Briefing

Civilised streets

There has been an important shift inthinking in recent years about urban street design. Where the car was king,now – according to the government’sManual for streets at least – people must come first. In some places, we areseeing bold changes to street design, with the emergence of shared spaceswhich remove physical barriers and forcedrivers to consider pedestrians. But dothese changes create safer, more civilisedstreets – or scarier streets? Do they help or hinder children, or people withimpairments? We all want streets to workbetter for everyone – so does that makecompromise inevitable? This briefing sets out the debate. It’s designed toprompt further discussion among designprofessionals and lobby groups in oursearch for civilised streets.

Introduction

A fundamental shift is under way in the way that streets are thoughtabout and designed. For the last 60 years, most streets have beendesigned with the needs of driversand motor traffic put first.According to this way of thinking, a ‘good’ street is one that helpsmake driving easier and vehiclejourney times shorter. The needs of people who want to use streetsin other ways – for instance forwalking, shopping, cycling, pushingprams, using wheelchairs, playing,or sitting and watching the world go by – have been given relativelylittle consideration.

Now, however, this is changing. In countries all over the world,policymakers recognise that this traffic-centred conception of streets has led to the creation of dysfunctional places. The social and economic value of the pre-20thcentury role of streets, as places of community interaction, shared by all members of society – as well as conduits for traffic – is beingrediscovered. New ways ofdesigning streets are being triedout; new terms such as ‘sharedspace’ are becoming popular.

This change is generating debatesabout the nature of safety andacceptable risk. How should wedesign and manage streets toensure that they are safe for all?Some of the latest design changesare controversial, with particularconcern from some1 about theeffect that certain designs have on blind and partially sightedpeople. Many believe that better,more human spaces can happenonly if spaces are shared. How wellsuch shared spaces work willdepend on how they are designedand implemented in practice. Butthe question still remains: is itactually possible to design a streetthat meets everyone’s needs?

In England and Wales, thesediscussions have been given a newimpetus by the publication in March2007 of the Manual for streets2, thegovernment’s updated guidelinesfor the design of residential streets.Although created for residentialstreets, the Manual for streets givesauthority to this new philosophy of emphasising the value of streetsas places and provides valuablepractical advice. The manualrepresents the shift in emphasisfrom car to pedestrian. Disabilitylegislation goes further, requiringthat the needs of disabled peopleshould be considered before anyother road user.

This briefing is about the sort ofstreets that are – or are intended to be – used for a range of differentpurposes, such as walking, drivingand shopping. It is not aboutmotorways or trunk roads. It isabout why, and how, we should be creating streets that are civilised– spaces that are designed andmanaged to ensure that everyonecan get from A to B easily andenjoy using them and being in them. The fact remains that most of our streets are not civilised,enjoyable places to be. They aremainly noisy, polluted, hazardousand unpleasant – with serioussocial and environmental problemsthe result.

The ideas in this briefing haveemerged as the result of extensivediscussions and focus groupsinvolving a wide range of peopleinvolved in thinking about the waystreets are used and designed.3

Its aim is to clarify the debate; to explore the advantages,disadvantages and widerimplications of new and differentapproaches to designing streets;and to set out CABE’s views onthese contentious subjects. Itshould be of use to policymakersand to all involved in the design or management of streets.

2

Pedestrians

Cyclists

Public transport users

Specialist service vehicles (eg emergency service vehicles,waste)

Other motor traffic

Manual for streets, p28, table 3.2

Consider first

Consider last

‘How should we designand manage streets toensure that they are safe for all?’

People first – the new hierarchy on street design

Streets as places: new design approaches

In the middle of the 20th century, as motor vehicles became common,two ideas came to dominatethinking about the design of streets.The first was that their mostimportant role was to facilitatevehicle journeys. The second wasthat mixing traffic and pedestrianswas inherently dangerous and thatideally pedestrians should be keptcompletely separate from traffic4.The combination of these two ideasled to the widespread introductionof ring roads that cut through thehistoric street patterns in our towns; pedestrian underpasses;pedestrianised streets in towncentres; and metal barriers alongthe edges of pavements to preventpeople crossing roads when andwhere they want to.

Designing streets primarily for trafficmovement, rather than as places intheir own right, has reduced therichness and variety of public spaceand its uses. As the shortcomingsof this approach have becomeapparent, thinking has shifted tofocus on ways that design can

facilitate the many potentialfunctions of the street.

