocation may seem at oddswith the idea o shared space but, in practice, most shared spaces contain somestructuring elements. For example, pedestrians travelling along a shared spacestreet will generally walk alongside the building line (much as they would in aconventional street). In addition, the preerence o drivers is to move along thecentral part o the street, away rom building rontages this preerence can bereinorced through the placement o street urniture, tonal contrast and othereatures in order to enable the edges o the street to operate as comort space.

5.11 One o the advantages o shared space, and a level surace in particular, is that itmakes it easier or the available area to be used lexibly. This is especially useulwhen room is limited. Figure 5.1 shows a level surace street deemed too narrow toinclude kerbed ootways wide enough to accommodate the desired pedestrian

activity and still allow vehicle access.

Figure 5.1 New Road, BrightonPhoto:WayneDuerden


29/56

Shared Space 29

5.12 An important design consideration is a undamental review o how space is to beused. I width is limited, it is recommended that designers identiy the minimumspace required or vehicle movement and parking, then allocate the remainder tovarious pedestrian activities. I this reduces pedestrian space below an acceptable

level, it might not be possible to retain parking.

5.13 Street space might be required to accommodate some or all o the ollowing keyactivities or uses:

pedestrian movement along and across the street;

places to socialise in;

pedestrian comort space;

events (e.g. regular markets);

vehicular movement (including cycles);

parking and loading; and

bus stops.

5.14 In general, making speciic provision or comort space or pedestrians as anoperational requirement is only likely to be necessary where a level surace is used.However, the inclusion o a level surace does not mean that comort space willalways need to be actively provided. For example, i motor vehicle lows are suchthat the space tends to be dominated by pedestrians, the whole street might satisythe requirements o comort space. Comort space is covered in more detail inChapter 6.

Designing to maintain

5.15 For any street improvement scheme to continue ulilling its objectives over time, it isimportant that maintenance requirements, including a regular cleaning schedule, areconsidered rom the outset and budgeted or. This is essential i the scheme is toremain a valuable asset and continue to meets its objectives in the uture.

5.16 The street should be easy to clean designing it so that as much o the space aspracticable can be accessed by cleaning vehicles or manually operated machinescan help reduce cleaning costs. Awkward areas where litter and debris can collectand which can only be hand-swept need to be minimised.

5.17 Designers should allow or street works taking place in the uture. I bespokematerials are used, the authority might wish to keep spare materials in storage tocover later reinstatements. It is also useul or local authorities to keep a copy o theoriginal construction speciication on record. This will help ensure uturereinstatements match the original construction quality.


30/56

Shared Space30

5.18 As the condition o the street surace is oten key to a successul shared space, it isparticularly important that steps are taken to minimise uture disruption by utilitycompanies. Highway authorities can use powers set out in section 58 o the NewRoads and Street Works Act 1991 to ensure that any street works known to be

required by the owners are carried out beore the new surace is laid, and to prohibitsubsequent street works or a period o time ater scheme completion.

5.19 Future disruption can be minimised by, or example:

giving utility companies three months notice that a road is to be resuraced andthat they should complete all known outstanding works beore construction starts;

installing spare underground cable ducts in anticipation o uture demand; and

re-routing services into a common utilities trench, where practicable.

Materials

5.20 During implementation o shared space, the street is likely to undergo large-scalereconstruction, including a change in surace materials. This presents anopportunity to check, and restore where necessary, the structural integrity o thelower layers, thus helping ensure that the new suracing will last.

Figure 5.2 High Street, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire



31/56

Shared Space 31

5.21 Successul shared space streets need not involve the use o costly or bespokematerials. Careul and sensitive design is more likely to contribute to successuloperation. There are many examples o shared space schemes that work well usinginexpensive materials. Figure 5.2 shows such an example. Avoiding bespoke

materials can also help to reduce maintenance costs, especially as it may otherwisebe necessary to hold stocks o these materials or uture reinstatements.

