shared streets – a flexible approach for streets as civic space

cad

+

S h a r e d S t r e e t s – A F l e x i b l e A p p r o a c h f o r S t r e e t s a s C i v i c S p a c e

Research byCommunity Design + Architecture350 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 5th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

December 12, 2013

www.community-design.com

The following examples illustrate

the boundaries between modes (pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle) are eased

or eliminated, resulting in a less vehicle-dominated environment that is more engaging and active with street life.

This page left intentionally blank

1

S T R E E T P R E C E D E N T F A C T S H E E T C O M M U N I T Y D E S I G N + A R C H I T E C T U R E

S H A R E S T R E E T S

cad

+

MARKET SQUAREPITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIADesigner: Klavon DesignConstructed: 2010Right Of Way: --

Background/Function:Market Square has long been the heart and center of Downtown Pittsburgh. Until 2010, car traffic and parking dominated and segregated this iconic public space. Klavon Design’s redesign goal was “to create an urban plaza that caters to the people that use the space. Although limited cars and parking are still part of Market Square, bus traffic is no longer allowed. The cross streets within the square were re-moved to reconnect the four existing squares into one piazza. The existing walks along the buildings were expanded to 21 feet to include a central dining district. The road width was reduced to accommo-date one-way traffic and parallel parking.”

Lessons:Curb removal is key: According to Market Square’s designer, Klavon Design, “the most significant de-sign feature of the square is the removal of all curbs.” With curb removal, “the square truly has become a totally accessible space.”

Bold moves can have dramatic benefits: Remov-ing all four cross-streets that bisected the plaza and replacing them with pedestrian areas was a strong choice that demanded a total re-thinking of the plaza. Bold moves can have big payoffs: the idea worked. Today, the plaza and its pedestrian and ve-hicle traffic function and integrate better than ever.

“Renovated, refreshed, reinvigorated with more life than ever before! Historic Market Square is once again the hub of Downtown activity.”- Pittsburg Downtown Partnership

Pittsburgh’s Market Square is once again the thriving heart of the city, after a redesign in which removing all curbs was key

Central Pittsburg

Market Square

2



cad

+

Bell Street in Seattle offers an entirely new vision of a street: a green park in the public right-of-way, designed for community open space, that prioritizes people and yet preserves functional access for all modes

BELL STREET (PARK)SEATTLE, WADesigner: SvR Design CompanyConstructed: 2013Right Of Way: 68 feet

Background/Function:Bell Street Park is at once a new kind of street and a new kind of park: a true park in the street. Intended to provide “much needed community open space for the high density Belltown neighborhood,” ac-cording to the City of Seattle, the project “converts one traffic lane and reconfigures parking to create a park-like corridor through the heart of Belltown on Bell Street.” Until 2013 Bell Street was a standard right-of-way like any other, predominantly asphalt, predominantly ceded to cars. Now it is a green park that retains all its former street functions, managing traffic and stormwater, and providing full access to all modes while also giving downtown Seattle new green open space in the public right-of-way.

Lessons:Streets can truly become public open space: Forward-thinking citizens got creative when they reimagined Bell Street (first proposed in the 1998 Belltown Neighborhood Plan) as a new linear park - now designed with seating for casual ineraction with neighbors, parking for retail, and flexibility for public events.

Streets can be put to work: Innovative swales and stormwater capture and management features are integral to the design, proving that when designed right - more like a park - streets can do important work to minimize street maintenance and control rainwater overflows.

DowntownSeattle

image: www.seattle.gov

“Bell Street Park will transform five city blocks into a park corridor that will safely accommo-date cars, bikes and pedestrians. The redesign will change a harsh urban environment into an energized public gathering space that will vastly increase the livability of the neighborhood. - Brad Kahn, Chairman, Seattle Parks Foundation

Bell Stre

et

image: SvR Design Company

image: SvR Design Company

3



cad

+

A new plan for North Terry Avenue was realized in 2010 and relies heavily on breaking down the separations between pedes-trian, vehicular and transit space. Note the material choices that define and unite each zone, with brick as the unifying theme reflecting the site’s industrial past.