One approach to street design thataims to rebalance the place andmovement functions of streets isknown as ‘shared space’. Streetsthat are designed as shared spacesusually have far fewer street signs,road markings, or edge-of-pavementbarriers. Pedestrians are given morespace and freedom, such as thefreedom to cross where theychoose and are able to. The theorybehind shared space is that driversbecome more hesitant – and sodrive more slowly – when there is a high chance of people crossing infront of them and it is generally lessclear who has right of way. Users of the space, whether in vehicles or not, have to negotiate its use by anincreased awareness of other usersand their possible intentions.

One design strategy for achievingthis rebalance between people andcars is to create ‘shared surfaces’.As the phrase implies, a sharedsurface is one that is used byeveryone: there is no physicaldistinction, such as a kerb orchange of level, to keep traffic

in one place and the other users in another. ‘Homezones’, which havebeen created in some residentialstreets, often feature such sharedsurfaces. In these homezones,children can play — or residents sitoutside their homes — on the samesurface that cars use for driving orparking. The design of the spacemakes it clear that it can be usedthis way, rather than extensivesignage.

Shared surfaces, designed as part of a shared space, remove the presumption that the car driverhas the right of way. They aredesigned to influence how peopleunderstand and use them. Thisapproach can be effective wherevehicle flows and speeds are low.The extent to which the benefits of shared space can be deliveredwithout shared surfaces, and thegradations between completesegregation of traffic and otherusers and complete sharing, remain to be fully explored. Moreresearch needs to be done intotheir impact, particularly into how applicable they are to busier spaces.

3

‘Streets that aredesigned as sharedspaces usually have farfewer street signs, roadmarkings, or edge-of-pavement barriers’

©S

tephenM

cLaren

What is a ‘safe’ street?

Most people in England have grownup using streets that have beendesigned to separate motor trafficand other users. New forms ofstreet design, such as shared spaceand shared surfaces, inevitablyraise concerns about safety.However, road safety is not quite as straightforward as it seems.

There are two schools of thought:one approach is to focus onreducing casualties; the otherapproach is to focus on reducingdanger. Both schools of thoughtwant ‘safer’ streets, but theirdifferent ways of thinking aboutsafety lead to very differentconclusions about how streetsshould be designed.

The proponents of casualtyreduction measure absolutenumbers of casualties – ie deathsand casualties. They argue that anycasualty is unacceptable andconsider the UK to be a successstory because it has one of thelowest rates of road death andinjury per head of population in the world.

The danger reduction approach,alternatively, moves away fromsimply measuring casualties. Itargues that improved design willforce people to take each other andthe potential dangers of a situationinto account when moving throughit in so far as they are able. Thosewho favour this approach argue thatmeasuring casualties is absurd if noaccount is taken of the activity inthe street. They point out that if theonly factor you are concerned aboutis the number of casualties, thenthe ‘safest’ street would be one that is never used (if no-one used it, it would have no casualties).Advocates of the danger reductionapproach also argue that it ispossible to make roads appear tobe safer by discouraging vulnerableusers – and point out that, although

casualties are lower in the UK thanelsewhere, so are levels of walkingand cycling.

CABE favours the danger reductionapproach. We think that streets thathave no casualties simply becausepeople have deserted them areactually failures in terms of theirsocial function. We think it is vitalthat streets are designed andmaintained in a way that attractspeople and we support streetdesign that encourages users to consider others. We know that this view does raise otherquestions. For instance, if safety is not paramount, but should be balanced against otherconsiderations, how much risk is it acceptable to impose on thepublic? And where should safety be ranked in assessing designobjectives?

Is your shared space my scary space?

In CABE’s view, streets that aredesigned to give all users morefreedom in the way they use themare more civilised. They also, quite intentionally, remove thepresumption that drivers have rightof way among users because of theunpredictability that this creates.Drivers, for instance, tend to drivemore slowly because of the richersocial context and the possibility that someone might step out infront of them.

The level of uncertainty that eachuser experiences depends onvarious factors. Some users ofpublic spaces – such as people with visual impairments, people with learning difficulties, childrenand carers – will experience moreuncertainty than others. This may bebecause the street is not designedfor these users. But some of thedesigns that help make streetsmore civilised – including someshared space designs – can, if

poorly realised, cause such peoplea greater level of uncertainty thanothers, and may even cause them to fear for their safety. If thishappens, they may decide not touse the street at all. This wouldmean that that, in effect, somepeople are excluded from the street.

