South London Style

I had a week off work last week to recharge the batteries, but didn't switch off totally as I ended up in the middle of London. I actually made three visits, but one included the chance to take in yet more cycling infrastructure and revisit my current favourite little spot south of the river.

I had a family lunch appointment in Vauxhall and a personal appointment in the afternoon and so it gave me the excuse to squeeze in a bit of cycling safari time rather than bother with the Tube; if I am able, I use the bike in preference to the tube for onward travel from and to Liverpool Street. My Friday route took me through The City to London Bridge which I crossed and then ducked down to the South Bank via a pit stop at Borough Market. I then pootled along the river (in glorious sunshine) to Blackfriar's bridge where I jumped back up to street level to head south on Blackfriar's Road to see where the North-South Cycle Superhighway had got to.

Near the bridge, there were lots of roadworkers busily digging holes and laying kerbs'n'tarmac, but on the approach to Southwark Tube, the street magically changed before my eyes as shown in my wobbly little video;

It is actually rather wonderful as there have been roadworks here for ages and things seem to have come together rather quickly; I last visited in December where the whole area was a construction site. I regularly pass through Southwark Station on my way to meetings at Transport for London's HQ (Palestra) which is opposite and so I am familiar with the old road layout which was basically a socking wide carriageway with one lane in each direction. 

Electric assist cycle, towing a trailer with a cycle on it.
Blackfriar's Road: Build it and they will come.

There is plenty to see in the video such as low kerbs for the cycle track, the best bus stop bypasses we have seen in London (they are seamless), gently rising speed humps to give level crossing points for pedestrians and above all it feels really safe. I even tried a 2-stage left turn (being a directional track, getting on and off is more awkward) and because the junctions are compact and people on cycles get an early start green, they actually work far better than I have seen on CS2 at Whitechapel where the road is still huge (cautious thumbs up). One issue which I will have a look at in the future is some of the side roads were really busy and one mixes with traffic again - some serious filtering is needed.

This driver is accessing Notre Dame School from St. George's Road.
They were able to pause in the central area between the carriageway
and the cycle track with no problem at all; it was very safe and for
people driver, the layout is legible and obvious.

After I marvelled at Blackfriar's Road, I headed south once more to have a look at St George's Road (still part of the North-South Route) where there was more of the same and now completely open. St George's Road connects to Blackfriar's Road via a short section of Lambeth Road which has been filtered (although is a bit of a bus waiting area). Even further to the south, St George's Road ends at the Elephant & Castle junction which is still being worked on (and I've not done any more research into the changes there). We also have an intersection with CS7 which bypasses Elephant & Castle; I'll return to all of this in the future when I understand it! St George's Road is one way and so the bidirectional track works well here.

I then left the comfort of the Superhighway to head west on Lambeth Road towards Vauxhall. My escape from the Superhighway was made easier by a dedicated green signal which gave me time to dart over to the left side of the road to turn left before the lanes of traffic behind me were released.

Turn right to stay on the N-S and head towards Blackfriar's Road.
Turn left to get over to the left, to turn left on Lambeth Road towards
Vauxhall. If that makes sense!

I am not aware of any plans for the main part of Lambeth Road, but it is mostly awful for cycling. There is a cheeky cycle bypass of traffic signals at Hercules Road which was OK, but that really was the highlight. I turned left into Sail Street where I followed London Cycle Network Route 3 which was heading in the direction I wanted. LCN3 cuts through some back streets and the roads seemed fairly quiet with many having modal filters and contraflow one-ways. They may be busier at rush hour, but I felt very comfortable at the time. With some thought and some improvements, LCN3 could be rather useful as a connection to CS5 to the west (which I did have a little go on).

Just off LCN3 was my destination and a hidden gem; the southern end of Vauxhall Walk. Just a few years ago, this gateway to the Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens seemed a little bit tired and unloved (at least looking at Google!). The street was a parking area and the space visually dominated by the orange paintwork of "The Queen Anne" pub which has had an interesting history, but closed when the landlady was shockingly murdered on holiday (thanks to Charlie Holland for the local knowledge).

