The allocation of street space is strongly contested in many cities, particularly in areas where there is a high level of people activity. In these areas, movement and place objectives are often in conflict with one another. The allocation of street space involves a range of governance, political and ethical considerations, yet efforts to reallocate street space should also be informed by empirical evidence of street space allocation and use. This can help to ensure that street space is distributed more equitably to users and support broader goals for increasing the uptake of more sustainable forms of transport. Using a case study of Melbourne's activity centres, this research aimed to understand how much street space is allocated and used by each mode of transport. It also explored factors that are associated with the use of each mode of transport. Multi-modal observational person counts and street measurements were undertaken at 57 different locations within 36 activity centres across Melbourne during 2020. For each site, data related to street and activity centre characteristics were compiled. Key results showed that on average, based on the principle of egalitarianism, pedestrian space in the form of footpaths is significantly undersupplied, while bicycle lanes, car parking and shared general traffic/bus lanes were oversupplied. When viewed across individual sites, considerable variability was found in street space allocation vs. use. Results also showed a number of street/activity centre characteristics that were associated with use of the street space for different modes. Among others, these included footpath width, clearways, movement and place classifications, distance to the Central Business District (CBD), presence of car sharing, car ownership, income and age. The research findings can be used to better inform decision-making on street space reallocation efforts through identifying locations where street space could be allocated more equitably to users.

在许多城市，街道空间的分配存在激烈的争议，特别是在人们活动频繁的地区。在这些领域中，运动目标和地点目标经常相互冲突。街道空间的分配涉及一系列治理、政治和伦理考虑，但重新分配街道空间的努力也应以街道空间分配和使用的经验证据为依据。这有助于确保街道空间更公平地分配给用户，并支持更广泛的目标，以增加对更可持续交通方式的采用。使用墨尔本活动中心的案例研究，这项研究旨在了解每种交通方式分配和使用了多少街道空间。它还探讨了与使用每种交通方式相关的因素。2020 年期间，在墨尔本 36 个活动中心的 57 个不同地点进行了多模式观察人数和街道测量。对于每个地点，都收集了与街道和活动中心特征相关的数据。主要结果表明，平均而言，根据平均主义原则，人行道形式的行人空间供应严重不足，而自行车道、停车场和共享的一般交通/公交专用道则供应过剩。从各个站点查看时，发现街道空间分配与使用存在相当大的差异。结果还显示了许多街道/活动中心的特征，这些特征与不同模式的街道空间使用有关。其中，其中包括人行道宽度、净路、移动和地点分类、到中央商务区 (CBD) 的距离、汽车共享的存在、汽车拥有量、收入和年龄。通过确定街道空间可以更公平地分配给用户的位置，研究结果可用于更好地为街道空间重新分配工作的决策提供信息。