- Paul Barter
LKY School of Public Policy | National University of Singapore
(Click here for K2010 profile.)

1. Public space dividend from slow-speed spaces

The innovation of 'shared space' design for streets and public space has created great excitement and changed thinking about the nature of streets and of road safety. Implementations so far have clearly demonstrated that we CAN expand our urban 'public realm' beyond older pedestrian spaces into space that was previously segregated and devoted to motorised traffic.

In other words, some traffic space can be reintegrated into the public realm via speed reductions. Many have been amazed to find that this can often be done without sacrificing the efficiency of the street in its mobility role. True shared spaces are one way to do this but there are several others, including 30 km per hour zones (or '20s plenty' zones), familiar traffic calming techniques, road diets, complete street treatments and parts of multi-way boulevards.

However, some enthusiasts for shared space design may have taken this idea a little further than it will stretch. We still need to recognise the limits of expanding the public realm. Many roads will remain true traffic spaces with high traffic speeds. It will not be possible or wise to abolish traffic lights altogether! Traffic space in which speeds cannot be reduced to about 30 km/h or less will still need to be designed with careful segregation of pedestrians (and low-speed cyclists) from traffic.

Nevertheless, there is much room for debate over where the proper boundary should be between traffic space and low-speed public realm. This is not just a technical question but a question of priorities and values, and hence of politics. Communities in many cities are busy pushing to reclaim more streets to be included in the new shared parts of the public realm in which traffic and other uses of the street coexist at low speeds.

Back to top

2. Getting the most from alliances between shared-vehicle services and public transport.

Public transport and vehicle sharing systems, such as car-sharing and bicycle-sharing, are natural allies in serving households that choose to own fewer car or no cars. Pioneering initiatives in European cities such as Zurich and Bremen have demonstrated that both public transport and car-sharing industries can benefit from alliances, such as the bundling of season tickets for public transport with car-share memberships.

In light of these successes, we might have expected many more such alliances to have emerged internationally. Unfortunately, the numbers remain rather small.

Motivated by this observation, this presentation will discuss the institutional context for such alliances. Cooperation between public transport and shared vehicle industries does not necessarily happen 'naturally' or spontaneously. In fact, even with the desire to cooperate, it is difficult to achieve without a conducive institutional context.

Arguably, the institutions, regulatory arrangements and industry structures on both sides matter. There are public transport arrangements which are conducive to alliances and those which are not. Similarly for car-sharing industry structures and regulatory arrangements. My investigation of this is a work in progress but the presentation will try to identify which arrangements are most promising, which are hopeless, and will try to offer some preliminary suggestions for reform.

Back to top