In part, the high level of uncertaintyexperienced by some users may becaused by unfamiliarity with sharedspace designs. In 2007, theDisabled People’s TransportAdvisory Committee (DPTAC)reported on blind and partiallysighted people’s mobility in homezones. Among the findings, itidentified the benefits of workingwith users to help them betterunderstand and use streets.5

CABE agrees that such work isimportant. It is also possible thatthe widespread introduction ofshared spaces may require changesto the way we do things, such asthe way we teach children roadsafety. However, it should berecognised that, even with thesesorts of changes, the potential forsome people to be deterred fromusing streets that have beendesigned to be more civilised mayremain. The real possibility ofexcluding some users cannot beignored by practitioners whendiscussing the strategic role ofparticular streets, the way they aredesigned and managed, and waysof assessing their success.

Research by Guide Dogs6 hasexamined the difficulties experiencedby blind and partially sighted peopleand people with physical disabilitiesin independently navigating sharedspace street designs. It exploredhow to delineate ‘safe space’ if atraditional kerb was not used andmore recently investigated7 a range of potential delineators used orproposed in UK shared spaceschemes. The research found thatnone of the current designs, in theforms tested, met the needs of bothblind and partially sighted people

4

and people with mobility impairments.However, two delineators warrantedfurther research.

Good, thoughtful design willovercome many of these problems:designers are trained to findpractical solutions to complexproblems. However, even with gooddesign and adequate resources, it will often be the case that what is welcomed by one set of publicspace users will be disliked, oravoided, by others. For thosedesigning or commissioning streetsin most public places, a judgementwill need to be made that balancesthe needs of all users, whilefollowing the legal requirement toconsider the needs of disabledpeople first of all. How a street isultimately designed will of coursealso depend on the local physicalcontext.

CABE is committed to inclusivedesign and supports the principlethat streets should be accessible,and used by, as wide a range of people as possible. This isfundamental to the creation ofcivilised streets. We believe that, if principles of inclusive design8

are considered from the outset of a project, and written into thedesign brief, then shared spacescan work for all users, includingvisually impaired people. Goodshared space, for instance, will use design clues that still help the visually impaired. And ‘safezones’, which are demarcated areaslocated near building lines, can helpvisually impaired people navigateshared spaces without fear.

Designing inclusively is still arelatively new idea, and althoughmany say that it is a principle theysupport, in practice it is very oftenoverlooked. CABE believes thatdesigning and managing spaces to be inclusive is both morally andlegally9 the right thing to do, andshould be considered throughout a project.

A commitment to inclusive designcan raise concerns about possibleextra costs. Genuinely inclusivedesign does not necessarily have tocost more in the long term – in factit may cost less if considered fromthe start because it reduces theneed for remedial work later on –but it may add to the initial cost.This should be taken intoconsideration when planning andbudgeting for street design.

Safety and quality too

At the moment, the success of most streets is assessed in just one way, and that is by a safetyaudit. A safety audit, involving riskassessment, aims to identifypotential road safety problems to eliminate or mitigate them, andminimise accident numbers andseverity. Sometimes the contributionthat a street makes to minimisingjourney times for motor traffic isalso measured. Other factors areusually ignored, such as the totalnumber of users, the range andtype of users, the way they use and enjoy the space, and economicindicators such as customer‘footfall’ in nearby shops and so on.

CABE has argued10 that over-sensitivity to risk can result in blandand standardised places, designedfor the exception or the worst-casescenario, rather than the norm. Theresearch highlights the fact that asafe place can still be interesting.The Manual for streets recognisesthis and suggests that a safetyaudit be considered as part of awider quality audit, where widerobjectives for streets are set andproposals evaluated against howthey deliver on these.

CABE supports the quality auditapproach and recommends astrategic approach to the designand management of public spaces,underpinned by robust research andevaluation. Principles and objectivesfor streets should be set out in a

public realm framework, designguide or masterplan and supportedby policy, as described in Manualfor streets. Objectives articulatingthe full range of uses of the streetwill vary from place to place, butwill usually include:

– enabling local children (andothers) to walk and cycleunaccompanied from all parts of a development to a school, localpark or open space

– promoting and enhancing thevitality and viability of a local retailcentre

– ensuring that a development willbe served by public transport thatis viable in the long term

– keeping traffic speeds at 20mphor less in all streets in adevelopment.11

This process allows for balanceddecisions to be made. Engagementwith a range of street users helps to ensure that their needs areunderstood are represented in theobjectives for a street and satisfiedby its design and management.DPTAC research into homezonesand CABE’s Living with risk12

identify the importance of engagingusers in the process, to establish a positive dialogue and to influencedesign decisions.