5.22 Many shared space schemes use concrete or stone setts as a suracing material. Aswell as their inherent speed-reducing eect (see The Manual or Streets: Evidenceand Research (York et al., 2007)), the use o such suracing helps to dierentiate thespaces rom surrounding streets. However, such suraces are relatively expensiveand, depending on texture roughness, may not be suitable or disabled people,cyclists and motorcyclists. Care will thereore be required in their selection andlocation. I resources are scarce, it might be worthwhile limiting setts to certainareas where their eects are most needed (e.g. scheme entry points, vehicle

approaches to courtesy crossings, etc.), and use asphalt elsewhere.

5.23 Setts tend to generate more road noise rom passing traic, although this can be aparticular advantage or blind and partially sighted people, as it can provide anaudible reerence or navigation purposes.

5.24 Tonal contrast in the suracing can orm an important part o a streets legibility. It isoten used to help delineate zones within the street, such as the notionalcarriageway in a level surace scheme, courtesy crossing points, areas wherevehicles are not expected, rest areas, and loading or parking bays. To aid streetlegibility, tonal contrast can be used in conjunction with other eatures such as level

dierences, tactile paving, street urniture and planters.

5.25 Care should be exercised in choosing the range o colours and tones to avoidoverly elaborate designs and potentially greater maintenance costs. It is alsoimportant they do not cause conusion with regard to guidance paths/delineatorstrips, where provided.

5.26 Suracing materials should be resistant to undue colour loss and easy to clean.Tonal contrast can be aected by lighting conditions, and this needs to be takeninto consideration.

Historic streets

5.27 Extra care is needed in historic streets, including those with asphalt suraces.

5.28 Well designed shared space can bring about many improvements, particularly thereduction o modern day street clutter. However, it is important that creating sharedspace is appropriate to the streets context.

5.29 Features o historic interest should be identiied and retained in the new design.Even ordinary streets can show evidence o earlier designs that could be retainedor sustainability as well as heritage reasons. Features or retention include:


32/56

Shared Space32

historic paving, such as Yorkstone;

granite setts;

historic lamp posts;

street urniture such as statues, ountains, seating and old-ashioned phone boxes;

historic ironwork such as railings and manhole covers; and

strengthened paving areas around cellar entrances.

5.30 Changes to the street can aect the setting o historic assets, including olderbuildings and structures such as statues, ountains and telephone boxes (all owhich might be listed). However, changes can be beneicial where, or example, theyremove street clutter and allow or unobstructed views o the street and points o

interest within it.

5.31 In some cases the orm o a street can be an important part o its character. Forexample, kerbed ootways and their alignment might be a deining eature o thestreet, and their removal can be detrimental to the settings o listed buildings. It maythereore be appropriate to retain kerbs or aesthetic reasons. I there is a strongjustiication or a level surace, contrasting materials can be used to retain the visualline o the original kerbs.


33/56

Shared Space 33

6. Detailed design

A relatively uncluttered environment is often a key feature of shared space.

Low vehicle speeds can be encouraged by a streets appearance, itsambiguity and making it difficult to drive through quickly.

Courtesy crossings can be very effective in encouraging drivers to give wayto pedestrians.

A level surface should not be a design objective in its own right.

Comfort space is of particular benefit to disabled people and older people. A ladder-grid movement pattern minimises the need for pedestrians to

interact with vehicles.

Parking and loading areas in shared space streets require carefulconsideration.

Early consultation with bus operators during the planning stages canbe important.

Shared space streets present an opportunity to provide generousamounts of seating.

Lighting is an important feature in shared space schemes.

De-cluttering

6.1 A relatively uncluttered environment is oten a key eature o shared space. De-cluttering is not simply a matter o reducing the use o signs, markings and streeturniture associated with traic management. Many o the traditional eatures thatdemarcate space, such as kerbs and material dierences, can change or disappearentirely. Manual or Streets (DT, 2007) and Local Transport Note (LTN) 1/08 Traic

Management and Streetscape (DT, 2008a) provide advice on reducing clutter inthe streetscape.