“The intent ... is to make Terry Avenue accessible to all people ... Pedestrians may be separated from areas where vehicles are allowed by a 2” or 4” curb, by a row of truncated domes per ADA specifications, or by a separator such as a planting area.” - Terry Ave North Street Design Guidelines

SOUTH LAKE UNIONSEATTLE, WADesigner: Gustafson Guthrie Nichol Ltd. Constructed: 2010Right Of Way: 75 feet

Background/Function:South Lake Union is a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly street which has a design reflecting the ar-ea’s industrial past. It also includes a streetcar link-age from Downtown Seattle to Lake Union, passing by the headquarters for Amazon.com.

Lessons:Asymmetrical layout: The asymmetrical layout of the street gives rise to a balanced approach to shared space. Within the 75-foot right-of-way, there is space for pedestrians, parking, vehicles, light rail and parking. The width of each ‘zone’ varies. The east pedestrian zone has a width up to 31 feet.

Variation in material: Brick pavers dominate the right-of-way, with the exception of the west side pedestrian zone, comprised of scored concrete. Of-ten these material changes are at the same level as their surrounding zones. Exceptions include curbed planters and other elements of vehicle separation.

Parking retained on one side: On-street parking was retained on the east side, but reconfigured as back-in angled parking. As part of the Design Plan, the street was intended to provide short-term park-ing for all existing and proposed uses.

Relationship to ADA: The street reflects an ap-proach to ADA considerations that highlights the difficulty of achieving a truly shared space.

South Lake Union

images: Terry Ave North Street Design Guidelines

4



cad

+

FESTIVAL STREETSPORTLAND, OR

image: www.pdxchinatown.org

Designer: SRG Partnership / Nevue Ngan Associates / Suenn Ho DesignConstructed: 2006Right Of Way: 60 feet

Aspects of the NW Davis Festival Street include (clockwise from top left): gateway art pieces; lack of curbs to maximize flexibility; the ability to host public events day or night; and informal seating around planted areas.

“...a new experiment that uses traffic calming and unique streetscape features to create a street that can easily be converted to public use on weekends or special events.” - streetfilms.org

Background/Function:Located in Portland’s Old Town/Chinatown, these streets provide flexible public space able to accom-modate festivals and fairs while still allowing traffic movement through the city’s grid. The streets have no curbs; bollards define the separation between shared and auto-free space.

Lessons:Flexible right-of-way: In day-to-day use, the streets have a common layout of sidewalks on both sides, parking lane and roadway, but the lack of curbs al-lows for all 60 feet to become pedestrian space dur-ing special events.

Decorative features and amenities: The street in-cludes a variety of amenities that emphasize pedes-trian scale and function, such as scored concrete, entry planters with incorporated seating elements, and gateway landscape elements.

Slight differences in materials and carefully placed street furnishings assure ADA compliance.

Sharing of parking lane: Parking is allowed at the edge of shared and car-free space, consistent with the rest of downtown, but, being level with the side-walk, is better suited to pedestrian use, promoting accessibility and informal sharing of the space.

NW Davis

NW Flanders

Old Town/

Chinatown

NW Davis

5



cad

+

WALL STREETASHEVILLE, NC

Designer: --Constructed: 1988Right Of Way: 35 feet

A former delivery alley, Wall Street has been transformed into a shared street and a model for a narrow shared shopping street. Note the lack of curbs and a paving design that softens the hard edge between pedestrian and vehicle zones.

“The street is unique and provides a special environment...” - Planner, City of Asheville

Background/Function:During the 1980s the City of Asheville partnered with a single developer to rehabilitate the former historic downtown core. A former delivery alley, Wall Street had the potential to become a boutique downtown retail district. What resulted was a devel-oper-led project that created a shared street.

Lessons:Single level: Occupying a single block, this narrow shared space winds its way through boutique retail and pub restaurants. The pedestrian and vehicular zones are all on one level and use similar natural stone paving. Tree planters and permanent bollards separate the pedestrian and vehicular spaces, and the street lends itself nicely to closure and pedestri-an-only festivals.

