|
|
By Matt L, on May 17th, 2012 A report to the Waitamata local board shows that the shared space on Fort St has been a success and approval has been given to carry on with stage three of the upgrade which will introduce another share space at the eastern end of the street. Here is the executive summary of the report:
The purpose of this report is to communicate results of the Fort Street (Stage 1) shared space evaluation and seek the Board’s support for the shared space design proposed for Stage 3 of the Fort Street upgrade.
The results of the evaluation indicate that the performance of the shared space in Fort Street (Stage 1) has thus far been successful. Stage 1 comprises Jean Batten Place, Fort Lane and the western end of Fort Street between Commerce Street and Queen Street. Stage 2 extends from Commerce Street to Gore Street and includes the section of Fort Street that runs between them. Stage 3 covers the eastern End of Fort Street running between Gore Street and Customs Street East.
A key objective of the project was to improve pedestrian amenity and to create a more attractive environment for people. Feedback from users indicates that people find the space more attractive with a majority keen to keep visiting the area in the same or greater frequency than they did before. Counts suggest that pedestrian volumes have increased in the area (more than 50% in peak hours), vehicle volumes have decreased (more than 25%) as have average vehicle speeds (to approximately 20 km/h). User feedback has shown that vehicle travel time delays through the area are minimal (6-11 seconds), delivery agents have found it ‘much easier’ to make their deliveries in the new shared space environment and people feel much safer in the area. Moreover, property owners (75%) revealed that they see value in being located near a shared space. Further detail on the evaluation results can be found in the attached document.
There is some pretty good results in here, pedestrian volumes up 50% during peak hours, traffic volumes down, minimal traffic delays, delivery vehicles are finding things much easier and property owners are happy which I think is an astounding result and a testament to the hard work put in to get this project going. Stage 3 was designed at the same time as the first two stages but was delayed pending the outcome of this evaluation. After getting the feedback the report says that there was only one commercial tenant, located in the stage 2 section, that was unhappy with proceeding on to stage 3.
Here are the key results out of the evaluation:
- User Perceptions – improved
- Highly positive perception of users
- 91% of surveyed users highly complementary about the area post upgrade
- Foot Traffic – increased
- More than 50% increase in pedestrian numbers in peak hours
- Peak hour count of 7400 pedestrians using the area, up from 4800 in 2009
- Pedestrian Environment – improved
- Majority of pedestrians and drivers believe pedestrians have priority
- In reality, data indicates pedestrians assume priority when pedestrian numbers are 1000+ per hour. Vehicles tend to be given priority otherwise.
- 52% of surveyed users felt there were still to many cars in the shared spaces
- Vehicle traffic – reduced
- 1470 less vehicles per day using Fort St
- 2009 count of 6170 vehicles, 2011 count 4700
- 1000 less vehicles per day using Jean Batten Place
- 2009 count 2918 vehicles, 2011 count 1918
- Reduced Vehicle Speeds
- 5-9km per hr reduction in Fort St
- 2-8km per hr reduction in Jean Batten place
- 25% of surveyed users felt vehicle traffic should be more restricted
- 75% of delivery services found it ‘much easier’ to make their deliveries
- Safety – improved
- Over 80& of surveyed users felt ‘very safe’ in the area
- Greatly improved perceptions of safety at night time
- Minority (5%) of users felt the space was dangerous/confusing/unsafe for pedestrians
- Distinct destination – more analysis required
- Anecdotal evidence suggesting the area now has a broader appeal as
- Fewer people feel there is nothing special about the area
- Economic performance - inconclusive
- Limited economic information presently available
- Areas to be measured in coming years
- Property values
- Vacancy rates and sales data
- Retail turnover
- Consumer spend
- 75% of property owners saw value in being located near a shared space
As I said earlier, these are some great results and the local board along with the CBD Advisory board have approved for stage 3 to go ahead. Personally I tend to go down there at least once a week and love the improvements, the place is a far cry from the grotty area it was not that long ago and it has been great to see new private development happening to really maximise on these improvements. In time I think this will become one of the best areas in the CBD and it would be great to see a few more areas given the same treatment.
By Peter M, on May 8th, 2012 Yes, the title of this post sounds like an oxymoron. Street signs are often there to make streets safer – here’s a give way sign, a speed limit, a warning about a school, a particularly sharp bend, the list goes on. But does all this signage actually make us safer, or does it turn drivers into mindless idiots who forget to actually look at what’s going on because they’re only focusing on the signage or the traffic signals?
An interesting article (yes I know it’s from 2009, but it’s still relevant) picks up on this issue:
[Dr Gerald] Wilde theorizes — in something he calls “risk homeostasis” — that everyone has his or her own fixed level of acceptable risk. When the level of risk in a part of the individual’s life changes, there will be a corresponding rise or fall in risk elsewhere to bring the overall risk back to that individual’s equilibrium. Wilde argues that the same is true of larger human systems, like a population of drivers. He argues that street signs designed to make us safer actually make us drive more carelessly by sort of nanny-ing us into complacency.