Vauxhall Walk, June 2008

The pub was taken over by the Tea House Theatre which opened in July 2011 and this little spot started to change. Again looking at Google, cycle hire had arrived by 2012 and towards the end of 2014 there was a consultation on removing some on-street parking and installing a large road hump near the Tea House Theatre. I think this was linked to a redevelopment of the street outside which blurs the edges of the Pleasure Gardens which seems to have been completed in early 2015 (correct me if I am wrong). So, what do we have now? Here are some photos;

The southern end of Vauxhall Walk taken from Glasshouse Walk and looking south. Note the very large speed table (road hump) taking the carriageway up to footway level (in fact, the speed table is the whole area beyond). The sign on the left is for a "Restricted Parking Zone". It is set up to ban parking in the area beyond and no loading is allowed during the day Monday to Friday. It means no yellow lines are required which would clutter the space beyond.

This is Laud Street (which needs resurfacing) and is just a little link road within the larger estate which has motor traffic filters and one-way streets (with 2-way cycling). The RPZ ends here and reverts to yellow lines for parking controls.

This is at the end of Vauxhall Walk where there is a vehicle access to the Vauxhall Gardens Estate (servicing and some private parking).

This is the view to the north back towards Glasshouse Walk, the access to the Vauxhall Gardens Estate is out of shot on the right. The Tea House Theatre provides a focus for the space. The tarmac of the start of the speed table has given way to a public square which some would refer to as a "shared space". Well it is a level surface with a "footway" area to the left and the main square simply paved with a muted checker board effect. I think that this paving could have extended over the footway area perhaps. 

I have had a pop at so-called "shared space" recently, but Vauxhall Walk is a great example of how the concept can be successful as traffic flows are tiny (the street goes nowhere) and people walking and cycling dominate - even on a chilly (but sunny) weekday afternoon in February.

Another view across the new public square. People are hanging around chatting in what was the road and two little kids cycle round in circles in actual and experienced safety!

This photo is from Laud Walk looking north back towards Glasshouse Walk. From what I understand, the two planted areas are designed to take some of water from the paved surface as a kind of "rain garden". The chap in the distance was on a bike, towing a sandwich trailer!

This view takes in the street activity and the Tea House Theatre which is painted far more elegantly than the old Queen Anne pub. I have to give a shout out to the excellent cakes and lunches sold in the Tea House Theatre and the staff who allow you to relax and take all the time in the world - thanks guys!

Vauxhall Walk is a perfect example of how we can change a place from somewhere cars are stored, or where people hurry through, to something where people choose to linger and where they want to be. The Tea House Theatre also creates both a visual anchor to the site and somewhere people want to visit. The almost total lack of motor traffic is very important - had cars been driving through, even a few a minute, the effect and feeling of safety would disappear. There is no one thing at work here, it is everything working together to return a neglected pocket of London back to locals and visitors alike.

Blood On The Arterial

This week's post comes after a very unusual thing to see in the UK; a direct action protest on a big road. The road in question is the A127 Southend Arterial Road and the protest follows the death of 13 year Joseph Sheridan earlier in the week.

Joseph died after being hit by a driver who has been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving. If you witnessed anything, please contact Essex Police. None of the news reports I have read actually say what might have happened, but the protesters are calling for a footbridge. In London, we have had direct action in the aftermath of people killed while cycling, but this has tended to have been with some notice and organisation (notably by Stop Killing Cyclists). This protest seems a little more impromptu and saw a group block the road with vehicles for several hours. 

It might be wrong to assume that Joseph was hit trying to cross the road and so I don't think it appropriate to comment on the case further, the police need to be left to do their work for now; what I think is worth commenting on is that this area has history and the A127 is a masterclass in how to create community severance.

The A127 is an east-west route which starts at Gallows Corner in the London Borough of Havering and ends in Southend-on-Sea after passing through South-Essex, including skirting north of Basildon and thus creating a barrier between the sprawling town and various settlements such as Noak Bridge and Crays Hill and the town of Wickford further north. The collision took place in a location where there is a retail park on the south side of the A127 and no crossing facilities whatsoever. From what I have read, there have been pedestrians hit (some killed) over the years. Current "road safety" efforts amount to some sporadic high fencing on the central reservation and signs suggesting people don't cross in the location which is subject to the National speed limit.

This is not providing for pedestrian desire lines. The alternative is miles
of walking detour and it is nonsense to expect people to obey the signs.
(Image from Google)

I have had a quick look at Crashmap and from a pedestrian point of view, there are some recorded casualties, but not many; of course, casualties are not a measure of risk or severance, but they are unfortunately used to sift interventions in a world governed by budget cuts and prioritisation. Compared with the countless crashes just involving motor vehicles, it is no wonder that work for pedestrians takes the back seat under our current system.