Parking on one side: South side parallel parking was reintroduced in 1993 at the request of mer-chants who wished to gain drive-by customers. Still, the street maintains its unique feeling and the parking serves to slow cars down. Nearby structured parking supplements the limited on-street options. Interestingly, the street still serves as the delivery al-ley it has been for more than a century.

Downtown Asheville

Wall Street

image: Flickr user anoldentimage: Flickr user gritgoods

6



cad

+

DOWNTOWN EUGENEEUGENE, OR

Designer: --Constructed: last 20 yearsRight Of Way: 60 feet

Key intersections and main streets are provided shared space through brick crosswalks and plazas. Broadway at Willamette is at a single grade to facilitate shared space and provides a seamless transition into the city plaza.

“Great Streets accommodate pedestrians and slow moving traffic - and the occasional duck.” - Eugene Downtown Plan

Background/Function:The City of Eugene is known for its bicycle- and pedestrian-friendliness with established city-wide on- and off-street networks. The downtown has been redeveloped to include several intersections (Broadway at Willamette is the major focus) that break down the barriers between bicycles, pedestri-ans, and automobiles.

Lessons:Shared spaces: Eugene’s downtown has established a program of shared spaces demarcated by brick ar-eas. This includes not only crosswalks, but complete intersections that are at the same grade as the road-way, giving spatial priority to bikes and pedestrians. Warning strips mark the threshold where pedestrian and vehicle conflicts might occur. The paving pat-terns blend into adjacent public spaces, emphasiz-ing locations of pedestrian activity.

Design potential of parking: Downtown Eugene has an extensive network of bike and vehicle park-ing designed to de-emphasize on-street parking and allow for more shared on-street space.

image: Flickr user Oregon Attractions

Downtown Eugene

Broadway

Will

amet

te

image: Flickr user afenster

7



cad

+

PALMER & WINTHROP STREETSCAMBRIDGE, MADesigner: Earth TechConstructed: 2010Right Of Way: 25 feet

Palmer Street and Winthrop Street have both been reconfigured to be shared streets. Palmer is all one grade, while Winthrop relies on curbs and changes in materials to define space within its shared right-of-way. Note the plan by Earth Tech which clearly uses material change and sidewalk width to define space.

Background/Function:As part of the Harvard Square redevelopment project, both Palmer and Winthrop Streets were transformed into shared streets from their humble beginnings as access alleyways. Inadequate pedes-trian facilities spurred the decision to redesign these streets as shared spaces.

Lessons:Access to multi-use: The streets are located in the Harvard Square design district and are central to Harvard University. Flanked by neighborhood and boutique retail and restaurants, the streets enable all modes to access these services. Paving to define zones: Material choice includes textured concrete cobble pavers and brick sidewalks. Palmer Street also includes innovative street furni-ture that helps defines space and is functional.Low posted speed: While vehicle speed is self regu-lated in the surrounding area by numerous marked crossings and intersections, Palmer and Winthrop Streets are signed for 10 mph at the entries to these shared streets. Supplemental parking: Parking for the area is pro-vided by the Harvard Square parking garage just south of Winthrop Street. This allows for a relatively car-free shared street experience.

image: www.bostoneventinsider.com

Harvard Square and Vicinity

Palmer Street

Winthrop Street

image: City of Cambridge

“People were already walking in the street, so it was natural to be officially designated a shared space.” - New Urban News

8



cad

+

CADY’S ALLEYWASHINGTON DCDesigner: Landscape Architecture Bureau Constructed: Late 1990sRight Of Way: 20 feet

A former delivery alley, Wall Street has been transformed into a shared street and a model for a narrow shopping street. Note the change in paving and the ways in which retail and residential frontage utilize the space.

“Brick, granite Belgian blocks for the “carriage way,” water-washed pebbles and thermal-finished granite (between the brick and blocks) combine to give Cady’s Alley a special character.” - Stephan Kelly, landscapeonline.com

Background/Function:The area known as Cady’s Alley was redesigned in the late 1990s through a developer-led process in-volving individual architects. As a shared street and district it feels modern while still remaining authen-tic to its industrial past. Located in Georgetown’s design district, Cady’s Alley dates from George-town’s industrial past. Now a mixed-use retail cen-ter, the shared street serves as an access alleyway with fronting buildings and cafes. Residential uses above ground-floor retail help make the alley a 24-hour attraction.

