STREETS ALIVE The increased private ownership of vehicles during the post war era led to the rapid

expansion of automobile infrastructure within the existing urban fabric of our cities. Recently, radical ideas on urban form have begun to take hold and are rallying against the typical engineering based traffic solutions. An article by Craig Carpenter, BLA, AILA History The principles of Shared Streets were only comparatively recently realised with the history of the idea originating from Britain by the architect, civil engineer and planner, Sir Colin Buchanan. As head of the team that produced Traffic in Towns, a 1963 report on UK urban and transport planning policy, Buchanan realised the potential for damage caused by the motor vehicle and suggested various ways of mitigating it. Amongst the influential ideas was the call to not only separate modes of transport to reduce fatal accidents but to also allow for areas to mix modes of transport. The separation of modes of transport leads to reduced interaction between pedestrian and vehicle movements but also leads to increased speeds, reducing safety. Streets were evaluated according to their capacity to carry traffic and their environmental quality. The results of this analysis set standards and limitations and determine which treatment each road would receive, whether segregated or mixed. Not surprisingly, the British government was not keen on the idea of traffic integration, which seemingly ran counter to the traffic policy and construction currently under way. If these ideas were largely ignored within the Britain isles, they were enthusiastically adopted by continental neighbours, taken up independently by the Dutchmen, Hans Monderman, a road traffic engineer, and Niek de Boer, an urban planner and Professor of Urban Planning at Delft University of Technology. Monderman found that stripping back traditional traffic regulatory control measures actually led to improved traffic efficiencies by encouraging each individual to negotiate the space through cooperative means whilst de Boer drew inspiration from Buchanans views on traffic and pedestrians and visualised streets that felt like one was travelling through a garden. De Boer named these spaces woonerf, literally residential yard. In 1969, the Municipality of Delft unofficially adopted de Boers ideas and with the participation of the residents, set about implementing the first woonerf in lower-income neighbourhoods where the lack of available play space had become a critical issue. The success of the Delft experience led to the introduction of guidelines and regulations for the creation of woonerven being adopted by the Dutch government in 1976. The concept has since been expanded to include commercial areas, so called winkelerf. Before long, the principles of the woonerf were adopted by neighbouring countries with wohnstraen (living street) introduced into Germany in 1976, shared street or home zones introduced into England, as well as similar schemes in Sweden and Denmark in 1977, community doro (community street) in Japan and France in 1979, rehov meshulav (integrated streets) in Israel in 1981and Switzerland in 1982. Australia first introduced a set of standardised national road rules in December 1999 with the release of Australian Road Rules and included within this publication are details of Shared Zones, zones within the road network where vehicular speed is limited and right of way is afforded to pedestrians. There has been limited

copyright

implementation of these principles with perhaps one the key Perth examples being found at Subiaco train station. Key Principles Donald Appleyard, in his 1989 book Liveable Streets, detailed five key components required to successfully implement a woonerf scheme. Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, is the need to establishing a gateway into the shared zone. This is important so that vehicles understand that they are guests within this space. This is not to be viewed as an anti-car stance but instead as an egalitarian approach. It is equally important to draw attention to when a different type of public space is encountered through clever use of obstacles, paving, signage, etc. Secondly, straight roads only reinforce vehicular priority. The introduction of curves within the streetscape breaks up site lines thereby reduces vehicle speed. Thirdly, car parks, urban furniture, trees and the like should be seen as traffic calming opportunities. Instead of a stop sign, why not place a tree in the middle of the road? Both serve to draw the driver attention to the need to stop but only one adds value to the streetscape. It also provides the opportunity to add greenery to streets that were previously too narrow to accommodate vegetation. Forth, removal of traditional traffic signage and kerbs. The more that you try to control the situation through installation of signage, kerbing, speed humps, traffic lights, etc, the less the driver needs to engage in the journey, creating mindless zombies. Remove these devices and the onus of responsibility weighs more heavily upon the driver, requiring eye-contact between users of the space in order to for all to successfully negotiate the space. Removal of kerbing also serves to increase the permeability and accessibility of the space however it is important to consider the needs of disability groups. For the members of Guide Dogs UK, for instance, the ideals of woonerven leads to a decreased sense of safety and mobility as kerbing is the main method by which blind people negotiate the space. It is still imperative that attention is drawn to key entrances, intersections, crossings and the like. Finally, the fifth requirement requires the breaking up of car parking spaces along the street front to prevent the formation of a steel wall of cars reducing permeability and passive surveillance. Implementation The introduction of woonerf principles has both hurdles that need to be considered and a range of benefits. Firstly the hurdles that must be overcome or considered before a successful woonerf scheme can be implemented: Woonerf are not for busy arterial streets where vehicular priority is a must; Increased security can be achieved through these principles but the success of such a scheme relies heavily upon appropriate (ie medium to high) densities; Local authorities need to understand the process and principles in order not to counteract through standard engineering responses; Concept is counterintuitive and requires relinquishing control in favour of apparent chaos; Disability associations need inclusion in the process to ensure that the end result is equitable;

copyright

 Education of the public and their acceptance of moving vehicles and children at play engaging in the same space; Increased maintenance and capital costs; Requires built form that has an open frontage to the street; Requires positive involvement of residents to make successful. Benefits: Allows for urban renewal and treats the street as flexible community space, extending what may be in limited supply; Drivers are more alert, attentive and drive slower within these spaces creating a safer environment with less injuries; Reduces crime and encourages children and adults into the street through increased patronage and improved lighting; Provides a garden for people who may have otherwise little yard space; Can increase vehicle flow and reduce travel times; Increases public interaction and creation of communities; Increases use of alternative modes of transport leads to healthier population; Increased property values through improved streetscaping. Conclusion During the Study Tour, the tour group encountered many examples of successful implementations of woonerven. Examples of these schemes were found in Freiburg, Germany, where the city streets were equally shared by all modes of transport. Vauban, just out of Freiburg, where the integration of public transport into housing developments have seen the need for private vehicles drop significantly. When implemented successfully and appropriately, the ability of woonerven to integrate all modes of transport within once space allows for the resumption of this shared space back to the public. References: http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2004/05/20/traffic_design http://courses.umass.edu/latour/Netherlands/hand/index.html http://www.architectureweek.com/2004/0505/building_1-2.html http://www.metropolismag.com/story/20060417/streetless-in-seattle Pull-out Quote: 1976 Dutch Traffic Regulations for the Woonerf: Pedestrians may use the full width of the highway within an area defined as a woonerf; playing on the roadway is also permitted. Drivers within a woonerf may not drive faster than at a walking pace. They must make allowance for the possible presence of pedestrians, including children at play, unmarked objects and irregularities in the road surface, and the alignment of the roadway. Key Websites and links:

copyright

http://www.djc.com/news/en/11156157.html Australian Road Rules, 19 Oct 1999 http://www.guidedogs.org.uk/sharedstreets/ Buchanan, Colin. "Traffic in towns." Reports of the steering group and working group appointed by the Ministry of Transport. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1963.

copyright