6.2 Each item o street urniture needs to be justiied, and it is good practice to aim oreach item to serve more than one purpose. For example, cycle stands, planters,seating and litter bins could be used to deine the general carriageway area or actas barriers to protect pedestrian comort spaces. In addition, litter bins and signingcould be attached to street lighting columns. Using items o urniture in this way canreduce the requirement or single-purpose items and minimise the need or signposts. Bin design and placement should be careully considered in order to promotea well-managed and litter-ree street.


34/56

Shared Space34

6.3 Inclusive Mobility A Guide to Best Practice on Access to Pedestrian andTransport Inrastructure (DT, 2002) provides advice on the design and positioningo street urniture.

Designing for low speed

6.4 A natural consequence o the change in the place/movement balance brought aboutby the introduction o shared space is the need to inluence the way users movewithin the area. Changes in behaviour need to act at individual and group levels, andthe design o the layout can have a signiicant inluence here.

6.5 As a general principle, shared space should present a series o eatures and eventsto drivers that require them to increase their awareness and make consciousdecisions on how they should negotiate each eature. These could be static, e.g.measures that reduce orward visibility or provide delection o the vehicle path, orthey might be dynamic, e.g. pedestrian activity, possibly catalysed by seating, streetcaes etc.

6.6 A key check within the design process is to consider how the street presents itselto drivers passing through it, including the nature and requency o eatures thatencourage drivers to adopt the appropriate behaviour.

6.7 Aspects o street design that encourage low vehicle speeds have more inluence onencouraging sharing than any other. For high levels o sharing, a design speed o nomore than 20 mph, and preerably 15 mph or less, is necessary.

6.8 Low vehicle speeds can be encouraged by:

making the street look and eel dierent;

creating ambiguity or drivers; and

making it physically dicult to drive through quickly.

6.9 Making the street look and eel dierent can be achieved by means such as:

a change in suracing block paving has been ound to reduce trac speeds bybetween 2.5 and 4.5 mph, compared with speeds on asphalt suraces see The

Manual or Streets: Evidence and Research (York et al., 2007);

the presence o street trees, street art, cycle parking, or other items o streeturniture in unconventional positions such as the middle o the street (some mayneed a degree o protection depending on vehicle tracked paths);

a reduction in the use o signs and other trac management measures;

introducing visual narrowing;

reducing orward visibility; and

using tighter geometry.


35/56

Shared Space 35

Figure 6.1 Visual narrowing

6.10 Features such as planting, parked vehicles and public art can reduce orward visibilityand introduce horizontal delection to create a meandering route through the space.They can be particularly useul where streets are long and straight. Care should betaken to ensure that places where pedestrians are likely to cross are not obscured.

6.11 These eatures can also be used to create visual narrowing o the street. Visualnarrowing can be especially eective in changing a streets character. Figure 6.1shows how the addition o a row o trees has been used to visually narrow the street(and improve its sense o place).

6.12 Tightening up the geometry o the street includes the use o small corner radii atjunctions (where kerbs are retained) and deliberate changes o direction. It might benecessary to conduct a swept path analysis to ensure that the largest vehicles thestreet needs to accommodate can pass through.

6.13 Designers may wish to consider urther restricting width and increasing horizontaldelection at key locations such as crossing points, even though this could requirelarge vehicles to negotiate them at speeds well below the design speed. Given thatmost shared space streets are o limited extent, this is unlikely to createunacceptable delays to vehicles. Chapter 7 o the Manual or Streets (DT, 2007)

provides urther advice on measures that encourage low traic speeds.



36/56

Shared Space36

6.14 Many o these eatures also encourage pedestrians to use the street space. Othermeasures that encourage this include rest areas, art installations, and street caes.

6.15 In addition to controlling speeds, it might be desirable to reduce motor vehicle lows

or a shared space to work well. This can be achieved by changes to thesurrounding network, although it may not always be necessary. Many shared spaceschemes experience lower lows on completion simply as a consequence o thetendency or some drivers to avoid such environments.

