Shared space, ville plus sûre, zone de rencontre - quel agencement ? (mise à jour 10 mars 2010)

 

Similarités

La zone de rencontre (ZR) et le shared space se rejoignent concernant les objectifs suivants:

• apaisement de la vitesse
• créer une ambiance propice pour les modes actifs de déplacement : flâner, pédaler.
• simplification du marquage et de la signalisation (au mieux : absence de toute signalisation)
• règles faciles : priorité à droite, priorité à tout usager plus faible que soi...
• favoriser l'intuition et la visibilité mutuelle (vitesse faible favorise contact visuel)
  
  Mais la mise en oeuvre varie, selon les pays. En France, on a créé la zone de rencontre par le décret de 2008 pour donner un cadre juridique, un statut ancré dans le code de la route. La ZR est inspirée des aménagement suisses et belges.
  
  En revanche, le shared space est un type d'aménagement, mais un statut juridique de la route (chaussée + trottoir). On peut, sans changer la "loi", créer un shared space, mais on peut, désormais (depuis juillet 2008 en France) associer cette création d'aménagement avec une dénomination et un panneau associés : zone de rencontre.
  

  Pour en savoir plus, voir la section "Documents" à la page shared space

  
  Evolution en France

On comprend qu'il y a de nombreux d'éléments intéressants, et du savoir faire partagé (partageable) entre le programmefrançais des années 1980 "ville plus sûre - quartiers sans accidents", le shared space et la zone de rencontre.

Le shared space n'est pas une théorie figée, ce n'est pas un principe tout fait qu'on plaque sur la réalité. Au contraire, c'est d'aller sur place, d'observer, de faire des essai, de questionner et d'écouter les habitants et les usagers, ....

Ainsi le shared space met en oeuvre des procédés parfaitement en cohérence avec les exigences pour une bonne qualité d'approche du terrain. Un aspect où la zone de rencontre est en avance sur le shared space, c'est pour les considérations concernant l'accessibilité (personnes malvoyantes, par exemple). Or, le shared space peut et doit s'adapter à cette donnée.

Dans un esprit "syncrétique" on peut considérer que la "trinité" va ensemble :

1. Le programme français des années 1980 "ville plus sûre" => montre que cette approche est faisable en France
2. La zone de rencontre => donne le cadre législatif (décret 2008-754 du 30 juillet 2008)
3. Le shared space => propose des principes de réalisation
   

Toronto : "Shared space : Safe or Dangerous ?" (ajout du 15 décembre 2007)

Contribution to the discussion on Shared Space at the Walk 21 conference, 1-3 October 2007, Toronto.
Authors : Methors, Gerlach, Boenke, Leven. Rotterdam / Wuppertal 3 September 2007
Télécharger cet article ici

Commentaires de VeloBuc à cet article de Toronto (ajout du 15 décembre 2007)

Article intéressant qui défend surtout le piéton - c'est le topos du Congrès de Toronto en 2007.

Il est vrai que VeloBuc fait pleinement la promotion du concept "shared space" depuis 2005, et une critique extérieure est importante pour équilibrer notre jugement. Nous retenons notamment de cet article que le shared space risque de faire fuire (au lieu de les accueillir) les plus fragiles (PMR, piétons et cyclistes), et que la loi du plus fort a tendance à reprendre le dessus. Autrement dit, la seule "politesse" ne régule pas tout.

En revanche, l'article fait la louange du shared space dans ses réalisations concrètes, là où philosophie et aménagement se rejoignent et se complètent. Ainsi les trois vitrines du shared space (De Drift-Kaden et Laweiplein à Drachten , le Rijksstraatweg à Haren) sont communément reconnues pour leur efficacité par rapport à l'état d'avant - n'est-ce pas un progrès?

Par conséquent, au lieu de dénigrer le shared space, comme c'est l'orientation de cet article, mieux vaudrait s'en inspirer.

• mixité des usagers, et cela malgré des flux importants
• absence de signaux routiers
• embellissement de l'espace public
• équilibre des fonctionalités
• moins d'accidents, et des accidents moins graves
• prise en compte des personnes avec handicap : exemples de Bohmte (D) et de Ipswich (Suffolk County, UK)
  

La grande faiblesse de l'article est qu'il pose au début et à la fin les mêmes questions... où sont les réponses ? Que proposer de mieux que le shared space ? Quels sont les aménagements que les "détracteurs" ont à leur actif pour convaincre ? Quelles réalisations qui fonctionnement réellement peuvent-ils nous montrer ? La critique contre le shared space qui fait ses preuves depuis 20 ans est trop facile.

 

Engagement with the visually handicapped in Ipswich
(extrait de Shared Space Partner Publication, pages 29-31) Pour télécharger le texte complet, voir http://www.shared-space.org/ puis "current news" puis "partner publication"

John Pitchford, Suffolk County Council (UK)

Introduction
Suffolk County Council’s Shared Space project has been undertaken in the HandfordRoad area of Ipswich. The work was undertaken with Ipswich Borough Council. At the time of the preparation of this report the works had been completed. While the scheme met the requirements of the majority of residents and users who engaged in the extensive public consultation exercise, concern on the proposals had been expressed by those groups representing the visually handicapped.This report looks at the issues raised by the visually handicapped in Ipswich and the methods used to seek to tackle their concerns.