Achieving all of this will depend oncross-departmental working withinthe local authority — something that is also recommended by theManual for streets. It is essentialthat the objectives for a street areshared, and incorporated into therelevant policy and practice of allconcerned. This should ensure thatwhen streets do succeed, all thoseinvolved are able to take the credit.

5

‘Genuinely inclusivedesign does notnecessarily have to costmore in the long term’

The benefits of civilisingour streets

This debate is not an abstract oneabout design. Civilised streets areplaces where the needs of peopleare prioritised over cars. Streetsdesigned to be civilised can delivermany benefits for communities.These benefits include some of the objectives that local authoritiesare now trying to achieve.13 Forinstance:

– stronger communities – by offering places for socialinteraction

– safer communities – by addressing perceptions of how people treat one another

– health and wellbeing – by encouraging play and activetravel in daily routine

– stronger economy – by increasingfootfall and time spent in thestreet/retail environment

– environmental sustainability – by encouraging cycling andwalking.

Manual for streets, Planning policystatement 1 (PPG1)14 and Planningpolicy guidance 13 (PPG13)15

provide further advice on how theseobjectives can be achieved.

Because improved street designcan help meet these aims, localgovernment money – say throughlocal area agreements – can beharnessed to help meet the cost.

CABE research16 finds that theeconomic benefits of creatingbetter streets can be significant.Civilised streets can enhance theimage of an area, can lead toincreased footfall in local shops,boosting existing businesses, andcan help attract new businesses toan area. With the government nowtaking a more flexible approach tolocal public finance, encouragingbusiness improvement districts andother innovative ways of raisingmoney at local level, the potentialfor finding funding to pay fortransformations of the public realm is increasing.

Conclusion

Most of our streets remain badlydesigned. The car still dominates.Improving streets throughout ourtowns and cities, to ensure that allusers benefit and that better placesresult, will take considerable timeand effort. It will require new waysof working within local authorities. It will usually be a complex process,involving a balancing of prioritiesbetween street users. However, the benefits of getting it right canbe very great, both economicallyand socially. If we succeed, all of our towns and cities will havestreets that are safe, practical andenjoyable for everyone. To seecivilised streets as the norm ratherthan the exception has to be ourultimate goal.

6

‘If we succeed, all of our towns and citieswill have streets that are safe, practical andenjoyable for everyone’

©U

rbanE

xposure

Glossary

Civilised streetsStreets that successfully manageplace and movement functions so that all people can enjoy usingthem and being in them.

HomezonesResidential streets in which theroad space is shared betweendrivers of motor vehicles and otherroad users, with the wider needs of residents (including people whowalk and cycle, and children) inmind. The aim is to use design and layout to change the way thatstreets are used and to improve the quality of life in residentialstreets by making them places for people, not just for traffic.

Inclusive designBased on the social model ofdisability – that people are disabledor disadvantaged by society’sfailure to recognise and meet theirneeds, not an inherent lack ofcapability – inclusive design aims to remove the barriers that createundue effort and separation. Itenables physical, intellectual andemotional access by everyone tobuildings, spaces or services.Inclusive design places people at the heart of the design process,acknowledges diversity anddifference, offers a choice where a single design solution cannotaccommodate all users, provides for flexibility in use – and providesbuildings and environments that are convenient and enjoyable to use for everyone.

Shared spaceSpace in which different streetusers have equal entitlement andpriority to the space. Shared spacestrives to combine rather thanseparate the functions of streets. It seeks to improve the livingenvironment for people, withoutneeding to restrict or banishmotorised traffic, by reducing traffic speeds through design.

A shared space that does notfeature shared surfaces (see below)may retain elements such as kerbs.A well-designed shared space will remove unnecessary clutter,while at the same time retainingnavigational clues for visuallyimpaired people. This could involvedemarcating ‘safe zones’ normallynear the building line, where blindand partially sighted people and other vulnerable pedestrians know it is safe to walk.