A new traffic movement called “naked streets,” being practiced in the city of Drachten in the Netherlands seeks to change that. The small city spearheaded the change of 20 four-way intersections into traffic circles with no signage. The net result? One intersection went from between two and four people dying each year to zero people dying since 2003. In another, the removal of traffic lights has resulted in accidents falling from thirty-six in the four years before it was introduced to two in the next two years. Not only that but they’ve been more efficient — thanks to overall increases in efficiency from traffic circles — with the average time for each vehicle to cross the junction falling from 50 seconds to 30 seconds, despite a rise in the volume of traffic. Why? Because people are paying attention to traffic, they’re going slower and they’re communicating with each other.
Owen Paterson, the Dutch Transport Minister, visited Drachten to see the implementation in action. “The idea is to create space where there is mild anxiety among everyone so they all behave cautiously. No one thunders along at 30mph on a high street thinking that they have priority.” Mr Paterson said that putting up more speed limit signs and painting more lines on the road had failed to make streets safer. “Instead of the State laying down the rules, we need to give responsibility back to road users. It’s about creating an environment where it just doesn’t feel right to drive faster than 20mph.” We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.
I think there’s a lot of validity to the argument being put forward here, and it explains why shared spaces – which in theory should be horrifically dangerous – are actually very safe. In fact the most dangerous intersections in Auckland often tend to be those which are managed to the highest extent – such as the big giant one near Botany town centre.
Maybe it’s time for the traffic engineers to let us think for ourselves?
By Patrick Reynolds, on March 23rd, 2012 Along with ‘Transformational’ the other phrase suffering from misuse in discussions around Auckland’s transport plans at the moment is ‘Multi-Modal’. This seems to have come from the logistics sector where it refers to the sending of goods over a variety of technologies and/or involving handling by various companies to get to their destination. In the urban transport context it seems to have at least three meanings:
1. A journey that uses more than one kind of movement, eg walk/bus/walk, or drive/rail/walk, or bike/ferry, or even bus/bus/bus [3 different bus rides] and so on.
2. An infrastructure project designed to facilitate different modes of movement, eg the AMETI project includes highways, buslanes, cycleways, and train station redevelopment, so can be described as multi-modal.
3. An analysis of needs for an area that sets out to not proscribe what mode, or combination of modes, will provide the best outcome. Currently there is [yet another] study into the transport needs of south west Auckland that aims to be multi-modal, which is to say it will look at whether trains, bus systems, more motorways, or maybe teleporting [!?], will best suit the needs of the area and at what cost.
So we can see how the phrase can mean various things, although generally we can say it is intended as a positive; as it sounds like a good thing, sounds like it offers choice, democracy, and in a sophisticated way. Who doesn’t want that?
Here is Auckland Central MP Nikki Kaye:
I support, as does the Government, the development of a robust multi-modal plan for future transport into the CBD, which includes a thorough analysis of all the alternative modes to transport.
Sounds good doesn’t it? Except this is from at post on her website where the MP is detailing the government’s refusal to support the construction of the City Rail Link, because, somehow, it supports ‘a robust multi-modal plan’. So when you don’t want to support something but still want to appear all positive it seems calling for ‘a thorough analysis of all the alternative modes to [sic] transport’ seems like a cunning choice of phrasing; go all multi-modal. Okay, so perhaps we’ed better look at this phrase a little deeper.
The multi-modal journey.
Almost all public transport trips are multi-modal. With the occassional exception of someone who say works at Westpac, whose offices are directly above Britomart and who also happens to live right next door to another train station, all PT trips can be assumed to involve getting to the point of connection with the transit system by some other means, usually walking, and then doing the same at the other end of the transit journey. This fact is one of the reasons that cities with more effective public transport systems consistently record better health statistics than those without. Simply because with more people using PT, more people are getting more exercise.
The chief advantage of the vehicle mode is that it can be point to point. Straight from your garage at home to the carpark at your office. So while very handy also both extremely sedentary and completely mono-modal; therefore cities dominated by car use report poorer public health outcomes. There is all the evidence in the world for this for example; here, here, and here.
Of course park’n'ride journeys are also multi-modal, but usually involve less walking. And when I ride my bike to University I am only using one mode point to point, but still getting more exercise than those rainy days when I take the bus. But despite these two examples a place that supports more PT journeys, and therefore more multi-modal journeys, reports better health outcomes.
Nikki Kaye again:
 Twitter with Nikki Kaye Yes well Multi-Modal does include cycling and walking, and it’s great that Kaye knows this but do her government’s transport policies actually encourage more of either? There is nothing, for example, about opposing the construction of the City Rail Link that supports either Multi-Modality or cycling and walking. In fact quite the reverse. All PT encourages walking, offers choices other than driving, and frees the streets up to be available to cyclists and walkers. And fully underground and transformative projects like the CRL do these things extremely well.