The A127 traces its origin to the 1920s when it (along with the A12 Eastern Avenue) was built as a strategic route between Wanstead and Southend. By the 1930s it had been dualled along its length. It was a trunk road for decades (and so under Secretary of State control) before being "de-trunked" in the late 1990s. For the section passing Basildon, Essex County Council is the highway authority responsible for the road. Basildon is a "new town" and so arrived well after the trunk road which gave good road connections to East-London.

Today, the road is heavily congested at peak times (and it is always very busy off peak). In fact the whole area is congested at peak times and this is down to the fact that the car is the mode of choice for many in "Mondeo Man" country, further pressured by a great deal of house-building and commercial development in the town. Anyway, I digress. I used to to drive this stretch of road twice a day on my commute 20 years ago and the road layout hasn't changed in all of this time, so the community severance here is nothing new. So, what are the answers? Well other than telling people it is not safe to cross here, the answer will lie in changing the infrastructure. 

The protesters are calling for a footbridge. This is fine if the ramps are gentle and can be provided on the desire line. I doubt this will work because footbridges over roads such as this end up with zig-zag ramps because of highway space constraints, leaving a structure than many will ignore as it doesn't serve their desire line. The answer here is either raise the road up on a bridge to give clear space for walking (and cycling of course) underneath or to drop the road into a trench and build "bridges" over it. The A127 has form for this further east at "Rayleigh Weir" where many years ago the A127 was "grade separated" by dropping it down with slip roads up to a roundabout at surface level it being carried over two bridges over the trench. 

The A127 at Rayleigh Weir where it drops into a trench with the old
surface level being a roundabout carried on bridges.
(Image from Google)

The same could be done in many locations near Basildon with the bridges carrying dedicated walking and cycling routes. Nothing is needed for cars because there are big junctions which allow one to drive from north to south if required. I realise that this type of treatment would represent a significant investment, but we always seem to manage to do it for big roads carrying long-distance traffic, why can't we invest in the communities who have been blighted by severance for decades? The way in which we keep investing so much in building new strategic road capacity is making me increasingly angry when we have situations like this going on now on former (and current) trunk roads which have split people apart for so long; especially where the solutions are not technically difficult. Perhaps direct action is the answer to get people to stop and take notice?

Quicker By Cycle

I don't get out as much as I would like with the day job, but this week I had a meeting on a site 5 miles away from my office and naturally I cycled.

I say "naturally" because I completely ditched using my own car for work about 3 years ago when parking charges were brought in (£300 a year which is better used as a bike fund). I now use my bike for most of my site visits and meetings, although sometimes the bus if the weather is really bad (and the train for meetings in the centre of London). 

The journey was about 25 minutes and with the exception of a couple of places, it was on some very quiet streets although many do turn into rat-runs at peak times; I'll come back to that in a bit. The point is that the journey time was very reliable. 

If I made the same journey by bus (at the same time of day, about 1.30pm)  it would take 2 buses and be about 35 minutes and that assumes that the interchange is smooth; or one bus and a bit of a walk (about the same journey time). By car, it would be about 20 minutes, although add 5 minutes for the walk from the office to the staff car park. The journey time by bus or car is not reliable because many of the roads on the (driving) route suffer from congestion and at peak times, the uncertainty of travel times increases. For an interesting look at comparative cycle vs car travel times, have a look at this blog post by Mark Treasure.

Anyway, what is natural mode of transport for me is unusual in Outer London where the cycle mode share is less than the London average of 2% (probably around half that where I live) and where car ownership is high (although highly variable across wards) and that remains the challenge where the debate often goes as far as saying nobody cycles, so why invest the funding in enabling it? This is why historically, investment for cycling has remained low for decades with all but isolate dedicated facilities and paint on main roads.

Back to the my journey. The route I mainly took was mainly on a long-established locally signed route between which has the advantage of using a park path which is shared, but lit and always open. This cuts out some pretty awful main roads and gives the time advantage. The route (with some tweaks) is pencilled in as one of the Mayor of London's Quietways (currently unfunded) and this presents big issues for the future which appears to be the case where the routes of being built.