Lessons:Decorative Paving: Brick pavers and natural stone pavers help define the pedestrian and vehicle zones respectively, which are on the same grade and largely unused by vehicles. It is not clear, however, whether the rough stone pavers marking the vehicular area conform to ADA requirements.

Bollards to define loading: While parking is not allowed within Cady’s Alley, the retail center is sup-ported by parking structures located to the north of the alley. Delivery and loading is allowed in wider areas defined with bollards (see photo to the left). This design approach can also work with short-term parking.

Georgetown

Cady’s Alley

image: Flickr user Payton Chung

9



cad

+“Though used by millions of visitors, as well as students, local workers, and residents, the public realm was filled with street clutter and vehicle traffic...confusing to visitors and unfriendly to pedestrians. We have changed this unwelcoming road into a stunning public space that can be enjoyed by all.” - The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

EXHIBITION ROADLONDON, ENGLANDDesigner: Dixon JonesConstructed: 2011Right Of Way: 82 feet

London’s busy Exhibition Road was transformed into a pedestrian oasis just in time for the London Olympics

Background/Function:Exhibition Road, a major street in central London, boasts important cultural institutions like the Vic-toria and Albert Museum and the National Art Li-brary Hall; it also has commercial and office uses. A half-mile section of Exhibition Road was redesigned by Dixon Jones into a shared street for all modes, using distinctive diamond paving. It remains a through route for transit and for two-way car traffic, with a 20 MPH speed limit, and some sections of the street seeing as many as 1,000 vehicles per hour.

Lessons:Shared streets can still be demarcated: In the busiest section of Exhibition Road, according to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, “there is a four metre wide corridor from the buildings on the western side which is a safe area for pedestri-ans, next to this there is an eight metre ‘transition zone’ where there are parking bays, cycle racks and other items of street furniture, this is followed by two lanes for traffic, one each way, then a four metre pedestrian zone on the eastern side of the road.”Disability access need not be compromised: Dis-abled users were carefully considered in the rede-sign, and design cues help blind and disabled users navigate safely. Paving color changes, raised dots, drains, ribbed paving, and slight grade changes are among the visual and tactile cues used to alert dis-abled users along and across the street.

Central London

Exhi

bitio

n Ro

ad

Before After

image: Photographer Olivia Woodhouse©The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

image: thisbigcity.net

Bus stop grade changes for accessibility

image: Photographer Olivia Woodhouse©The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

Street cross-section

10



cad

+

PLACE DE LA REPUBLIQUEPARIS, FRANCE

Designer: TVK Architectes UrbanisteConstructed: 2013Right Of Way: varies

Place de la Republique’s plaza redesign and shared street reclaims the historic square from the car, prioritizing pedestrians and bicyclists

Background/Function:Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoë led the push to re-design the historic Place de la Republique in central Paris. The centuries-old plaza was outdated and overrun with cars and vehicular traffic, with too little space left available for pedestrians. An over-haul of the plaza itself reunited two halves of the plaza surrounding an iconic statue, and transformed a broad avenue along one side of the plaza into a calm, shared street.

Lessons:Reclaim pavement from cars: The busy and wide roads that circled and bisected Place de la Repub-lique cut off the plaza from its surrounding area and created an unsafe and unpleasant pedestrian environment. Reclaiming space from these overly-wide roads improved safety and connectivity, and returned the square to people.

Different paving for different zones: New stone paving undergirds the new plaza and its adjacent areas, while similarly-colored, but differently-sized pavers mark the shared area of the street. This cre-ates a cohesive and coherent look and feel while also achieving clear separation of zones.