So lets look at some more examples.
It is often gloomily noted that in order to get funding for a cycleway in Auckland you first need to find a billion dollar motorway project to attach it to. Certainly this is true of the Waterview project [and here] which despite taking place on a rail designation its only claim to any multi-modality is that the Environment Court has forced the addition of some pretty good funds for cycleways and paths as a means to mitigate the negative effects of this motorway on the local community. It has no public transport component -so other than the mitigating paths and bridges it is not really a multi-modal project. Hopefully AT will add buslanes to Gt North Rd after this project is complete but there is no funding or specific inclusion of bus priority in the Waterview project itself.
Multi-modality can be retro-fitted to an ordinary road too. Here is a multi-modal street in Manhattan: From left; bike lane, parking, general traffic, dedicated buslane. And to top it off pedestrian priority in the foreground. Four modes each with their own priority, clearly to do this you need a fair bit of road width, and that presupposes other systems of movement to compliment the road space. Of course Manhattan has a comprehensive subway system to free up this roadspace.
 First Avenue NYC photo: NYC DoT This pattern of strict separation isn’t the only way to multi up the modes; there’s also the ‘shared space’ way, this offers a more anarchic multi-modality that can work extremely well, especially in narrower streets where vehicles can be calmed by enough users of other modes, this type of system is common with trams too:
 Shared Street in Copenhagen Or we could think of particularly mono-modal systems; motorways are not only restrictive of what travels along them [no walking or cycling, and very little successful public transport] they also break connections across them for other modes, especially walking and cycling, but also for more local motorised connection too. Not only that but the quantity of traffic that they then dump onto to local streets severely limits the exercise of multi-modal patterns seen in the examples above.
 Auckland's CMJ This is what a Mono-Modality looks like. So anyone looking for a ‘robust Multi-Modal plan for future transport to the CBD’ would be wanting to urgently add the modes that are missing from this picture, and could well be looking to limit the use of systems like this one: the largest Motorway interchange in in Australasia.
So I guess the question I want to ask the government is how sincere are they really about Multi-Modality? I agree a truly multi modal Auckland would be a great improvement but successive governments have deviated very little from a highway dominant policy and the current one has greatly accelerated it, and therefore increased our Mono-Modality. The Government Policy Statement makes it very hard to get funding from NZTA for any mode at all other than state highways, in fact it seems designed to enable motorways to get funding no matter how poor their cost benefit analyses. So under this government the share of Land Transport funding going to anything other than state highways has shrunk. And now they are planning to make it even more difficult for the local authority to make its own investments that may differ from this bias.
These actions then are the exact opposite of promoting the Multi-Modal. I know this may seem naive but I would very much prefer politicians to back up their sweet words with actual actions.
By Patrick Reynolds, on February 16th, 2012 If ever you make the mistake of reading the comment stream on the average Herald article about Auckland you will find this kind of thought from people like Rodney of Howick who states:
For some reason [Mayor] Len Brown seems convinced that there will be more businesses started in the CBD and more people wanting to live there. Sorry Len, but cities grow outward and not inward.
Well Rodney is wrong both in general about cities and in particular about Auckland over the last decade or so. Cities grow in all sorts of ways and recently Auckland has been growing inward and upward [a direction that Rodney seems to be ignorant of] and hasn’t it been fantastic. I recently covered the issue of inner city living in Auckland so in this post I want to illustrate some of the great changes that we have seen in Auckland’s public and commercial world in order to both contradict this kind of thinking and to celebrate these changes.
 Auckland Art Gallery But I also want to make an additional claim about Rodney’s opinion. He’s right. Well, he was right. Auckland, like almost every other city in the western world grew outward in the second half of the last century away from its old centre. There was a consistent and unstoppable move away from inner-city areas for both habitation and commerce throughout this period. The very terms urban and inner-city came to freight negative connotations and lower value was given to the existing structures of the old city centres,
‘Clapham? Surely not! I wouldn’t recommend it. It’s terribly urban, so urban,’ with her feelings centred on the word urban. I wondered if I had mistaken the meaning of urban, if it now meant more than ‘of the city’.
-Janet Frame Angel At My Table p282 original emphasis.
Of course some cities suffered from this phase more than others. Auckland’s inner suburbs were bisected for motorways to feed these new suburbs and the city itself very nearly completely expired through flight and separation. This transformation was the result of public policy, especially as expressed in transport decisions, but that in turn did reflect the spirit of the times [although it was not universally supported- see Paul Mees Transport for Suburbia for good coverage of this]. The move to the suburbs was in, and the destruction of the old city was consistent with the brave new world of modernism which had an exhilarating commitment to the bold fresh start on a blank canvas. And why not, after the appalling wars that seemed to be the culmination of the old world order.