The main problem is that we are still talking about "cycle routes" and that means for any given end-to-end route, it will only ever be as good as its worst section or junction. My route crossed and ran along some busy roads. Crossings should be easy if they pass between side roads, then filter out other traffic crossing between those side roads. Where a route zig-zags between side roads via a busy road, then we need protection on that busy road; this is where I think just looking at routes is failing us - if we need to work on a main road for a short section, then why not the whole of the main road?

Crossing primary streets is straight-forward.

For Central London, the Quietways are meant to be part of a bigger grid picture, but in Outer London they seem to be arranged to connect areas to town centres. This does make sense in terms of trips to those town centres being made in their own right or as journey stages and people are not going to commute into the centre from the edge (unless they are really committed). I think the problem I am seeing is one of funding and ideas being spread to thin and we need a different tack.

I have been using the Cyclenation/ Cambridge Cycling Campaign "Making Space for Cycling" website and guide recently as a reference point in trying to explain the concepts of how we should be looking at out road network; that is, making decisions on what each street is for at a network level which then sets the treatment of each street going forward. The generality is that we are considering 5 types of street (please read the document for a really detailed explanation on wider principles) - there is consideration of off-road leisure routes, but I am more interested in urban cycling here;

Major roads between urban areas
There are basically fast and busy dual carriageways or motorways. In Outer London, these will be the radial roads such as the A12, A13, M11, A10, A1 ,M1, A40, A3, A2 and so on; or roads like the A406 North Circular. Many of these roads have no frontage access and limited junction access. 

For cycling, these could be fast routes and so parallel provision could be dividends, although walk distances mean they would be less useful walking. Where is gets more complicated is where some of the 'A' roads have people living on them, shops and side roads. In this condition, we need protection for walking and cycling, including regular, convenient and safe crossing points.

Primary Streets
These are generally A roads (sometimes B roads) which carry lots of motor traffic and provide direct links between places. They will normally have lots of frontage use and direct access and may or may not be dual carriageways (although single carriageways will predominate). For Outer London, these roads could be some of the big radial roads, but a bit further in. I think speed limits will be down to 30mph as well. 

Protection on Main Streets.

An example could be the A118 which connects with the A12/A127 in the east and the A11/A12 in the west taking in towns such as Romford, Ilford and Stratford. Again, protection and good crossings will be the order of the day. With the A118 example, we only have Stratford High Street doing anything meaningful. Many of these streets are "High Streets" and in the UK we really cannot decide what they are for - shopping or stuffing traffic through.

Secondary Streets
These might still carry high levels of traffic, but might also be quieter off peak. They will likely carry bus routes and have local shops. As with Primary Streets, we need to provide protection for walking and cycling, but these places can often lack highway width (boundary to boundary) for decent protection. This class will be very difficult to deal with and although they often try to be Primary Streets, I think many should be reworked to become local streets.

Local Streets
These are where people live, where kids should be able to play outside and might have the corner shop. Local streets should not be used to convey traffic between areas, should not be used by buses (unless small vehicles are being used on less frequent services) and the speed limit should be 20mph.

Short Links
These are those little routes which are longer than point closures, but are not end-to-end routes in their own right.

Short links - drivers go the long way round.

These are concepts which I will be returning to again and again, but what does this have to do with my 25 minute journey and the route I took? The first thing is that rather than looking at a whole route, I think effort is better spent looking at neighbourhoods around the main destination and building change from there. This brings focus and means that change in one area can be used so sell the idea to the next area; plus, this can help reconnect those neighbourhoods to the town centres for walking as well which can be sold to town centre shops. 

The thing to do is to get a map of the area and to colour code the street according to the 5 classifications above (literally print out the area and get highlighter pens out). What you'll probably find is that there are local streets which have too many through routes for motors and these need to be dealt with through a mixture of closures to motors, one-way streets (for motors) and prohibited turns (so-called "modal filtering"). 

A modal filter splitting two areas into traffic cells. Access for motors
is allowed in each motor cell, but people can't drive between them.

The aim is to break an area down into "traffic cells" which people can access with cars, refuse trucks and deliveries, but they can't use the streets to "beat" primary and secondary streets. The principle here is that people cannot drive between traffic cells. To play with the filters, one can use stickers on the coloured map to try different arrangements (and it can be a headache as an action in one place causes a problem elsewhere). This is something I have been doing quite a bit recently and it allows for rapid prototyping of ideas before going to the time and effort of then producing something professional-looking.