“My predecessors handed the square over to the car. We wanted to put beauty, the values of the République, and a joie de vivre at the heart of this transformation.”- Bertrand Delanoë, Mayor of ParisCentral Paris

Place de la Republique

11



cad

+“The improved New Road...is informed by a detailed understanding of how people use the street and the historically sensitive surroundings of Brighton’s Royal Pavilion and its Gardens. - Gehl Architects

NEW ROADBRIGHTON, ENGLAND

Designer: Gehl ArchitectsConstructed: 2007Right Of Way: 26 feet

Brighton’s New Road became truly new after a high-profile makeover by Gehl Architects that put people first

Background/Function:New Road, a main street in central Brighton, just blocks from the Atlantic Ocean, was redesigned by Gehl Architects into one of the first shared streets in the United Kingdom. Its single, shared surface al-lows all modes but is primarily meant for, and used by, pedestrians.

Lessons:Distinctive, shared paving: Multicolored and strik-ing paving sets off the street from its neighbors and signals pedestrian-priority. A narrow drain channel is now all that remains to mark what was once the curb between the street and sidewalk - a visual and tactile way of reminding all users that the shared street’s outside edges belong to pedestrians only.

Data collection helps make the case: Although the benefits of innovative projects like shared streets may not at first seem measurable, many benefits can be observed and data collected, and this data collection can be important in helping to support the case for project implementation. Pre- and post-implementation studies on New Road showed that pedestrian activity increased by 170% and “staying activity” increased by 600% on the street after the project’s implementation.

Central Brighton

New Road

image: Gehl Architectsimage: Gehl Architects

image: Gehl Architects image: Gehl ArchitectsBefore After

Date: December 9, 2013 From: Phil Erickson, Ben Caldwell Re: Shared Street Guidance and ADA-related Research Definition of Shared Streets - A shared street is a common space designed for use by pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles.1

Shared Street Guidance Documents Several planning documents in the United States for the design of shared streets define a maximum limit for vehicle frequency in shared streets at 100 vehicles per hour; these references were provided to CD+A by Terry Bottomley on November 27, 2013. The reference that is consistently provided for this limit is A Review of Simplified Streetscape Schemes, by Allan Quimby and James Castle, PPR292, for Transport for London, Street Management Division, January 2006 (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/ downloads/review-of-simplified-streetscape-schemes.pdf). This document is referenced by the Shared Streets and Alleyways – White Paper prepared for the City of Ashland by Alta Planning + Design, February 2, 2011, page3, (http://www.ashlandtsp.com/system/ datas/98/original/AshlandTSP_SharedStreetsWP_020211.pdf) at the Better Streets website by the City and County of San Francisco (http://www.sfbetterstreets.org/design-guidelines/street-types/shared-public-ways/).

The section of the Transport for London document that defines the 100 vehicles per hour guidance states the following:

“The information above appears to indicate that in PPAs there is a self limiting factor on pedestrians using the are identified for vehicles as shared space at around 100 vehicles per hour. Speed of vehicles also had a very strong influence on how pedestrians used the shared area. It would be reasonable to assume that these factors would also apply in a shared space scheme. Therefore in the London context shared space designs would be appropriate where vehicle speeds could be kept as low as possible and volumes were less than 100 vehicles per hour.” Page 21

In fact, on page 20 of the document, it states the following:

“Conflicts within pedestrian areas: greater than 110 vehicles per hour

§ Pedestrians were found to treat such areas as a standard road, with most choosing to walk along the footway and cross the road only when necessary.

§ Fewer pedestrians appeared to be in potential conflict with traffic under these conditions, compared with areas with lower flows. It was

1 Definition from Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-way, July 26, 2011, United States Access Board, page 45.

Community Design + Architecture Shared Street Guidance and ADA-related Research Date: December 9, 2013 Page 2 of 8

suspected that the observed changes in behaviour reduced the possibility of potential conflicts.”

So, the observations of pedestrian behavior did not indicate increased risk to injury for pedestrians but rather a decrease in use of the vehicular area as a shared street by pedestrians when a higher vehicle volume was present.

Another portion of the report discusses shared street schemes that were under design when the report was being prepared. Other portions of the report discuss the limitations of data on which to base guidance recommendations because of the lack of built examples and before and after data. One of the under design projects that is mentioned is Exhibition Road.