 Detail of the new Auckland Art Gallery by FMJT + Archimedia The most affected cities of this phase have become know as ‘doughnut cities’ because they now have a hole instead of a centre. Detroit is the poster child for this, but Christchurch is another good example. A weak centre ringed by low density suburbs with busy shopping malls sitting in a sea of carparking. The surviving examples of its Gothic Revival past made the old centre like a fairly lifeless full size museum. Of course it now has bigger problems and in fact the chance to fix this imbalance, but it is not clear that it will.
 Takutai Square above Britomart Station Auckland’s centre was largely saved by the failure of those that wanted the University to leave town for a poorly connected greenfields site at Tamaki. Unlike the Christchurch CBD which lost its University, it was largely the growth of the University along with AUT through the barren years of the 1980s that just kept the city going until the tide changed.
 North Wharf by Fearon Hay Architects And a tide it is. We are now in a new phase with a complete new set of economic, social, environmental, and spatial imperatives. Which are in the process of transforming our lives in ways that are just as profound as the one that began with the Great Depression and wasn’t really in full flight until the 1950s. [See Richard Florida's The Great Reset for more on this]. Although these changes are not evenly spread nor always obvious in the midst of them happening.
 Ironbank by RTA Central to understanding the postwar revolution is the rise of the car and huge spatial changes that we made to accommodate it. Likewise it seems that we are currently in an age where the penetration of the auto-centric life has reached its limits and a new order with different patterns of movement are beginning to assert themselves. I am not claiming that we will suddenly abandon all driving but rather its centrality to our lives and the dominant role it has in shaping our communities and routines will diminish. This will take time and like the last big shift will require effort and investment in alternatives, and of course will be contested by those who benefit from the old way, or just identify with it.
 North Wharf at Wynyard Quarter An important driver of this change, and also a result of it, is the desire for a more livable and human-centred spatial order, and perhaps ironically, one better connected to its constituent parts, its suburbs. While the centre is crucial to this dynamic change [See Ed Glaeser's The Triumph of the City], it isn’t at the expense of the hinterland but rather it is a transformation and an intensification of everywhere. It should mean the triumph of the local, a rise in difference, as well as in interconnectedness. And a world where the word urban has reverted to its older connotations, more likely to imply sophistication and growth than decline and despair.
 The Imperial by Fearon Hay Architects  The Imperial Except for our friend Rodney, or others like him whose views were formed last century and are stuck there. Or others living eslewhere in the country for whom Auckland is a distant or unwelcome thought. And this is the world view that the current government holds and is determined to force on us all. That they are clearly fighting against the new zeitgeist that is, like the last one, both global and probably irresistible is cause for optimism. But it also underlines how frustrating it is when we at last have a Council that speaks for the whole city and that ‘gets it’ only to have yesterdays world view being clung to by a dominating authority.
 from Fort Lane, one of the new shared spaces; until recently only used for parking vehicles and trash My photographs here are intended to show that the transformation of Auckland is well underway and not just a theory or the dream of some urban designers at the Council. But a real phenomenon being invested in by companies and public bodies and being successfully occupied by a full range of businesses, institutions, and individuals for all of our benefit.
 A great example of successful transformation: The Auckland Art Gallery These are the amenities and pleasures, business and work opportunities, that are the fruits of intensification and improved interconnection. This is the city we can have if we invest in new forms of movement and liberate the city from being so dominated by the demands of the car. Maybe even Rodney may come to town on occasion and see that ‘up and in’ is the 21st century way and for the simple reason that growth in these directions will help make us happier, healthier, and indeed wealthier.
 New or improved uses for old building are the best way to be able to keep them. Better than a new car park?  Adding exciting new layers to the city can only be afforded through more intense use
 New and old businesses co-existing in new ways: Making the city one big shared space
By Matt L, on January 12th, 2012 I love the shared spaces and have absolutely no problems walking down the middle of them even when cars are around but I can understand why others don’t feel that way and get nervous about the interaction between cars and pedestrians. This is especially the case when there are too many cars using the space, even if those numbers have reduced significantly from before the upgrades and admins post the other day about needing to ensure we get the right balance made me decide to post my thoughts on how we could solve the problem.
I do think that that the long term solution is to pedestrianise Queen St with perhaps the exception of using it for some form of PT however it is going to be a number of years before we can get to that stage so my solution focuses on what we can do today to further reduce traffic which will help to make pedestrians feel safer in these areas.
My main concern with traffic is the ability of the streets to be used as rat runs due to how they were traditionally used and both the Elliott /Darby St and Fort St suffer from this as the diagrams below show. The solution is to simply change the direction through which traffic travels, this would would negate these streets as rat runs while still preserving vehicle access for vehicles that really need to use them i.e. delivery vehicles.
