A review of simplified Streetscape Schemes

The report considers the likely safety implications of simplifying the drivers’ visual environment by removing or reducing the use of traffic signs and road markings; and the possible consequences for other more vulnerable road users. It has been argued that giving the driver more responsibility for the way he interacts with other road users, by for example encouraging eye contact’ will not compromise safety and allow for roadside ‘clutter’ to be reduced. The applicability of ideas such as ‘shared space’ (and ‘naked streets’), that were originally conceived in a number of other countries (notably the Netherlands), to more urban environments in the UK was the main consideration in the review. In addition to a literature search and surveys of practitioners, both collision data and the design features of a number of existing schemes were considered, including a small number of schemes in the UK. It was found difficult to provide a simple categorisation of the very wide variety of different schemes that were identified, and that while many of them did simplify the environment by removing design elements, others added a variety of ‘hard’ features that defined the space as being atypical of normal driving environment. While the design concept may be appropriate in some situations, and some countries more used to a ‘sharing’ and less competitive driving environment, following an analysis of the limited crash data available to date it was concluded that the case for widespread implementation in more urban areas in the UK has not yet been convincingly made. However, there remains considerable scope for a change in the design of public space, shared by vulnerable road users and vehicles, that takes account of both safety and amenity. Applying the simplified streetscape philosophy to the London situation, for example, could be successful as long as it is not taken to extremes and is considered on a case by case basis.