Exhibition Road Data Exhibition Road was completed in 2011, and the following provides some measurements of its performance since construction.

Pedestrian-only areas along the sides are distinguished from areas that are open to cars and all other modes by “black iron drainage channel covers and raised and ribbed ‘courduroy-effect’ tactile strips (an access and mobility hazard warning surface used in the United Kingdom, see below).” This helped with disability access, which was a major issue in the planning process. Bike racks, trees, benches, and bollards also are used to separate pedestrian-only areas from all-mode areas. Tall masts for lights sit in the center of the all-mode area, see also the Shared Streets case study booklet that CD+A has compiled.

Exhibition Road photo and descriptive notes (Source: No kerbs, pavements or nanny-state signs: Britain’s longest clutter-free street is unveiled to make things SAFER, February 2,


2012)

Corduroy hazard warning surface (Source: Code of Practice on Access & Mobility http://www.accesscode.info/index.htm)

The street has been studied extensively since it was redone. Exhibition Road Phase 3 Report, prepared by MVA Systra Group, August 15, 2013, provides extensive monitoring data and appears to be the third of four planned reports that are being prepared every 6 months. Traffic volumes have actually gone up in the most pedestrian-friendly area, the street layout for which is detailed above (labeled Sections 3 and 4, below). Volumes reach peaks of over 700 vehicles per hour in these areas.

page 15

There were no accidents recorded during the 18 month period of total monitoring. This is an indication that 100 vehicles per hour is not an appropriate maximum flow for shared streets in general.

Community Design + Architecture Shared Street Guidance and ADA-related Research Date: December 9, 2013 Page 4 of 8 Local Transport Note 1/11 – Shared Space, London Department of Transport, October 2011 This more recent document from the London Department of Transport reinforces the conclusion we have made in our review of the earlier Transport document that recommends a 100 vehicle per hour maximum for shared streets.

Regarding traffic volume + speed “The Manual for Streets (DfT, 2007) suggested that, above 100 motor vehicles per hour, pedestrians treat the general path taken by motor vehicles in a shared space as a road to be crossed rather than a space to occupy. However, this figure is not an upper limit for shared space. Shared space streets with substantially larger flows have been reported to operate successfully, albeit with reduced willingness of pedestrians to use all of the street space.” (p. 13)

“Vehicle speed has a significant influence on pedestrians’ willingness to share the space and drivers’ willingness to give way to pedestrians (and others). As vehicle speeds decrease, the proportion of drivers giving way increases, so the street becomes more shared. This is where the design speed becomes important. The design speed is a target speed that designers intend most vehicles not to exceed and is dictated primarily by the geometry of tracked vehicle paths within the street. For shared space, a design speed of no more than 20 mph is desirable, and preferably less than 15 mph.” (p. 13)

“The design speed need not be the same as the speed limit. It is worth noting that the speed limit in any given situation is not an indication of a safe speed to travel at – it is simply the speed that a driver cannot legally exceed. There are many roads where it would be unwise to travel at the speed limit, and it is perfectly acceptable to adopt a design speed below the posted speed limit. For example, a street with a speed limit of 30 mph could be designed to create an environment where vehicles tend not to exceed 12 mph. Ten shared space sites were studied during the research for this Local Transport Note (LTN). All had speed limits of 30 mph but achieved average speeds of around 20 mph.” p. 14

Regarding Drivers Research found that drivers tend to prefer conventional streets because they provide clearly defined areas for pedestrians and vehicles. In shared space, they perceive an increased need to be aware of other users, particularly as pedestrians are more likely to occupy the carriageway and their behaviour may be less predictable.” P. 19

“Reducing the level of demarcation of the pedestrian area (see Figure 2.2) and the amount of formal traffic management features both tend to lead to reduced speeds and, hence, more sharing.” P. 19

Regarding Designing for Low Speed “Aspects of street design that encourage low vehicle speeds have more influence on encouraging sharing than any other. For high levels of sharing, a design speed of no more than 20 mph, and preferably 15 mph or less, is necessary.