Transition to shared space

6.16 It is important that drivers enter shared space streets at an appropriate speed. Itmight thereore be useul to convey this requirement to them on the approach bymeans o a gateway eature. Ideally, the eature would encourage drivers to slowdown to the schemes design speed beore entering the shared area. Figure 6.2shows an example o a shared space gateway eature.

6.17 However, gateway eatures are not always necessary. Where the scheme begins at aT-junction or example, speeds on entry tend to be low and in these situations thespace can oten announce itsel. In general, gateways will only be necessary oroperational purposes where entry speeds exceed the schemes design speed(although designers may wish to incorporate a gateway eature anyway or

aesthetic reasons).

Figure 6.2 Example of a shared space gateway feature

Photo:StuartReid


37/56

Shared Space 37

6.18 The change rom a conventional street to a shared space could be indicated byvarious measures used singly or in combination, such as:

a reduction in road width;

visual narrowing (e.g. trees either side o the entry point);

a portal eature that reduces the visual (or actual) height;

a raised table;

a change in suracing material; and

signing.

6.19 Where the speed dierence either side o the transition is signiicant, physical traiccalming eatures using horizontal or vertical delection might be required to bringtraic speeds down quickly.

Crossings

6.20 In shared space, crossings tend to be uncontrolled, although on busier sharedspace streets controlled crossings are sometimes necessary. However, controlledcrossings using signals can cause drivers to behave in ways not entirely compatiblewith the shared space ethos. For example, they might travel a little aster when theysee such a crossing because o the greater certainty with which they can predictpedestrian behaviour. While Zebra crossings may be better in this respect, they still

need to be signed and marked in accordance with the Regulations, and this candetract aesthetically rom a relatively sign-ree environment.

6.21 Crossings in shared space are oten called courtesy crossings. Figures 6.3 and6.4 show some good examples. These crossings are so named because there isno statutory requirement or drivers to give way to pedestrians, but many do outo courtesy. In practice, it appears that drivers tend to treat courtesy crossings asthey would a Zebra crossing.

6.22 In order to reinorce this behaviour, courtesy crossings can be highlighted in anumber o ways, including:

using tonal contrast;

using bollards or other vertical eatures to indicate the pedestrian entry tothe crossing;

locating the crossing on a raised table (where a level surace is not ageneral eature);

locally narrowing the carriageway to create vehicle pinch-points; and

using a section o dierently textured suracing on vehicular approaches tothe crossing.


38/56

Shared Space38

Figure 6.3 Courtesy crossing, Chester

Figure 6.4 Courtesy crossing, Poynton




39/56

Shared Space 39

6.23 Pinch-points can create problems or cyclists i there is enough room or drivers toovertake, but not enough or the manoeuvre to be carried out saely. I the narrowingis physical (as opposed to visual), 4 metres or more clear width should be suicientto allow a typical car to pass a cyclist saely. Such a gap will also create a give-and-

take situation or opposing lows o motor vehicles, which urther calms traic in thevicinity o the crossing. That said, pinch points should be much less o a issue orcyclists in shared space, given the vehicle speeds which can be expected.

6.24 Textured suracing on the approach should not extend over the actual crossing i it islikely to be uncomortable or people to walk on. It is also important that the suracetexture does not cause stability problems or cyclists or motorcyclists, particularlywhen it is wet. It can be useul to include a smooth strip or the beneit o cyclists.

6.25 Crossings are best located on pedestrian desire lines. Desire lines can bedetermined in a number o ways, including:

analysing pre-scheme pedestrian movement patterns;

anticipating signicant attractors within the new arrangement; and

public and stakeholder engagement.

6.26 Ensuring that intervals between courtesy crossings are reasonable will beneitpedestrians and present requent eatures to help increase driver awareness.Crossings should be orientated to provide the shortest possible crossing distance.However, pedestrian desire lines might not always be perpendicular to the carriageway.Figure 6.5 shows how innovative use o suracing materials at a courtesy crossing

can accommodate a number o desire lines. Note that the igure does not show thenecessary tactile paving which should serve the perpendicular crossing alignment.