In the case of Elliott/Darby St traffic wanting to get from Wellesley St to Victoria St or even just wanting to bypass the Queen St and Victoria St intersection, which has a lot of pedestrian phases, can use these streets to do so. Elliot St is also the only way to access the car park in the currently empty site at the northern end and vehicles have to travel use it and possibly Darby St to access that car park (of course ideally that site would be developed but who knows when that will happen).
 Elliott St Before  Elliott St After Simply changing the direction of these streets and only allowing left turns on and off of them would remove that rat run and mean that anyone using them will result in a vehicle going around in a circle which means that only cars that had to use it would do so. In this case it would also mean that cars accessing the car park wouldn’t need to travel the length of the road but only one end of it.
The second example is Fort St which is probably even more of a rat run based on the number of vehicles I see using it. For anyone coming from Beech Rd and wanting to get to Queen St it is probably far easier to use Fort St than get through the three intersections along Customs St East. I think what makes it even worse is the straight section between Gore St and Commerce St allows people to accelerate and they don’t slow down as much which means they travel faster through the shared space section.
 Fort St Before  Fort St After Again changing the direction of the traffic would remove that rat run, also as cars would need to turn off Queen St to access the shared space they would be more likely to travel slower through the area. It is also worth noting that the section between Gore St and Beech Rd is also eventually meant to be a shared space, I am undecided about the best direction for this but have opted to leave it the same to avoid creating more confusion/phasing at the intersection. Commerce St, Gore St and the middle part of Fort St will remain a normal road but the footpaths are being upgraded and widened as well.
The thing I think is best about these changes are they are simple ones that could be done fairly quickly and easily as they only require a few changes to signs and a bit of education but they have the ability to remove a lot of traffic from these areas in which pedestrians have been given far more priority.
By Matt L, on January 10th, 2012 New Lynn became the first place outside of the CBD to get a shared space in the form of an upgraded Totara Ave West after Clark St was extended over the rail line to take through traffic away from the shopping area. It is now set to get its second shared street in the form of an upgrade to McCrae Way which is currently behind the shops but is intended to allow for other developments to eventually bring it to life. This shared space will result in a reduction in the number of carparks in the area it travels through but don’t get to excited about that just yet because in AT’s words it “will be more than made up for by the construction of a new public parking building at 30 Totara Avenue”
That public car parking building is part of a joint venture between the council and Infratil a new mixed use building of which part will b ea 299 public car park but also include other things will include a medical centre as well as commercial and retail space, both of these projects are due to start shortly for completion by the end of the year.
You can read AT’s full press release on it here
Here is some images from the consultation document that AT produced as to what it may look like. you can see the medical centre and carpark (the station is at the bottom left of the image under the text). There are also two new lanes that will be created, one on either side of the car park.
One thing I am not sure on is where the cars will exit to, will it be onto the shared space or onto Totora Ave
And some photos of the planned medical centre and car park (this is looking west with the station as the grey image to the left
And the car park by itself
Lastly for those that haven’t seen it before, here is an image from some time ago of the plans for New Lynn, I wonder if these new buildings have been designed to be able to be made taller in the future? New Lynn is planned to be one of the key development areas for the council following the plans to rejuvenate the area by the former Waitakere City Council of which the awesome new station was the first stage.
By admin, on January 10th, 2012 As regular readers will know, I’m a huge fan of the shared spaces we’ve seen rolled out around Auckland’s city centre (and in New Lynn) over the past year or so. It’s fantastic to see pedestrian freely milling around streets that were once the sole property of vehicles, but also to see a regular “eyes on the street” value that traffic can provide, if you compare shared streets to pedestrian malls. In terms of practical implementation, shared streets also seem to be simpler (if more expensive) to make happen, as property access, deliveries and so forth can still be retained. Elliott Street has been a particular success in my opinion (although this photo is taken on a day when the street was closed to cars, generally Elliott Street seems to work the best of the lot):  A key part of the shared space philosophy is to reduce the amount of signage and general “road clutter” that normal streets have in spades. Obviously, the distinction between the footpath and the street is also removed, so that all users of the street are put much more on a “level pegging”, having to think and negotiate their way through the space.
An interesting blog post from the UK “As Easy as Riding a Bike” blog, analyses shared streets in Britain (which are really taking off in popularity), looking at the question of what makes some shared streets work really well, but others work not quite so well. The blog post makes the argument (and I haven’t followed the issue close enough to really know whether it’s a completely fair accusation) that shared space proponents say the biggest problem with our existing road environments (in terms of their friendliness to pedestrians and cyclists) is all the signage and separation between different users:
What is causing the real ‘impact’ on the urban environment is, apparently, the engineering measures – not the dozens of motor vehicles clogging up the space.
The problem I have here is that a symptom – the clutter, the rules and the control – is being treated as if it is the problem itself, the root cause of the decay of our urban environment.