Low vehicle speeds can be encouraged by:

§ making the street look and feel different;

§ creating ambiguity for drivers; and


§ making it physically difficult to drive through quickly.

Making the street look and feel different can be achieved by means such as:

§ a change in surfacing – block paving has been found to reduce traffic speeds by between 2.5 and 4.5 mph, compared with speeds on asphalt surfaces – see The Manual for Streets: Evidence and Research (York et al., 2007);

§ the presence of street trees, street art, cycle parking, or other items of street furniture in unconventional positions such as the middle of the street (some may need a degree of protection depending on vehicle tracked paths);

§ a reduction in the use of signs and other traffic management measures;

§ introducing visual narrowing;

§ reducing forward visibility; and

§ using tighter geometry.” P. 34

It is evident that the guidance from the London Department of Transport has been evolving and indicates that there is a potential to design Telegraph Avenue from 16th to Broadway as a shared street without curbs that would allow for the entire space from the edge of Broadway to the Rotunda Building to function as a true plaza with the Telegraph Avenue segment is closed to traffic while allowing for safe multimodal circulation when the segment is open to vehicular traffic.

Disabled Access and Safety Issues One of the most often mentioned concerns about shared streets is how they will function for those who are disabled, particularly those who are blind or have low vision. The concern being that the lack of a curb may not provide adequate indication to people who have low vision or who are blind that they are leaving the pedestrian only area of the shared street and entering the area that is shared with parked or moving vehicles. Typically, the transition between the pedestrian only and shared areas is delineated with textured pavement and contrasting color, but not a continuous strip of typical truncated dome panels. The recent Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-way, July 26, 2011, United States Access Board on page 45 states:

“The Access Board seeks information on the design of shared streets in the United States, and whether tactile surfaces or other design features are used to facilitate wayfinding along shared streets. The Access Board also seeks information about other research that is planned or underway on the use of tactile surfaces or other design features to facilitate wayfinding along shared streets.”

The Proposed Accessibility Guidelines also references three studies from England in regards to these issues:

1. “The Impact of Shared Surface Streets and Shared Use Pedestrian/Cycle Paths on the Mobility and Independence of Blind and Partially Sighted People” (2010) available at: http://gdbass.netefficiency.co.uk/fileadmin/sharedsurfaces/user/documents/TNS_Report_Text_ve

Community Design + Architecture Shared Street Guidance and ADA-related Research Date: December 9, 2013 Page 6 of 8 rsion_Impact_of_shared_surface_streets_and_shared_use_paths_GD_2010.doc. This study notes the following:

§ Disabled respondents dislike equally Shared Streets and Shared-Use Paths: 0% of respondents like shared streets, while 86% express at least some concern about using shared street. Meanwhile, just 2% of respondents like shared paths, while 90% express at least some concern about using shared paths. This suggests that at the very least, shared streets are no worse for blind users than shared paths, which are common.

§ Experience helps: “Those without experience of shared surface streets were more likely to choose the option ‘I would go out of my way to avoid them’ (57%) compared to those with personal experience of shared surface streets (36%).” (page 13) And…“Those who had experience of shared use pedestrian/cycle paths were significantly less likely to choose the answer ‘I would go out of my way to avoid them’ (18%), compared to those respondents who had no experience of the shared use pedestrian/cycle paths of which 42% said they would go out of their way to avoid them. This may suggest that respondents are less likely to avoid them, once they have experienced them.” (pages 24-25)

§ Color differences help: “Of the more positive comments raised about shared surface streets the differentiation of areas by colour on shared surface streets was seen as useful for those who are partially sighted.” (page 21)

§ Tactile delineation also helps: But this article does not get specific about what that tactile delineation would be.

2. “Shared Surface Street Design Research Project, The Issues: Report of Focus Groups” (2006) at http://community.stroud.gov.uk/_documents/23_Shared_Surface_Street_Design_Research_Project.pdf; this document provides similar information to the more recent 2010 report discussed above and called for further research into accessibility of shared streets.

3. “Shared Surface Street Design: Report of Focus Groups Held in Holland” (2006) at http://www.alanhunt.co/pdf/Report_of_Holland_Focus_Groups.pdf.

