The conventional streets of major cities are often designed with rights-of-way that are channelized with physical delineation for different modes. Shared, or curbless, streets represent a new approach to using the public right-of-way where physical edges and sometimes demarcations are removed. All modes share space and negotiate movement through interaction. Various cities have deployed curbless streets in different ways, for different reasons, and with different outcomes. This paper examines curbless street design as a concept and as an opportunity for cities. The effect of curbless street design on surrounding communities’ safety, quality of life, economic vitality, and mobility is addressed through peer city case studies and literature reviews. The peer city project data inform best practices for implementing curbless street design concepts and identify supportive traits and characteristics common to successful projects. On the basis of these findings, siting strategies and opportunities are presented for consideration in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This paper assesses the state of research and practice with respect to curbless streets to build a shared knowledge base from which curbless streets can be sited.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Hamilton-BaillieB.Shared Space: Reconciling People, Places, and Traffic.Built Environment, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2008, pp. 161–181. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.34.2.161.
2.
WitteA., and MeiselD.. Shared Streets and Alleyways—White Paper. City of Ashland, Ashland, Ore., 2011.
3.
AppleyardB., and CoxL.. At Home in the Zone: Creating Livable Streets in the US.Planning, Vol. 72, No. 9, 2006, pp. 30–35.
ShoreF., and UthayakumarK.. Shared Space: Operational Assessment. Report for the Department for Transport London. MVA Consultancy, Woking, United Kingdom, 2010.
6.
Traffic Calming. Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. FHWA-HRT-05-133. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2006.
7.
Eubank-AhrensB.The Impact of “Woonerven” on Children's Behavior.Children's Environments Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 4, 1985, pp. 39–45.
8.
WoodsideJ.Sharing the Streets.Landscapes/Paysages, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2010, pp. 32–33.
9.
WhiteT.Signing Off: Visionary Traffic Planners Promise that Fewer Rules for Motorists Actually Improve Safety.Urbanite, Vol. 39, 2007, pp. 85–87.
10.
ZeegerC.V., NaborsD., and LagerweyP.. PEDSAFE 2013: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System. FHWA-SA-04-003. Office of Safety, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2013. www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe.
11.
HammondV., and MusselwhiteC.. The Attitudes, Perceptions, and Concerns of Pedestrians and Vulnerable Road Users to Shared Space: A Case Study from the UK.Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2013, pp. 78–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2012.739549.
12.
KatyalN.K.Architecture as Crime Control.Yale Law Journal, Vol. 111, No. 5, 2002, pp. 1039–1139. https://doi.org/10.2307/797618.
13.
JacobsJ.The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House, New York, 1961.
14.
AppleyardD.Livable Streets: Protected Neighborhoods?Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 451, No. 1, 1980, pp. 106–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271628045100111.
15.
Home Zones: Challenging the Future of Our Streets. Department for Transport, London, 2005.
16.
KarndacharukA., WilsonD., and TseM.. Shared Space Performance Evaluation: Quantitative Analysis of Pre-Implementation Data. Presented at IPENZ Transportation Group Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, 2011.
17.
KraayJ.H.Woonerven and Other Experiments in the Netherlands.Built Environment, Vol. 12, 1986, pp. 20–29.
18.
AppleyardD.GersonM.S., and LintellM.. Livable Streets.University of California Press, Berkeley, 1981.
19.
KarndacharukA.WilsonD.J., and DunnR.C.M.Analysis of Pedestrian Performance in Shared-Space Environments.Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2393, 2013, pp. 1–11. https://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2393-01.
20.
PolanskiN.Reimagining the Right-of-Way: Designing Streets as Environmental and Economic Assets for Active Living and Healthy Environments.Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2521, 2015, pp. 139–148. https://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2521-15.
21.
Home Zone Concepts and New Jersey. Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center, New Brunswick, N.J., 2004.
22.
Paved with Gold: The Real Value of Good Street Design. Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, London, 2007. www.cabe.org.uk/files/paved-with-gold.pdf.
23.
Shoppers and How They Travel. Information Sheet LN02. Sustrans, London, 2006.
24.
WargoB.W., and GarrickN.W.. Shared Space: Could Less Formal Streets Be Better for Both Pedestrians and Vehicles? Presented at 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2016.
MoodyS., and MeliaS.. Shared Space: Implications of Recent Research for Transport Policy. Working Paper. University of the West of England, Bristol, United Kingdom, 2011.
Kittelson and Associates, Inc.Philadelphia Complete Streets Design Handbook. City of Philadelphia Mayor's Office of Transportation and Utilities, 2013.
29.
The Chicago Green Alley Handbook: An Action Guide to Create a Greener, Environmentally Sustainable Chicago. Chicago Department of Transportation, Ill., 2010.