Figure 6.5 Crossing accommodating various desire lines

Image:BenHamilton-Baillie

Other

pedestriandesire lines

Shortest

crossing

route


40/56

Shared Space40

Level surfaces

6.27 Level suraces seem to be most acceptable to drivers and pedestrians when partso the space are understood to be mainly reserved or pedestrian use. Research

suggests that level suraces are appreciated by many disabled people, includingdea people, people with learning diiculties and people with impaired mobility.

6.28 A level surace should not be a design objective in its own right. Any decision to usea level surace should be the result o a thorough consideration o what is requiredto deliver the desired degree o sharing. The time or considering the need or a levelsurace is at the action stage o scheme development, i.e. only ater the vision andpurpose have been established.

6.29 A level surace can have a signiicant visual eect that can create a more coherentand attractive public realm. Some other advantages o level suraces are that they:

make crossing the street easier physically;

can have a calming eect on trac;

allow or more ecient use o space, especially when street width is limited; and

allow or fexible use o the space.

6.30 However, level suraces will not be appropriate in all circumstances, such as wherevehicle lows preclude a high degree o sharing, or in some conservation areaswhere kerb lines might be deining eatures o the street. There are also implications

or drainage design.

6.31 Level suraces, especially in busier settings, can create signiicant problems orblind and partially sighted people who oten use kerbs to deine comort space andto navigate by. Where a level surace is desirable thereore, it may be necessary toimplement mitigating measures.

6.32 The extent o mitigation required will depend on the circumstances. Measures todemarcate the notional carriageway could include, or example, tactile paving,bollards, or other street urniture.

6.33 In general, motor vehicles tend to stay towards the centre o the street in a sharedspace, even when it has a level surace. This behaviour can be reinorced by the useo tonal contrast in the suracing. Where tonal contrast is used in this way, abstractpatterns that might conuse any delineation messages need to be avoided. Buildingsand other vertical eatures in a level surace street might need some orm o physicalprotection, depending on their proximity to vehicle swept paths.


41/56

Shared Space 41

Tactile paving

6.34 For shared space streets without a level surace, Guidance on the Use o TactilePaving Suraces (DETR, 1998) will generally apply. In streets with a level surace,

tactile paving is sometimes used as a delineator strip between the notionalcarriageway and the ootway a use not covered in the tactile guidance. Corduroypaving, which conveys the message hazard, proceed with caution, is usually used(although some schemes use other tactile methods, such as a textured setts). It canbe useul to use a contrasting colour or the delineator strip.

Figure 6.6 Corduroy delineation changing to blister paving at crossing

6.35 As part o the development o Exhibition Road, London, into a shared space with alevel surace, trials were carried out on the suitability o corduroy paving or thispurpose see Exhibition Road Corduroy Delineator Testing (MVA, 2011). The trialsdemonstrated that an 800 mm wide strip o corduroy tactile paving could be reliablydetected by blind and partially sighted people. The trials also ound it didntrepresent a barrier to mobility-impaired people. An examination o the resultssuggests that there may be scope or reducing this width to 600 mm whilemaintaining its eectiveness as a delineator strip.

6.36 Where corduroy paving is used as a delineator, it should change to blister paving atcrossing points see Figure 6.6. Blister paving should not be used as a generaldelineator because o its speciic meaning o indicating a crossing point. In addition,over-use o blister paving can create instability issues or some users, particularlydisabled people or older people.

Photo:StuartReid


42/56

Shared Space42

Comfort space

6.37 Comort space is deined in Chapter 1 thus:

Comfort space: An area of the street predominantly for pedestrian usewhere motor vehicles are unlikely to be present.