With the route I took in the week, this approach means that as well as creating the "route" the areas around the route will get treated along the way which will make for quiet neighbourhoods and feed the route itself. It also means that one has to confront street uses and the difficult issues on an area by area basis. Starting at the town centre end of a route allows refinement further on and something people can go and see. I have a particular issue on the route I took where I would have classified one street as "secondary" as it connects two other areas. 

The initial classification on this basis showed that not only there were primary streets which motors could be sent on (yes with a distance and time penalty), it showed that the inevitable conclusion being that a future classification had to be to convert the street into a local street with a modal filter. In theory, as no bus traffic is involved it should be easy (at least from a technical point of view). Moving from the page, we can use experimental traffic orders and cheap physical treatments to test layouts in the real world. Reaching some people in terms of consultation is difficult, but trialing layouts for a few months would allow data and better informed views to be collected.

Cheap, temporary and reusable materials for experimental schemes.

I don't know if I have explained myself very well in this post, I'd be grateful for feedback, but the point is that playing with coloured pens and maps is not costly and it allows a street use policy for an area to be set which in turn becomes the focus for investment. While the nominal longer distance cycling route will be improved, we get more "bang for the buck" in civilising the wider area. Indeed, this is less about cycling and more about liveability (and in Outer London, using the word cycling is like a red rag to a bull to some people).

At least in London, the only people doing it on this kind of scale is Waltham Forest with its Mini-Holland project. Cheap filtering pays huge dividends and allows serious money to be spent on big roads. If each borough in Outer London started doing this in a meaningful way, it would really allow limited funding to be focused in making nicer places which felt safe to use and then investing where protection is really needed. Before we know, it will truly be quicker by cycle.

The Myth Of Shared Space

What is "shared space"? I think it means different things to different people and in this post, I will attempt to show it as being a largely mythical concept.

I have put off writing this post for a long time because so many others have written about shared space (from a variety of standpoints) and I am not sure that I really have anything new to add. I will declare that I am not an opponent of some of the concepts per se, but I really do think many ideas have become toxic with the way they have been implemented.

Let's start with an important definition (well, my definition) of shared space which is in the glossary to this blog;

Shared Space

A street where several functions either share the same space at the same time or sometimes separated in time. For example, a footway may have loading bays on it which are only operational during times of low pedestrian flows or traffic signals separate different movements and modes by space and time.

Shared space can also mean more radical layouts where traffic, pedestrians and cycle users share the same area on a single surface, such as Exhibition Road in London. The concept seeks to blur demarcations between travel modes and enhance the street scene or public realm.

Let's also pause for a minute and take a look at the current official UK guidance on the subject in the form of Local Transport Note 1/11 - Shared Space which defines the concept as;

A street or place designed to improve pedestrian movement and comfort by reducing the dominance of motor vehicles and enabling all users to share the space rather than follow the clearly defined rules implied by more conventional designs.

So immediately, the "official" view ignores those riding bicycles, but acknowledges that motor traffic is an issue - this should be about pedestrian comfort and reducing traffic (OK, my interpretation!). LTN 1/11 also defines "sharing";

The ability and willingness of pedestrians, facilitated by the sympathetic behaviour of motorists and others, to move freely around the street and use parts of it that, in a more conventional layout, would be considered largely dedicated to vehicular use.

This is a problem for me as it suggests that shared space relies on those driving to behave sympathetically towards pedestrians and this is all rather too simplistic. LTN 1/11 also defines "level surface";

A street surface with no level difference to segregate pedestrians from vehicular traffic.

I mention "level surface" (sometimes referred to a single surface) as shared space and level surface are often conflated and used interchangeably which is not right. A level surface has distinct advantages for people with impaired mobility, wheelchair users and people pushing buggies, but is can be a significant barrier to visually impaired people. We also have the concept of "comfort space";

An area of the street predominantly for pedestrian use where motor vehicles are unlikely to be present.

We also have some key statements which kind of give the reason for looking at a shared space scheme;

• Shared space enhances a street’s sense of place.

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

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

Some commentary is given in support of these statements, but there are plenty of health warnings (!) given in the document. In no particular order of important, I think the following points are worth bearing in mind;

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.