Shared surfaceA design feature which can be used in shared spaces. A sharedsurface features no demarcation of users by level. It may be uniformor differentiated by texture, colouror the placement of street furniture.In a street with a shared surface,demarcation is absent andpedestrians and vehicles share the same surface. There are nokerbs. Shared surface schemes aim to encourage low vehiclespeeds, create an environment inwhich pedestrians can walk or stopand chat without feeling intimidated by motor traffic, make it easier for people to move around andpromote social interaction.17

Simplified streetA street in which signing, roadmarkings for motor traffic and street furniture is consciouslylimited by designers. Simplifiedstreets feature deliberatelyambiguous environments to controldriver behaviour and restrain speedby requiring users to interpret theenvironment, decide on theappropriate behaviour, andnegotiate priority.18

AcknowledgementThis briefing is based on original material by Stuart Reidformerly of Transport Research Laboratories, one of the chief contributors to the Manual for Streets, andincorporates discussions on access and equality through CABE’s inclusive environments group. Julia Thrift was the editor.

7

Footnotes

1 In 2007, a joint statement was issued by more than20 disability organisations expressing concern aboutshared surfaces. These groups represented blindand partially sighted people, people with learningdifficulties and deaf and hard of hearing people. Seewww.guidedogs.org.uk/sharedsurfaces

2 Manual for streets, Department for Transport 2007. Available atwww.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/manforstreets

3 Although the views expressed in this paper areCABE’s, they have been informed by consultationmeetings attended by a wide range of people andorganisations including: Communities and LocalGovernment; Department for Transport; Guide Dogs;English Heritage; Inclusive Environments Group;Living Streets; London Development Agency; OxfordBrookes; Sustrans; Transport for London; UniversityCollege London; and David Bonnett Associates. Wealso surveyed professionals. Respondents includedmembers of the Urban Design Group, academics, local government, lobby groups and independentconsultants.

4 See, for example, Traffic in towns: a study of thelong-term problems of traffic in urban areas. HMSO,1963.

5 Designing for disabled people in home zones,JMU Access Partnership, 2007. Available fromwww.tinyurl.com/32zrpo

6 Shared space – safe space, Ramboll Nyvig for Guide Dogs, 2007.

7 Testing proposed delineators to demarcatepedestrian paths in a shared space environment:report of design trails conducted at University of London, Guide Dogs, 2008.

8 The principles of inclusive design (they include you), CABE, 2006. Available atwww.cabe.org.uk/publications

9 The Disability and Discrimination Act 2005introduced the disability equality duty. This came into effect in December 2006 and it obligesthose who design, manage and maintain buildingsand public spaces to ensure that disabled peopleplay a full part in benefiting from, and shaping, aninclusive built environment.

10 Living with risk CABE 2007. Available fromwww.cabe.org.uk/publications

11 Manual for streets, Department for Transport 2007.

12 See Living with risk, above.

13 The new performance framework for local authorities and local authority partnerships.Available fromwww.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/nationalindicator

14 Planning policy statement 1: deliveringsustainable development. Available fromwww.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding

15 Planning policy guidance 13: transport. Availablefrom www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding

16 Paved with gold: the real value of street design,CABE 2007. Available fromwww.cabe.org.uk/publications

17 Manual for streets, section 7.2.8.

18 In a residential context the simplified streetsapproach has been validated in the UK provided that traffic speeds can be kept sufficiently low.In British homezones studied as part of theDepartment for Transport’s homezones pilot project,the mean vehicle speed, averaged across the sevenhome zones, was 14.5 mph after implementation andthe 85th percentile was 18.4 mph. Pilot home zonescheme: summary evaluation of the schemes, 2006.Available at www.trl.co.uk/store

This briefing is designed to stimulatethe debate on new street design. Itlooks at different design approachesand at notions of street safety. Itexplores recent discussions on sharedspace and explains the many benefitsof the recent change in thinking away from the car and towards thepedestrian. And it presents a commonagenda for the future that is aboutremoving the dominance of the car –creating civilised streets that work for all.

Published in 2008 by theCommission for Architecture and the Built Environment.

Graphic design: Duffy

Printed by Seacourt Ltd onRevive recycled paper, usingthe waterless offset printingprocess. Seacourt Ltd holdsEMAS and ISO14001environmental accreditations.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may bereproduced, stored in aretrieval system, copied ortransmitted without the priorwritten consent of thepublisher except that thematerial may be photocopied for non-commercial purposeswithout permission from thepublisher.

This publication is availablein alternative formats onrequest from the publisher.

CABE is the government’sadvisor on architecture,urban design and publicspace. As a public body, weencourage policymakers tocreate places that work forpeople. We help localplanners apply nationaldesign policy and advisedevelopers and architects,persuading them to putpeople’s needs first. Weshow public sector clientshow to commission buildingsthat meet the needs of theirusers. And we seek toinspire the public to demandmore from their buildings andspaces. Advising, influencingand inspiring, we work tocreate well-designed,welcoming places.