Now while I accept that excess clutter and demarcation can be an issue, per se, Hamilton- Baillie is missing the point. There is a correlation between street clutter, rules and control, and the decline of the quality of our urban environment – this much is true. But fundamentally, it is the emergence of the motor car, and its gradual dominance of our street environment, that is responsible both for the declining quality, and the increase in rules and regulations. It has also eroded the natural sharing of spaces that we see in historical pictures, or today in places where the motor car does not exist, or is only present in low volume.
So we have to be very careful not to assume that simply stripping away the clutter, rules and signage of our present-day streets – returning them, essentially, to a nineteenth-century street – will result in a civilized environment, because that clutter did not arise spontaneously. It emerged, as I have said, in response to the motor vehicle, and it is quite clear, to me at least, that if you don’t take action to tame the motor vehicle – not to get rid of it, but to tame it – then you won’t see a civilized street, the kind in which vulnerable users are genuinely happy to mingle, which is surely a prerequisite of a street being shared.
I think this is a fair and well made point. It is the volume and speed of vehicles which determines the pedestrian friendliness of a street as much as the physical design of the place. We are seeing this with the different shared streets around Auckland’s city centre: Elliott Street has very low traffic volumes and high pedestrian counts so therefore pedestrians dominate and the place feels like a “proper” shared space. Fort Street has much higher traffic volumes and pedestrians tend to stick to the sides of the street, meaning you don’t really see the interaction and pedestrian domination of Elliott Street. Fort Street is still a million times nicer than it was before its upgrade, but it hasn’t quite succeeded (yet) to the same degree as Elliott Street has.
East Street in Horsham is shown as a successful example of a shared street – because of its low traffic volumes:
 Crucial to the success of this shared street are the restrictions placed on motor vehicles entering it. Only vehicles delivering disabled passengers/drivers to a couple of dedicated parking spaces, and loading vehicles, are allowed down East Street – severely limiting the number of vehicles it has to cope with.
New Road in Brighton similarly discourages traffic – not through outright bans, but through clever design making it an impractical and “silly” through-route for any prospective vehicles: One issue I’ve had with the Darby Street shared space is that it’s actually a really attractive ‘rat-run’ for vehicles travelling from Queen Street to Victoria Street as they can zip down Darby Street and avoid the traffic lights. So you see quite a lot more vehicles using Darby Street as a through route than you would if, say, it was one-way in the other direction and therefore not any use as a rat-run (I can’t really see vehicles from Wellesley to Queen bothering to use Elliott and Darby instead of just Queen Street as the rat-run is much longer).
The blog post goes on to talk about how the ‘balance of power’ between pedestrians and cars in their ‘unregulated interaction’ on a shared street is very important:
Moving on from how rules – or their absence – affect the way in which streets are shared spatially, we can consider how streets are shared in a kinetic sense; how its users, of whatever mode, interact with each other.
Shared space advocates are, again, fans of a lack of regulation. The analogy Ben Hamilton-Baillie often gives is of an ice rink, or a camp site…
…These are environments with no formal rules or regulations, yet with people (and in the latter case, vehicles) moving around and interacting with each other quite happily, and in reasonable safety. Surely we could apply the logic of the campsite, or the ice rink, to our streets? Why can’t we interact freely with each other on our streets the way we do in these other unregulated environments, by getting rid of the rules and regulations that differentiate a street from a campsite?
There is a superficially attractive logic in operation here, but it rapidly falls apart when we start to consider the details. A campsite is, typically, a field with lots of pedestrians in, with perhaps one or two cars actually driving around at any one time. Shared space advocates argue that despite the absence of a regulatory framework, these environments are quite safe. This is obviously true. But they go one step further, and argue that it is the absence of the regulatory framework itself that makes the environment safe. Add more rules about how to drive, they say – treat drivers like idiots – and they will behave like idiots. Putting up lines about where to drive in the campsite might a good example – drivers would probably drive faster, and perhaps with less caution, within those lines, for instance.
So far as it goes, this is plausible. But let’s imagine a parallel example – exactly the same field, but this time, instead of it being full of people on foot, milling about unpredictably, this field is now full of cars being driven about, in just as unpredictable a way. And instead of just the one or two cars you might find being driven in a typical campsite, we now just have one or two pedestrians, inching their way through this field full of unpredictable cars.
Is this field just as safe for pedestrians as a ‘typical’ campsite? If safety was only about the absence of regulation, then it must be – but I don’t think that is true. You wouldn’t feel as comfortable letting your child run around in a field full of cars driving around unpredictably as you would be for them to do so in a field that was like a genuine campsite; likewise an ordinary ice rink is very different from, say, an ice hockey game. There are seven foot Kazahks wearing body armour, whizzing about. Even if they’re being careful, that, again, is a very different environment to introduce your child into.
My point is that power relations are an important component of safety; even if we assume that all those drivers moving their vehicles around the field are experts, or the giant ice hockey players will be more than capable of avoiding your offspring, there is an unequal distribution of risk, that will quite obviously affect how the more vulnerable parties will behave in that environment.