6.38 When considering the need or comort space, designers need to check i the typeo environment warrants its addition and, i so, whether the layout o the streetalready provides it. In a conventional street, kerbed ootways usually providecomort space. In a level surace street, comort space is provided by other means.In general, it should only be necessary to speciically design or comort spacewhere a level surace is used.

6.39 It is not always necessary to design or comort space in level surace streetsbecause certain arrangements have inherent comort space. For example, comortspace might be provided by a shopping colonnade some distance rom vehicletracked paths. Some level surace environments, such as Home Zones andresidential mews, can be quiet enough to be comort spaces in their own right.

6.40 However, comort space always needs to be taken into account i the layout doesnot provide suicient comort space naturally, it needs to be designed in.

6.41 Comort space is o particular beneit to disabled people and older people, but it isespecially important or blind and partially sighted people, and it needs to be

designed with their needs in mind.

6.42 Comort space should be uninterrupted between junctions and connect to suitablecrossing points along the street. However, it does not need to be delineated by acontinuous barrier (which would deeat the object o shared space). Delineationmight range rom a tactile strip to, say, a row o bollards every ew metres. It couldeven be largely absent, such as where the comort space is in ront o a row oshops some distance rom vehicle tracked paths. Comort space can also beindicated by dierent eatures in combination.

6.43 Comort space is o most value in busier streets. As the impact o vehicular traic

reduces, the useulness o comort space diminishes. On the quietest o streets,speciic measures to provide comort space might be unnecessary.

6.44 Omitting all delineation is only likely to be appropriate in quieter streets where thebuilding line (the most important navigation eature or blind and partially sightedpeople) can be easily ollowed or where the consequences o straying rom itare minimal.

6.45 Where the need or speciically providing comort space is not clear cut, such as inlowly-traicked situations or where vehicle tracked paths are some distance romthe building line, it might be worthwhile omitting it in the irst instance and observingthe new layout in operation. Comort space can always be created later i the needor it becomes apparent, although the initial layout will need to be designed with thispossibility in mind.


43/56

Shared Space 43

Figure 6.7 Comfort space

6.46 Discussing the need or comort space (and how it might be provided) with localaccess groups and other stakeholders can be especially useul. Such engagementcan ocus on a site-speciic solution, which might be more appropriate than onearrived at ollowing a more ormulaic approach to design.

6.47 While drivers tend to travel down the centre o shared space streets, in some

circumstances it may be necessary to implement measures to discourage themrom encroaching into the comort space. At its simplest, this might be achieved byusing tonal contrast. I this is insuicient, it could be reinorced by, or example, thecareul siting o occasional items o street urniture. I parking in comort spacesbecomes a problem, compliance may be best realised through better enorcementrather than by adding physical eatures.

6.48 Figure 6.7 illustrates how comort space might be realised using a range o eatures.

The ladder grid

6.49 In general, pedestrians in a conventional street will use the sides o the street totravel along it, and cross at distinct points along its length. This movement patterncan be described as a (virtual) ladder grid pattern.

6.50 While a prime objective o shared space is to enable pedestrians to move morereely through the space by crossing in places and at angles o their choosing, blindand partially sighted people are likely to want to continue to move along and acrossthe street in a ladder grid pattern.

Vehicle tracked path

BollardsCycle stands

Corduroy paving

Planters

Comfort space

Seating


44/56

Shared Space44

Figure 6.8 The ladder grid concept

6.51 A ladder-grid minimises the need or pedestrians to interact with vehicles, it keepscrossing distances relatively short, and it allows blind and partially sighted people tomake best use o the o the building lines or comort spaces or orientation andnavigation purposes.

6.52 Figure 6.8 illustrates the ladder grid concept where comort spaces on either side

are linked by the crossings. As a general rule, where speciic provision o comortspace is considered necessary, a ladder grid will also be required.

6.53 Shared space can encourage increased activity in the body o the street. It may, orexample, encourage cae owners to seek to expand into the space to create a streetcae. Designers need to bear this possibility in mind and consider how to balancethe overall social beneits o such developments with the needs o pedestr

shared space ltn 1-11

Documents