More accidents and less economic growth: the case against shared space

London's Exhibition Road: the poster child for shared space. Image: Romazur/Wikimedia Commons.

From “shared space” to turning off traffic lights to, most recently, removing white lines from roads. All these recent trends in transport planning stem from one idea: that less traffic regulation promotes more cautious behaviour, which in turn results in safer streets and roads.

Claims of increased safety often come along wide claims of economic benefit, too. A recent Institute of Economic Affairs report made the provocative suggestion that “four out of every five traffic lights should be ripped up to boost the economy and road safety”.

I am unconvinced by both the claims of improved safety and those of economic benefit – and I am alarmed by the increasing popularity of these ideas.

Let’s start with a definition. The Department for Transport describes shared space as:

A design approach that seeks to change the way streets operate by reducing the dominance of motor vehicles, primarily through lower speeds and encouraging drivers to behave more accommodatingly towards pedestrians

The ubiquitous claims of improved safety in shared space – which has been made in CityMetric and used as evidence in the IEA report – are based on a fallacious assumption: that the introduction of shared space schemes lead to a fall in injury and accident. This is not the case.

In Ashford, in the two years before a shared space scheme was introduced at a junction, there were nine reported accidents, all categorized as “slight”; the most recent figures over a similar two year period also show nine accidents, with eight reported as slight and one as serious.

In addition, my own survey into peoples’ experiences of shared space in the UK, found evidence of a significant underreporting of accidents. All involved in this conversation, including the designers themselves, agree on the need for more research and better data.

Sharing, although a lovely idea, is not a reasonable proposition when all parties are not equal. Reducing the dominance of motor vehicles and encouraging more accommodating behaviour are excellent objectives. But they are not achieved by the architectural conceit that places toddlers and tankers, buses and blind people in the same, so called, shared space without pavements, kerbs or signals.

Expecting a blind person to cross a busy road where a controlled crossing has been removed is not safer. Expecting a young child, who has been taught to stop, look and listen, to negotiate that space when the kerb is removed is not safer. Expecting drivers and cyclists to deal with confused and disorientated road users is not safer. People clearly do not feel safer and this was confirmed by my research, published in a report titled Accidents by Design, which found that over a third of people actively avoid using shared space.

That brings us back to the economy. If previously accessible streets are being turned into no go areas for large sections of the community, how can that really bolster an argument that also purports to “boost the economy?”

Ultimately my survey found over two-thirds of respondents reported a negative experience of shared space – and although the problems are perhaps most obvious for vulnerable road users the schemes were equally unpopular with drivers. Perhaps the final word should go to a survey respondent, a motorist: they described shared space as “an absolute nightmare which I seek to avoid”.

Chris Holmes is a former paralympic swimmer. He was ennobled as Lord Holmes of Richmond in 2013.


Here’s how we plant 2 billion more trees in the UK

A tree in Northallerton, North Yorkshire. Image: Getty.

The UK’s official climate advisor, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), recently published a report outlining how to reduce the 12 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions that come from land use by two thirds by 2050. Alongside recommending cutting meat and dairy consumption by 20 per cent, the report calls for the annual creation of up to 50,000 hectares of broadleaf and conifer woodland for the next three decades. This would increase forest cover from 13 per cent to at least 17 per cent – a level not seen in Britain since before the Norman invasion.

Reforestation at that rate would mean creating roughly the area of the city of Leeds every year for the next three decades. At typical stocking densities of 1,500 stems per hectare, the ambition is to establish some 2.25 billion additional trees. Given that the UK, as with most of Europe, is in the grip of ash dieback, a disease likely to prove fatal for many millions of native ash trees, the scale of the challenge is massive.

On a crowded and intensively farmed island like Britain, unlocking a million and a half hectares of land will be no mean feat. But it’s not impossible – and is an unprecedented opportunity not only to tackle the climate crisis but also the biodiversity crisis that is every bit as detrimental to our wellbeing.

Trees and farms

One million and a half hectares is just 6 per cent of the mainland UK’s land area. To give some sense of perspective on this, 696,000 hectares of “temporary grassland” were registered in 2019. So if land supply is not the problem, what is? Often it’s cultural inertia. Farmers are firmly rooted to the land and perhaps understandably reluctant to stop producing food and instead become foresters. But the choice need not be so binary.

The intensification of agriculture has caused catastrophic declines in many species throughout the UK by reducing vast wooded areas and thousands of miles of hedgerows to small pockets of vegetation, isolating populations and making them more vulnerable to extinction.

Integrating trees with the farmed landscape delivers multiple benefits for farms and the environment. Reforestation doesn’t have to mean a return to the ecologically and culturally inappropriate single-species blocks of non-native conifers, which were planted en masse in the 1970s and 1980s. Incentivised under tax breaks to secure a domestic timber supply, many of the resulting plantations were located in places difficult or in some cases impossible to actually harvest.

Productive farmland needn’t be converted to woodland. Instead, that 4 per cent of land could be found by scattering trees more widely. After all, more trees on farmland is good for business. They prevent soil erosion and the run-off of pollutants, provide shade and shelter for livestock, a useful source of renewable fuel and year-round forage for pollinating insects.

The first tranche of tree planting could involve new hedgerows full of large trees, preferably with wide headlands of permanently untilled soils, providing further wildlife refuge.

Natural regeneration

Where appropriate, new woody habitats can be created simply by stopping how the land is currently used, such as by removing livestock. This process can be helped by scattering seeds in areas where seed sources are low. But patience is a virtue. If people can learn to tolerate less clipped and manicured landscapes, nature can run its own course.

A focus on deliberate tree planting also raises uncomfortable truths. Most trees are planted with an accompanying stake to keep them upright and a plastic shelter that protects the sapling from grazing damage. All too often, these shelters aren’t retrieved. Left to the elements, they break down into ever smaller pieces, and can be swept into rivers and eventually the ocean, where they threaten marine wildlife. Two billion tree shelters is a lot of plastic.

The main reason for using tree shelters at all is because the deer population in the UK is so high that in many places, it is all but impossible to establish new trees. This also has serious implications for existing woodland, which is prevented from naturally regenerating. In time, these trees will age and die, threatening the loss of the woodland itself. Climate change, pests and pathogens and the lack of a coordinated, centrally supported approach to deer management means the outlook for the UK’s existing treescape is uncertain at best.

An ecologically joined-up solution would be to reintroduce the natural predators of deer, such as lynx, wolves, and bears. Whether rewilding should get that far in the UK is still the subject of debate. Before that, perhaps the focus should be on providing the necessary habitat, rich in native trees.

A positive response would be to implement the balanced recommendations, made almost a decade ago in a government review, of creating more new habitat, improving what’s already there, and finding ways to link it together. Bigger, better, and more connected habitats.

But the UK is losing trees at increasing rates and not just through diseases. The recent removal of Victorian-era street trees in Sheffield and many other towns and cities is another issue to contend with. As the climate warms, increasing urban temperatures will mean cities need shade from street trees more than ever.

Trees aren’t the environmental panacea that the politicians might have people believe – even if they do make for great photo opportunities – but we do need more of them. Efforts to expand tree cover are underway across the world and the UK will benefit from contributing its share. Hitting the right balance – some commercial forestry, lots of new native woodland and millions of scattered trees – will be key to maximising the benefits they bring.

Nick Atkinson, Senior Lecturer in Ecology & Conservation, Nottingham Trent University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.