So once again we see the point that numbers (of both pedestrians and vehicles) really does matter here. For the space to feel like it’s properly giving pedestrians equal status to vehicles, we need to ensure the number of vehicles does not dwarf the number of pedestrians. Some analysis done to inform the development of the Exhibition Road shared space in London highlighted the importance of keeping traffic volumes low – saying the following:
…if vehicle flows are greater than 100 per hour, pedestrians will not use the vehicle zone as a shared space
Another study, by Transport for London, made a similar conclusion:
A study undertaken by TRL in 2003 for TfL’s Bus Priority Team indicated the limits to which pedestrians in London may be prepared to share a surface with traffic. This study found that below flows of 90 vehicles per hour pedestrians were prepared to mingle with traffic. When flows reached 110 vehicles per hour pedestrians used the width between frontages as if it were a traditional road, that is the majority of pedestrians remained on the equivalent of the footway and left the carriageway clear for vehicles.
The blog post probably takes a more negative view of shared spaces generally than I do (perhaps because of a fear they’re being introduced in inappropriate places) but overall I think the point is very well made. An extremely important part of making shared spaces work is to limit traffic volumes – so that the ‘balance of power’ between pedestrians and motorists gets tipped further towards the pedestrian. I don’t necessarily think that the vehicle per hour numbers are a fixed rule though, as surely that depends on the concentration of pedestrians. If you have an extremely busy pedestrian street (like Queen Street, for example) then pedestrians are still going to dominate the space, even if you had more vehicles than the seemingly magic “100 per hour”. As we see more shared streets rolled out across Auckland in future years, I’m hopeful that these issues are taken into account – to ensure that all shared streets can be as successful as Elliott Street is.
The blog post goes on to talk about how the ‘balance of power’ between pedestrians and cars in their ‘unregulated interaction’ on a shared street is very important:
By admin, on December 4th, 2011 Research done by Auckland Transport shows that the shared spaces have been really successful in increasing the number of pedestrians along the various streets which have enjoyed the upgrades.
“The Queen Street upgrade and continuing city centre improvements are making the walking journey in and around the city centre much more desirable and attractive. Shared spaces may be a new concept for most Aucklanders but pedestrians have really taken to them and as a result are adding healthy walking to their days.
“Pedestrian activity on Darby, Lorne and Fort streets has increased by between 50 and 140 per cent. On Darby Street, there are now fewer cars and they are travelling at slower speeds.
“And the recently completed shared space project on Totara Avenue, New Lynn is another example where the street environment has been made friendly for pedestrians.”
Something that I’ve found quite interesting when observing the shared streets is how each of the streets in the city centre that have been upgraded differ slightly – and also how they’ve changed over time since they were first opened.
Darby Street was the first to open, and for a while didn’t seem to work that well – because of the large number of cars which continued to use the street (mainly as a bypass of the Queen/Victoria intersection). People parking along the street also made things problematic at first, although better enforcement by Auckland Transport parking officers in more recent times has helped minimise that problem. The photo above was taken pretty soon after Darby Street was open. These days the retailers have opened out towards the street more, with seating for people. Overall, it works really well and a lot fewer vehicles seem to be using Darby Street than before.
Fort Street probably remains the busiest of the shared streets in terms of the number of vehicles travelling along it. In particular, it seems that a lot of traffic uses Fort Street to access Queen Street, although as the cars generally take forever to find a gap between pedestrians before pulling onto Queen Street, I wonder whether this number will reduce over time. Out of all the shared spaces, Fort Street is probably the one that you’d feel least comfortable walking down the middle of – because of the higher vehicluar traffic flows. It’s still a far nicer place than it used to be though.
Elliott Street is, in my opinion, the biggest success story out of all the shared spaces. If you go there at lunch time these days, it’s absolutely humming with pedestrians – and you hardly ever see a car driving through the area. The close proximity to Atrium on Elliott shopping centre and foodcourt has helped Elliott Street become a success – but overall I think it is clearly the pick of the bunch. Here are a couple of picture of is opening day:  The other shared space is along part of Lorne Street, outside the library. It works quite well too – and I must get along there to take a few more photos and do a more detailed post.
I think the shared spaces will really come into their own over the summer. I hope that the Council keeps a close eye on numbers and provide some more seating if that’s considered necessary – as well as considering closing off some of the streets at certain times. I’ve thought that having Elliott Street closed to traffic each Friday would work well.
By admin, on November 4th, 2011 When a survey conducted by a car lobby group of its members finds strong support for closing a road to cars you’re generally extremely sceptical and looking for some sort of secret agenda, or you realise that the idea has gone so mainstream and is now so popular it’s a complete no brainer. The NZ Herald today notes that the AA has found strong support for pedestrianising Queen Street in a survey of its member – and I’m pretty confident there’s no secret agenda here:
Most motorists want Auckland’s Queen Street turned into a mall, as long as they have somewhere to park nearby.