A key benefit of shared space, particularly where there is a level surface, is that it can allow the street to be used in different ways. For example, street cafes and the like may be present during the day, while at night the area occupied by daytime activities could be given over to people visiting night-time entertainment venues. A street could also host regular street markets or occasional events such as street theatre.

[D]uring research into user interaction in shared space, no instances of negotiation by eye contact were observed – indeed, there appeared to be very little overtly demonstrative communication of any sort between pedestrians and drivers. Eye contact cannot be relied upon, given the difficulty in establishing it with a driver through a vehicle windscreen, especially at a distance. It is important that this is understood to avoid undermining the confidence of blind and partially sighted people using shared space.

There is a great deal of advice in the document and in my opinion, if some of the more well-known shared-space schemes were "measured" against this advice and the design the criteria (which are guidelines), they would be abject "failures". The three points I have reproduced above suggest that traffic flows shouldn't be high if we are inviting pedestrians to dominate; level surfaces can have wider benefits and the often-quoted concept of "eye contact" is cobblers. Please have a read of the whole thing as in my view the proponents of the shared space movement don't seem to follow even this.

So, why do we get shared space schemes? They are actually nothing new and in countless locations, things we would call a "shared space" pre-date the motor car - just think about any old town or city market square which has operated just fine without cars. 

I'm going to spend the rest of this post giving some examples of what shared space might look like, despite me saying it is a myth and then I shall round up with some conclusions. First, here is one of the many squares in the wonderful city of Prague, the capital of the Czech Republic;

The city has lots of squares which are in many places just large open spaces with streets running into them. The image above is fairly typical and one can very clear see the tram lines running through the space. There is no parking allowed, but loading can take place where required, although don't ask me if it was permitted when I took the photo. It could be shared space, but it was like that before cars.

In terms of traffic flow, it will be the trams being the issue rather than the motors, but I would argue there is a very high sense of place. I would suggest that the layout is rather poor for visually impaired people as it is a wide open space of paving with no help for navigation; and it's probably an issue for many people with mobility impairment because of the traditionally cobbled surface. Those very important issues aside, pedestrians dominate the space and are enabled to do so by the lack of vehicles. Next, a street in Deventer, The Netherlands;

Again, this is a level surface shared space, although "footway" areas are nominally picked out in a slightly lighter paving. In this street, we have have car parking (and lots of cycle parking as one would expect!) but the street is access for cars and deliveries only - through traffic has been filtered out and flows will be significantly less than the 100 vehicles per hour given as the guide level in the LTN. Let's keep it going. This is Venn Street, Clapham, London;

Although once again a level surface, Venn Street has more traditional footway areas a "carriageway" along the centre and the granite cobbles is a resident's parking bay (achieved without paint, but with a sign on the building). There is also a loading bay in the street, but no parking allowed on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays (at least it was when I last visited) which means the space can be used for other things (such as a market). So not only is the space shared by transport modes, it can be shared with a market. 

The street is also one-way (towards us, although this should be changed to allow 2-way cycling) and again, only of use to those who need to be there. Compare the above photo with how the place looked in 2008. I would say that if it wasn't for the British traffic signs and English shop names, this could be anywhere in Northern Europe! Still in London, I want to show you the same street, but it is a street of two parts. This is the famous Exhibition Road which has been controversial over the years (and remains so);

Again, we have a level surface, but there is an 800mm strip of "hazard" warning tactile paving which is set behind a black slot drain. The warning strip demarcates a comfort space for visually impaired people. The first three photos were taken between Kensington Road and Cromwell Road

The last photo was from the tiny section south of Thurloe Place which provides access for those delivering or needing to access some residents' parking bays in Thurloe Street. In essence, one can drive through a couple of roads which form a loop and then the exit puts you back before where you started (if that makes sense). In other words, unless one has business there, it is pointless driving in.

Next we have Marine Parade, Southend-on-Sea. This street is right on the sea front and for many years consisted of a wide dual-carriageway road with lots of parking. The road was a significant barrier between the promenade on one side and the pubs and amusements on the other. A few years ago, the area was redeveloped with the central reservation coming out along with 2-stage staggered crossings and the road being made a single carriageway with hugely widened footways, some on-footway loading for the businesses and some uncontrolled crossings with some level surface thrown in. 