§ Respondents acknowledge that drivers go slower on shared streets: “Several participants considered that most vehicle drivers reduced their speed in shared surface areas and that most vehicle drivers and cyclists were considerate of pedestrians using shared surfaces.” (page 4)

§ Clear tactile and visual delineation is preferred: “All participants were agreed that there should be clear demarcation between the pedestrian area and the road. If there is no kerb this should be a consistent recognised tactile surface. All agreed that a pavement with kerb was the preferred option. In relation to tactile surfaces participants wanted these to be consistent both within a town and between towns. Participants with some sight stated that colour contrast was useful, both on tactile surfaces and street furniture, but this was often not consistent even within a town.” Also, “Several participants reported that hard tactile tiles, which were acoustic when walked on, were better than rubber tiles.” (page 5)

Community Design + Architecture Shared Street Guidance and ADA-related Research Date: December 9, 2013 Page 7 of 8 Related Guidance and Data from U.S. Case Study Projects

Bergamot Area Plan, Santa Monica, CA The Bergamot Area Plan is a station area plan for a major mixed use infill and revitalization area in Santa Monica, California, that was adopted by the City Council on September 10, 2013. The plan includes an extensive network of new and redesigned streets, many of which are planned to be implemented as shared streets. (Available at http://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Plans/Bergamot-Area-Plan/Bergamot-Area-Plan-Draft-June-2013.pdf). The circulation network and street designs were developed by CD+A, Fehr & Peers, and City of Santa Monica staff.

Shared-Space Streets as Public Open Space All of the streets in the Bergamot Plan area will be part of the open space network. However, some streets have a special emphasis: they are planned to be shared-space streets (see Figure 4.A.02). These are passageways that have a single horizontal surface (typically with no curbs or sidewalks) that are designed to be shared between pedestrians, bicyclists and cars. This arrangement allows the street to function as open space, accommodates impromptu interaction and gatherings and further slows down through traffic. Sharedspace streets will also be well suited for temporary closures, festivals and events. (page 58)

Street Network from Bergamot Area Plan – orange streets are shared streets (page

The shared street standards and guidance section of the Bergamot Area Plan is provided in an attachment to this memorandum. Key guidance related to speed and other concerns noted in the memorandum include:


§ “Shared-Space” signage—indicating the 15 mph speed limit for vehicles, including bicycles; if any regular events that would require a street closure, such as a farmers market, are programmed for a shared space, signage could also indicate the timing of these closures. (page 228)

§ Tactile paving strip—A standard detectable warning surface (e.g., truncated dome panel) should not be required to distinguish the shared travelled way from other areas of the shared space, see discussion of speed management and signage below. (page 228)

§ Speed Management and Signage: Speed management within the shared space will be achieved through the narrowness of the shared travel way, the use of special paving, an off-set to the alignment of the travel way along the length of the street, and the sloped entries to this street type. The narrow width of the shared travel way, which is the street portion of the shared space, will allow for a target speed of 10 mph at the option of the City of Santa Monica and per the State vehicle code, which allows this for public streets 20 feet wide or less. The areas on either side of the shared travel way are public open space. The Shared-Space street type will be designed and include signage for a 10 mph maximum vehicular travel speed. This should not create a significant hazard to pedestrians or wheelchair users who are travelling or crossing through the shared travel way, and should preclude the need for standard detectable warning surfaces (i.e.; truncated dome panels) between the shared travelled way and adjacent public open spaces within the shared street. (page 230)

Bell Street, Seattle, WA Illustrations, photos, and summary information regarding this new shared street (portions remain to be built) is provided in the attached case study booklet and additional information can be found at: http://www.seattle.gov/parks/projects/bell_street/boulevard_park.htm.

The City of Seattle Department of Transportation provided “before” volume counts for segments of Bell Street for periods prior to construction to CD+A through the project’s designer SvR. PM peak vehicles per hour ranges between 446 to 724 depending upon block segment with AM peaks typically lower by 100 vph. We expect that after measurements will be undertaken after the project is completed in January 2014, but this has not been verified by City of Seattle staff.