Fifty-five per cent of respondents to an AA survey say they support turning the golden mile into a pedestrian mall.
During the rugby world cup Queen Street ended up closed a couple of times: before and after the final and then also when the victory parade was taking place. People got a nice taste of what it’s like to enjoy Auckland’s main street without it being eaten up by cars all the time. Furthermore, with Quay Street closed every weekend during the tournament the awesomeness of having Auckland’s city centre generally less dominated by vehicles was widely appreciated.
On other matters though, it seems that we still have a way to go in encouraging more sustainable transport policies:
However, 69 per cent are against a suggestion in the council’s draft 30-year plan that the 50,000 parking spaces in the city centre be reduced.
AA spokesman Simon Lambourne says the council should recognise motorists want to drive to central Auckland and park at convenient distances.
He says if there are parking buildings, people will be more than happy to walk around a pedestrian friendly CBD.
The provision of parking is a challenging issue. On the one hand we do want to make it easy for people to access the CBD for work and perhaps more particularly for shopping and visiting – and although Auckland’s public transport system is improving we’re still quite a way from it being of a quality that people feel completely confident about doing away with the hassle of driving. Particularly during off-peak times, catching the bus into town can take enormously longer than driving.
But on the other hand, we still have silly situations like Auckland Transport undermining its public transport system by offering parking in the city centre at below market rates. We still have many employers providing their employees with “free” (to the employee, certainly not to the company) parking spaces but not free public transport passes. And we are still wasting some of our prime waterfront sites on parking buildings.
However, sorting out our parking policies can be put to one side for a bit. The really good news is how widespread public support is for pedestrianising Queen Street. This is the process I would go down to make it happen:
- Over this summer have a number of weekends when parts of Queen Street are closed to traffic. Especially focus on weekends where you know town will be busy because events are on or because a number of cruise ships are in port. Stage a few events on the street to attract people in. I believe something like this is planned for around February 19th, I hope this isn’t a once-off though. Perhaps close it on some Fridays as well – like Quay Street was closed from midday Friday during the world cup.
- After the series of Friday/weekend closures this summer, run a bit of an assessment. What were pedestrian numbers like on the days when the street was closed versus when it was open? What impact was there on the roading network and public transport? What did the retailers think of the idea? Perhaps play around a bit with the different areas you close to trial things out – maybe sometimes close Quay Street too.
- During winter next year crunch the numbers, work out what went well and what didn’t. Analyse which form of closing Queen Street worked best and fine tune things around the rest of the roading network if changes are necessary. Then make a decision about whether, for the 2012/2013 summer, the street (or part of it) should be closed every single weekend.
- If things work well over the 2012/2013 summer, perhaps consider not reopening the street to cars on any weekend, and start thinking about whether it should be closed during the week too.
By having a ‘step by step’ process we can ensure that pedestrianisation is successful before we spend a lot of money on it and we can slowly talk retailers (who have historically been the biggest opponents of the idea) around into realising that they will benefit hugely from the increased foot traffic. If something doesn’t work then we can make changes to fix it, tweak the bit of road that’s closed, the hours of closure, whether we want public transport to have access in some places, whether a shared space solution might work best and so forth.
By admin, on September 29th, 2011 During my lunch break today I headed down to see how the Fort Street shared space is working. The weather was good so I spent around half an hour watching how the place works. Overall I was pretty impressed by how the area works. People generally have the confidence to walk down the middle of the street, the cars generally travel at a slow speed (around one in four went a bit fast for my liking) and the mix of pedestrian and cars, a kind of glorious chaos, actually seems to work. It’s also interesting to see how the area is starting to change as a result of the shared space. The Kebabs on Queen and Sumo Sushi stores you can see in the photo above have pushed seating out onto the street.
What the Fort Street shared space highlights though is how bad pedestrians have it in other parts of the city. Not far behind where this photo was taken is the corner of High Street and Shortland Street, an incredibly busy intersection for pedestrians but with no traffic calming measures for vehicles zipping down the Shortland Street hill. It’s only a matter of time before something goes wrong there. Plus the bizarre nature of High Street, with its narrow (and generally overflowing with pedestrians) footpaths so we can provide a handful of on-street parking spaces.
For future shared spaces there is one thing that I think could make them better, and that is a noisier road surface. Not only would this slow drivers down (nothing like a rough noisy surface to slow you down) but it would also ensure that when you’re walking down the middle of a shared space in the same direction as vehicles you’d actually be able to hear them come up behind you, rather than feeling somewhat unsettled and constantly looking over your shoulder to see if there’s anything behind you. I’m not quite sure how you could achieve such a surface that’s still comfortable to walk across – while ensuring the noise isn’t so loud as to annoy people in the area, but I think it’s worth looking into.
I think the shared spaces will be really popular as the weather improves. It certainly felt like a really nice place to enjoy my lunch.
|
Recent Comments