The area is a shared space because the huge traffic signs at each end tell us so and there is a 20mph speed limit which is enforced with average speed cameras (which I like). The top photos shows the extent of the cycling infrastructure (there is none) and it really is a wasted opportunity, especially as the new area is a break between adjacent protection (t a varying quality). The lack of controlled crossings will be an issue for some sectors of the community, although on a nice sunny day with lots of pedestrians, people on foot can assert themselves as the second photo shows.

Southend is a really interesting example. Undoubtedly, it is head and shoulders above what was there before. Had the cycling infrastructure been continued to link up the seafront and a couple of zebra crossing been thrown in, I think it could have been pretty good. But is it "shared space"? I am not sure it is, we have a conventional carriageway between wide footways and the carriageway takes levels of traffic which allows sharing momentarily as pedestrians scurry across. Contrast this with the "nice" end of Exhibition Road, one is not going to stand in the middle of Marine Parade eating an ice-cream!

At each end of Marine Parade, the road layout goes back to pretty standard UK stuff (even with the cycling infrastructure) and so Marine Parade is essentially part of a much longer motor traffic corridor, despite having the A13 running parallel to it. The sea front could have bee transformed into a series of east-west cul-de-sacs with connections every so often back up north to the A13 - I suppose I am on about unravelling networks. Let's have a look at a few more examples where I think there has been far less noise. Here is New Road in Brighton;

It's another level surface scheme, but with restricted motor access to the point where again one can deliver and only a blue-badge parking bay is available. Motors are only allowed in from one end (cycling allowed both ways) and as a result, people walking, cycling and sitting at tables dominate the space. It is shared space? People will say it is, but really, the sharing is not on equal terms, it is a pedestrian space within which people cycling are guests and people driving don't need to be there unless they are making a delivery. This is the opposite to the "through route" schemes like Southend and Exhibition Road. This next photo is St James' Terrace in Southwold, Suffolk;

It is part of a network of historic streets which were not designed as such, more they evolved. There are some very narrow footways and so most people walk in the road in this part of town, which is very popular with tourists. Despite the parking, the streets in this area are generally pretty quiet. The area could do with a couple of modal filters and perhaps a restricted parking zone could clear out all by residents' parking (there is a large car park on the edge of Southwold). But, this and the other streets are essentially shared space streets with a level surface. This has happened by historic quirk rather than expert design, but you will never hear about places like this - they are not new and shiny. OK, last example. The next photo is Trinity Street, Borough, London.

Is this shared space? It's a level surface area with a carriageway-like cobbled route through it picking out a cycle track - there are no cars, but there is sharing going on. On the one hand, people cycling have a clear route through and perhaps they could dominate, although cycle speeds will be low as it is a link. People cycling can share on the terms of the pedestrian and indeed, there is seating and planting around the space which does help shape how it is use. This was not designed as a shared space, this was created by closing a through route to motors. Look at the place in 2008, it had already been closed to motors with the area being transformed soon after. 

The use of the word "shared" is the thing I keep coming back to. Shared conjours up an idea that everyone can use a space on equal terms and this is clearly not and cannot be the case on a through route for traffic. It is why that wherever we see this kind of design plopped on a busy road (and especially busy junctions) we immediately get controversy. 

On the one side, the designers and the forward thinking councillor who pushed for a shared space will be extolling the virtues of smoother traffic flow, capacity gains and a greater sense of place. On the other side we will have visually impaired people and their advocates pointing out how people have now been excluded as they relied on kerb upstands and controlled crossings. We will read local newspaper reports with people complaining that their new "implied roundabout" has caused accidents and we'll also have local cycling groups complaining about the total lack of protection. This is all very familiar isn't it?

I think the examples I have used show that there is no real thing that defines the concept of shared space, although level surfaces come up a lot. The places which are successful from a pedestrian's point of view (going back to official guidance) are the ones which limit motor access to really very low levels and on this basis, it is not about sharing, it is about who exercises the most power. Don't forget, a pedestrian dominated place by day can still attract people driving through to quickly at night.

When all is said and done, I think we need stop being hung up by the term "shared space" it is all about the streets and how we use them and therefore that in itself means that the term is a myth for me. Venn Street and St James' Terrace are more similar than we might imagine in terms if them being the backdrop to street activity. One is very pretty and one is very basic, but they seem to do a similar job because of low traffic levels. Southend and schemes like it with pretty paving plonked on a busy through route may be a lot nicer than they were which us fine to a point, but we really run the risk of creating as much exclusion for some people as the old streets created.