Planing for people and vehicles - Auckland's Challenge

Good things are happening in Auckland!  Finally, the concept of 'SHARED SPACE' is being given a chnace.  This tecnique of inner city spatial treatment has proven itself in other countries and is now happening in Darby St, part of Lorne  St, Fort St, Fort Lane, Jean Batten Place and Shortland St.
In removing signage, carriageway/pedestrian separation and kerbing it must be an anathema to Traffic Planners.  But then the dominance of planning for traffic has dominated (and compromised) the planning of our cities for years!   And it has not produced the kind of city we all want.
Traffic Planners are not my most admired profession - but then we must be pragmatic in asessing traffic and pedestrian needs.  
People move in 3 broad categories - pedestrian, private vehicle and public transport.  Our movement spaces will then range from:

• a multi lane freeway where vehicle requirements are paramount and pedestrians access only in emergencies or to service it, to-
• an inner city square where pedestrian requiremens are paramount and vehicles access only in emergencies or to service it.

The challenge is to ballance the needs and position each space between these extremes. 'Shared Space' offers a new option.
As people see how it works, I believe there will be an increasing demand to develop options that prioperly respond to the needs ballance.  So Urban Designers and Traffic Planners have a lot of challenges in front of them.

CHRISTCHURCH SHOULD NOT BE A BLAME GAME

It is said that a Royal Commission is never appointed unless the outcome is known.  Whether that's true or not, to expect the Christchurch Earthquake Commission to apportion blame for building failures is both unfair to them and dangerous to the recovery.
1.  It will be virtually impossible to determine the cause of a failure.  It could be any one or a combination of:  design, regulations, consent checking, construction, supervision. 
New Zealand, along with Japan, California and other jurisdictions, has very effective earthquake regulations.  We also have a very active Earthquake Engineering Society that brings the best skills together.   I have confidence in them - and would be sory to see their initiatives and commitment submerged by overlayed regulatory systems.
2.  Trying to lay blame will inevitably result in litigation.  And given the problematic nature of any attempted decision, this will do little more than feed the lawyers.
3.  It will also delay the recovery process as particpants avoid any action that might incurr similar responses.  In our punitive system of joint and several liabilty, industry participants are becoming extremely 'gun shy' of anything that might expose them to claims.
The Commission could contribute valuable oversights resulting from 'new eyes' surveying a situation that many countries have faced.   The danger is that their deliberations will result in an increased prescriptive regulatory regime that Local Government does not have the skills to administer.  So once again (like the Leaky Homes crisis),  we will have bureaucratic delays that will frustrate the important recovery process.