National Situation in Britain
The Shared Space concept is relatively new to British planning and traffic management. Without the tradition of a significant number of examples, all parties are having to look at the implications of such an approach afresh. Groups representing the visually handicapped have expressed concern about several of the features incorporated in a number of Shared Space schemes. These are most clearly expressed by the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, which has undertaken a research project and produced a report (www.guidedogs.org.uk/sharedsurfaces). This concludes that the implementation of shared surface design is putting blind and partially sighted people at risk (though it notes that not all ‘Shared Space’ projects rely entirely on shared surfaces). It calls for thorough testing and evaluation of experimental street designs prior to implementation.

However it is argued by others that risk should not prevent re-examining how we provide public spaces. For instance the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment has looked at wider risks, not just those associated with the visually handicapped in ‘Living with risk: promoting better public space design’, it states that ‘over-sensitivity to risk can have a profound effect on the quality of public space.It can restrict innovation, leading to more standardised designs and less interesting places’ (www.cabe.org.uk/risk). More importantly, hazards and apparent danger can, in some instances, improve safety by influencing the behaviour of drivers and the
public. Assumptions about safety and risk are rapidly changing as we understand more about the complex ways in which people respond to their environment.

Experience in Ipswich
As part of the Shared Space project in Ipswich, we conducted extensive public consultation. This was in an area that is relatively deprived and does not have a strong tradition of engagement with public decision making. Despite this, the local population made a good input to the process. They saw it as a way of improving the environment of the area, dealing with some of the social issues - it has been Ipswich’s informal red light area for many years - and they were very influential in the final design.

So, overall this was a very positive engagement. However there was one main exception to this, which was the representatives of the blind and partially sighted. As well as the consultation with the general public, we had two meetings with Ipswich Access Group which represents two areas of disability - the physically handicapped and the visually handicapped. On the part of the physically handicapped, they had fewer problems, though initially were not enthusiastic about the proposal. However, the main issues arose with the representatives of the visually impaired and in particular with the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. They would not object to the wider objective of reducing traffic speeds, but they found difficulties with many of the principles of Shared Space that sought to achieve this objective, of breaking down the clear demarcations between the pedestrians and vehicles. They wished to have very obvious differences in terms of colour and height between the pavement and the road that gives guidance to those who have very limited sight, or who use sticks or have the assistance of guide dogs. At crossings with busy roads, they wished to have specific points where they could cross which were very apparent to both the visually handicapped and the drivers. The access group would prefer signalled crossings at the busiest locations and were against the removal of the signalled facility across a slip road. The original concept for the Ipswich Shared Space after the consultation with the rest of the public did not meet their requirements on a number of counts.

The problems that they saw with our initial scheme were: . the lack of sufficient height in the kerbs (they were looking for something
close to the 125mm is standard); . the lack of colour differentiation between pavement and carriageway; . the complete lack of kerbs on one part of the scheme; . the removal of some signalled pedestrian crossings. Further discussions were undertaken with the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. They attended the Shared Space Conference in Ipswich and went on a visit to Holland. As a consequence of their concerns, the following changes were made to the scheme.

• A wide silver channel kerb / footway detail was used with a height difference of about 50mm between the channel and footway to give a contrast between the pavement and the road on the most heavily trafficked areas. . Red tactile paving was provided in one part which was then picked up by granite blocks inset with stainless steel studs.
• Darker granite lines were introduced that could be followed by the partially sighted where there were no clear kerb lines.
  
  
  In addition an offer was made to the visually handicapped to take individuals through the scheme that they could become familiar with it. This went to the relevant organisations and in local publicity. Despite these changes, the representative bodies were still not happy and felt that the scheme should not be implemented. However it was, and since then there have been no specific complaints from the bodies representing the visually handicapped. However there have been similar concerns raised elsewhere in the county. The lessons from our experience are that, particularly where the concept is new:
  
  1. we must listen to these important groups and recognise the issues that they raise;
  2. it may be necessary and appropriate to adapt schemes, but such decisions should be taken following a balanced assessment of all the issues necessary to achieve the scheme objectives. Careful monitoring of schemes after implementation is essential to test whether the overall scheme has achieved its objectives. It is particularly important to observe the effect on traffic speeds, and the relationship between different road users;
  3. we shouldn’t reject the whole principle, particularly if it has been agreed by
     the wider community.

Retour au menu shared space

 

 

 

 

Retour à la page d'accueil

Toutes les pages (textes et images) de ce site sont protégées par copyright ©
Aucune reproduction n'est autorisée sans permission. Nous contacter

Ce site est le fruit d'un travail entièrement bénévole depuis 2004.
Soutenez-nous en faisant un don. Même modeste, il nous aidera à rester autonome. Merci !